Texas Teen Says He Saw Jesus Before Being Revived

#21
http://boingboing.net/2014/01/03/lies-of-the-daily-mail.html

Lies of the Daily Mail

By Cory Doctorow at 7:00 am Fri, Jan 3, 2014

Yesterday's New Statesman published a long, nuanced profile of Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief of the despicable Daily Mail. Dacre's a remarkable and contradictory character, profiled with some sympathy but no white-washing by Peter Wilby, but the most striking moment of the piece comes in the first third, when Wilby lays out all the admitted falsehoods and libels published by the Daily Mail -- a list that is incomplete because it only consists of those where retractions, legal action, or other visible signals of falsehood were raised. There's a much longer list of smears and lies about people who couldn't afford to defend themselves from the paper (or couldn't bear to). Still, it's a hell of a list:

This year, the Mail reported that disabled people are exempt from the bedroom tax; that asylum-seekers had “targeted” Scotland; that disabled babies were being euthanised under the Liverpool Care Pathway; that a Kenyan asylum-seeker had committed murders in his home country; that 878,000 recipients of Employment Support Allowance had stopped claiming “rather than face a fresh medical”; that a Portsmouth primary school had denied pupils water on the hottest day of the year because it was Ramadan; that wolves would soon return to Britain; that nearly half the electricity produced by windfarms was discarded. All these reports were false.

Mail executives argue that it gets more complaints than its rivals because it reaches more readers (particularly online, where the paper’s stories are repeated and others originate), prints more pages and tackles more serious and politically challenging issues. They point out that only six complaints were upheld after going through all the PCC’s stages and that the Sun and Telegraph, despite fewer complaints, had more upheld. But the PCC list, though it contains some of the Mail’s favourite targets such as asylum-seekers and “scroungers”, merely scratches the surface. Other complainants turned to the law. In the past ten years, the Mail has reported that the dean of RAF College Cranwell showed undue favouritism to Muslim students (false); the film producer Steve Bing hired a private investigator to destroy the reputation of his former lover Liz Hurley (false); the actress Sharon Stone left her four-year-old child alone in a car while she dined at a restaurant (false); the actor Rowan Atkinson needed five weeks’ treatment at a clinic for depression (false); a Tamil refugee, on hunger strike in Parliament Square, was secretly eating McDonald’s burgers (false); the actor Kate Winslet lied over her exercise regime (false); the singer Elton John ordered guests at his Aids charity ball to speak to him only if spoken to (false); Amama Mbabazi, the prime minister of Uganda, benefited personally from the theft of £10m in foreign aid (false). In all these cases, the Mail paid damages.

Then there are the subjects that the Mail and other right-wing papers will never drop. One is the EU, which, the Mail reported last year, proposed to ban books such as Enid Blyton’s Famous Five series that portray “traditional” families. Another is local authorities, forever plotting to expel Christmas from public life and replace it with the secular festival of Winterval. It does not matter how often these reports are denied and their flimsy provenance exposed; the Mail keeps on running them and its columnists cite them as though they were accepted wisdom.

The paper gets away with publishing libels and falsehoods and with invasions of privacy because the penalties are insignificant.​
 
#22
Hy Typoz - thanks for your response. In general, I agree with your sentiments on the other thread related to this NDE. But I am intrigued by your comments on this thread - would you mind expanding more on your perspective.

Hi Tim - thanks for your clarification. Personally, I strongly question your perspective and opinion. The fact is, the lady had a visionary experience whilst "near death". Your personal definition of "near death" as only those who've had cardiac arrest is, imo, extremely suspect & questionable. It ignores a phenomena as old as perhaps humanity itself, when we were unable to discern if cardiac arrest had taken place. The nature of the experience can only be made sense of within the larger context of all visionary experiences.

In regards those who HAVE had cardiac arrests, do you have any statistics as to how many people have had NDEs which contained people who were not dead? Were they not "serious" NDEs either? Again, having researched NDEs for decades, I've seen many, many anecdotal claims that living people do not appear in "real" NDEs. I'm also aware that, actually, as many as approx. 1/3 to 1/2 the number of people who've had NDEs and seen deceased love ones (as accepted by NDE researchers who are generally favourable to a survival hypothesis, ie. not debunkers) HAVE seen people who are actually alive. I suspect this is a statistic which is not favourable to peoples beliefs, which is why it is not bandied around as much as other statistics. Do you have any data or facts which suggest anything different?

