In the year king Ozia died, I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne, with the train of his garment filling the temple.
Seraphim were stationed above; each of them had six wings: with two they veiled their faces, with two they veiled their feet, and with two they hovered aloft.
"Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts!" they cried one to the other. "All the earth is filled with his glory!" At the sound of that cry, the frame of the door shook and the house was filled with smoke.
Then I said, "Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!" Then one of the seraphim flew to me, holding an ember which he had taken with tongs from the altar.
He touched my mouth with it. "See," he said, "now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin purged."
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? Who will go for us?"
"Here I am," I said: "send me!"
Friday, May 2, 2008
Bible Reading: Wisdom 1:6-7
For wisdom is a kindly spirit, yet she acquits not the blasphemer of his guilty lips; because God is the witness of his inmost self and the sure observer of his heart and the listener to his tongue. For the spirit of the Lord fills the world, is all-embracing, and knows man's utterance.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Bible Reading: 4 Kings 3:27
Then he took his oldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation in Israel, and presently they departed from him, and returned to their own country.
[This poignant passage relates how a wicked king, being defeated in battle by the Israelites and their ally, killed his own son, one that should have been king instead of him, in order to sacrifice him to obtain "luck" in the lost battle. This so disgusted the Israelites that they quit the battle, after having defeated the forces of the wicked king and returned home.]
[This poignant passage relates how a wicked king, being defeated in battle by the Israelites and their ally, killed his own son, one that should have been king instead of him, in order to sacrifice him to obtain "luck" in the lost battle. This so disgusted the Israelites that they quit the battle, after having defeated the forces of the wicked king and returned home.]
A Stern Message about Suicide
I don't want to continually focus on the negative, but I would be remiss if I did not write what I am about to say. Today a so called "Madam" (female pimp) commit suicide instead of going to prison. There are many people who commit suicide nowadays, and I want to address those who do so for reasons like hers, to "avoid jail." I'm not addressing in this message those who are in mental despair, or the very young who face a sad problem of impulsive suicide. I'm talking to those who, for example, in a break up, kill their spouse/kids and then commit suicide thinking "you all will be together forever." Um, obviously this is not true. Just because modern society has slipped into thinking of heaven as a slam dunk guarantee and that hell is not real and unbearable, doesn't mean that the misperception is true. Hell and judgement are very real, just as they always have been, and always will be. God certainly does not reunite a parent who kills before suicide, and hell is almost always the outcome.
The same is true for cynical suicide mentality such as "avoiding prison" thinking that death is either nothingness or "default heaven." A pimp has to face judgment for not only encouraging men and women, boys and girls to prostitute themselves (and the pimp is culpable for their moral decay) but also a pimp is responsible for the families who are ruined by his or her providing temptation. It's not like the good old days where those lonely cowboys needed the "whore with the heart of gold." Pimping destroys the moral fabric of the prostitutes, the families of the "patrons," encourages the moral decay of the "patrons," and also the dissolution of the community. It is a mortal sin of the gravest nature. All this woman had to do would be to go to prison and repent. She could have written articles from prison discouraging people from prostitution and she could have saved her eternal soul.
By committing suicide she actually cut away her own chance at salvation and, while I am not going to speak on behalf of God in this case, you know what I've said is very clear. She chose, in her own arrogance, to not even make a feeble effort in prison to undo some of the moral damage that she encouraged and profited from. God does not ask people who sin to perform miracles. If that madam pimp had even sincerely tried to repent and turn others away from the choices she made, she would have opened herself to a fair chance of salvation. Instead, in her arrogance, she chose the road to hell. What a pity, and an all too common "decision."
Remember, I am not at all addressing the suicide as a sin in and of itself theology. I am pointing out that she committed suicide and invoked judgment on herself in a state of very grave sin against the dignity of very many persons and in a state of not only un-belief in judgment based on her actions, but also refusing to accept prison and a life of working for a greater good in penance. That was a terrible and very dire choice, and people need to regain their understanding of that (prior generations understood this much clearer than this fuzzy, self centered and secular society allows). A very sad topic with a very unhappy ending ever after, but I hope that some good can come from her choice if others learn from this easy to understand example that she has made of herself.
I do not want to leave the end of this blog post with her family and friends in a state of total despair after reading this, although I must repeat, I am being truthful and frank so that others do not make the same mistake. I would encourage you to sincerely pray on her behalf. Prayers are never wasted, even if they do not achieve a specific result that one might wish for. But as Jesus reminded, with God all things are possible. Any sincere prayers that you make on her behalf will go to good use in God's greater vision and perspective in eternal time. It is through prayer that great conversion of heart can take place and even if the person is gone, the problems they have left behind and the damage they did remains. Prayer can help in the mitigation of the deceased loved one's damage that they did not attempt to remedy. And God can always put that to good use inside and outside the affected family and their community.
