The rhetoric and wisdom of reincarnation discussion.

Discussion in 'Reincarnation, Religion and Spirituality' started by Shawn T Murphy, Oct 1, 2017.

  1. Shawn T Murphy

    Shawn T Murphy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2017
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    5
    There is a force in this world that has remained hidden. In my second book I name it rhetoric, being the opposite of wisdom. It has been rhetoric that has supported the modern philosophical idea of "becoming one with the one". This concept goes against the wisest philosophers and against common sense. How is it that we maintain our individuality from one life to the next, but then somehow lose it all? What about all the Archangels and guardian angels from whom we know? Why are they not melted into one.... Have a look at the trilogy for more info.
     
    amifriend likes this.
  2. Native Son

    Native Son Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2017
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    11
    Well, are you not giving us some very rhetorical views of your own here? If rhetoric is the opposite of wisdom, as you state, which however is not, as the opposite of wisdom is ignorance, but using rhetoric as you define it, how is it wise to assert that we KNOW what we know from Archangels, and other angels?

    However, rhetoric or not, I would guess that you have correct opinion about individuality existing at all levels in the eternal realm of God. It is more than a correct opinion, that we will maintain individuality there, since the eternal was before the physical, if I may be permitted to use nonsensical terms, such as the temporal "before", since the eternal in not temporal.
     
  3. Shawn T Murphy

    Shawn T Murphy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2017
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ignorance is not a power on earth, but rather a mixture of truth and lies (rhetoric) that has caused the most damage. Hitler was not ignorant, but rather used selective truths to build his power. It is not ignorance that came up with the concept of the trinity or the idea of becoming one with the one. It is an active power in this world that tries to destroy wisdom, not passive ignorance.
    As for the Angels and Archangels, have you researched their incarnations in this world?
     
  4. Native Son

    Native Son Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2017
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    11
    You said; "This concept goes against the wisest philosophers and against common sense." Have you researched the wise philosophers? Is not ignorance the root of all evil? And how can ignorance be ever a truth, when truth is wisdom? And how can truth be an opposite of wisdom, since part of rhetoric is part truth, and you said rhetoric is the opposite of wisdom? Or how can one be wise without knowing truth? But if we both keep bringing in religion on this forum, it will be the end of our discussion. But since we have already, just one last question in reply to your question, since I have not researched the reincarnation of angels and archangels, as you claim to have. Are these angelic beings more in essence than regular humans, and do their souls weigh more than 21 grams? And which archangel did you research for their reincarnation, Michael, Gabriel, or who in particular? And what did these angelic beings say about Einstein's theory, since we know what we know from them? But tell me, is not rhetoric just a part of flattery? And you may just be flattering us, or worse, you may be flattering yourself, as God only knows, and not any humans, or the angels, and not even Jesus himself, if you "know" the scriptures.
     
  5. Shawn T Murphy

    Shawn T Murphy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2017
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    5
    I will not rewrite my book in this post, but will answer a few direct questions. Rhetoric can be used for flattery or for evil and that takes intelligence, not ignorance. The wisest of philosophers, Socrates gave us the tools to expose rhetoric. Just because rhetoric contains truth, does not not mean it has anything to do with wisdom since it contains both reason and logic besides truth.
    Some angels and the archangels came to prepare the way for the incarnation of Jesus. They did not reincarnate, but rather incarnated as prophets to teach about the coming of Jesus. Raphael came as Salomon, Michael as Ezekiel and Gabriel came a number of times.
     
  6. Native Son

    Native Son Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2017
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    11
    We cannot keep religion in our discussion, but Socrates is OK, as long as we do not post entire dialogues. However, small excerpts are allowed, as long as we reference the particular work from which it came from. And, besides the reincarnation of thee angels, have you studied Plato's Socrates, or/and the Socrates of Xenophon?
     
  7. Shawn T Murphy

    Shawn T Murphy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2017
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    5
    Which religion talks about the incarnation of Jesus, or of the Archangels? The pre-existiance of the soul is anathema in Christianity. I have studied Plato and his master Socrates and the neoplatonists including Origen of Alexandria.
     
