I think there has been too much evidence to the contrary S.J. to suggest that life ends with this one. This is just one phase of many, people should get over thinking the here and now is all important.
Proven Western Logic VS. Flawed Eastern Logic
- Thread starter In Between Man
- Start date
I think there has been too much evidence to the contrary S.J. to suggest that life ends with this one. This is just one phase of many, people should get over thinking the here and now is all important.
Ya, Life is like a school. When we (our bodies) die we graduate to the next grade. We screw up in this life time, we come back and work it out in the next. Just seems logical to me that in order to learn all there is to know about being human we would need many life times to figure it out.
All I know for sure is that the two times that I know I flat lined, I was given a choice to come back or go on, so it seems to me that some part of us continues on.
JLM, there is NO evidence to suggest that there is an afterlife. The only evidence comes from religious books, and they have a vested interest in claiming that there is an after life, and those who disagree with that particular religion are bound for Hell, bound for eternal damnation. If people agree with a particular religion, they will send money to the priests, televangelists etc. It is just good politics (and profitable too) for religions to claim that there is an afterlife.
In this respect, it is interesting to note that those who believe in after life almost without exception think that they themselves are bound for Heaven, for eternal glory and those who disagree with them are bound for Hell, for eternal damnation. I remember reading a poll a while ago which said that those who believe in Heaven and Hell, most of them believed that they themselves were going to go to Heaven.
Afterlife is a wishful thinking, nothing more.
"JLM, there is NO evidence to suggest that there is an afterlife."- What you mean S.J. is you have not seen any evidence, but would it not be a little presumptuous to assume that others haven't. Cliff says he has. Why would anyone want to argue with that. If you watch Mother Nature real closely you will note that over time she has a way of evening things out and creating level playing fields, so it just doesn't make any sense how some people can live short utterly wretched lives steeped in poverty and miserly while others bask in the sunshine and achieve great happiness, fame and fortune. What would be the rationale behind your theory?
What you mean S.J. is you have not seen any evidence, but would it not be a little presumptuous to assume that others haven't.
That is not evidence, JLM, that is somebody’s personal experience. Anecdotal evidence is not considered scientific evidence. Just because somebody claims that he died, crossed over to the other side, saw the afterlife and came back to describe it, just because he says that, that is no reason to believe him.
Cliff says he has.
I have no doubt that he believes that, but that is only his personal experience, that does not constitute scientific evidence.
so it just doesn't make any sense how some people can live short utterly wretched lives steeped in poverty and miserly while others bask in the sunshine and achieve great happiness, fame and fortune.
Here you are giving a rationale for why there should be an afterlife; you are not giving any evidence.
What would be the rationale behind your theory?
I don’t have a theory. We cannot see the afterlife, so the default position must be that there is no afterlife, until somebody proves that there is. I haven’t seen anybody put up any evidence in support of afterlife.
That is not evidence, JLM, that is somebody’s personal experience. Anecdotal evidence is not considered scientific evidence. Just because somebody claims that he died, crossed over to the other side, saw the afterlife and came back to describe it, just because he says that, that is no reason to believe him.
Cliff says he has.
I have no doubt that he believes that, but that is only his personal experience, that does not constitute scientific evidence.
so it just doesn't make any sense how some people can live short utterly wretched lives steeped in poverty and miserly while others bask in the sunshine and achieve great happiness, fame and fortune.
Here you are giving a rationale for why there should be an afterlife; you are not giving any evidence.
What would be the rationale behind your theory?
I don’t have a theory. We cannot see the afterlife, so the default position must be that there is no afterlife, until somebody proves that there is. I haven’t seen anybody put up any evidence in support of afterlife.
There are many kinds of evidence including scientific but no being "scientific" doesn't preclude it from being valid. I think Cliff has more evidence to say he has than you have to say he hasn't. All you can say with total validity is that YOU haven't seen any evidence and if you venture past that it is nothing more than pure speculation on your part.
This cannot be proven by scientific evidence simply because it is outside their realm of expertise (physical). When dealing with spirit ( what else can one call experiences outside the realm of the physical) science has no instrumentation to record. But just because something is outside the parameters of scientific research does not negate it. There are too many documented cases of near death and death recovery to say with authority that it doesn't exist. The same is true of alien encounters, UFO sightings and many other phenomenon.
It pays to keep an open mind on subjects outside one's personal experience, otherwise we run the danger of restricting our experiences in life. If I had taken the attitude of some who say certain experiences are just fantasy or imagination, I would not have had the extraordinary experiences I had with native shaman. To me, not believing in anything leaves the playing field wide open to a vast array of experiences that are not available to the masses who are told such things are impossible.
There are many kinds of evidence including scientific but no being "scientific" doesn't preclude it from being valid.
JLM, in the field of science, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable. Only scientific evidence (evidence that can be obtained by reproducible experiments) is acceptable.