Thanks for the 2 additional "serious" NDE reports - but, again, these 2 will add absolutely nothing to my knowledge and understanding of the phenomena - seeing as I've read thousands already. And, actually, had many visionary experiences completely indistinguishable from the most glowing NDE you would care to provide.

Hi Jim - Sorry, not really sure what posting a criticism of the Daily Mail adds to the discussion? It seems to be a diversionary non-sequiter? The fact is Kerry, in her own words, describes a bright light, gates, and Peter Andre telling her it's not her time. It is abundantly obvious, as her own words very clearly state so - on multiple online sites. I believe the original article was in the Sun, but has also been posted several other places. In one of those articles, she suggests reading the article you linked to - even though that didn't contain the reference to the bright light, the gates & Peter's typical NDE message. However, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever she said those things. Try another search, perhaps? The Daily Mail might be total rubbish, but on this occassion, they've got her story quite right.

Cheers.
 
#23
Hy Typoz - thanks for your response. In general, I agree with your sentiments on the other thread related to this NDE. But I am intrigued by your comments on this thread - would you mind expanding more on your perspective.

Hi Tim - thanks for your clarification. Personally, I strongly question your perspective and opinion. The fact is, the lady had a visionary experience whilst "near death". Your personal definition of "near death" as only those who've had cardiac arrest is, imo, extremely suspect & questionable. It ignores a phenomena as old as perhaps humanity itself, when we were unable to discern if cardiac arrest had taken place. The nature of the experience can only be made sense of within the larger context of all visionary experiences.

In regards those who HAVE had cardiac arrests, do you have any statistics as to how many people have had NDEs which contained people who were not dead? Were they not "serious" NDEs either? Again, having researched NDEs for decades, I've seen many, many anecdotal claims that living people do not appear in "real" NDEs. I'm also aware that, actually, as many as approx. 1/3 to 1/2 the number of people who've had NDEs and seen deceased love ones (as accepted by NDE researchers who are generally favourable to a survival hypothesis, ie. not debunkers) HAVE seen people who are actually alive. I suspect this is a statistic which is not favourable to peoples beliefs, which is why it is not bandied around as much as other statistics. Do you have any data or facts which suggest anything different?

Thanks for the 2 additional "serious" NDE reports - but, again, these 2 will add absolutely nothing to my knowledge and understanding of the phenomena - seeing as I've read thousands already. And, actually, had many visionary experiences completely indistinguishable from the most glowing NDE you would care to provide.

Hi Jim - Sorry, not really sure what posting a criticism of the Daily Mail adds to the discussion? It seems to be a diversionary non-sequiter? The fact is Kerry, in her own words, describes a bright light, gates, and Peter Andre telling her it's not her time. It is abundantly obvious, as her own words very clearly state so - on multiple online sites. I believe the original article was in the Sun, but has also been posted several other places. In one of those articles, she suggests reading the article you linked to - even though that didn't contain the reference to the bright light, the gates & Peter's typical NDE message. However, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever she said those things. Try another search, perhaps? The Daily Mail might be total rubbish, but on this occassion, they've got her story quite right.

Cheers.
Thanks, Manjit for expressing what I no longer have the passion to write out on this forum. Could not agree more.
 
#24
Hy Typoz - thanks for your response. In general, I agree with your sentiments on the other thread related to this NDE. But I am intrigued by your comments on this thread - would you mind expanding more on your perspective.
Thanks for the comment. I'm not quite sure which bit you are asking about. I do acknowledge that sometimes my posts can be a bit cryptic, mainly because to explain further could possibly depend on giving my entire life history in order to illustrate how I arrived at certain views. But still, if you could point more specifically I will try to expand on it.
 
Last edited:
#25
Hy Typoz - thanks for your response. In general, I agree with your sentiments on the other thread related to this NDE. But I am intrigued by your comments on this thread - would you mind expanding more on your perspective.