The same is true for cynical suicide mentality such as "avoiding prison" thinking that death is either nothingness or "default heaven." A pimp has to face judgment for not only encouraging men and women, boys and girls to prostitute themselves (and the pimp is culpable for their moral decay) but also a pimp is responsible for the families who are ruined by his or her providing temptation. It's not like the good old days where those lonely cowboys needed the "whore with the heart of gold." Pimping destroys the moral fabric of the prostitutes, the families of the "patrons," encourages the moral decay of the "patrons," and also the dissolution of the community. It is a mortal sin of the gravest nature. All this woman had to do would be to go to prison and repent. She could have written articles from prison discouraging people from prostitution and she could have saved her eternal soul.
By committing suicide she actually cut away her own chance at salvation and, while I am not going to speak on behalf of God in this case, you know what I've said is very clear. She chose, in her own arrogance, to not even make a feeble effort in prison to undo some of the moral damage that she encouraged and profited from. God does not ask people who sin to perform miracles. If that madam pimp had even sincerely tried to repent and turn others away from the choices she made, she would have opened herself to a fair chance of salvation. Instead, in her arrogance, she chose the road to hell. What a pity, and an all too common "decision."
Remember, I am not at all addressing the suicide as a sin in and of itself theology. I am pointing out that she committed suicide and invoked judgment on herself in a state of very grave sin against the dignity of very many persons and in a state of not only un-belief in judgment based on her actions, but also refusing to accept prison and a life of working for a greater good in penance. That was a terrible and very dire choice, and people need to regain their understanding of that (prior generations understood this much clearer than this fuzzy, self centered and secular society allows). A very sad topic with a very unhappy ending ever after, but I hope that some good can come from her choice if others learn from this easy to understand example that she has made of herself.
I do not want to leave the end of this blog post with her family and friends in a state of total despair after reading this, although I must repeat, I am being truthful and frank so that others do not make the same mistake. I would encourage you to sincerely pray on her behalf. Prayers are never wasted, even if they do not achieve a specific result that one might wish for. But as Jesus reminded, with God all things are possible. Any sincere prayers that you make on her behalf will go to good use in God's greater vision and perspective in eternal time. It is through prayer that great conversion of heart can take place and even if the person is gone, the problems they have left behind and the damage they did remains. Prayer can help in the mitigation of the deceased loved one's damage that they did not attempt to remedy. And God can always put that to good use inside and outside the affected family and their community.
Scientologists exposed to dangerous asbestos
This is a really serious problem. Apparently their ship has been full of the most dangerous sort of asbestos for over twenty years. A house I once owned had asbestos and we had it removed as soon as we discovered the danger, and it was the "safer" variety of asbestos. To knowingly leave it in there is unthinkably cruel and irresponsible.
Think of all the celebrities who have been on that ship, plus the average Joes and Marys who may have a cancer causing time bomb in their bodies. Some articles report that locals have had seamanship skills training on that ship, and they are not even involved with $cientology. There also have been conferences with guests, workers, chefs and so forth. Thousands of people seem to have been exposed. I wonder what will happen.
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/10545/scientologists-exposed-to-asbestos.html
Think of all the celebrities who have been on that ship, plus the average Joes and Marys who may have a cancer causing time bomb in their bodies. Some articles report that locals have had seamanship skills training on that ship, and they are not even involved with $cientology. There also have been conferences with guests, workers, chefs and so forth. Thousands of people seem to have been exposed. I wonder what will happen.
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/10545/scientologists-exposed-to-asbestos.html
Understanding the reincarnation belief temptation
As part of my series on clear thinking and developing or regaining your ability to discern between facts and fiction, believable and unbelievable, I want to present here some simple pointers about why people are so tempted to believe the fallacy of reincarnation.
First of all, I'm not going to write a big long essay proving that reincarnation does not exist. If you are reading this blog, you know the authority with which I speak.
But it is important to have some compassion and understanding about why some people continue to believe in it. I have also observed that even those who have come to understand that there is no reincarnation still have residual thought habits that came from their previous belief in reincarnation that they still need to break and release.
The most important point that I want to make in this particular blog posting is that "believing in reincarnation" does NOT mean the same thing as it does in the old religions who believe in it, such as Buddhism, and the new cults and variations that are "New Age" or "$cientology," or even those who think they are practicing the old religions but are contaminated by modern contexts.
