real or not?

It's like comparing an apple to a banana. Empirical science and faith are so different. I believe in spirit and know what I have experienced but it would be futile to attempt to objectively persuade anyone from a position that for each spiritualist is essentially subjective. Hence we are not nor ever have been a proselytising movement. The invitation must always be to come, experience and then make up your own mind. Spiritualists are convinced as opposed to converted.

obiwan wrote:

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.

In that case, the discussion would have to end there.

What sort of evidence are you seeking?

Testimonial? I suppose we could get people willing to sign an affidavit or testify in court that they do or do not remember any past life(s).

Physical? I doubt that anyone has been born clutching any objects from an alleged past life. That being the case, it's evidence against reincarnation: but I prefer to stick with arguments, and that would be a pretty stupid one to use.

Arguments are what I prefer to deal with, to wit:

- How few people remember any alleged past life(s). What valuable lesson(s) did we learn from a life that made so much impresssion on us that we can't even remember living it?

- Why is it so many people who allegedly do remember a past life were allegedly Napoleon, Queen Elizabeth I, an Egyptian pharoah, etc. ? How many souls could have inhabited the body of Napoleon Bonaparte? What do you suppose was the ratio of pharaohs to those poor devils who toiled in the sun all day to build them their pyramyds? But we seldom meet anyone who recalls having lived such a life.

- Why do the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic faiths not teach reincarnation?

- Why do we hear from Spirit things like "I've never known anyone who reincarnated"?

- Many demographers believe that the present population of earth is greater than all previous past populations combined. In what bodies did we live, then, in previous incarnations?

- If we believe that our consciousness survives for eternity, how do we reconcile that with a belief in reincarnation? If in previous incarnations you were a chinmey sweep, an Eskimo, a stray cat, and a blade of grass, all of these incarnations had their own consciousness. So which one ultimately survives? "You" as the Eskimo is gone. "You" as you are now will be gone when you next incarnate.

- If we believe in eternal progression of Spirit, how do we reconcile this with reincarnation, which is a retrogressive doctrine? (We go from physical, to spirit, back to physical?)

- If we believe in eternal progression of Spirit, why would we have to return to the physical world? Reincarnation makes sense in the context of Buddhism, which teaches that spiritual progress is made only in the physical world. It makes NO sense in the context of Western religions, which teach us that we live our life, die, are judged, and live in eternity contingent on the life we lived on earth. It makes NO sense in the context of Spiritualism, which teaches us that our life in the hereafter is contingent on the life we lived on earth, but that we continue to progress in the world of Spirit.

And given any choice in the matter, there is NO way that I'd choose to come back to a physical body.

Life before Life
Good article by Lis in latest PN on 'preincarnation'?

Interesting concept. Yes, it's a lot easier trying to imagine something that exists, continuing to exist, than it is to understand how it came to exist in the first place.

Got me thinking. Jolly well written too.

You said there was evidence, not me. You can prefer what you like. There is plenty of evidence suggestive of reincarnation, including testimony from the alleged departed.You have of course adduced testimony via mediums that there is no reincarnation, but that is inadequate since many ostensible communicators say the opposite. Eg Silver Birch. This doesn't really help us either way but certainly isn't evidence that reincarnation doesn't happen.

1. Argument re lack of memory. Few remembering is not the same as no one remembering. If only one person remembered accurately it would be enough evidence to support the possibility of reincarnation, there isn't just one though there are many instances and a veritable library of research on the subject.

2 Your second argument regarding people claiming to be famous would be valid if everyone did that, as you seem to imply. Unfortunately you're misled, many do not claim this. I do wonder if you have read anything about the subject from those who have researched it.

3 There are a lot of things Christianity and Islam don't teach. You seem to assume that one of them must be correct - many people wouldn't agree. If your talking numbers, Hinduism and Buddhism have enormous followings, and they do teach it. What's ur point?

4 Regarding communications from the alleged departed - I have answered the point above.

In the remaining points about the mechanism of reincarnation you seem to be arguing it cannot be so, because you don't understand how it might work. That isn't even an argument let alone evidence.

All the belief systems you refer to as authorities are not authorities for those who don't follow them. As you point out yourself, even the major religions contradict each other on reincarnation, and are, interestingly often roundly condemned by purported communicators.

So, in short, no evidence at all to show reincarnation isn't a fact at least for some people in some form. Whereas there is plenty of evidence to support it. In fact you have set yourself a very difficult task - to prove that an event never happens.