Hi Tim - thanks for your clarification. Personally, I strongly question your perspective and opinion. The fact is, the lady had a visionary experience whilst "near death". Your personal definition of "near death" as only those who've had cardiac arrest is, imo, extremely suspect & questionable. It ignores a phenomena as old as perhaps humanity itself, when we were unable to discern if cardiac arrest had taken place. The nature of the experience can only be made sense of within the larger context of all visionary experiences.

In regards those who HAVE had cardiac arrests, do you have any statistics as to how many people have had NDEs which contained people who were not dead? Were they not "serious" NDEs either? Again, having researched NDEs for decades, I've seen many, many anecdotal claims that living people do not appear in "real" NDEs. I'm also aware that, actually, as many as approx. 1/3 to 1/2 the number of people who've had NDEs and seen deceased love ones (as accepted by NDE researchers who are generally favourable to a survival hypothesis, ie. not debunkers) HAVE seen people who are actually alive. I suspect this is a statistic which is not favourable to peoples beliefs, which is why it is not bandied around as much as other statistics. Do you have any data or facts which suggest anything different?

Thanks for the 2 additional "serious" NDE reports - but, again, these 2 will add absolutely nothing to my knowledge and understanding of the phenomena - seeing as I've read thousands already. And, actually, had many visionary experiences completely indistinguishable from the most glowing NDE you would care to provide.

Hi Jim - Sorry, not really sure what posting a criticism of the Daily Mail adds to the discussion? It seems to be a diversionary non-sequiter? The fact is Kerry, in her own words, describes a bright light, gates, and Peter Andre telling her it's not her time. It is abundantly obvious, as her own words very clearly state so - on multiple online sites. I believe the original article was in the Sun, but has also been posted several other places. In one of those articles, she suggests reading the article you linked to - even though that didn't contain the reference to the bright light, the gates & Peter's typical NDE message. However, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever she said those things. Try another search, perhaps? The Daily Mail might be total rubbish, but on this occassion, they've got her story quite right.

Cheers.
Manjit said > Hi Tim - thanks for your clarification. Personally, I strongly question your perspective and opinion. The fact is, the lady had a visionary experience whilst "near death". Your personal definition of "near death" as only those who've had cardiac arrest is, imo, extremely suspect & questionable. It ignores a phenomena as old as perhaps humanity itself, when we were unable to discern if cardiac arrest had taken place. The nature of the experience can only be made sense of within the larger context of all visionary experiences."

"Manjit, there is no such medical definition as "near death" ! The term was coined by Ray Moody as a blanket way of trying to collect together similar experiences of people who faced death, thought they were facing death and actually died.

It's nothing to do with MY personal definition. I take my information from the serious NDE researchers who ONLY study cardiac arrest NDE's because that is the only way to know what the brain state is so that studies can be done which are acceptable to the scientific method, otherwise it's apples and pears, if you see what I mean.

Manjit said > " The nature of the experience can only be made sense of within the larger context of all visionary experiences."

No, the larger content of other visionary experiences could mean almost anything. People seeing flying pigs after eating magic mushrooms. Me when I've had a skin full seeing spiders and god knows what crawling up the wall.....

It's just the opposite, we needed to narrow the definition down to eliminate (as far as possible) the variables.

Why have you got a bee in your bonnet about this girls experience ? I don't care whether she had an NDE or not, she wasn't clinically dead.
 
#26
Manjit said > "And, actually, had many visionary experiences completely indistinguishable from the most glowing NDE you would care to provide."

Don't you see the irony of this ? Did you have these visionary experiences when you were dead ? That's what we are trying to establish, Manjit. CAN the mind continue when the brain is down. I'm not particularly interested in visionary experiences, they go into a different bracket of religious or spiritual or anomalous human experience..
 
Last edited:
#28
Manjit said > "Thanks for the 2 additional "serious" NDE reports - but, again, these 2 will add absolutely nothing to my knowledge and understanding of the phenomena - seeing as I've read thousands already."