The traditional old faiths that believe in reincarnation did not try to manipulate their families, friends, loved ones or community members based on reincarnation belief. In other words, they believed in reincarnation but it had NO effect on their day to day lives except to live in a way that would be worthy and merit the best next step in the reincarnation cycle. So no one even thought about "who they used to be" or "who Aunt Nettie was in a previous life." It would not even cross their minds to think like that. It would be viewed as an impossibility to ascertain anyway. For thousands of years people who belonged to the mainstream reincarnation faiths never applied that belief in their day to day life. That would not even occur to them. What they did do was to revere life (in theory) and try to follow a kind of "golden rule" philosophy. People kept their actions in check and their morality high because they felt they would be reincarnated in a more desirable life form because they merited a better material and spiritual status for their good behavior. But they never speculated that they could either recall a theoretical past life, nor did they think they could assign a past life identity to their family and friends. The only time an effort would be made is in the priestly class if, like Tibetan Buddhists, they have a lineage of a religious class or role that they think is immediately reincarnated on the death of the previous incumbent of that role.
Traditional mainsteam reincarnation believers were humble and would never think to manipulate their relationships based on theory about past lives. They made no assumptions, for example, that people "stayed together" from one life to the next. Remember, there is a wide range of merit even in families. It would never even dawn on them that they could resurrect quarrels or relationships from supposed "past lives" with each other. They would think that it was a disgusting suggestion if you said, for example, that one of a married couple had a different gender or relationship with the other spouse in a previous life. They "let go and let the universe" decide reincarnation, and their day to day lives had no literal influence from belief in reincarnation except as a moral compass.
This is why people would be astonished on the rare event when a child was born who seemed to be a direct reincarnation of a villager or a famous (or notorious) person. If you read the academic literature about such cases, people are genuinely astonished if a literal example of "reincarnation" seems to appear "close to home." If they were all thinking that they stick together in posses, families or adversaries from life to life (implying that the merit of each person did not break up the family or acquaintance units), their faith would have weakened (since obviously folks were sticking together no matter how they behaved morally on an individual basis) AND they would not have been surprised, and hence run to journalists or so forth, when literal cases do actually seem to take place.
So, modern cult believers in reincarnation are in total error to point to the traditional reincarnation heritage of faith and claim validation or kinship. They have none at all. It is a modern "power grab" to believe that people are reincarnated due to past groupings of love, hate, relationships, wars, communities, etc. The traditional faiths are very clear that it is an individual journey, not of a social cohort, because people are reincarnated, they believe, based on each individual person's deeds and morality, thus meriting an individual "next life" that is a progression from their previous life.
Here's an analogy. Suppose you have a classroom where on a test some get A's, some get B's, some get C's, some get D's and some get F's. In this example, suppose "BANG!" based on their grades they die and are going to be reincarnated based on those scores. Suppose a girl got a B and her boyfriend got an A. The girl would go to a life that is a natural progression for someone who scored a B in the previous life. The boy would go to a life that is a natural progression for someone who scored an A in the previous life. Relationships would be broken because they have no meaning in the next life. Each "next life" would be a place and time that is merited by how the individual "scored" materially and spiritually in their previous life. In fact, it would be very unlikely that a person who progressed, in theory, by getting an "A" would be in even the same country that they were before, and certainly an A-F relationship would not be "recycled" in the same community and same circumstances as where they succeeded, or failed, before. So it never would occur to the traditional reincarnation believers that family members or even community members had anything to do with one another in a previous life. Each person would assume they each "got there" due to their own chain of past lives and circumstances.
So you can see that there is an irreconcilable difference between the true traditional faiths that believe in reincarnation based on individual development and merit and the totally ego maniacal and whacked out beliefs of so called modern believers in "past lives," who steal the phrase "reincarnation" but not the genuine heart and spirit that the traditional faith holders possess. It's actually a parasitic insult for cultists to call themselves believers in "reincarnation." Modern cultists have this entertainment and drama self brainwashing where they think the universe is operated by the powerful over the weak, by "lessons" having to be "learned" (even though no one remembers them), and by, frankly, theater and gamesmanship. "Secret knowledge" and "knowing who someone really is" is a cheap con based on at best easily manipulated and naive thinking and at worst a psychosis based on the craving to have power over others. That's why cults make up the most unbelievable crap, with space opera wars, drama, Satan, the saints, and much stupid scenarios that a well educated science eight year old could refute. (For example, aliens fighting around volcanoes that did not even exist in the geological time that they claim the fight took place).
Now, for some people we must be kind about why they believe in reincarnation, even of the modern form. Here is why. People have forgotten how to be academic detectives when they encounter something unexplainable. Not too many Sherlock Holmes around, where they deduct theories based on facts and observations. People who are genuinely analytical are able to take a puzzle, such as someone who has knowledge of someone who "lived before," and come up with a number of plausible theories, not just glom onto reincarnation. There are honest people who have extrasensory seeming experiences that they instantly assume are "signs" of "reincarnation." But because these people tend to be, well, sensitive and artistic would be polite terms, they tend not to be academic and open minded to a number of plausible explanations. They'll believe the first scam artist (or equally, um, weak in the facts type person) who comes along and says, "Oh! You are remembering a 'past life!'" They never even think that there are other explanations for what they experienced.
