real or not?

It's an irresolvable argument.

I see no evidence of it in my life. The evidence that other people adduce in favor of it is, to me, far outweighed by the evidence against it.

I see no logic in it. I see no point to it. I draw no comfort from it. It's not part of the Christian faith in which I was raised and to which I adhere. It's not part of Spiritualism, as Spiritualism was originally promulgated.

Jim

Left Behind wrote:It's an irresolvable argument.

I see no evidence of it in my life. The evidence that other people adduce in favor of it is, to me, far outweighed by the evidence against it.

I see no logic in it. I see no point to it. I draw no comfort from it. It's not part of the Christian faith in which I was raised and to which I adhere. It's not part of Spiritualism, as Spiritualism was originally promulgated.

Jim

What is the evident against reincarnation?

Left Behind wrote:It's an irresolvable argument.

I see no evidence of it in my life. The evidence that other people adduce in favor of it is, to me, far outweighed by the evidence against it.

I see no logic in it. I see no point to it. I draw no comfort from it. It's not part of the Christian faith in which I was raised and to which I adhere. It's not part of Spiritualism, as Spiritualism was originally promulgated.

Jim

It may be an irresolvable question . People can believe what seems right to them at any time. I don't think there needs to be a debate except for those who like debating.

"I don't think there needs to be a debate except for those who like debating."

There's no need to debate many issues but many folk enjoy interaction with others in such matters.

It may only be irresolvable within our present framework of understanding but the discussion/debate of such issues may result in our wanting to pursue these issues more closely when we've passed over.

I certainly have issues I'll be wanting to investigate in depth as a direct consequence of discussing and debating them in this world.

mac wrote:"I don't think there needs to be a debate except for those who like debating."

There's no need to debate many issues but many folk enjoy interaction with others in such matters.

It may only be irresolvable within our present framework of understanding but the discussion/debate of such issues may result in our wanting to pursue these issues more closely when we've passed over.

I certainly have issues I'll be wanting to investigate in depth as a direct consequence of discussing and debating them in this world.

Speaking for myself, debate is one of the ways I learn (as opposed to plain argument!).

obiwan wrote:

Left Behind wrote:It's an irresolvable argument.

I see no evidence of it in my life. The evidence that other people adduce in favor of it is, to me, far outweighed by the evidence against it.

I see no logic in it. I see no point to it. I draw no comfort from it. It's not part of the Christian faith in which I was raised and to which I adhere. It's not part of Spiritualism, as Spiritualism was originally promulgated.

Jim

What is the evident against reincarnation?

Argument(S). A good many of them.

Supper cooking right now, but let me get back to this.


Jim

However we debate this constantly divisive issue we have no definitive evidence.

Oh sure there are so-called past-life regressionists, even folk who appear to have persuasive memories of previous lives. I am a reincarnationist but past-life recall isn't my persuasion for the possibility of multiple lives. Once I felt it was a routine occurrence for us all but now, in line with my avoidance of prescriptive ideas, I've rejected that notion for a more enabling one, an approach to reincarnation which I find more flexible, less exclusive.

Purely personally it works for me and even if my ideas are hopelessly wrong they're probably less-wrong than they used to be.

Progress of sorts....

In this issue of PN (11th Feb 2012) Lis has used a recent talk I gave as the basis to create an article on Life Before Life, which is not about reincarnation

Admin wrote:In this issue of PN (11th Feb 2012) Lis has used a recent talk I gave as the basis to create an article on Life Before Life, which is not about reincarnation

I won't see it until April but the subject is an interesting one.

Although we Spiritualists talk a great deal about our survival of death etc. we speak far less about where we were before we came to this dimension for the first time....

As we understand matters, there's always going to be a first time (some say the only time) for an incarnation in this physical dimension. But prior to that? Where were we? What were we? Who were we?

For me this is just as interesting as what happens after we've lived our life/lives here. A look at this aspect may give some ideas for consideration about the reincarnation issue.