Well don't look at them, then. Just trying to put a bit of interest in there, you know the kind of thing. In fact if you already know it all, why bother coming on here talking to wet behind the ears novices like me. I only became interested in NDE in 1975
 
#30
Hi Far From Here - thanks! :) To be honest, I can barely be bothered myself haha! Actually, I think more or less all internet discussions around these kind of subjects are like transactional egoic games. Personally, I have no interest in "winning". After the following post I think I will leave it for a while....

Hi Typoz - I know what you mean re. sharing you background! I just wondered if you cared to expand on what you wrote - the entire 2 paragraphs really? I get what you were saying, sort of, but I was just wondering if you'd case to perhaps provide a little more? Of course, it's a HUGE subject, so we'll never really get to the bottom of it however much you expand!


Hi Tim - Lot of issues you raise here, and as you're very last message hints at, there is very little motivation for me to discuss this here. But I'll give it a quick go:

1) No, your definition of "near death experiences" is indeed your own personal one, and bears little relationship to what has historically been labelled as a "near death experience", or indeed as defined by the "serious" near death experience researchers out there (Moody who coined the term in a modern context for eg., doesn't mention cardiac arrest as a criteria of definition). There has been some recent research into NDEs where a very narrow medical criteria has been used for participants, but this in no way whatsoever reflects the general consensus of what a general NDE is. I would suggest you are conflating 2 different things entirely - criteria for a particular study into NDEs, and the far wider & general consensus on what NDEs actually ARE. Kerry had an NDE.

2) In complete accord with your own argument, I asked if you have any actual data or facts on how many people who've had a NDE as per your own definition, who've encountered living people? The only figure I'm aware of, is around 33-50% the number of people who see deceased loved ones see living people. That's "serious" researchers' facts and figures. Do you have any figures from "serious" NDEs that suggest anything different? If you don't, then we're discussing general sentiments & wishful thinking, not facts and data. The figure I've provided above (cannot recall the study, but can locate it if required) is actually rather astonishing, given the anecdotal and misleading claim, even by "serious" researchers, that only deceased loves ones are seen - usually by researchers who haven't even asked the question if they saw "living" persons....how many questionaires have "saw deceased loved ones" on them? Now compare that to how many have "saw living loved ones" on their questionaires.......

In context of your argument, the above point is the only one that really matters.

3) You question the validity of visionary experiences not encountered under medical "death" (like) conditions. Well, I feel you rather miss the point. First (ironically, seeing as you mention irony!) - neither are any NDE recounters actually medically dead. Just because science doesn't really understand consciousness & the death process, doesn't make people who've had near death experiences actually dead. Obviously. Irony. It is beyond obvious they haven't had an actual death process.

However, in CONTEXT (not content, as you mentioned) of the larger visionary complex humans can experience, the NDE is not as astonishing and unique as they may appear (even those which happened to cardiac arrest patients!). There are entire systems of mysticism which deal with the structure and content of these kind of experiences to the point they are completely indistinguishable. Sorry, I do not buy into seemingly confused pseudo-materialistic explanations of NDEs, including those that think only medically verified cardiac arrest NDE experiences are more real or genuine than other mystical, visionary or near-death but not clinically dead (for a short time, so not ACTUALLY dead) experiences. In my personal opinion, this demonstrates a lack of understanding of both the experience, and the import of the experience itself. But, I generally live in and roam the imaginal realm, so perhaps my perspective is not as grounded into this "physical reality" as others...by which I mean I pay little heed to the materialist parameters of conscious experience. Cardiac arrests be damned! :)

4) I did "look" at the link you provided - by which I mean I read the entire page, and will return to the video clip when I have access to a device where I can. Can you please explain to me which part of that entirely standard, generic NDE you think has added anything to this particular discussion, or to my personal knowledge base?

As I mentioned before, I think it's the data outliers which will reveal more about the true nature of the experience, rather than filtering through and taking seriously only those experiences which confirm our pre-conceived a priori beliefs & desires. It's perhaps ironic that seeing people who are not dead during NDEs is not really so much of an outlier, even if that's the fabricated image many "serious" NDE researchers project.

Cheers.
 
#31
Hi Far From Here - thanks! :) To be honest, I can barely be bothered myself haha! Actually, I think more or less all internet discussions around these kind of subjects are like transactional egoic games. Personally, I have no interest in "winning". After the following post I think I will leave it for a while....