Not to go into a long explanation of where perception that one has had a "past life experience" comes from, but let me demonstrate that there are many explanations for them. First, let me eliminate those sensations that come from emotional stress or trauma, mental illness, use of mind altering substances, or brain damage, either from accident or illness. Many brain studies show that small damage to certain parts of the brain can induce incredibly realistic fantastical "landscapes" and "situations" that are totally imaginary but feel real. So there is a multitude of physical, emotional, mental and spiritual causes of experiences that may feel like they are pieces of recall of a "past life," but are actually a neurological phenomena.
So instead, let us focus on "legitimate" instances where a person does actually collect information that he or she have no immediately explanation for. People can draw a direct correlation between a special human shared "reservoir" or "network" of knowledge that exists outside a body with what we call "instinct" in animals. While much animal behavior is learned and passed on from mother to child (for example, how to hunt), many animal behaviors are "known" at birth. For example, fish that are born and immediately swim, know what to eat, know to hide from predators, etc, without any contact or instruction from a parental fish. That knowledge is encoded in their genes and is, in a sense, an ancestral knowledge that they can draw upon. With animals it is a knowledge that resides physically in their body. Humans likewise have a deep ancestral knowledge encoded in their genes, but they also have a mental network where information is shared and retained.
It's scientific and demonstrable: there is no reason to be all occult and spooky about it. For example, do we not all have examples of where we "knew" someone was staring at you? Where we "felt" when something had happened to a loved one who is far away? Everyone knows from just sheer common sense that humans share a mental "information network." The problem is that people who ought to know better jump from this biological reality to assuming that somehow the occult must be involved. If I read one more time some idiot who makes money saying that people in heaven are "directing" thoughts and activities on earth, I'm either going to puke or think about how they should shove a sock in their money grubbing and egomaniacal pie hole. When you have one of the experiences I just mentioned, such as "knowing" that a loved one is in trouble or ill, etc., all of that information is being shared among human beings in their real lives and bodies right here on earth, just as flocks of thousands of starlings can fly together without colliding and turn on a dime without getting the instruction book from "The Great Mother Starling Who Accesses The Spiritual Archives In The Happy Hunting Ground."
Not only do people share thoughts, knowledge and experience, to varying degrees among each other, but they leave a residue of their impact in that collective network even after they die. This does NOT mean that the dead are contributing! No one on earth is accessing information from those who have died. It simply does not happen. There are some people who cannot process in their minds the information they gain from the human collective network without putting a mask on it that it is coming from their dead Aunt Nettie. But the truth is that it is not coming from dead Aunt Nettie or anyone else. It is coming from the collective network of the living that is shaped and still holds the contribution of the dead, but is not refreshed by knowledge from either heaven or hell. There is no capacity to interact between the living and the dead. Jesus even addresses this question when he explains that the rich man Lazarus who ends up in hell for his neglect of the poor cannot contact his brothers to warn them of their fate.
The psychic Edgar Cayce is an example who needs to be better understood. Cayce received medical advice from what he called "The Source." What he was in truth doing was tapping into the collective knowledge of real humans who lived and practiced medicine. His brain mashed the various sources of knowledge into a perception that it was from a singular spiritual entity that he called and genuinely perceived as "The Source." But nothing of his knowledge came from the heavenly abode. All of his knowledge came from the shared human knowledge network that contains information and experiences from both those who lived contemporary to him, but also from men and women who had died. It is a rare and genuine talent. But I repeat, it is RARE. And it is an attribute and talent, but not a mark of particular spirituality. One of the great temptations, which he fell into like Icarus, is to now imagine that he and his clan were reincarnated Jesuses and so forth. Humans cannot avoid repeating the sin of pride, vanity, and hubris. This is why he had such a contentious life even though he was "doing good." He canceled out his "good" by creating the "reincarnated Jesus and family" club in his mind. He is like the genius surgeon who then decides that he is so brilliant that he should have some "God given" exclusive. Instead of just being humble and grateful for his surgical talent he figures that he must be so awesome because he treated John the Baptist's diaper rash in a previous life.
So people are able to glean from the shared network among humans information and experience that seems to be real slices of life from a "past life." But it is their accessing that slice via what can be thought of as a shared film library of life; it is not because they lived that life and it is not their "exclusive" experience. I don't even need to wise crack about how many people have thought they "were Cleopatra in their past life." What that comes from is that everyone can feel and access experience around a human experience, such as aristocracy. The human brain plucks a theme of experience that all humans have in their reservoir (slave, ruler, parent, child, rich, poor, pampered, poor) and then match that sensation or insight with a template, such as "Ancient Egypt" or "Biblical Times" that they know about from day to day exposure. So, looking at Cayce again, he immediately assumes he must be from the top family that ever lived, the family of Jesus. But the reality is that he probably gleaned much of his knowledge from wise but unknown doctors and herbalists who left their mental imprint and experience in the human network.