The arguments you deploy cover hardly any of the mechanisms and are simplistic. Would you like to try again or leave it?

I am not saying that reincarnation is a fact. I am not even convinced we survive physical death. I don't want to p*** you off either (honest!) but I do think you ought to read a bit more of the research. To be honest I avoided reading it for a long while because I don't like any form of reincarnation I can imagine, the Universe however doesn't arrange things for my comfort.

Leave it lads. Life's too short and we'll all know for sure one way or t'other soon enough.

KatyKing wrote:
Leave it lads. Life's too short and we'll all know for sure one way or t'other soon enough.

Why leave it?
As for all knowing for sure I'd say not given the difference of opinion between those who claim to be ahead on the path

KatyKing wrote:It's like comparing an apple to a banana. Empirical science and faith are so different. I believe in spirit and know what I have experienced but it would be futile to attempt to objectively persuade anyone from a position that for each spiritualist is essentially subjective. Hence we are not nor ever have been a proselytising movement. The invitation must always be to come, experience and then make up your own mind. Spiritualists are convinced as opposed to converted.

KatyKing, I agree wholeheartedly . Well said.

obiwan wrote: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.

I haven't tried to convince anyone. I've tried to explain to my family and a couple of friends but they smile politely and change the subject so I don't really bother now .

It is a delight to discover those people in day to day life who are not spiritualist at all but believe in survival post physical death, spirit in some form and a philosophy not so different from that of Spiritualism.

Quiet wrote:

obiwan wrote: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.

I haven't tried to convince anyone. I've tried to explain to my family and a couple of friends but they smile politely and change the subject so I don't really bother now .

It is a delight to discover those people in day to day life who are not spiritualist at all but believe in survival post physical death, spirit in some form and a philosophy not so different from that of Spiritualism.

If folks ask then it's a different game

From my own (limited) experience, once people know you have an interest, they will sometimes ask at a time that is meaningful to themselves.

There seems to me a good deal of common sense in some spiritualist philosophies.

obiwan wrote:You said there was evidence, not me. You can prefer what you like. There is plenty of evidence suggestive of reincarnation, including testimony from the alleged departed.You have of course adduced testimony via mediums that there is no reincarnation, but that is inadequate since many ostensible communicators say the opposite. Eg Silver Birch. This doesn't really help us either way but certainly isn't evidence that reincarnation doesn't happen.

1. Argument re lack of memory. Few remembering is not the same as no one remembering. If only one person remembered accurately it would be enough evidence to support the possibility of reincarnation, there isn't just one though there are many instances and a veritable library of research on the subject.

2 Your second argument regarding people claiming to be famous would be valid if everyone did that, as you seem to imply. Unfortunately you're misled, many do not claim this. I do wonder if you have read anything about the subject from those who have researched it.

3 There are a lot of things Christianity and Islam don't teach. You seem to assume that one of them must be correct - many people wouldn't agree. If your talking numbers, Hinduism and Buddhism have enormous followings, and they do teach it. What's ur point?

4 Regarding communications from the alleged departed - I have answered the point above.

In the remaining points about the mechanism of reincarnation you seem to be arguing it cannot be so, because you don't understand how it might work. That isn't even an argument let alone evidence.

All the belief systems you refer to as authorities are not authorities for those who don't follow them. As you point out yourself, even the major religions contradict each other on reincarnation, and are, interestingly often roundly condemned by purported communicators.

So, in short, no evidence at all to show reincarnation isn't a fact at least for some people in some form. Whereas there is plenty of evidence to support it. In fact you have set yourself a very difficult task - to prove that an event never happens.

The arguments you deploy cover hardly any of the mechanisms and are simplistic. Would you like to try again or leave it?

I am not saying that reincarnation is a fact. I am not even convinced we survive physical death. I don't want to p*** you off either (honest!) but I do think you ought to read a bit more of the research. To be honest I avoided reading it for a long while because I don't like any form of reincarnation I can imagine, the Universe however doesn't arrange things for my comfort.

I said there were Arguments against it, and gave them. When I hear the word "evidence", I return to my legal training. The law accepts testimonial evidence, and physical evidence. As to the latter, I stated that it was not appropriate to the subject matter. As to the former, there are probably 1,000 people who would sign an affidavit stating that they cannot honestly recall having lived a previous life, for every one who would sign one to the contrary.

I have no interest whatsover in trying to prove that reincarnation doesn't occur. The burden would lie, as it always does, on those trying to prove that it does. And that "proof" isn't about to come from people relating their fantasies about having been war heroes and such in past lives.

