"...But, as yet, like God, no-one has come up with any real evidence of its existence." - fran
"Evidence" ....as in scientific evidence?....of something divine?...strange notion. On Mar 7, 9:55 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > Most concepts of the soul are religious in origin, and developed out > of a complex of deep human desires and fears concerning death, finity > and justice. Questions which arise because of our need to find meaning > and sense in life, the universe and everything. As a species, we have > always had major problems with the idea of death being the end, partly > because of the love we have for others and our consequent sense of > loss when they die, maybe even more fundamentally, because an > intellectual/"spiritual" reluctance to accept death is the analogue in > consciousness for the basic DNA-coded impulse in life to go on living. > > The issue of justice is also moot. Whether in some sort of Samsara > idea (what goes around, comes around :-)), a karmic sense of > equalising accounts [Eastern religions], or a concept of hell/ > purgatory/heaven (pie in the sky when you die :-)) [Western > religions]; the soul becomes the object of our deep desire to see real > judgement/justice done. > > As such, the idea of the immortal soul has always lent itself to > becoming an instrument of social control, a general function of > religion (seen from a sociological point of view). Positively this can > be seen as a stabilising factor, negatively as an instrument used by > the more powerful/wealthy elites to prop up the status quo. > > None of this proves that there is not a soul, just as we cannot > definitively (in my view) prove that there is no God. But, as yet, > like God, no-one has come up with any real evidence of its existence. > > Francis > > On 7 Mrz., 14:10, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > We already have the Karma concept for people to consider facing the > > music. I don't think there is much of anything serving as a deterrent > > and so strife continues it's stranglehold on the world. People play > > and people pay. > > > On Mar 6, 1:41 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "...Personally, I have never found speculation about reincarnation > > > particularly useful for living in the here-and-now." - fran > > > > Ditto fran! I see it's main use for humanity more along the line of > > > 'You can pay now or you can pay later.'. > > > IF more people knew, or at least believed that they didn't 'get out' > > > of anything by simply dying, and had to come back to 'face the music', > > > my guess is that there would be less strife. > > > > No matter what I've read about reincarnation over the years, the only > > > points I take to heart are more scientific views about it and the word > > > of some of history's great teachers... > > > > On Mar 6, 10:54 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Speaking purely theoretically - I accept Orn's point completely, that > > > > discussions about reincarnation are pure theory - I don't see the > > > > problem. If there is a soul (theoretically speaking, since I have no > > > > idea what a soul IS), upon disincarnation it (presumably) leaves space- > > > > time. That's space-TIME. So, theoretically, there's no reason not to > > > > assume that a soul experiencing disincarnation in 2009 might not be > > > > reincarnated in 1909. Wow, I could even be Albert Einstein in my next > > > > life. Or Helen of Troy. Or my own grand-dad. > > > > > Personally, I have never found speculation about reincarnation > > > > particularly useful for living in the here-and-now. > > > > > Francis > > > > > On 6 Mrz., 16:36, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > As to theory when it comes to things like reincarnation....theories > > > > > are like comic books. Entertaining, and keep one distracted. > > > > > As to proof...the only proof would be if one remembers experiencing > > > > > it. I have nothing against those who make such a claim. > > > > > > On Mar 6, 4:32 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 4 Mar, 16:04, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > This may be a silly question that has already been answered by > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > who posit reincarnation, or you may have an answer, Slip. > > > > > > > > But it just occurred to me that the world population keeps > > > > > > > growing, > > > > > > > over time. So let's begin to flesh out the mechanics of > > > > > > > reincarnation > > > > > > > theory. Since the world population keeps growing, new souls must > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > coming into being (on the starting premise that souls exist, of > > > > > > > course). What is your belief as to whether all souls > > > > > > > reincarnate? Is > > > > > > > it that, each year, of the 300 million people who die (I'm > > > > > > > guessing > > > > > > > here, not bothering to look up how many people actually die each > > > > > > > year), those 300 million souls immediately reincarnate? Is there > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > lag time? Given that the world population grows by, say, 200 > > > > > > > million > > > > > > > a year, does this mean that 200 million entirely new, > > > > > > > non-reincarnated > > > > > > > souls are generated each year? > > > > > > > > More importantly, when a new baby is born, how is it decided > > > > > > > whether > > > > > > > that new baby gets a reincarnated soul, or an entirely new