I think Cliff has more evidence to say he has than you have to say he hasn't.
I never said he hasn’t, JLM. What I did say that his personal experience does not constitute evidence.
All you can say with total validity is that YOU haven't seen any evidence and if you venture past that it is nothing more than pure speculation on your part.
There is no speculation here. Speculation would be to insist that there is an afterlife in the absence of any evidence. There is no evidence for afterlife and I say it doesn’t exist. This is not speculation; this is stating things as they are. Thus there is no evidence for existence of Easter Bunny. So to say that Easter Bunny does not exist is not speculation, it is a fact. There is as much evidence for existence of afterlife as there is for existence of Easter Bunny.
JLM, in the field of science, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable. Only scientific evidence (evidence that can be obtained by reproducible experiments) is acceptable.
I think Cliff has more evidence to say he has than you have to say he hasn't.
I never said he hasn’t, JLM. What I did say that his personal experience does not constitute evidence.
All you can say with total validity is that YOU haven't seen any evidence and if you venture past that it is nothing more than pure speculation on your part.
There is no speculation here. Speculation would be to insist that there is an afterlife in the absence of any evidence. There is no evidence for afterlife and I say it doesn’t exist. This is not speculation; this is stating things as they are. Thus there is no evidence for existence of Easter Bunny. So to say that Easter Bunny does not exist is not speculation, it is a fact. There is as much evidence for existence of afterlife as there is for existence of Easter Bunny.
This cannot be proven by scientific evidence simply because it is outside their realm of expertise (physical).
Exactly Cliffy, you got it.
But just because something is outside the parameters of scientific research does not negate it.
It does negate it as far as science is concerned. Science has nothing to say as far as afterlife is concerned, there simply isn’t any scientific evidence for it.
There are too many documented cases of near death and death recovery to say with authority that it doesn't exist.
Sure there are, but again, somebody’s personal experience does not constitute evidence. Personal experiences can be interpreted in many different ways.
The same is true of alien encounters, UFO sightings and many other phenomenon.
I myself think that presence of alien intelligent civilizations is highly likely. However, the stories of alien encounters, UFO are simply just that, stories.
It pays to keep an open mind on subjects outside one's personal experience; otherwise we run the danger of restricting our experiences in life.
Indeed it does. I keep open mind as far as science in concerned. As to afterlife, well I do have an open mind there as well (we don’t know if it exists, but there is no evidence for it). I am always open to look at evidence in support of it, but so far nobody has offered any (personal anecdotes do not constitute an evidence).
To me, not believing in anything leaves the playing field wide open to a vast array of experiences that are not available to the masses who are told such things are impossible.
If that enriches your life, more power to you. But that is not for me.
Exactly Cliffy, you got it.
But just because something is outside the parameters of scientific research does not negate it.
It does negate it as far as science is concerned. Science has nothing to say as far as afterlife is concerned, there simply isn’t any scientific evidence for it.
There are too many documented cases of near death and death recovery to say with authority that it doesn't exist.
Sure there are, but again, somebody’s personal experience does not constitute evidence. Personal experiences can be interpreted in many different ways.
The same is true of alien encounters, UFO sightings and many other phenomenon.
I myself think that presence of alien intelligent civilizations is highly likely. However, the stories of alien encounters, UFO are simply just that, stories.
It pays to keep an open mind on subjects outside one's personal experience; otherwise we run the danger of restricting our experiences in life.
Indeed it does. I keep open mind as far as science in concerned. As to afterlife, well I do have an open mind there as well (we don’t know if it exists, but there is no evidence for it). I am always open to look at evidence in support of it, but so far nobody has offered any (personal anecdotes do not constitute an evidence).
To me, not believing in anything leaves the playing field wide open to a vast array of experiences that are not available to the masses who are told such things are impossible.
If that enriches your life, more power to you. But that is not for me.
Reported case in England a few years ago. Little girl dies, so parents store all her toys in a closet and they are never discussed further. Years later the mother gives birth to a second daughter. When she is still a child she comes across this doll in the closet and refers to it the exact name the first daughter called it. Up until that moment she hadn't be aware of the doll and no one had discussed with her. Strange or what?
AS I've said before there are other facets of life that are just as valid as science.
Strange, certainly. But evidence of afterlife? No. What you are implying here is reincarnation, and I am sure Christians will take strong exception to that. Christians, Muslims do not believe in reincarnation, only Hindus do.
So it is strange, and it is a curiosity. But it is not evidence of anything.
Rather than rewrite this I have just copied and pasted it from one of my books.
"Although, in our culture and religion little is said or taught about reincarnation, there are references to it in the Bible. In the Old Testament in Malachi 4:14 the return of Elijah is prophesied. In Matthew 11:11 - 15 and 17: 10 - 13 Jesus reveals to his disciples that Elijah has returned in the person of John the Baptist. In John 9:1 - 9 we read:
“As Jesus passed by he saw a man who was blind from birth, and his disciples asked him saying ‘Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ and Jesus answered ‘neither hath this man sinned nor has his parents but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.’”
