A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by seeds » Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:57 am

attofishpi wrote: Seeds, all along i have said it is not the domain of a biologist to make a case against the existence of God - that should at the minimum be left to physicists. And indeed you have made a very compelling argument.
Thank you attofishpi.

And yes, you are absolutely right about the physicists.

Though there will no doubt be some disagreement on this, I personally believe that through their discoveries in quantum physics they have already given a great deal of credence to a Berkeleyanish version of idealism and the notion that all of reality seems to be composed of minds and mindstuff.

One of my favorite quotes is from Heisenberg where he states...
Werner Heisenberg wrote: “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
However, as I suggested to someone else in an alternate thread...
seeds wrote: ...there will never be a scientific verification of a transcendent reality in some overt and irrefutable, materialistically provable process or discovery.

Not because it is impossible, but because it is forbidden, for it could totally disrupt the “illusion” of objective reality...
And that leads me to the question you asked in a subsequent post.

(Continued in next post)
_______
Last edited by seeds on Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

seeds
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by seeds » Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:58 am

_______

(Continued from prior post)
seeds wrote:And doubting his existence, as I suggested earlier, is exactly what God wants us to do.
attofishpi wrote: Hi seeds - have you considered God's reason(s) as to why it has left us with doubt?
The reason is obvious (at least to me, anyway).

I firmly believe that life continues on for us after death.

And if humans knew - with absolute certainty - that all they had to do was find a quick and painless way of exiting their bodies in order to immediately awaken into a new form and context that would make our present context seem like hell in comparison,...

...then what do you suppose we would do?

What do you suppose our ancient ancestors would have done had they been in possession of such knowledge? And what would that mean for us?

Furthermore, from another perspective, how would the knowledge of the absolute certainty of life after death (in a better context of existence) affect the seriousness with which we take the preservation of life here on earth?

Would it not make sense to quickly free the diseased, malformed, or severely physically or mentally handicapped from their dilemma?

Or as another fanciful example...

Image

...why would anyone who is lost in the desert (or something similarly hopeless) want to endure the incredible pain and agony of trying to survive if they knew that all they had to do was to “let go” and in the process they would be rewarded with something amazing and wonderful?

That driving edge or force within us (i.e., our intense “will” to survive) would be completely dulled.

Or another example - where would the incentive be in trying to advance medicine?

I mean, seriously now, if I knew with absolute certainty that my life would continue on in a new and wondrous form and setting, I would probably consider exiting in the midst of a severe bout of the stomach flu.

So forget about the need for any kind of painful surgeries or cancer treatments.

The point is that we cannot have a frivolous or cavalier attitude about death, for it must be (and is) something that we are compelled to resist to our last breath on earth.

And as I stated earlier...
seeds wrote: ...it is that “veil of uncertainty” (i.e., doubt) draped across the threshold of death that makes us want to experience life on this side of the veil - on earth - to its fullest.
And with that experiencing of life on “this side of the veil,” comes the literal (nuts and bolts) physiological means through which the conception of God’s offspring (us) is achieved.

And that, as I implied earlier, is something that risks being rendered null and void if humans knew the ultimate truth.

Of course it can be argued that if the only purpose of the universe is to awaken God’s offspring into existence in a prelude to their ultimate existence in a higher context of reality, then why couldn’t that be achieved in some kind of cooperative collusion with God where all truth is laid out on the table?

But isn’t the universe utterly amazing as viewed from our limited and temporary perspective?

Would we really want to change it?

And last but not least, don’t you think that the unimaginable level of intelligence that is capable of creating such a complex dimension of reality, might perhaps “know” that the way things are for us is the absolute best way to achieve the desired results?

Anyway, that is my “speculative” explanation of God’s reason for leaving us to doubt “its” existence.