Silver Birch believed in reincarnation? Wasn't he Maurice Barbanell's spirit guide? Too bad he wasn't successful in convincing Maurice!

"Silver Birch believed in reincarnation? Wasn't he Maurice Barbanell's spirit guide? Too bad he wasn't successful in convincing Maurice!"

SB also said that some of his peers declared they'd never met anyone who had reincarnated so it's a confused and confusing picture. As for SB being the guide of Maurice Barbanell I'm not sure that was the case.

SB called Mr Barbanell his 'instrument' and spoke at times about how he had chosen and worked with him over a period of time to achieve the most efficacious communication that he could achieve - trance mediumship in this instance.

I'm sure he inspired Maurice Barbanell but whether that's the same as being his guide is another matter.

My opinion - and I rarely give opinions on spiritual issues - is that we're probably over-simplifying and trivialising the notion of reincarnation although in fairness we don't have any sound, definitive guidance.

In this situation we are simply trying to make some sense of a situation that appears to have relevance to Spiritualist philosophy, even though it's not specifically included.

I asked for the evidence against reincarnation and you said you preferred arguments rather than evidence . I am confused now.

You will no doubt remember from your legal training that a person saying they have not experienced an event is not evidence that no one has, only that they havent. It certainly does not mean that the event cannot occur.

Most of my friends have never been to Australia. Does that mean it is impossible? I know people who say they have but as it's not possible they must be mistaken or trying to trick me.

Ancient ancient quasi argument. It's simply a re-hash of William James 'One white crow ' aphorism. Sounds profound but is in fact a trite trism. Really chaps [and it's always men!] some of the rhetoric on here passing for reasoned dicourse would be unworthy of the junior common room in a provincial university.
You cannot reach a resolution unless you agree prior definitions. Some here are simply even simplisticaly shouting opinions across self erected barricades. That's really not the spiritualist way as we are and always have been an ecletic and inclusive consituency welcoming all. It's the posturing one normally associates with our more fundamentalist Xtian chums If you say you are right and I am wrong then you my friend are not a spiritualist. Informed civility and acknowledged mutuality are essential for argument [taking that term in the philosophical sense] to progress constructively. Some posts here bear the hallmarks of a row between fishwives. Just agree to disagree at worst and move on. We don't do conversion so why attempt to convert? Then again some sorry sorts are unhappy unless they can bully their own pet prejudice to the fore.

obiwan wrote:I asked for the evidence against reincarnation and you said you preferred arguments rather than evidence . I am confused now.

You will no doubt remember from your legal training that a person saying they have not experienced an event is not evidence that no one has, only that they havent. It certainly does not mean that the event cannot occur.

Most of my friends have never been to Australia. Does that mean it is impossible? I know people who say they have but as it's not possible they must be mistaken or trying to trick me.

OK, I'll try, one last time.

EVIDENCE is anything that is offerred to prove the proposition under dispute. The law recognizes two types of evidence: testimonial, and physical.

If the proposition under dispute is whether Jones shot and killed Smith, with malice aforethought, testimonial evidence would be such things as sworn statements to the effect that someone saw Jones level the gun at Smith: that they heard the gunshot, saw Smith fall to the floor: that Jones had previously told them he hated Smith, planned to kill him, had a revolver that he intended to use for the purpose: etc.

Physical evidence would be such things as: the bullet extracted from Smith's body: a written report from a forensic examiner stating that the bullet was fired from a certain revolver: sales records indicating that Jones had purchased that same revolver: etc.

As I said before: physical evidence is totally inapplicable regarding reincarnation. One can't expect a baby to be born clutching the Sioux arrow that killed him during his alleged previous existence with the 7th US Cavalry: or wearing the wedding ring from his alleged previous marriage to the woman whose husband died 10 years ago.

So we're left with testimonial.

How many people remember an alleged prior life? Very few.

How many people don't remember an alleged prior life? Legions.

What does the weight of the evidence then indicate? I'll let you draw the inference.

If 20 people testify that they were standing at the corner of Main and Second Streets at noon on 15 January and that they did NOT see a polka dot elephant pass by, no, that does NOT prove that "nobody" saw such a sight. But given the testimony of these 20, vs. the testimony of 1 other who states that he was there at the time, and that he DID see such a sight. . . again, I'll leave it up to you to decide whether it's more likely that the elephant passed by, or not.