  8. Native Son

    Native Son Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2017
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    11
    I do not know! Taking Socrates' defense line here, in reference to which religion talks about the incarnation of Jesus, or the angelic beings. Because today, the term "religion" is far and wide from the days of early Christianity. I say this, because in the USA many institutions can claim to be a religion, and the ones which obtain tax-exemption by the IRS on those grounds are classified as religions, such as Scientology, and the Theosophical society, and perhaps even Edgar Cayce's ARE institution. Therefore, as far as my very limited opinion goes, You would need to be specific on terms such as pre-existence of the soul, and reincarnation has to also be a theme as well as just the first incarnation, since we know, at least from Edgar Cayce, as he too claimed to talk to ghosts and angels, that Jesus reincarnated several times, and into various prophets and holy men mentioned in the Old Testament, and from which the Christian New Testament surfaced from.

    But if I recollect my Plato well enough, I would venture to state that this anathema for the pre-existence of the soul is not limited to the heads of Christianity alone, but it spreads itself, like a ship's sail, all over the shipload of minds of ignorant mankind. Much like Parmenides and his pupil Zeno argued about the One and the many; your hidden source, I presume.

    I'm glad to hear that you have studied Plato and his master Socrates, as well as the Neo-Platonists. Which of the Neo-Platonists, in your opinion, came closest in understanding our dynamic duo, Plato and Socrates? And are we to assume that your study of this group of philosophers has any bearing on your work that you have authored? Which I assume it has to do with the immortality of the soul and reincarnation? And by the way, since I'm not privy to this work of yours, can you tell me, without having to replicate your entire trilogy on this forum, the geist of it all, and in a nutshell, please?

    And would you mind terribly if we combine into one thread all these threads we are discoursing across on? This thread's title, Rhetoric and Wisdom of Reincarnation seems to, conveniently, encompass the essence of all the threads that you have commented on so far, and is on topic for the Forum's overall object, REINCARNATION. And if we two start to veer from the forum's rules, as we are likely to do, since archangels and angels appear to be the main source of your wisdom, if I have not misunderstood your drift, and also possibly ghosts, the forum moderators, even if they do not join in the discussion, will very likely be looking in and will warn us before we go too far astray.

    And first, let us return to what Rhetoric is. And I do not mean the definition of this term, but its essence. As you have stated that, "It has been rhetoric that has supported the modern philosophical idea of "becoming one with the one". This concept goes against the wisest philosophers and against common sense." There are many here that take this concept to heart, and are only too impatient to arrive at becoming one with the ONE. And that is why they are here, I assume, to learn from others' experiences and to obtain a few tips on how to arrive in that state of ultimate bliss of uniting with the Creator of it all. I assume that this creator happens to also be your hidden force?

    If we can truly come to understand just what Rhetoric is, and not only, but also just what Rhetoric aims at, we can then proceed to Wisdom in the same way and for the same objectives, to which, when both are fully defined and understood, we can use them to arrive at the truth or/and lies of reincarnation. And this, I assume is the scope of your trilogy, to reveal to those of us less fortunate soul, who have not had the fortune to be able to research these matters from a professional stand-point, and therefore are victims of Rhetoric, which you say is not a form of flattery, but can be used by flattery itself, which is not rhetoric, but only something that uses flattery.

    Can I just call you Shawn? You, Shawn, stated this; "The wisest of philosophers, Socrates gave us the tools to expose rhetoric." By your choice of words I's assuming that, like the Oracle at Delphi, you are declaring Socrates to not only being a philosopher, but the wisest of them all. And since philosophers' themselves argue and imply that they are the wisest of mankind, our dear Socrates, by implication and logical allowances, becomes the wisest of mankind, period. Therefore I must also assume that you place much faith in whatever Socrates seemed to have given humankind in the form of his wisdom, or ignorance, as he often claimed. And Socrates, usually, and mostly claimed to be ignorant rather than wise.