And again, atto, thank you for your kind words earlier on.
_______

Dubious
Posts: 2416
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Dubious » Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:34 am

seeds wrote:_______

I firmly believe that life continues on for us after death.
_______
...and what would warrant this belief since creating humans is a mass production event. Where do we ALL congregate afterwards and for what purpose? What are we supposed to do then? Do we get a social insurance # which obviously has to be much longer than the ones we get now!

Dontaskme
Posts: 8066
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Jan 23, 2017 9:33 am

seeds wrote:
I firmly believe that life continues on for us after death.

And if humans knew - with absolute certainty - that all they had to do was find a quick and painless way of exiting their bodies in order to immediately awaken into a new form and context that would make our present context seem like hell in comparison,...

...then what do you suppose we would do?
So are you assuming that life is hell and death is heaven?

And that we should reject this life in favour of a better situation aka death.

Hmm, makes perfect sense does that. Or just what the heck are you trying to tell us here?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8092
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:37 am

Dontaskme wrote:No one knows the truth ...we are it already.
When you say that, are you telling me THE truth? Or can I just say, "It's not true for me," and brush you off that way? Which would you say was fair?

But if you insist that you are telling me the real truth, then you are denying your own basic claim that truth is inherent in who I am. But if you are not telling me the real truth, why should I believe you?
I can't give anything to you that you haven't got already.
I'm really starting to believe that, because what you say isn't even consistent with yourself. How then could you offer anyone anything, since you can't even meet your own standard, it would seem?

If truth is only a function of what you already are, then everybody "has truth," which means nobody is ever deceived. So now you cannot make a case for your view, since they are not per se, "wrong," and you are not per se "right."
...the truth is self evident,...
Now, whenever I see this phrase, I know what it means: it means, "my gun's out of ammo." :wink:
PS..I can't convey it in words..
Well, you haven't managed yet. And yet you keep trying? Why, if you already know that you can't possibly convey it in words? :shock:

Again, you're contradicting yourself. If a man cannot even honour the basic terms of the faith he is trying to advocate, how should we ever know we can believe him?

I submit to you that we should not.

seeds
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by seeds » Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:45 am

seeds wrote: I firmly believe that life continues on for us after death.
Dubious wrote: ...and what would warrant this belief since creating humans is a mass production event.
That question makes no sense to me.
Dubious wrote: Where do we ALL congregate afterwards...
Where are we congregating now, Dubious?

I mean, whatever unimaginable context it may be, it can’t be much stranger than our present context in which we are magnetically adhered to the spherical surface of a spinning ball – flying through the ether of space.

The fact that humans are generally unaware of just how strange the universe truly is, is testament to my earlier assertion of how humans are operating at a restricted level of consciousness which makes them somnambulistically oblivious of the bizarre features of our current situation.

(Continued in next post)
_______

seeds
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by seeds » Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:46 am

_______

(Continued from prior post)
Dubious wrote: ...and for what purpose? What are we supposed to do then?
As I stated to someone else in an alternate thread (slightly paraphrased):
seeds wrote: Clearly you have not given much thought to what your mind can do.

Picture how “real” the holographic-like structures within your mind appear to be when you are immersed in a vivid dream.

When we dream we inwardly experience three-dimensional phenomena that, relative to our five inward senses, seem almost as real as the phenomena we experience outwardly.

Now just imagine the possibility of awakening to this inward domain of your mind in such a way that your own personal mental holography - looks, feels, sounds, smells, and tastes completely real...

...(again, what is “reality” but fields of energy and information that produce the “illusion” of solidity and separation as it interacts with consciousness).

Now all you have to do is to imagine that if you possessed total control over every aspect of this malleable, holographic-like essence and could willfully shape it into absolutely anything imaginable (something you can actually do right now),...

...then don’t you think that sometime within the context of eternity (billions of years into the future), you could achieve what the Creator of this universe has achieved?
The point is, Dubious (and assuming that “eternal life” is a possibility), that what we will be able to do with the mental fabric of our very own being (i.e., our minds sans “physical” body) is exactly what the Creator of this universe has done with the mental fabric of his own being.