So you have some idiots, like, for example, a man who runs around saying, "Oh! I feel like I know what it is like to be a woman! I must have had one or more past lives as a woman!" Um, no, but you have a current life as a moron. Half of the people contributing to the information network that we all share are, um, women and the other half are, um, men. I'd be astonished if a sensitive person with psychic (as in extra sensory) capabilities was only selecting information and experiences from the male contingent LOL. I mean, come on, have a little common sense. This is an example of how crazy and irresponsible cults have become, against the general foolish background of New Age fuzzy thinking. Instead of realizing that shared information is contributed equally by all people living, the person assumes his experience is unique to him having a "past life."
So to summarize this section of teaching, the sharing of information and experience of people who are both alive contemporaries and those who have died and left residue is a COMMON experience to ALL people. What is rare is instances where a person is genuinely able to target knowledge or experience out of the human network of a specific person or event. That is not unheard of, obviously, but it is much rarer than people think. Often so called "psychics" tap into a common human experience, such as being a particular class of person, and then slap their own self aggrandizing (or martyr syndrome) identity to that experience. It's like if you tap into the common human experience of drowning, and then immediately assume that out of the millions of people who have drowned in human history that you must have been royalty on the sinking of the White Ship, instead of being a poor nameless peasant who drowned in China. Both assumptions are wrong, of course, since you are accessing the experience of drowning, but not the reality of having lived that life experience, or indeed that life, yourself.
One more way to give you the scientific perspective. We know that an incredible range of capabilities and emotions/thought patterns are encapsulated in each person's genes. Much of that "feeling of familiarity" or "knowledge I could not otherwise 'know'" comes from talents and information given through the genes. Suppose that your ancestral biological history includes genes from island dwellers who are powerful swimmers. You might have an odd thought or experience that is like an ancestral memory of swimming/drowning/being under water. Some jump and say, "Ah ha! Reincarnation!" But what it is much more likely is that you have genes from generations of ancestors who had natural selection for swimming capability, and so you have a "knack" for water that you may not even realize you have. Or that "knack" for swimming could be manifested as a fear of water since you live a real life that is estranged from the genetic heritage of your ancestors. So you have a "relationship" with water that is transmitted in your genes. The much quoted examples of this is how humans have an "inborn" fear of certain ancestral threats such as snakes, spider, or the dark. It's not because someone was reincarnated as any of the above or got chased by one in a past life LOL. Our bodily ancestors were real people who lived and died and many of their talents, traits and experiences are encoded as genetic tendencies.
I hope this helps. People need to get sane, logical and more discerning in a hurry.
First of all, I'm not going to write a big long essay proving that reincarnation does not exist. If you are reading this blog, you know the authority with which I speak.
But it is important to have some compassion and understanding about why some people continue to believe in it. I have also observed that even those who have come to understand that there is no reincarnation still have residual thought habits that came from their previous belief in reincarnation that they still need to break and release.
The most important point that I want to make in this particular blog posting is that "believing in reincarnation" does NOT mean the same thing as it does in the old religions who believe in it, such as Buddhism, and the new cults and variations that are "New Age" or "$cientology," or even those who think they are practicing the old religions but are contaminated by modern contexts.
The traditional old faiths that believe in reincarnation did not try to manipulate their families, friends, loved ones or community members based on reincarnation belief. In other words, they believed in reincarnation but it had NO effect on their day to day lives except to live in a way that would be worthy and merit the best next step in the reincarnation cycle. So no one even thought about "who they used to be" or "who Aunt Nettie was in a previous life." It would not even cross their minds to think like that. It would be viewed as an impossibility to ascertain anyway. For thousands of years people who belonged to the mainstream reincarnation faiths never applied that belief in their day to day life. That would not even occur to them. What they did do was to revere life (in theory) and try to follow a kind of "golden rule" philosophy. People kept their actions in check and their morality high because they felt they would be reincarnated in a more desirable life form because they merited a better material and spiritual status for their good behavior. But they never speculated that they could either recall a theoretical past life, nor did they think they could assign a past life identity to their family and friends. The only time an effort would be made is in the priestly class if, like Tibetan Buddhists, they have a lineage of a religious class or role that they think is immediately reincarnated on the death of the previous incumbent of that role.
Traditional mainsteam reincarnation believers were humble and would never think to manipulate their relationships based on theory about past lives. They made no assumptions, for example, that people "stayed together" from one life to the next. Remember, there is a wide range of merit even in families. It would never even dawn on them that they could resurrect quarrels or relationships from supposed "past lives" with each other. They would think that it was a disgusting suggestion if you said, for example, that one of a married couple had a different gender or relationship with the other spouse in a previous life. They "let go and let the universe" decide reincarnation, and their day to day lives had no literal influence from belief in reincarnation except as a moral compass.