    Now, I stated, or rather, asked you if rhetoric was just a form of Flattery, and you replied this. "Rhetoric can be used for flattery or for evil and that takes intelligence, not ignorance."
    For now, we can just postpone the argument as to what it takes to use rhetoric, whether it's intelligence, and not ignorance, although I suspect that it takes a little of both, especially if rhetoric turns out to be as you say, a little bit of truth and a little bit of lie. As the point will be whether an ignorant person can speak both lies and truth, and especially if an intelligent person can both speak truth and lies, as well. But, we would also need to assert whether the lies are intentional or not . But as I stated, let us just park this for a while, until we can use Socrates' tools to expose flattery.

    Will you tell me what are these tools that Socrates' gave us for exposing rhetoric? And by exposing, I take you to mean getting at the essence of what rhetoric is, right? And which you flatly deny that rhetoric is a form of flattery itself, correct?
     
  9. baro-san

    baro-san Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    41
    From so many gurus, whom to believe? I trust more my experiences than anything other people say. I don't ignore everything others say, but I take it only as an opinion, and I ponder it against my opinions.
     
  10. Native Son

    Native Son Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2017
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    11
    Well, well! I believe that you have already made that clear enough, and also that you would not engage in these philosophical avenues, which will eventually lead to the truth of reincarnation. Besides, you already made it clear, or perhaps it was me that made it clear for you, that you are definitely a follower of Protagoras, as you are the measure of all things, judging from your comment here, and prior ones too. But I hope you were not being snarky, and also facetiously accusing me of being a guru in these matters. I have written no trilogy! And truthfully, not even one book on reincarnation, no, and not even an essay of any kind. But unlike you, I happen to trust others on these matters, especially if they ring reasonable and pleasant to my ears. And it's not because I do not have any experiences of my own to go on, as I really do. And boy what experiences they were; they alone could prove reincarnation beyond any reasonable doubt. But I won't tell you, as you only believe your own senses, as you make yourself the measure of all things, as you say. However, just to be fair, and true, you are known to have given advice here. And that makes you a guru of sort. And your self-assurance to trust only your self in these matters makes you a guru, does it not? Are you not a person with knowledge or expertise? Otherwise why would you advice others?

    However, I would like to hear what Shawn has to say. Perhaps he will strike a very harmonious chord, which will sound pleasant to my ear. The sound of mentioning Socrates as the wisest of philosophers is already a number one hit with me, as I'm of the same opinion there. The only difference that I can possibly see between us is in regards to Socrates is that, just how well does Shawn really know Socrates? I'll wager that he cannot know of him better than I. And I will double down on my bet, that Shawn will not know Socrates better than Socrates knows himself! If Shawn can show otherwise, I lose the wager, and I promise to purchase all three of his books from Amazon.com. As anyone who can show to know Socrates better than Socrates himself, deserves to be read in any books written by him, even if philosophy is not the main subject of the writ.
     
  11. Shawn T Murphy

    Shawn T Murphy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2017
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    5
    You have posed 10 questions, and I will attempt to answer them one at a time. Socrates provided two basic tools, the first being the Socratic method of questioning to find the underlying truth and expose rhetoric. The second is his creed in speech which says only speak when on of the three following statements is true: 1) have you made sure that what you are saying is true, 2) is what you are saying good or 3) is what you are saying useful? These ground rules helps us to avoid rhetoric or seeking flattery.
     
  12. Shawn T Murphy

    Shawn T Murphy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2017
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    5
    A true wise man does not call himself that, on the flip side how many leaders have said they were great? The most prolific neoplatonist was Origenes of Alexandria and the core of his "Restoration of all things" theory is reincarnation. He documented the preexistence of the soul and the reincarnation teachings which were declared anathema by Justinian the great. Salomon is said to be wisest of them all and I can highly recommend studying him.
     
  13. Shawn T Murphy

    Shawn T Murphy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2017
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    5
    This is the epilog of the last book in the trilogy which sums up my intensions of writing it.

    I started this project with hesitation and I end it with hope. I sit amongst these masters that I have referenced in wonder. Wonder at the tireless work they accomplished in a single lifetime and thankful for the words that they have left for me. I share the inspiration that they gave to me freely and I hope that my words are of use to a few.