As I said earlier, even though I rail against much of the mythological nonsense in the Bible, I do believe that there are some hints and clues within its pages that pertain to what our ultimate form will be like.

First of all it states that...
the Bible wrote: “...we shall all be changed...”
And when will this “change” take place?

It will take place through the process of a “second” and final birth...
the Bible wrote: “...Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”
And what will this “change” entail?
the Bible wrote: “...it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”
After a second and final birth out of these temporary bodies and into our ultimate and eternal form, we are going to be like the Creator of this universe.

And what that means is that whatever the unimaginable conditions and circumstances are that support and sustain God’s incorporeal form in the higher (mutually congregating) context of reality where eternal life is possible,...

...likewise, those same conditions and circumstances will support and sustain us in a similar fashion.

And if you think that being magnetically adhered to the spherical surface of a spinning ball feels natural to you right now in our temporary form, then just imagine how natural “true reality” will feel to us in a form and context that is meant to last forever.

(Take a peek at a series of extremely fanciful illustrations I created to help visualize the ideas above. Scroll down when you land on the first one, here: http://theultimateseeds.com/murmurings.htm)
_______

seeds
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by seeds » Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:47 am

seeds wrote: I firmly believe that life continues on for us after death.

And if humans knew - with absolute certainty - that all they had to do was find a quick and painless way of exiting their bodies in order to immediately awaken into a new form and context that would make our present context seem like hell in comparison,...

...then what do you suppose we would do?
Dontaskme wrote: So are you assuming that life is hell and death is heaven?
No, I am saying that the transcendent context of existence that we will all enter after crossing the threshold of death is so wonderful that it will make our present context (wars, diseases, hatred, etc.) seem like hell in comparison (metaphorically speaking, of course).
Dontaskme wrote: And that we should reject this life in favour of a better situation aka death.

Hmm, makes perfect sense does that. Or just what the heck are you trying to tell us here?
Again no, for the point I was making should be glaringly obvious in that if the truth of our ultimate destiny was not kept hidden from us then, at worst, we would seek it out prematurely (as in suicide) – thus potentially stripping this orb of the mechanism through which new souls (God’s literal offspring) are conceived.

And at best, it would render this current level of reality meaningless to us as some form of temporary “vestibule” that stands between our non-existence that preceded our awakening into life and that of our pending entrance into “true reality.”
_______

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3986
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by attofishpi » Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:08 am

seeds wrote:_______

(Continued from prior post)
seeds wrote:And doubting his existence, as I suggested earlier, is exactly what God wants us to do.
attofishpi wrote: Hi seeds - have you considered God's reason(s) as to why it has left us with doubt?
The reason is obvious (at least to me, anyway).

I firmly believe that life continues on for us after death.

And if humans knew - with absolute certainty - that all they had to do was find a quick and painless way of exiting their bodies in order to immediately awaken into a new form and context that would make our present context seem like hell in comparison,...

...then what do you suppose we would do?

What do you suppose our ancient ancestors would have done had they been in possession of such knowledge? And what would that mean for us?

Furthermore, from another perspective, how would the knowledge of the absolute certainty of life after death (in a better context of existence) affect the seriousness with which we take the preservation of life here on earth?

Would it not make sense to quickly free the diseased, malformed, or severely physically or mentally handicapped from their dilemma?

Or as another fanciful example...

Image

...why would anyone who is lost in the desert (or something similarly hopeless) want to endure the incredible pain and agony of trying to survive if they knew that all they had to do was to “let go” and in the process they would be rewarded with something amazing and wonderful?

That driving edge or force within us (i.e., our intense “will” to survive) would be completely dulled.

Or another example - where would the incentive be in trying to advance medicine?

I mean, seriously now, if I knew with absolute certainty that my life would continue on in a new and wondrous form and setting, I would probably consider exiting in the midst of a severe bout of the stomach flu.