As I stated before - and I'm not going to rehash all those arguments - reincarnation makes logical sense only in the context of a Buddhist type of theological world view. It does not make sense in the context of a Christian or a Spiritualist world view. Those "arguments" - coupled with the fact that the testimonial evidence is overwhelmingly against it - leads me to NOT believe in it.

The issue isn't whether reincarnation is possible, or impossible. The issue is whether reincarnation is probable, or not. In my example above, the elephant COULD have passed by. The likelihood is that it did not.

something I find difficult to get my mind round is in Danish materialization medium Einer Nielsen's book 'Solid proofs of survival'
At his seances two children would often materialize, a little girl Kate and a small boy Bruno. One night the usually jovial Kate came out of the cabinet looking very serious saying 'I have to say good bye to you; after five months I shall be incarnated at Einer's house' She was not seen in the seance again and five months later Einer's wife had her first baby, a girl and they christened her Kate.
A year later Bruno came out of the cabinet and said the same thing and five months later they had a boy and christened him Bruno.
Einer never doubted that the two spirit children were born at his house and claimed they possessed the same characteristics that they had when they appeared at his seances...

nick pettitt wrote:something I find difficult to get my mind round is in Danish materialization medium Einer Nielsen's book 'Solid proofs of survival'
At his seances two children would often materialize, a little girl Kate and a small boy Bruno. One night the usually jovial Kate came out of the cabinet looking very serious saying 'I have to say good bye to you; after five months I shall be incarnated at Einer's house' She was not seen in the seance again and five months later Einer's wife had her first baby, a girl and they christened her Kate.
A year later Bruno came out of the cabinet and said the same thing and five months later they had a boy and christened him Bruno.
Einer never doubted that the two spirit children were born at his house and claimed they possessed the same characteristics that they had when they appeared at his seances...

But were the facts the same as the story told one might wonder? And even if they were, would this one, rather unusual and uncommon situation have any significance to the general picture?

I note the wording was "I have to say good bye to you; after five months I shall be incarnated at Einer's house." She did not, seemingly, say "....I shall be re-incarnated at Einer's house."

As this thread is about reincarnation, and this story is perhaps about incarnation, it may not have relevance to the thread line.....

mac wrote:

nick pettitt wrote:something I find difficult to get my mind round is in Danish materialization medium Einer Nielsen's book 'Solid proofs of survival'
At his seances two children would often materialize, a little girl Kate and a small boy Bruno. One night the usually jovial Kate came out of the cabinet looking very serious saying 'I have to say good bye to you; after five months I shall be incarnated at Einer's house' She was not seen in the seance again and five months later Einer's wife had her first baby, a girl and they christened her Kate.
A year later Bruno came out of the cabinet and said the same thing and five months later they had a boy and christened him Bruno.
Einer never doubted that the two spirit children were born at his house and claimed they possessed the same characteristics that they had when they appeared at his seances...

But were the facts the same as the story told one might wonder? And even if they were, would this one, rather unusual and uncommon situation have any significance to the general picture?

I note the wording was "I have to say good bye to you; after five months I shall be incarnated at Einer's house." She did not, seemingly, say "....I shall be re-incarnated at Einer's house."

As this thread is about reincarnation, and this story is perhaps about incarnation, it may not have relevance to the thread line.....

Yep your right she did say 'incarnated' but there's another interesting bit in the book before that which confirms she was talking about reincarnation. It says....
'About that time Kate talked of her reincarnation. She did not want to leave the spirit world, but, as she said, it would be for her benefit to return to earth. The lieutenant asked if she could not be reincarnated in his home. He would be happy if he could get such a sweet little girl and doubly happy because he had known her as a spirit. But Kate said that she did not think it possible. If so, he would have to be prepared to receive Bruno also, because they had to follow each other as brother and sister through the earth life.

nick pettitt wrote:

mac wrote:

nick pettitt wrote:something I find difficult to get my mind round is in Danish materialization medium Einer Nielsen's book 'Solid proofs of survival'
At his seances two children would often materialize, a little girl Kate and a small boy Bruno. One night the usually jovial Kate came out of the cabinet looking very serious saying 'I have to say good bye to you; after five months I shall be incarnated at Einer's house' She was not seen in the seance again and five months later Einer's wife had her first baby, a girl and they christened her Kate.
A year later Bruno came out of the cabinet and said the same thing and five months later they had a boy and christened him Bruno.
Einer never doubted that the two spirit children were born at his house and claimed they possessed the same characteristics that they had when they appeared at his seances...

But were the facts the same as the story told one might wonder? And even if they were, would this one, rather unusual and uncommon situation have any significance to the general picture?