    As I have said, the path of wisdom is a narrow one and I often can only recognize it after time has gone by. I have tried my best to make sure I have not strayed in this work, but as I said in the beginning, study these works and others for yourself and draw your own conclusions. I trust that I have provided a framework that others can use. Hopefully scientists, unhappy with the status quo of the worlds of science and religion, can find wisdom in my words, to discover what has been hidden from them.

    My main goal of writing these three books was to open a path to the ethereal world for those who cannot find it through religion or science. I have attempted to create a middle road, taking the wisdom that both sides can offer. With wisdom, curiosity and faith new horizons are revealed. By understanding that each child is here with purpose and may require special needs. That we learn to listen to them and support them on their path as best we can. Let’s stop projecting our rhetoric on our children and break its cycle. Let’s stop medicating our children and discover the true cause of their apathy, depression, or hyperactivity and put them early on a path that supports their mission in life. In mental health, I can just reiterate the words of Dr. Fiore: talk to your patients and find the root causes of their condition. We live in two worlds and ignoring the impact the ethereal world has on us causes great suffering.
     
  14. Native Son

    Native Son Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2017
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    11
    Was it ten the number of questions I asked? Is that number, 10, relevant to the Socratic method of questioning? Or is it not rather the quality of the question and also the answer that will prevail in any truth, if truth can really be had in our physical world? And may we not just ignore situations of needing to get at any underlying truth, when the truth is just there, staring us in the face, and we cannot recognize it, and therefore we start digging needless holes, searching for it? Does not one need to recognize just what truth is? But I will give you some credit for one of your tools, although this questioning method not really Socratic, as it was in vogue before Socrates got his first diaper change; and it's usually referred to as dialectic, although Parmenides called it by what others referred to as, Idle Talk. Parmenides is the Father of that child. As far as the second, to be fair, I cannot even give you a D, as in your answer, the first destroys the rest to follow, because the other two, good and useful, can only be asserted from the truth. And if I know truth, what need is there to ask anyone, or even myself, any questions to get at it, when I already have it in my hands? That is what you are implying, by having someone make certain that they know the truth of what they are asking, is it not? Now back to Rhetoric, and what Socrates though about it. Socrates was the one that said that rhetoric is a a form of flattery, contrary to your opinion that it is not. And this is made clear in the Gorgias dialogue, where rhetoric is the subject of the whole dialogue. And here is a little excerpt from it.

    POLUS: Does rhetoric seem to you to be an experience?
    SOCRATES: That is my view, but you may be of another mind.
    POLUS: An experience in what?
    SOCRATES: An experience in producing a sort of delight and gratification.
    POLUS: And if able to gratify others, must not rhetoric be a fine thing?
    SOCRATES: What are you saying, Polus? Why do you ask me whether
    rhetoric is a fine thing or not, when I have not as yet told you what rhetoric is?
    POLUS: Did I not hear you say that rhetoric was a sort of experience?
    SOCRATES: Will you, who are so desirous to gratify others, afford a slight
    gratification to me?
    POLUS: I will.
    SOCRATES: Will you ask me, what sort of an art is cookery?
    POLUS: What sort of an art is cookery?
    SOCRATES: Not an art at all, Polus.
    POLUS: What then?
    SOCRATES: I should say an experience.
    POLUS: In what? I wish that you would explain to me.
    SOCRATES: An experience in producing a sort of delight and gratification,
    Polus.
    POLUS: Then are cookery and rhetoric the same?
    SOCRATES: No, they are only different parts of the same profession.
    POLUS: Of what profession?
    SOCRATES: I am afraid that the truth may seem discourteous; and I hesitate
    to answer, lest Gorgias should imagine that I am making fun of his own
    profession. For whether or no this is that art of rhetoric which Gorgias practises
    I really cannot tell:–from what he was just now saying, nothing appeared
    of what he thought of his art, but the rhetoric which I mean is a part of a not
    very creditable whole.
    GORGIAS: A part of what, Socrates? Say what you mean, and never mind
    me.
    SOCRATES: In my opinion then, Gorgias, the whole of which rhetoric is a
    part is not an art at all, but the habit of a bold and ready wit, which knows
    how to manage mankind: this habit I sum up under the word ’flattery’; and it
    appears to me to have many other parts, one of which is cookery, which may
    seem to be an art, but, as I maintain, is only an experience or routine and
    not an art:–another part is rhetoric, and the art of attiring and sophistry are
    two others: thus there are four branches, and four different things answering to
    them.
    And Polus may ask, if he likes, for he has not as yet been informed, what
    part of flattery is rhetoric: he did not see that I had not yet answered him when
    he proceeded to ask a further question: Whether I do not think rhetoric a fine
    thing? But I shall not tell him whether rhetoric is a fine thing or not, until I
    have first answered, ’What is rhetoric?’ For that would not be right, Polus; but
    I shall be happy to answer, if you will ask me, What part of flattery is rhetoric?
    POLUS: I will ask and do you answer? What part of flattery is rhetoric?
    SOCRATES: Will you understand my answer? Rhetoric, according to my
    view, is the ghost or counterfeit of a part of politics.
     
