Reincarnation Cases

[Laird]

But maybe it's like a black-and white photograph - without the dark areas, there would be nothing there at all.

Why the need for dark areas? There are so many light and bright colours from which to choose!

[Laird]

What I don't get, I think you've used a similar expression before, is what convinces you that coming up with this concept of a creator who can be blamed for all the ills of this world is the right approach?

To me it seems strange to try to pass off the problem to some other. It is that sense of separation it gives which I find disconcerting, as if we humans ourselves are aliens on this planet, rather than an intimate part of it.

I'm critiquing ideas, not God. I actually believe in God - in a good God, and a good God who's not responsible for evil. The thrust of my point is: if this were true, then what would it say about God? But I don't think it's true, so I'm not actually critiquing God (the God in which I believe).

I'm sorry, jkmac, but your stories, whilst inspirational, don't deal in the sort of scenarios which I think severely trouble your case. For example, I have a friend who suffers from PTSD. She had the most ghastly mother who severely stunted her personal development, and which opened her up to have been conned and manipulated by sociopaths later in life. She is not saying, "Oh boy, how great it was that my mother *#!?ed me up, and that I've been *#!?ed over by socipaths, that has really taught me some lessons". It hasn't. It has just made her suffer. Same deal with the sex-slave example I provided earlier. You suggested that maybe the slave was once a master, and needed to learn how slavery felt. Here's an idea: a world without slaves and masters in the first place. Maybe the Being who created this system didn't quite manage to think of that?

Not trying to be a wise guy but: the fact that she doesn't say it, really has no bearing on the matter. 

The baby crying because they got a shot at the doctor's office doesn't recognize the need for the shot, the good than comes from it, the bad that is avoided because of it, just the pain it inflicts. They will cry like hell, but that crying doesn't change what is happening at a level they don't comprehend. And in the case, of the girl you are talking about, neither you, nor she, have any idea what things have taken place, or choices may have been made, before this life began that has a bearing on things. 

Listen, your empathy for all people who suffer is admirable, and I see how you would like to have all suffering go away. I get it.. 

But I just don't think that's how the system works. We all don't need to suffer all the time, but I believe it is in our destiny to pick up bumps and bruises along the trail of lives we live, and whether or not we know it at the time: we will be better, more complete, more perfect, and perhaps more empathetic ourselves, having gone through those things. This is just the way I understand how it all works.

Re- those two people I told you about: I think of all the hundreds of people they touched this weekend, the people they've inspired, and I can't help but think the world is a better place because of them. That may be the greatest good that comes from their work.

[Laird]

But I just don't think that's how the system works. We all don't need to suffer all the time, but I believe it is in our destiny to pick up bumps and bruises along the trail of lives we live, and whether or not we know it at the time: we will be better, more complete, more perfect, and perhaps more empathetic ourselves, having gone through those things. This is just the way I understand how it all works.

I'm not sure whether you're describing or defending the system. I suspect both. In the former case (describing) I would ask what this says about the Being that created the system. In the latter (defending), I would wonder why you would defend unnecessary suffering - because surely there are better ways to learn than by suffering.

I'm not sure whether you're describing or defending the system. I suspect both. In the former case (describing) I would ask what this says about the Being that created the system. In the latter (defending), I would wonder why you would defend unnecessary suffering - because surely there are better ways to learn than by suffering.

Good questions.. 

I suppose I am describing mostly. Defending is not really applicable because who am I to defend it? It is what it is, independent of my thoughts... I will say that I tend to see the value of it. Maybe that means defense, I don't know. I like to think of it as an attempt at understanding. One thing I won't do is deny it.

Anyway- who's the being that invented those damn shots for my baby? What beast would subject my child to such things? Those things are only a burden for those who's perspective is limited. 

I believe this life we live is but a second in our whole existence. And we will look back on it as a valuable experience, whether good or bad. This is but a single dream in the the larger scheme of our full existence. Do you get all worked up about a bad dream you had 20 years ago? I'd guess not. It may have been a bitch that night when you woke up in a sweat, but you moved on from it long ago, and now you don't give it a thought.

I find it hard to discern much in terms of learning and growth across a lifetime. The notion of incarnation as some sort of evolutionary journey seems not to be borne out by the sensorial evidence. Perhaps when the veil drops it will be clear we may have been on some kind of detention, or remedial learning course.

P.S. Oh boy, I'm way too young to get 60s TV jokes! I wasn't even alive then!

Now I feel old... I go back to the 50s...

I'm not sure whether you're describing or defending the system. I suspect both. In the former case (describing) I would ask what this says about the Being that created the system. In the latter (defending), I would wonder why you would defend unnecessary suffering - because surely there are better ways to learn than by suffering.

The way I understand it, nothing is imposed on us from "on high". We do not serve some system nor are we directed into some course of action. Everything we do and experience is by choice. So, again, as I understand it, we belong to a peculiar "species"of souls who made the choice to incarnate but this is not the preferred existence for others. It seems that in soul development terms, our way is the short-sharp-shock school.

Of course, we are all just speculating with a little help from information we only half trust. We can't possibly know the whole truth and, even if we were told it, it would remain outside our comprehension during any single lifetime. So the information might be a best effort or even a metaphor because the multi-dimensional reality is beyond human imagination. I am guessing that the sense of enlightenment some reach during a lifetime is something of a revelation of the unity of all things and the illusion of the mundane. These earthly lives are all dramas that we create for ourselves: we are learning how to create both as isolated individuals and as part of a collective. The drama must be one of contrasts.

The way I understand it, nothing is imposed on us from "on high". We do not serve some system nor are we directed into some course of action. Everything we do and experience is by choice. So, again, as I understand it, we belong to a peculiar "species"of souls who made the choice to incarnate but this is not the preferred existence for others. It seems that in soul development terms, our way is the short-sharp-shock school.

Of course, we are all just speculating with a little help from information we only half trust. We can't possibly know the whole truth and, even if we were told it, it would remain outside our comprehension during any single lifetime. So the information might be a best effort or even a metaphor because the multi-dimensional reality is beyond human imagination. I am guessing that the sense of enlightenment some reach during a lifetime is something of a revelation of the unity of all things and the illusion of the mundane. These earthly lives are all dramas that we create for ourselves: we are learning how to create both as isolated individuals and as part of a collective. The drama must be one of contrasts.

Well put! I'm with you on this.

I find it hard to discern much in terms of learning and growth across a lifetime. The notion of incarnation as some sort of evolutionary journey seems not to be borne out by the sensorial evidence. Perhaps when the veil drops it will be clear we may have been on some kind of detention, or remedial learning course.

For what it's worth- Tom Campbell of My Big Toe and "life is a simulation" fame, says that multiple lives is all part of a literal evolutionary process, where we grow towards eventual perfection based on love. 

Yup, sounds sort of squishy, but that's what he says. In the next breath he compares it all to thermodynamic laws, specifically that of the natural and inevitable progression of entropy.  

Yes I agree that the true nature of what we are doing probably wont be apparent until we reach some level of full realization. How and when that happens is of course not known to any of us. In the mean time, we fumble along as best we can, reading books and talking to each other about it.

I've read more than once where people have died and looked back at their life and said "I can't believe I actually thought that was 'real' ". Sort of what we all say when looking back at some dreams. 

And then there are other dreams that are so life-like, even when looking back at them.