This is why people would be astonished on the rare event when a child was born who seemed to be a direct reincarnation of a villager or a famous (or notorious) person. If you read the academic literature about such cases, people are genuinely astonished if a literal example of "reincarnation" seems to appear "close to home." If they were all thinking that they stick together in posses, families or adversaries from life to life (implying that the merit of each person did not break up the family or acquaintance units), their faith would have weakened (since obviously folks were sticking together no matter how they behaved morally on an individual basis) AND they would not have been surprised, and hence run to journalists or so forth, when literal cases do actually seem to take place.
So, modern cult believers in reincarnation are in total error to point to the traditional reincarnation heritage of faith and claim validation or kinship. They have none at all. It is a modern "power grab" to believe that people are reincarnated due to past groupings of love, hate, relationships, wars, communities, etc. The traditional faiths are very clear that it is an individual journey, not of a social cohort, because people are reincarnated, they believe, based on each individual person's deeds and morality, thus meriting an individual "next life" that is a progression from their previous life.
Here's an analogy. Suppose you have a classroom where on a test some get A's, some get B's, some get C's, some get D's and some get F's. In this example, suppose "BANG!" based on their grades they die and are going to be reincarnated based on those scores. Suppose a girl got a B and her boyfriend got an A. The girl would go to a life that is a natural progression for someone who scored a B in the previous life. The boy would go to a life that is a natural progression for someone who scored an A in the previous life. Relationships would be broken because they have no meaning in the next life. Each "next life" would be a place and time that is merited by how the individual "scored" materially and spiritually in their previous life. In fact, it would be very unlikely that a person who progressed, in theory, by getting an "A" would be in even the same country that they were before, and certainly an A-F relationship would not be "recycled" in the same community and same circumstances as where they succeeded, or failed, before. So it never would occur to the traditional reincarnation believers that family members or even community members had anything to do with one another in a previous life. Each person would assume they each "got there" due to their own chain of past lives and circumstances.
So you can see that there is an irreconcilable difference between the true traditional faiths that believe in reincarnation based on individual development and merit and the totally ego maniacal and whacked out beliefs of so called modern believers in "past lives," who steal the phrase "reincarnation" but not the genuine heart and spirit that the traditional faith holders possess. It's actually a parasitic insult for cultists to call themselves believers in "reincarnation." Modern cultists have this entertainment and drama self brainwashing where they think the universe is operated by the powerful over the weak, by "lessons" having to be "learned" (even though no one remembers them), and by, frankly, theater and gamesmanship. "Secret knowledge" and "knowing who someone really is" is a cheap con based on at best easily manipulated and naive thinking and at worst a psychosis based on the craving to have power over others. That's why cults make up the most unbelievable crap, with space opera wars, drama, Satan, the saints, and much stupid scenarios that a well educated science eight year old could refute. (For example, aliens fighting around volcanoes that did not even exist in the geological time that they claim the fight took place).
Now, for some people we must be kind about why they believe in reincarnation, even of the modern form. Here is why. People have forgotten how to be academic detectives when they encounter something unexplainable. Not too many Sherlock Holmes around, where they deduct theories based on facts and observations. People who are genuinely analytical are able to take a puzzle, such as someone who has knowledge of someone who "lived before," and come up with a number of plausible theories, not just glom onto reincarnation. There are honest people who have extrasensory seeming experiences that they instantly assume are "signs" of "reincarnation." But because these people tend to be, well, sensitive and artistic would be polite terms, they tend not to be academic and open minded to a number of plausible explanations. They'll believe the first scam artist (or equally, um, weak in the facts type person) who comes along and says, "Oh! You are remembering a 'past life!'" They never even think that there are other explanations for what they experienced.
Not to go into a long explanation of where perception that one has had a "past life experience" comes from, but let me demonstrate that there are many explanations for them. First, let me eliminate those sensations that come from emotional stress or trauma, mental illness, use of mind altering substances, or brain damage, either from accident or illness. Many brain studies show that small damage to certain parts of the brain can induce incredibly realistic fantastical "landscapes" and "situations" that are totally imaginary but feel real. So there is a multitude of physical, emotional, mental and spiritual causes of experiences that may feel like they are pieces of recall of a "past life," but are actually a neurological phenomena.
So instead, let us focus on "legitimate" instances where a person does actually collect information that he or she have no immediately explanation for. People can draw a direct correlation between a special human shared "reservoir" or "network" of knowledge that exists outside a body with what we call "instinct" in animals. While much animal behavior is learned and passed on from mother to child (for example, how to hunt), many animal behaviors are "known" at birth. For example, fish that are born and immediately swim, know what to eat, know to hide from predators, etc, without any contact or instruction from a parental fish. That knowledge is encoded in their genes and is, in a sense, an ancestral knowledge that they can draw upon. With animals it is a knowledge that resides physically in their body. Humans likewise have a deep ancestral knowledge encoded in their genes, but they also have a mental network where information is shared and retained.