Cheers.
Yes. After a point there seems very little to say. I have no interest in defending any particular position, but I find psychology of the posters here curious and entertaining to a degree so I keep on reading. Would be nice to have a private mailing list for discussion sometimes, I think.
 
#32
Hi Far From Here - thanks! :) To be honest, I can barely be bothered myself haha! Actually, I think more or less all internet discussions around these kind of subjects are like transactional egoic games. Personally, I have no interest in "winning". After the following post I think I will leave it for a while....

Hi Typoz - I know what you mean re. sharing you background! I just wondered if you cared to expand on what you wrote - the entire 2 paragraphs really? I get what you were saying, sort of, but I was just wondering if you'd case to perhaps provide a little more? Of course, it's a HUGE subject, so we'll never really get to the bottom of it however much you expand!


Hi Tim - Lot of issues you raise here, and as you're very last message hints at, there is very little motivation for me to discuss this here. But I'll give it a quick go:

1) No, your definition of "near death experiences" is indeed your own personal one, and bears little relationship to what has historically been labelled as a "near death experience", or indeed as defined by the "serious" near death experience researchers out there (Moody who coined the term in a modern context for eg., doesn't mention cardiac arrest as a criteria of definition). There has been some recent research into NDEs where a very narrow medical criteria has been used for participants, but this in no way whatsoever reflects the general consensus of what a general NDE is. I would suggest you are conflating 2 different things entirely - criteria for a particular study into NDEs, and the far wider & general consensus on what NDEs actually ARE. Kerry had an NDE.

2) In complete accord with your own argument, I asked if you have any actual data or facts on how many people who've had a NDE as per your own definition, who've encountered living people? The only figure I'm aware of, is around 33-50% the number of people who see deceased loved ones see living people. That's "serious" researchers' facts and figures. Do you have any figures from "serious" NDEs that suggest anything different? If you don't, then we're discussing general sentiments & wishful thinking, not facts and data. The figure I've provided above (cannot recall the study, but can locate it if required) is actually rather astonishing, given the anecdotal and misleading claim, even by "serious" researchers, that only deceased loves ones are seen - usually by researchers who haven't even asked the question if they saw "living" persons....how many questionaires have "saw deceased loved ones" on them? Now compare that to how many have "saw living loved ones" on their questionaires.......

In context of your argument, the above point is the only one that really matters.

3) You question the validity of visionary experiences not encountered under medical "death" (like) conditions. Well, I feel you rather miss the point. First (ironically, seeing as you mention irony!) - neither are any NDE recounters actually medically dead. Just because science doesn't really understand consciousness & the death process, doesn't make people who've had near death experiences actually dead. Obviously. Irony. It is beyond obvious they haven't had an actual death process.

However, in CONTEXT (not content, as you mentioned) of the larger visionary complex humans can experience, the NDE is not as astonishing and unique as they may appear (even those which happened to cardiac arrest patients!). There are entire systems of mysticism which deal with the structure and content of these kind of experiences to the point they are completely indistinguishable. Sorry, I do not buy into seemingly confused pseudo-materialistic explanations of NDEs, including those that think only medically verified cardiac arrest NDE experiences are more real or genuine than other mystical, visionary or near-death but not clinically dead (for a short time, so not ACTUALLY dead) experiences. In my personal opinion, this demonstrates a lack of understanding of both the experience, and the import of the experience itself. But, I generally live in and roam the imaginal realm, so perhaps my perspective is not as grounded into this "physical reality" as others...by which I mean I pay little heed to the materialist parameters of conscious experience. Cardiac arrests be damned! :)

4) I did "look" at the link you provided - by which I mean I read the entire page, and will return to the video clip when I have access to a device where I can. Can you please explain to me which part of that entirely standard, generic NDE you think has added anything to this particular discussion, or to my personal knowledge base?

As I mentioned before, I think it's the data outliers which will reveal more about the true nature of the experience, rather than filtering through and taking seriously only those experiences which confirm our pre-conceived a priori beliefs & desires. It's perhaps ironic that seeing people who are not dead during NDEs is not really so much of an outlier, even if that's the fabricated image many "serious" NDE researchers project.