  15. Shawn T Murphy

    Shawn T Murphy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2017
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    5
    I will leave this discussion with this comment. You have misunderstood my posts or misread them. The second condition is an "or" statement. It is okay to say something that is useful without meeting the other two criteria. In addition, I said that rhetoric can be flattery in my post, but where it is most dangerous is in the hands of political or religious leaders who distract us from the truth of reincarnation.
     
  16. Native Son

    Native Son Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2017
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    11
    True, a really wise man will be too modest to self-proclaim wisdom, and that comes from temperance. But you know what some other wise man stated long ago? Modesty is not good for a needy soul! And there is still a battle going as to which Origen is the neo-platonists. Because there seem to have been two of them with the same name, as the Origen schoolmate of Plotinus is not the Christian Origen that I believe you are alluding to. And although this Origen you are referring to was very much into Greek classical philosophy, being a Greek to begin with, besides also being one of the early Christian fathers. However the Christian Origen was not, technically, a neo-Platonist, as was the other Origen, and Plotinus, as both were the students of Ammonius Sacccus, who was a well know Platonist. Perhaps this mistaken identity of the two Origens, led Nietzsche to proclaim that, "Christianity is Plato, and Plato is Christianity. No doubt that there were some very clear similarities between Socrates' and Jesus' message to humankind, but only the real enlightened can say just how the two related to each other, I mean Socrates and Jesus.

    And Solomon is said to be the wisest of them all? Says who? And how does one go about studying Solomon? You mean read the Old testament's parts about Solomon, or those writings attributed to him? But is not Jesus wiser than Solomon? Anyway, I accept the Delphi Oracle's declaration that there is no man wiser than Socrates.

    And what great wisdom was Solomon able to convey to you? And was not Solomon a philosopher too, besides a king? Obviously, judging from the Republic dialogue, to Socrates, Solomon was not the philosopher-king suited to command his Republic, since Solomon was before Socrates, and had too much personal wealth to stay clear of sinning, just like his father David, who was also a philosopher-king, judging from his psalms, and also not fit to be that one philosopher-king of that realm, whose pattern has existed from eternity.
     
  17. Native Son

    Native Son Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2017
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    11
    Is this not typical of rhetoricians, I mean their departure whenever they have not gratified us with a feast of discourse? And we did not even get near reincarnation. As is it our fault if we did not understand him? Is he not the author of a trilogy? Imagine any of us reading his work and not even having the benefit to ask questions when we don't understand it? As even here, when we did have the opportunity to ask questions, still we did not understand him, even when he attempted to answer them. But perhaps he did not understand us, nor our questions and comments. But I could have sworn that he said that rhetoric is not flattery, nor a part (form) of it, although he did clearly say that rhetoric uses flattery. But Socrates said that it was the opposite, flattery is made up of four parts, of which rhetoric is one part of it. Therefore, it follows, logically, that it is flattery that uses rhetoric, and not rhetoric that uses flattery. But I hope that he understood that most of us here are already faithful reincarnation believers, and his trilogy, if it supports reincarnation would just be another book among the many here. And since most here have personal experiences that made believers out of us, I do not believe that this trilogy could make me more convinced about the truth of reincarnation, as I'm 99.99999999% convinced already. And only my physical death and the returning of my 21 grams soul to the eternal realm will make it 100%. But then, I'm not ready to go back just yet, as I feel that I know that some very exciting times are about to occur on this plane of shadows, and I would not miss it for the world, God willing, of course!