Reincarnation was a common belief two thousand years ago, which would explain why they asked if the man had sinned. How else could he be blind from birth unless he had sinned in a previous life? In John 3:13 Jesus said, “no man hath ascended to heaven but he came down from heaven”, clearly stating the existence of life before physical birth.
Many of the early Christian scholars wrote about reincarnation. About AD 553 the Emperor Justinian repressed reincarnation for purely political reasons. Today a few references remain, like Jeremiah 1:5, Proverbs 8:22 - 31, Wisdom 8:19 - 20 (in the catholic version only), Ephesians 1:4 and John 17:5."
Christianity may not teach reincarnation but it is part of their heritage they choose to forget.
Reincarnation was a common belief two thousand years ago, which would explain why they asked if the man had sinned. How else could he be blind from birth unless he had sinned in a previous life?
That is the Hindu belief, Cliffy. If it says that in the Bible, that is another thing Christians borrowed form Hindus (And they have borrowed plenty from Hindus, and also from Zoroastrianism).
That is the Hindu belief, Cliffy. If it says that in the Bible, that is another thing Christians borrowed form Hindus (And they have borrowed plenty from Hindus, and also from Zoroastrianism).
Thank you Lord for the Amplified Version!
Some would say that God meant for this chap to be blind from birth, and that very well could be. However, I think Jesus was surely speaking with bold, confident attitude. The kind of attitude where you look at everything as a opportunity. He see this blind beggar, blind from birth, and Jesus heals him so that works of God could be witnessed as they manifest. Everyone in the town knew this beggar and his healing undoubtedly brought many people to trust in Jesus. If you actually read the rest of the amazing story, you'll even read about how the threatened religious leaders went and actually investigated the beggar's healing, and how they threatened him not to spread the word about what Jesus had done for him.
The beggar never had a previous life. Like all others he was born with Adam's original sin, plus his own sins of free will.
I love how your quote cuts off right at the critical key mark of the statement. Jesus was talking about himself you knucklehead! He was saying that the Father sent him!
Now your starting to get it, he alwayz existed, just like the Father and the HS.
Oh I can't wait until God catches me up to heaven with Jesus, and then you wanna talk about transformation?! A new glorious physical body! The good word says that the angels marveled to the Father when they seen our earthly bodies. Can you even imagine what our heavenly Father has planned for us?! I truly wish the good Lord gives me long, flowing hair. ;-)
alleywayzalwayz
The point is hat you can't "discover "truth , truth is "what is" . Discovery implies searching and searching for truth is to deny it.
Think it out ..
Quote:
Reincarnation was a common belief two thousand years ago, which would explain why they asked if the man had sinned. How else could he be blind from birth unless he had sinned in a previous life?
The beggar never had a previous life. Like all others he was born with Adam's original sin, plus his own sins of free will. - alley
Now that doesn’t make sense alley, if he was born blind. He may have been born of free will, but what sins had he committed prior to his birth, that caused him to be born with blindness? Or did he commit any sins while he was in the womb (there are some Christian show believe that life begins at conception, so I assume they probably also believe that a fetus can sin while in the womb). So what sins did he commit while in the womb that caused him to be born blind?
Or was he being punished for Adam’s sins? It doesn’t make sense.
Reincarnation was a common belief two thousand years ago, which would explain why they asked if the man had sinned. How else could he be blind from birth unless he had sinned in a previous life?
The beggar never had a previous life. Like all others he was born with Adam's original sin, plus his own sins of free will. - alley
Now that doesn’t make sense alley, if he was born blind. He may have been born of free will, but what sins had he committed prior to his birth, that caused him to be born with blindness? Or did he commit any sins while he was in the womb (there are some Christian show believe that life begins at conception, so I assume they probably also believe that a fetus can sin while in the womb). So what sins did he commit while in the womb that caused him to be born blind?
Or was he being punished for Adam’s sins? It doesn’t make sense.
He's not being punished for Adam's sin, but he is under its curse like all others. Its not a punishment, it's a separation. And when Adam separated himself from God(who is perfect)then Adam(who was made perfect)is perfect no more. And his seed will not be perfect. And whatever is not perfect is subject to injustices like being born blind, dying young, starvation, poverty etc.
Good thing God gave us a way out eh?
One intellectual obstacle I use to have like all others is the notion of hell. How can a just God send fallible humans to eternal torment?
But when you realize God's grace, and you tell others on your favorite forum that God would forgive Adolf Hitler if he had asked for forgiveness, everyone says: "How can God make it that easy for him? Or anyone for that matter? Just POOF!! thank you for saving me Jesus and they get a full pardon? They get to escape eternal torment? How can it be that easy?
Thank the lord for the wide open door.