It's scientific and demonstrable: there is no reason to be all occult and spooky about it. For example, do we not all have examples of where we "knew" someone was staring at you? Where we "felt" when something had happened to a loved one who is far away? Everyone knows from just sheer common sense that humans share a mental "information network." The problem is that people who ought to know better jump from this biological reality to assuming that somehow the occult must be involved. If I read one more time some idiot who makes money saying that people in heaven are "directing" thoughts and activities on earth, I'm either going to puke or think about how they should shove a sock in their money grubbing and egomaniacal pie hole. When you have one of the experiences I just mentioned, such as "knowing" that a loved one is in trouble or ill, etc., all of that information is being shared among human beings in their real lives and bodies right here on earth, just as flocks of thousands of starlings can fly together without colliding and turn on a dime without getting the instruction book from "The Great Mother Starling Who Accesses The Spiritual Archives In The Happy Hunting Ground."
Not only do people share thoughts, knowledge and experience, to varying degrees among each other, but they leave a residue of their impact in that collective network even after they die. This does NOT mean that the dead are contributing! No one on earth is accessing information from those who have died. It simply does not happen. There are some people who cannot process in their minds the information they gain from the human collective network without putting a mask on it that it is coming from their dead Aunt Nettie. But the truth is that it is not coming from dead Aunt Nettie or anyone else. It is coming from the collective network of the living that is shaped and still holds the contribution of the dead, but is not refreshed by knowledge from either heaven or hell. There is no capacity to interact between the living and the dead. Jesus even addresses this question when he explains that the rich man Lazarus who ends up in hell for his neglect of the poor cannot contact his brothers to warn them of their fate.
The psychic Edgar Cayce is an example who needs to be better understood. Cayce received medical advice from what he called "The Source." What he was in truth doing was tapping into the collective knowledge of real humans who lived and practiced medicine. His brain mashed the various sources of knowledge into a perception that it was from a singular spiritual entity that he called and genuinely perceived as "The Source." But nothing of his knowledge came from the heavenly abode. All of his knowledge came from the shared human knowledge network that contains information and experiences from both those who lived contemporary to him, but also from men and women who had died. It is a rare and genuine talent. But I repeat, it is RARE. And it is an attribute and talent, but not a mark of particular spirituality. One of the great temptations, which he fell into like Icarus, is to now imagine that he and his clan were reincarnated Jesuses and so forth. Humans cannot avoid repeating the sin of pride, vanity, and hubris. This is why he had such a contentious life even though he was "doing good." He canceled out his "good" by creating the "reincarnated Jesus and family" club in his mind. He is like the genius surgeon who then decides that he is so brilliant that he should have some "God given" exclusive. Instead of just being humble and grateful for his surgical talent he figures that he must be so awesome because he treated John the Baptist's diaper rash in a previous life.
So people are able to glean from the shared network among humans information and experience that seems to be real slices of life from a "past life." But it is their accessing that slice via what can be thought of as a shared film library of life; it is not because they lived that life and it is not their "exclusive" experience. I don't even need to wise crack about how many people have thought they "were Cleopatra in their past life." What that comes from is that everyone can feel and access experience around a human experience, such as aristocracy. The human brain plucks a theme of experience that all humans have in their reservoir (slave, ruler, parent, child, rich, poor, pampered, poor) and then match that sensation or insight with a template, such as "Ancient Egypt" or "Biblical Times" that they know about from day to day exposure. So, looking at Cayce again, he immediately assumes he must be from the top family that ever lived, the family of Jesus. But the reality is that he probably gleaned much of his knowledge from wise but unknown doctors and herbalists who left their mental imprint and experience in the human network.
So you have some idiots, like, for example, a man who runs around saying, "Oh! I feel like I know what it is like to be a woman! I must have had one or more past lives as a woman!" Um, no, but you have a current life as a moron. Half of the people contributing to the information network that we all share are, um, women and the other half are, um, men. I'd be astonished if a sensitive person with psychic (as in extra sensory) capabilities was only selecting information and experiences from the male contingent LOL. I mean, come on, have a little common sense. This is an example of how crazy and irresponsible cults have become, against the general foolish background of New Age fuzzy thinking. Instead of realizing that shared information is contributed equally by all people living, the person assumes his experience is unique to him having a "past life."