Perhaps this isn't at all what Lis'piece is about Jim - if so, apologies.

It is what Lis's article is about Mac, you may not be surprised to discover the miniscule amount of writing about the subject

Admin wrote:It is what Lis's article is about Mac, you may not be surprised to discover the miniscule amount of writing about the subject

I shall look forward to reading it, Jim.

I like to reflect on how little we know of both before and after death situations - what did we do before we came to this earth or the first time? Why did we come? Did we have to be directed, persuaded, guided to come on that very first occasion? Or were we already sufficiently spiritually-evolved to choose it for ourselves?

Just a few questions and I agree there's very little written about such matters, little guidance given from our teachers as far as I'm aware.

Yes Mac I found that out my talk was over 2,000 words and interesting but it was a struggle to get teh sense and setting right. Very little of my work survives in what Lis had written. the best that can be said of it was it laid some foundations.

mac wrote:

It may only be irresolvable within our present framework of understanding but the discussion/debate of such issues may result in our wanting to pursue these issues more closely when we've passed over.

It may be irresolvable when you get to the other side as they don't seem to be able to agree on an answer either. Some communicators say we do reincarnate while others say we don't

nick pettitt wrote:

mac wrote:

It may only be irresolvable within our present framework of understanding but the discussion/debate of such issues may result in our wanting to pursue these issues more closely when we've passed over.

It may be irresolvable when you get to the other side as they don't seem to be able to agree on an answer either. Some communicators say we do reincarnate while others say we don't

Nick, in my circle three years ago, a lawyer also in the circle asked about reincarnation. The spirit communicator more or less told him that it was not really important. From similar instances and from what I have read, some things may simply beyond our understanding in this dimension, maybe even in the next (to agree with you).

I think that life is sometimes hard enough as it is without worrying too much reincarnation. Dr. Michael Newton has written some interesting books related to this subject, however. 'Life between Lives' is one title. They are quite easily available in shops and you might enjoy them. They are well written and thought provoking..

Left Behind wrote:

obiwan wrote:

Left Behind wrote:It's an irresolvable argument.

I see no evidence of it in my life. The evidence that other people adduce in favor of it is, to me, far outweighed by the evidence against it.

I see no logic in it. I see no point to it. I draw no comfort from it. It's not part of the Christian faith in which I was raised and to which I adhere. It's not part of Spiritualism, as Spiritualism was originally promulgated.

Jim

What is the evident against reincarnation?

Argument(S). A good many of them.

Supper cooking right now, but let me get back to this.


Jim

Sorry to be picky Jim but you said evidence against it, not arguments.

nick pettitt wrote:

mac wrote:

It may only be irresolvable within our present framework of understanding but the discussion/debate of such issues may result in our wanting to pursue these issues more closely when we've passed over.

It may be irresolvable when you get to the other side as they don't seem to be able to agree on an answer either. Some communicators say we do reincarnate while others say we don't

Maybe the only communicators we should heed are the ones who can explain fully why either idea is wrong...? Just stating that it does, or doesn't, occur is a hopeless way to go and any communicator worth her/his salt would know that a proper explanation needs to be given of WHY whatever they say is right.

Maybe those who are able to communicate through our sensitives are still too close to the physical to have made the spiritual progress needed before they're able to give such a detailed explanation? Like asking primary school-kids to explain adult concepts....

mac wrote:

nick pettitt wrote:

mac wrote:

It may only be irresolvable within our present framework of understanding but the discussion/debate of such issues may result in our wanting to pursue these issues more closely when we've passed over.

It may be irresolvable when you get to the other side as they don't seem to be able to agree on an answer either. Some communicators say we do reincarnate while others say we don't

Maybe the only communicators we should heed are the ones who can explain fully why either idea is wrong...? Just stating that it does, or doesn't, occur is a hopeless way to go and any communicator worth her/his salt would know that a proper explanation needs to be given of WHY whatever they say is right.