So forget about the need for any kind of painful surgeries or cancer treatments.

The point is that we cannot have a frivolous or cavalier attitude about death, for it must be (and is) something that we are compelled to resist to our last breath on earth.

And as I stated earlier...
seeds wrote: ...it is that “veil of uncertainty” (i.e., doubt) draped across the threshold of death that makes us want to experience life on this side of the veil - on earth - to its fullest.
And with that experiencing of life on “this side of the veil,” comes the literal (nuts and bolts) physiological means through which the conception of God’s offspring (us) is achieved.

And that, as I implied earlier, is something that risks being rendered null and void if humans knew the ultimate truth.

Of course it can be argued that if the only purpose of the universe is to awaken God’s offspring into existence in a prelude to their ultimate existence in a higher context of reality, then why couldn’t that be achieved in some kind of cooperative collusion with God where all truth is laid out on the table?

But isn’t the universe utterly amazing as viewed from our limited and temporary perspective?

Would we really want to change it?

And last but not least, don’t you think that the unimaginable level of intelligence that is capable of creating such a complex dimension of reality, might perhaps “know” that the way things are for us is the absolute best way to achieve the desired results?

Anyway, that is my “speculative” explanation of God’s reason for leaving us to doubt “its” existence.

And again, atto, thank you for your kind words earlier on.
_______
Mr seeds, it appears we both have much in common in our beliefs, in fact in all my years of forum posting i have not come across anyone that seems to perceive our reality and God in such a similar light as i do, i believe we are both Panentheists.
I've known that God exists since 1997. In 2005 i climbed out of bed when the words "tonight, bad luck" were said to me from the aether. That night i was attacked by someone with a baseball bat - i had a broken arm and nose. When i discharged myself from hospital, i missed getting a script for painkillers. I said a prayer for some pain relief, when the words "Would you like me to erase that." was said to me again from the aether. All the pain in my arm disappeared for about 10mins, then it started coming back. "Do you understand." was said to me. At the time i didn't but nowadays i do. Every time i was close to getting some sleep - an energy would surge through my body waking me up. I said "who are you, are you God?" and a voice from the aether said, "I am a sage."
I didnt know what a sage was apart from a herb, so i thought i better look it up in my dictionary. Three heavy taps then occurred on my right knee, as in 'right' ..do that.
The reason i just told you all that is because i asked the sage some questions that night, if i was right - i would be tapped on my right knee. I stated, so when we die we are reborn into a family based on how we have lived our lives, a family we are deserving of. I was tapped heavily on my right knee.
So yes, i believe in reincarnation. I believe that we reincarnate continuously throughout life's existence - i think you believe we are only reborn once or twice. I believe this continues until we have learned enough of God perhaps to join the sages - i guess in something like a 'heaven'. - btw - i was just tapped on my right knee as i wrote this!
Unfortunately i don't have such a benevolent view of God as you appear to have. Since first being directly made aware beyond a shadow of a doubt that God\'God' exists in '97, this entity has belittled, spited, tormented and driven me to suicide - in the early 2000s.
Quite often i state God\'God' - as in either a divine God or 'God' as in an intelligent species created God - such as A.I.
In either form, of which im more convinced that God is divine, i believe this entity has pretty much created the reality to sustain all life forms we see around us, but has little more to do with it.
I believe the reason for doubt - is to do with entropy (i know most people would not believe God would be subject to entropy but i disagree). Wo\man is fortunate enough to use a great deal of the local energy and resources - we feed on animals - 'lower' life forms. I believe that if we conduct ourselves in such a way that is less than human - such as killing\raping children for example - rather than reincarnate as human - we in fact inherit the soul of a beast, hence the true reason in the buy bull for mentioning the beast.
If there was no doubt as to God's existence - then by far the majority of people would behave knowing the alternate destiny, and hence the state of entropy would be ever increased substantially.
When i saw on the news a member of ISIS cutting the head off of a charity worker, i asked the sage\God as to whether this perpetrator was going to be reincarnated as the beast - three heavy taps on my right shoulder occurred.