So to summarize this section of teaching, the sharing of information and experience of people who are both alive contemporaries and those who have died and left residue is a COMMON experience to ALL people. What is rare is instances where a person is genuinely able to target knowledge or experience out of the human network of a specific person or event. That is not unheard of, obviously, but it is much rarer than people think. Often so called "psychics" tap into a common human experience, such as being a particular class of person, and then slap their own self aggrandizing (or martyr syndrome) identity to that experience. It's like if you tap into the common human experience of drowning, and then immediately assume that out of the millions of people who have drowned in human history that you must have been royalty on the sinking of the White Ship, instead of being a poor nameless peasant who drowned in China. Both assumptions are wrong, of course, since you are accessing the experience of drowning, but not the reality of having lived that life experience, or indeed that life, yourself.
One more way to give you the scientific perspective. We know that an incredible range of capabilities and emotions/thought patterns are encapsulated in each person's genes. Much of that "feeling of familiarity" or "knowledge I could not otherwise 'know'" comes from talents and information given through the genes. Suppose that your ancestral biological history includes genes from island dwellers who are powerful swimmers. You might have an odd thought or experience that is like an ancestral memory of swimming/drowning/being under water. Some jump and say, "Ah ha! Reincarnation!" But what it is much more likely is that you have genes from generations of ancestors who had natural selection for swimming capability, and so you have a "knack" for water that you may not even realize you have. Or that "knack" for swimming could be manifested as a fear of water since you live a real life that is estranged from the genetic heritage of your ancestors. So you have a "relationship" with water that is transmitted in your genes. The much quoted examples of this is how humans have an "inborn" fear of certain ancestral threats such as snakes, spider, or the dark. It's not because someone was reincarnated as any of the above or got chased by one in a past life LOL. Our bodily ancestors were real people who lived and died and many of their talents, traits and experiences are encoded as genetic tendencies.
I hope this helps. People need to get sane, logical and more discerning in a hurry.
What the USA was like 80 million years ago
Regular readers know that I have an extensive background in earth geology, the evolution of plants and animals, and the structure of the universe. One of my hobbies is fossil hunting, and I love to read and "reminisce" about ancient rock formations, landscapes, plants and animals on earth.
Here's a very well written article in Wikipedia. Look at the very cool map of what the USA looked like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_cretaceous_general.jpg
snip (text to explain map at link)
Eighty million years ago, during the Age of Dinosaurs, the geography of North America was very different from that of today.
Mountain ranges have changed considerably since this, the Cretaceous Period.
The Appalachian Mountains were probably lower and less conspicuous as a source of sediment than they are today; apparently they supplied appreciable amounts of coarse sediment only in the Southeast (Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia).
The Rocky Mountains, as they are today, did not exist; instead a giant trough in which marine sediment slowly accumulated occupied this part of the West.
Shallow, warm inland seas covered large portions of the Southern and Western United States, as shown on the map.
Large portions of California were under water, and in eastern California, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, eastern Oregon, Washington, and Alberta, a belt of the Earth's crust slowly rose to form a new mountain range.
Details from this vast highland extended eastward into Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico.
Still farther east, Kansas, Nebraska, and adjacent States to the north and south were covered by warm, extensive, but shallow seas in which beds of limestone slowly formed.
The Cretaceous Period marked the last extensive covering of the North American continent by the sea. Since then, sea level has dropped and the continent has gradually emerged to its present size and shape.
***
Sooooooo....
the mountains that we know and love "today" didn't exist at all back then :-)
Check out the map.... gosh, so much of the USA was under water! And those few mountain ranges that existed were just beginning to slowly push their ways up from the earth's crust.
Science is so fascinating. I love science!
Here's a very well written article in Wikipedia. Look at the very cool map of what the USA looked like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_cretaceous_general.jpg
snip (text to explain map at link)
Eighty million years ago, during the Age of Dinosaurs, the geography of North America was very different from that of today.
Mountain ranges have changed considerably since this, the Cretaceous Period.
The Appalachian Mountains were probably lower and less conspicuous as a source of sediment than they are today; apparently they supplied appreciable amounts of coarse sediment only in the Southeast (Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia).
The Rocky Mountains, as they are today, did not exist; instead a giant trough in which marine sediment slowly accumulated occupied this part of the West.
Shallow, warm inland seas covered large portions of the Southern and Western United States, as shown on the map.
Large portions of California were under water, and in eastern California, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, eastern Oregon, Washington, and Alberta, a belt of the Earth's crust slowly rose to form a new mountain range.
Details from this vast highland extended eastward into Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico.
Still farther east, Kansas, Nebraska, and adjacent States to the north and south were covered by warm, extensive, but shallow seas in which beds of limestone slowly formed.
The Cretaceous Period marked the last extensive covering of the North American continent by the sea. Since then, sea level has dropped and the continent has gradually emerged to its present size and shape.
***
Sooooooo....
the mountains that we know and love "today" didn't exist at all back then :-)
Check out the map.... gosh, so much of the USA was under water! And those few mountain ranges that existed were just beginning to slowly push their ways up from the earth's crust.
Science is so fascinating. I love science!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