I note the wording was "I have to say good bye to you; after five months I shall be incarnated at Einer's house." She did not, seemingly, say "....I shall be re-incarnated at Einer's house."

As this thread is about reincarnation, and this story is perhaps about incarnation, it may not have relevance to the thread line.....

Yep your right she did say 'incarnated' but there's another interesting bit in the book before that which confirms she was talking about reincarnation. It says....
'About that time Kate talked of her reincarnation. She did not want to leave the spirit world, but, as she said, it would be for her benefit to return to earth. The lieutenant asked if she could not be reincarnated in his home. He would be happy if he could get such a sweet little girl and doubly happy because he had known her as a spirit. But Kate said that she did not think it possible. If so, he would have to be prepared to receive Bruno also, because they had to follow each other as brother and sister through the earth life.

It's intriguing but frustratingly there's no explanation of the 'whys' of the situation.....

When an explanation isn't given for stuff that's hard to follow, even harder to accept, I kinda wonder why that should be.

mac wrote:

nick pettitt wrote:

mac wrote:

nick pettitt wrote:something I find difficult to get my mind round is in Danish materialization medium Einer Nielsen's book 'Solid proofs of survival'
At his seances two children would often materialize, a little girl Kate and a small boy Bruno. One night the usually jovial Kate came out of the cabinet looking very serious saying 'I have to say good bye to you; after five months I shall be incarnated at Einer's house' She was not seen in the seance again and five months later Einer's wife had her first baby, a girl and they christened her Kate.
A year later Bruno came out of the cabinet and said the same thing and five months later they had a boy and christened him Bruno.
Einer never doubted that the two spirit children were born at his house and claimed they possessed the same characteristics that they had when they appeared at his seances...

But were the facts the same as the story told one might wonder? And even if they were, would this one, rather unusual and uncommon situation have any significance to the general picture?

I note the wording was "I have to say good bye to you; after five months I shall be incarnated at Einer's house." She did not, seemingly, say "....I shall be re-incarnated at Einer's house."

As this thread is about reincarnation, and this story is perhaps about incarnation, it may not have relevance to the thread line.....

Yep your right she did say 'incarnated' but there's another interesting bit in the book before that which confirms she was talking about reincarnation. It says....
'About that time Kate talked of her reincarnation. She did not want to leave the spirit world, but, as she said, it would be for her benefit to return to earth. The lieutenant asked if she could not be reincarnated in his home. He would be happy if he could get such a sweet little girl and doubly happy because he had known her as a spirit. But Kate said that she did not think it possible. If so, he would have to be prepared to receive Bruno also, because they had to follow each other as brother and sister through the earth life.

It's intriguing but frustratingly there's no explanation of the 'whys' of the situation.....

When an explanation isn't given for stuff that's hard to follow, even harder to accept, I kinda wonder why that should be.

the bit I have a problem with is Einer says his children possessed the same characteristics that they had when they appeared at his seances.
As far as I know reports of remembered previous lives are lives quite different in character to that of the current life?

[quote="nick pettitt"][quote="mac"][quote="nick pettitt"]

mac wrote:

nick pettitt wrote:something I find difficult to get my mind round is in Danish materialization medium Einer Nielsen's book 'Solid proofs of survival'
At his seances two children would often ...................
It's intriguing but frustratingly there's no explanation of the 'whys' of the situation.....

When an explanation isn't given for stuff that's hard to follow, even harder to accept, I kinda wonder why that should be.

the bit I have a problem with is Einer says his children possessed the same characteristics that they had when they appeared at his seances.
As far as I know reports of remembered previous lives are lives quite different in character to that of the current life?

And that's again where Doubting mac would question whether objectivity was in evidence.... Strictly, of course, the subject of such a story can't be objective and it needs a third party to ask the questions, to probe the apparent-facts.... The desire for something to be the case may colour the account of the outcome.

I get into a lot of hot water as I find it very easy to ask probing, searching questions and the ones I get into hot water with are the same ones who can not defend or support their accounts. I won't accept at face value yet at the same time I'm not a sceptic or debunker. I like simple answers to simple questions and when they ain't forthcoming I draw my own conclusions - I won't make things fit because others get upset that I don't share their personal convictions or belief.

Doris Stokes used to say
Those who have to see to believe don't believe enough to see.

KatyKing wrote:Doris Stokes used to say
Those who have to see to believe don't believe enough to see.

She gave my wife a message from our son some years ago and was my intro - through one of her books - to the world of the spooks.

great gal