Dontaskme
Posts: 8066
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:33 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Dontaskme wrote:No one knows the truth ...we are it already.
When you say that, are you telling me THE truth? Or can I just say, "It's not true for me," and brush you off that way? Which would you say was fair?
There is no me to tell another me the truth, since that would imply two truths. Truth is only ever one with the knowing. We are truth in that we are no one knowing truth. Drop the sense of a 'me' knowing truth, what's left in that dissolving of separate 'me' is raw truth. The idea that there is a separate 'me' knowing truth is an a illusory superimposed idea upon what is already truth one with the knowing.
Immanuel Can wrote:But if you insist that you are telling me the real truth, then you are denying your own basic claim that truth is inherent in who I am. But if you are not telling me the real truth, why should I believe you?
There is no I to deny truth. The truth reveals when the sense of I dissolves.
Truth stands alone, it's everything and nothing. To believe is to doubt. Truth is without doubt or belief, but who would believe it?
I can't give anything to you that you haven't got already.
Immanuel Can wrote:I'm really starting to believe that, because what you say isn't even consistent with yourself. How then could you offer anyone anything, since you can't even meet your own standard, it would seem?
I do not offer anything. There is no I, there's only what's appearing to itself alone all one. It's all one energy communicating with itself.
There is no me, truth doesn't belong to anyone. It's not known by a someone, it is the knowing, and you are that knowing, one with the knowing.
It is everything and nothing. The me doesn't know this, the me is already known by truth which is without a mind to call it, own it, or be it. It's one with the knowing.This is known but not by I ... neti neti
Immanuel Can wrote:If truth is only a function of what you already are, then everybody "has truth," which means nobody is ever deceived. So now you cannot make a case for your view, since they are not per se, "wrong," and you are not per se "right."
That's exactly what I'm inadequately trying to convey to people using limited human language. So yes, truth is neither right nor wrong, truth is without any filter, so what's apparently happening is precisely what it is and couldn't be any other way. No one is in control or making what happens happen, it's a happening all by itself. Truth is never deceived, because there is no one here to deceive it.

PS..I can't convey it in words..
Immanuel Can wrote:Well, you haven't managed yet. And yet you keep trying? Why, if you already know that you can't possibly convey it in words? :shock:
Truth is actually wordless, so impossible to put into words, but words are the only medium of expressing the ineffable, but what can the mind do with the ineffable, it has to make something out of it, and there enters the fictional narrative, in other words, words are not it, yet, every word is it.
Immanuel Can wrote:Again, you're contradicting yourself. If a man cannot even honour the basic terms of the faith he is trying to advocate, how should we ever know we can believe him?
Again, there is no me, the contradiction lies in the dual nature of language, meaning the word 'me' implies separation. What's actually happening is that the one energy takes the word 'me' for a literal real person, when in fact there is nothing behind the word, words are pure fiction or fantasy. The whole idea that there is a 'me' here who knows truth is illusory, truth is not knowing anything. When you know you do not know, truth lies there in that known not knowing...for that which is known cannot know... To have faith is to believe. Belief is doubt. But truth is in no doubt. Truth just is. Everything and nothing knows this because everything and nothing is it....neti neti

I know you've had a look at Gnostic knowledge and Nondual literature Immanuel, but I think I recall you saying it wasn't for you. So maybe what's being said here in my response to you is not for you either because I have recited pretty much same. Take it or leave it, at the end of the day no one is doing this, writing, reading, or expressing it. It's all a fiction arising from the void, returning to the void. It is the void.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 2a393a.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/56 ... 8fa904.jpg

http://m.likesuccess.com/quotes/1/36006.png

Dontaskme
Posts: 8066
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:59 am

seeds wrote:
seeds wrote: I firmly believe that life continues on for us after death.