Cheers.
Manjit, I don't want to be rude to you but you don't seem to know what you're talking about

Manjit said > " No, your definition of "near death experiences" is indeed your own personal one, and bears little relationship to what has historically been labelled as a "near death experience"

What do you mean, it's MY own personal one ? I'm not defining near death experiences as anything, I'm only saying that the ones that occur in cardiac arrest are the interesting ones because THEN there shouldn't be anything going on in the brain. Is this too hard for you to grasp ? This is what science is interested in, it doesn't care to much about what is seen, figure wise, imagery wise, only what is seen veridically in the ICU when there is supposed to nothing going on in the brain.

Of course I have data on the NDE but I'm not interested in sticking up the figures for what percentage of beings seen are actually dead. As far as I know it's the vast majority and that's all that matters.

Manjit said ".....or indeed as defined by the "serious" near death experience researchers out there (Moody who coined the term in a modern context for eg.,"

Dr Sam Parnia and Dr Peter Fenwick and Dr Pim Van Lommel are the most progressive, serious NDE researchers.
Historically, the phrase was only coined in 1975 and NO, Moody is NOT regarded as a serious researcher... he is respected for his initial work, the recording of retrospective reports ( he observed a pattern ) and he is respected for his qualifications but he never claimed to have been scientific and therefore "serious"....Ken Ring and Mike Sabom superceded him in that respect .

Manjit said >" Sorry, I do not buy into seemingly confused pseudo-materialistic explanations of NDEs, including those that think only medically verified cardiac arrest NDE experiences are more real or genuine than other mystical, visionary or near-death but not clinically dead (for a short time, so not ACTUALLY dead) experiences.

confused pseudo-materialistic explanations of NDEs, ? Not actually dead ? Can't be bothered, Manjit, this is just silly. lets leave it there.
 
Last edited:
#33
Yes. After a point there seems very little to say. I have no interest in defending any particular position, but I find psychology of the posters here curious and entertaining to a degree so I keep on reading. Would be nice to have a private mailing list for discussion sometimes, I think.
What's upsetting you, sunshine ? If you don't like my posts, by all means, don't trouble your good self to read them. I stick to mainstream facts as much as I can. I haven't addressed you have I until now ? If you think my posts are wrong or bad, that's okay.
 
Last edited:
#34
Hi Typoz - I know what you mean re. sharing you background! I just wondered if you cared to expand on what you wrote - the entire 2 paragraphs really? I get what you were saying, sort of, but I was just wondering if you'd case to perhaps provide a little more? Of course, it's a HUGE subject, so we'll never really get to the bottom of it however much you expand!
Thanks for the reply. Since you asked, I may embark upon a somewhat rambling reply. It may not help :)

There were lots of different threads that could arise from what I wrote previously. I suppose it might relate to the way that the idea of evolution by accumulation of gradual small changes has embedded itself into views of the scientific method, whereas historically breakthroughs have often been sudden and dramatic, followed by a period of consolidation. As well as the practical matters of working within the financial constraints of the current system, there are also emotional attachments to ideas which can also act as a brake on any change. The idea that science is an unemotional intellectually pure process is more of a political sales pitch than an actuality. Emotion plays a much bigger role than people care to admit.

to be continued...
 
#35
to be continued...
ok, well I said that this might be a rambling response ;)

Here we get into personal experience. I'm not much concerned or interested in convincing anyone else of anything, I think everyone has their own journey to make, there's no need for us to copy one another.

Still, I have almost too frequently mentioned reincarnation. In some NDE accounts, there is some negotiation, a person is told that they must go back "it's not your time" but sometimes the person asks to be allowed to not forget everything they just learned, but to take some of the understanding back with them. In a similar way, before embarking on a fresh incarnation, a soul may plead something like, "well I made a complete mess of things last time, can I at least take with me into this coming lifetime some of this understanding, so I don't just repeat the same mistakes". Or at least that's how I picture things might happen.

At any rate, I had a troubled transition into adulthood, but also had a quite powerful dream of breaking through a wall and uncovering some ancient and sacred relics. Some time after that I found evidence relating to reincarnation which rather upturned my atheistic world. I'd already discarded most conventional views not only of religion, but also of economics, politics, social norms, you name it, I threw it out! The idea of reincarnation as a hypothetical concept was interesting, but to get specific factual confirmation was mind-blowing.

