Reincarnation??

Post Reply New Topic

Oh. Circular Reasoning...

God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is Truth because God said so, and God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is Truth because God said so, and God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is Truth because God said so, and God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is Truth because God said so, and God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is Truth because God said so, and God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is Truth because God said so, and God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is Truth because God said so, and God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is Truth because God said so, and God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is Truth because God said so, and God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is Truth because God said so, and God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is Truth because God said so, and God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is Truth because God said so, and God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is Truth because God said so, and ...

... et cetera, ad nauseum.

Only x2

God exists because the bible said so because God exists because the bible said so

plus

God doesn't exist because there's no evidence because God doesn't exist because there's no evidence....

Double Dutch uses 2 ropes

If one had past lives that one could not remember.
And in one's next life, one would never remember this one.
The old you is gone anyway. There is no continuity, and for all practical purposes, there'd be no difference between that and just ceasing to exist after death.

Ad nuseum would be more accurately: too much discussion of religion in this forum

God exists because I SAY SO!! !! !! !! !!
The Bible is truth because GOD SAYS SO.
You see, there is no circular reasoning there.

People have Hindu reincarnation wrong. People believe in the Hindu that doing good things will get you a better life, when it is actually doing what you are required to based on where you were placed in life. Doing the job you were given, and not rebelling. Modern society can't quite grasp that... Not to mention the fact that Hinduism is much more than reincarnation.

rofl!

and the same about Kilroy's lord of the rings post

Not only Hindis believe in it, there are also native americans who believe in it, some german philosophers as well. I think it boils down to collective mysticism and other archetypal systems, for lack of better words --your unconscience.

There may be some subconscious instinct, I guess. Archetypal Jungian something. Not that we would ever know about it, because we would never realize it was there. Like Averick said,



I'm still working out what I believe. I'm stuck. I think most religions are very narrow and somewhat corecive, yet for me I've discovered it's unhealthy to believe nothing (what point is there to get out of bed?). Isn't there a religion that embraces the human instinct for ritual and comfort, appeals to logic and satisfies the need to believe in something greater? Without threats or bribery?

Perhaps you would like to read some Samael Aun Weor.
It might bore you a bit, and sometimes his reading is skewed to fit the public's eye,
but that guy has quite the clandestined knowledge.

I don't remember lots of stuff about my childhood/past. They happened, but I don't remember. I don't think my past is pointless though. I don't think something derives worth by being remembered.

but those memories are tucked away somewhere, if someone said something about your childhood memories it might trigger something, and you may remember stuff you forgot was there.

There would be too much to remember, way too much. The Dharmic cosmology posits time as both beginngless and endless. If the karmic essence of a person has been reincarnating since beginningless time, one of the higher consciousnesses, the storehouse mind, would be the repository for these infinitely regressive experiences. The consciousness we use daily is the one that supposedly obliterates between death and rebirth.

Good point. But that would sppose that human memory is limited, like a computer. I'm not so sure it's finite. It may just be a recall, or organization issue.

I've read that buddhist monks have greater ability to use more of their brains from daily exercising like meditation and prayer -whereas Einstein was said to only use about ten percent of his brain like most people of today. Oddly enough monks don't sit in temples doing advanced calculus and physics; so in terms of brain strength, which would you prefer?

You are perpetuating a myth. While Dr. Einstein may or may not have actually made this statement, the statement that people use only ten percent of their brains is false.

Brain imaging research techniques such as Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (FMRI) clearly show that the vast majority of the brain is in use at any given time. Although certain minor functions use only a small portion of the brain at once, any significantly complex set of activities (i.e., reading, typing, watching TV, eating, having sex, et cetera) or thought patterns (i.e., planning, problem solving, concentration, remembering, et cetera) indeed use many parts of the brain. Just as people do not use all of their muscle groups at any one time, they also do not use all of their brain at once.

The myth presumes that brain functions are extremely localised; that the utilized parts of the brain are indeed very, very small; and that the remainder lies dormant, just waiting to be used. Actually, the parts of the brain that are in use are scattered all over the brain, making the entire brain necessary. This is demonstrated by the fact that when any part of the brain is traumatised or removed, the person so treated suffers from loss of memory, perception, and motor function.

Besides, Dr. Albert Einstein was a Theoretical Physicist, not a physician, and certainly not a brain surgeon! Plus PET and FMRI scans were invented long after he had died. Thus, he had not the expertise, nor the means, to determine the extent to which humans use their brains.