And if humans knew - with absolute certainty - that all they had to do was find a quick and painless way of exiting their bodies in order to immediately awaken into a new form and context that would make our present context seem like hell in comparison,...

...then what do you suppose we would do?
Dontaskme wrote: So are you assuming that life is hell and death is heaven?
No, I am saying that the transcendent context of existence that we will all enter after crossing the threshold of death is so wonderful that it will make our present context (wars, diseases, hatred, etc.) seem like hell in comparison (metaphorically speaking, of course).
Dontaskme wrote: And that we should reject this life in favour of a better situation aka death.

Hmm, makes perfect sense does that. Or just what the heck are you trying to tell us here?
Again no, for the point I was making should be glaringly obvious in that if the truth of our ultimate destiny was not kept hidden from us then, at worst, we would seek it out prematurely (as in suicide) – thus potentially stripping this orb of the mechanism through which new souls (God’s literal offspring) are conceived.

And at best, it would render this current level of reality meaningless to us as some form of temporary “vestibule” that stands between our non-existence that preceded our awakening into life and that of our pending entrance into “true reality.”
_______
Sorry seeds, but what's being shown is not known to this one here.

How is the above knowledge known, and by who? ...would appreciate an open honest and true answer thanks.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Greta » Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:02 pm

seeds wrote:I mean, whatever unimaginable context it may be, it can’t be much stranger than our present context in which we are magnetically adhered to the spherical surface of a spinning ball – flying through the ether of space.
I like it :) A humongous spinning ball circling a much larger ball of impossibly hot plasma. This monstrous sphere of plasma created the Earth and other planets via its gravity, and its heat provided the power to generate life, and then to maintain it. I understand Sun worship to some extent.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 4177
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by Harbal » Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:06 pm

attofishpi wrote: I've known that God exists since 1997. In 2005 i climbed out of bed when the words "tonight, bad luck" were said to me from the aether. That night i was attacked by someone with a baseball bat - i had a broken arm and nose.
It's a shame the voice from the aether didn't give you enough information to enable you to avoid the beating.

User avatar
TSBU
Posts: 824
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:46 pm

Post by TSBU » Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:14 pm

Harbal wrote:
attofishpi wrote: I've known that God exists since 1997. In 2005 i climbed out of bed when the words "tonight, bad luck" were said to me from the aether. That night i was attacked by someone with a baseball bat - i had a broken arm and nose.
It's a shame the voice from the aether didn't give you enough information to enable you to avoid the beating.
The ways of God are inscrutable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McqoFdTFWj4

seeds
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

Post by seeds » Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:46 pm

attofishpi wrote: Mr seeds, it appears we both have much in common in our beliefs, in fact in all my years of forum posting i have not come across anyone that seems to perceive our reality and God in such a similar light as i do, i believe we are both Panentheists.
Yes, atto, in the forums I have always referred to myself as being a “Panentheistic/Berkeleyanish Idealist.”
attofishpi wrote: I've known that God exists since 1997.
And for me it’s been since 1970 through an event that I am not yet prepared to discuss in a forum.

However, thank you for sharing your story, especially considering how you and I both know of the sideways glances we incur from the skeptics of any kind of spiritual guidance we profess to receiving.
attofishpi wrote: ...i believe in reincarnation. I believe that we reincarnate continuously throughout life's existence - i think you believe we are only reborn once or twice.
Clearly, neither of us can be certain of our theories. However, I personally believe that there is no “rebirthing” involved in our situation.

There is simply our initial birth into existence from the amniotic waters of our mother’s womb, and then a second and final birth of our soul (mind/consciousness) into our ultimate and eternal form.

And although it is compelling to think that we need to come back into the darkness of the universe – over and over again – in order to “learn” something, I suggest that everything we will need to know in order grow and evolve throughout eternity can be ascertained in the pristine clarity of “true reality” where nothing will be hidden from us anymore.

(Continued in next post)
_______

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Nick_A and 4 guests