soul? > > > > > > > > The basic premise of my e-mail is that the number of people dying > > > > > > > falls short of the number of people being born, so not every new > > > > > > > birth > > > > > > > can have a reincarnated soul. How does reincarnation theory think > > > > > > > about this? > > > > > > > Firstly, whose theory? There are theories that don't limit > > > > > > reincarnation to only human form. If you count ALL the lifeforms in > > > > > > existence (and, not just Earthbound ones), THEN you'll see how full > > > > > > the pool of souls, as it were, is. Whilst I take your point, an > > > > > > Earth- > > > > > > limited view must be thrown out. Odds are that there's a huge > > > > > > whopping amount of life out there that could re-incarnate (or re- > > > > > > invegetate, for that matter!). > > > > > > Although there IS the Jewish view of 'The Guph', or 'Hall of Souls' > > > > > > where souls wait for (re-)incarnation. There is also a belief that > > > > > > the Guph can be emptied and soulless individuals born. This is > > > > > > explored in the Juergen Prochnow/Demi Moore film "The Seventh > > > > > > Sign" (Great film!). > > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 10:51 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Slip, can you clarify what you mean by saying "Thought, as I > > > > > > > > > see it, is not physical or tangible<<<<<MB > > > > > > > > > Simply for me thought is not something that you can put in a > > > > > > > > box and > > > > > > > > ship out or place in a zip lock bag for storage. I feel > > > > > > > > thought and > > > > > > > > imagination are homologous but not identical in that thought > > > > > > > > itself > > > > > > > > may be considered more of a process, which imagination uses to > > > > > > > > create > > > > > > > > ideas, concepts, theories etc. > > > > > > > > > though it is the subject of multiple scientific experiments." > > > > > > > > ?<<<MB > > > > > > > > > I may have hastened to use the expression scientific > > > > > > > > experiments, no > > > > > > > > intended reference to "thought experiments", but more so leaning > > > > > > > > towards the nature of thought, it's use as in telekinesis, > > > > > > > > telepathy, > > > > > > > > clairvoyance, the overall power of thinking, and the law of > > > > > > > > attraction, much of which admittedly, is speculative and/or > > > > > > > > hypothetical. > > > > > > > > Discovering the physical nature of thought is aside from what I > > > > > > > > am > > > > > > > > projecting because once thought takes place it becomes > > > > > > > > independent of > > > > > > > > it's originating source as does the light emanating from a dead > > > > > > > > star. > > > > > > > > > > As I understand you, you posed that perspective in opposition > > > > > > > > > to the > > > > > > > > > contention that "all thought > > > > > > > > > and consciousness dies with the death of the physical mind." > > > > > > > > > Are you > > > > > > > > > arguing that when a person is alive, his thoughts are > > > > > > > > > extra-physical, > > > > > > > > > or are you also arguing that consciousness / soul survives > > > > > > > > > death?<<<MB > > > > > > > > > I'm not arguing as much as I am suggesting that thoughts are not > > > > > > > > confined to our physical being. As I posted early on, we do > > > > > > > > see light > > > > > > > > from stars that are physically non existent. I believe thoughts, > > > > > > > > imaginations and subconscious manifestations do continue to > > > > > > > > exist > > > > > > > > beyond the physical demise. I feel very strongly that the soul > > > > > > > > survives physical death and also retains life experiences. I > > > > > > > > believe > > > > > > > > that some people have lived past lives but not all, as some > > > > > > > > people are > > > > > > > > Old Souls, ie: child prodigies, brilliant scientists etc., while > > > > > > > > others are New Souls ie: idiots without a clue who are easily > > > > > > > > identifiable. I would not consider reincarnation in the sense > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > our soul returns in the form of a different species but contend > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > soul returns as another human being. A human soul does not > > > > > > > > return as > > > > > > > > a cow in my opinion. I think we retain life experiences within > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > soul and believe that life might be occurring simultaneously > > > > > > > > within a > > > > > > > > parallel universe and further that there is a level at which > > > > > > > > time is > > > > > > > > of no consequence. > > > > > > > > Belief in certain aspects of death may give credence to what > > > > > > > > some know > > > > > > > > as Heaven and the Immortality of the soul. For atheists, > > > > > > > > pantheists, > > > > > > > > materialists and rationalists there would be no question and > > > > > > > > conversation of such idea would be moot. So what meaning does > > > > > > > > death > > > > > > > > have to us as we are living? Perhaps it is a reminder that > > > > > > > > life is > > > > > > > > temporary and that we should pay heed to what lies ahead without > > > > > > > > paying as much attention to amassing materialistic treasures > > > > > > > > over > > > > > > > > spiritual values. Is death just a marker between lives? > > > > > > > > Possibly > > > > > > > > and for me most likely, no one has ever come back to tell us > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