None of this do I offer as proof. It just is, take it or leave it. For me, it has been a matter of questioning my own sanity, questioning my judgement over and over again for several decades. But I use my ability to function competently well within society and in the workplace as a measure of some degree of both sanity and judgement.

This is perhaps one of the most open posts I've made on this forum, yet at the same time I realise it is still vague. The vagueness is deliberate, I can only apologise for that. As I said earlier, it's not my aim to convince anyone of anything, only to share a little.
 
#36
In the early Christian Judaism teachings, Karma and Reincarnation were taught. It's a way to explain that while we may commit many sins, these so called sins are our experiments in life and that once what we did wrong in one lifetime can be mended in another lifetime. Many of Jesus' parables and verses are meant to be understood with the teachings of Karma and Reincarnation. During the Roman occupation however, they decided to rid Karma and Reincarnation teachings all together for the benefit of population control through fear. Imagine that if you only have 1 lifetime and you can't reincarnate, any wrongs you did will simply get unresolved. Which is why the old churches were selling certificates that if you just pay the church with your lands and all your possessions, all your sins will be redeemed. Of course, this appeals to the small power elite and the Roman occupiers where it is the best way to spread fear and misinformation to control the population for the purpose of salvation. Which is also why religion today is so popular because, without the teachings of Karma and Reincarnation, people can do whatever they like including beheading people or killing people as long as they go to church or do what's on the teachings and be automatically saved by God so to speak. Of course, this is NOT true. If you commit anything against God's law, law of Karma says that these unlawful deeds will always come back to you guaranteed. "What comes around goes around" and with reincarnation, you have to come back again to mend the wrongs you did. So if you kill someone, then you will come back as a victim of someone who will terminate your life. If you know this; perhaps you'll think twice killing people.

We all have Dharma (a soul plan) that we are destined to complete. The modern day United States of America is actually a complete whole re-incarnation of the dark ages of Atlantis. USA is the center of technology innovations as did Atlantis, though Atlantis was more technologically advanced. If you mess things up the last life time, you do get to repeat again playing the same game, in the same situations like you did in your previous lifetime. So if you screwed up in Atlantis and you were instrumental in its downfall, you would play again the same role now as an American with the troubled challenges as they would during the Atlantean age. Just imagine the movie Tom Cruise (The Edge Of Tomorrow) where you have to relive the same lives again and again like a video game until you complete the game. Then your next lifetime will be a completely different role and the souls (spirits) you had karma with will be resolved, which means you won't need to meet them again and they'll forget you.

So in a way, a reincarnation is a process for personal spiritual growth and all souls who are looking for growth will want to continue playing the same game until they complete it. Or if the game is interrupted in the middle, the guides and angels will tell you it's not your time yet. Just like playing a game, you can not ascend to the next level until you complete the level below. Reincarnation is a true concept. It's only been taken out because without it, the small power elite has the control of fear over you because you are in the mercy of a church or power organization to redeem your sins and your wrongs. When in fact, it is YOU that has to fix your own problems because in a game, only you can pass the level. No one else can help you play your game.

All this talk about whether this teen sees Jesus or not or if it meets a certain medical definition of N.D.E is simply a material world we live in. But as spirits and energy beings, no material laws would define who we are because
we are not defined by the boundaries of material laws.

The feeling of reincarnation is in our daily life. We feel that we've seen these people before, been in these situations before and just know how to do things easily without any training are not just luck or chances. They are basically a re-run of the same people, same situations and same circumstances basically now in a different time line. We are infinite immortal soul, so which means we keep playing the game indefinitely UNTIL you decide to finish the game and then step into a new level.
 
Last edited:
#37
Thanks for sharing Typoz, I thought that was a brilliant post! And, also helpful to me personally. Nothing rambling about it imo...but I guess it may help if you have some sort of an inkling of the field of phenomena you're discussing, and how it impacts on a personal level - I think I got you! I would have loved to have heard more details, but I can totally understand a reluctance to do so.

Thanks again.:)
 
Top