Maybe those who are able to communicate through our sensitives are still too close to the physical to have made the spiritual progress needed before they're able to give such a detailed explanation? Like asking primary school-kids to explain adult concepts....

I like Silver Birch's take on it.

obiwan wrote:

mac wrote:

nick pettitt wrote:

mac wrote:

It may only be irresolvable within our present framework of understanding but the discussion/debate of such issues may result in our wanting to pursue these issues more closely when we've passed over.

It may be irresolvable when you get to the other side as they don't seem to be able to agree on an answer either. Some communicators say we do reincarnate while others say we don't

Maybe the only communicators we should heed are the ones who can explain fully why either idea is wrong...? Just stating that it does, or doesn't, occur is a hopeless way to go and any communicator worth her/his salt would know that a proper explanation needs to be given of WHY whatever they say is right.

Maybe those who are able to communicate through our sensitives are still too close to the physical to have made the spiritual progress needed before they're able to give such a detailed explanation? Like asking primary school-kids to explain adult concepts....

I like Silver Birch's take on it.

And I'm in agreement with you....

I accept, though, that others look for other sources of information. And that's fine if they are prepared to challenge what's given by whichever communicator(s) they heed for their guidance. Silver Birch welcomed questions and took part in Q&A style discussions where points were put to him.

If other communicators are prepared to be questioned in that way and able to support what they say, then I would find no difficulty accepting that approach. I do have reservations, however, concerning the fluidity of communications with spirit-side communicators, given the explanation from SB about how long it took for him to develop his working relationship with his 'instrument'.

I suppose it is about weighing the evidence in the round really. There certainly seems to be evidence and testimony to support some form of reincarnation. Perhaps there are a number of ways it can occur.

In terms of relatively recent research, Dr. Ian Stevenson's work is quite interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation_research I have read one of his books and found it quite credible.

I've already mentioned the work of Dr. Michael Newton. Apart from writers in the Eastern traditions, I am sure there are others who've written serious studies.

I have an intuitive feeling that reincarnation is possible but it is not something I think about very much. I'm curious from time to time but the present moment is as much as I can handle

The above is research and commentary from a human perspective of course. and that perspective is always qualitative to some extent.

To me it is always interesting to see what scientists and others come up with as possible explanations for questions like this, not that their findings always concur with my beliefs.

obiwan wrote:I suppose it is about weighing the evidence in the round really. There certainly seems to be evidence and testimony to support some form of reincarnation. Perhaps there are a number of ways it can occur.

In myself I'm confident it can, and does, occur.... What I don't have confidence about are the circumstances. Like yourself I fancy that there will be a number of situations which will lead to such an outcome but increasingly I feel that it's not important that we understand them.

Just being able to demonstrate evidence that accept that life goes on beyond the death of our physical bodies is a difficult enough task. Trying then to incorporate reincarnation as part of that overall picture of survival probably isn't worth much effort I think.

It's fine for those who wish to appreciate 'the bigger picture' but perhaps not especially important for others.

Quiet wrote:The above is research and commentary from a human perspective of course. and that perspective is always qualitative to some extent.

To me it is always interesting to see what scientists and others come up with as possible explanations for questions like this, not that their findings always concur with my beliefs.

I used to entertain the notion that scientists might have something to offer but nowadays I don't bother...

Now a scientist who's a Spiritualist I might have more time for!

mac wrote:

I used to entertain the notion that scientists might have something to offer but nowadays I don't bother...

Now a scientist who's a Spiritualist I might have more time for!

I really get that.

I love the story that science can take you on, however, although some stories are better than others. Now that I have faith, I don't need science to validate it but I'm curious to understand how others see things. Have brothers who are scientifically and technically trained and that makes me more aware.

I suppose it depends what the basis of one's faith is. Belief is fine for an individual but if one wishes to convince others, evidence is required.