    I hope that Shawn returns, and explains himself better. After all he is a fellow believer in reincarnation, it would seem, and that cannot be bad!
     
  18. Shawn T Murphy

    Shawn T Murphy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2017
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    5
    The minority opinion is that both Origen and Socrates we destroyed by rhetoric after their deaths, trying to destroy the wisdom that they brought to the world. We are left sifting through the ashes of these two propaganda campaigns. The second Origen that you mentioned is and echo of this process. Origen of Alexandria was the most prolific philosopher that ever lived. When Justinian declared him a heretic, the church went about burning and revising this vast body of knowledge, especially on Reincarnation – this process created paradox to no end. See my paper for more detail. Historians created the idea that must have been two people named Origen to account for the discrepancies. The same historians have said that Socrates was a fictional character of Plato’s writings, and not the wise man that he was.
     
  19. Shawn T Murphy

    Shawn T Murphy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2017
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    5
    I am still here, but I will not go down these rabbit holes again. This is a reincarnation forum and I try to limit my comments to reasons I see why people cannot believe in reincarnation. I am not here to convince anyone, just to share how I came to 100% believe in reincarnation without any proof, no past life regression, no clairvoyance, no OBE or NDE.
     
  20. Native Son

    Native Son Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2017
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    11
    Well! no sense my replying to #18, if you are not willing to go down those rabbit holes. Which rabbit holes do you prefer to go down into, the white rabbit's? But let me ask you something without anyone here taking you down any holes, rabbit's or otherwise. First let me confirm that this is a reincarnation forum, which was made clear from the on-set. And if you did not come here to convince anyone about reincarnation, then why were you pushing your trilogy from the get-go? And if you say that you came here to share how you came to be a convert of reincarnation without any of the things you listed, which, incidentally, is that one or more of these things listed is the reason why just about everyone here is pretty much convinced of reincarnation. Therefore, even if your real intentions were for the purpose of convincing any of us, you came to the wrong forum. If convincing is your game, try any of the many skeptical forums all over the worldwide web.

    But I suspect that you are being rhetorical by your definition, as to why you came to the forum. And perhaps I'm being too blunt and will have hell to pay, as they say, but it seems clear that you came here to sell us your books, as evidenced by your constant referring us to them in your posts. Your first post was on the thread; Cheap Or Free Books On Reincarnation. So far, your posts have been nothing other than, mostly, quotes from your books, by the looks of it, even though I have not read any of them, although, out of curiosity and respect for reincarnation/Socrates I went on Amazon and looked inside your books. And let me tell you that, besides being way too little to get an idea if I wanted to purchase them, and of that little, it was enough for me to hear my usual voice stopping me from considering your work any more than cookery, as it is not even close of being rhetoric. But then, ignorance will allow more prospective buyers and book sales for you.

    By understanding that each child is here with purpose and may require special needs. That we learn to listen to them and support them on their path as best we can. Let’s stop projecting our rhetoric on our children and break its cycle. Let’s stop medicating our children and discover the true cause of their apathy, depression, or hyperactivity and put them early on a path that supports their mission in life. In mental health, I can just reiterate the words of Dr. Fiore: talk to your patients and find the root causes of their condition. We live in two worlds and ignoring the impact the ethereal world has on us causes great suffering.

    Are you including yourself as one of those children that requires special needs? The true cause of their apathy, depression, hyperactivity? You say that curing them of these pathos will put them on the right path to support their mission in life? And you say you understand Socrates? Don't you know that all these maladies and supposed evils are just part of the test? Is it not obvious that, in considering that the soul (anima) is immortal, she is able to endure every sort of good and every sort of evil?

    But as you said, you will not want to go down these rabbit holes again, and therefore I will leave any further comments to myself. We will leave Socrates/me out of this, as well as the incarnations of the archangels and angels, and all that stuff. But did you ever consider that you are not providing a middle road, as you believe, but rather an outer road? And with this outer fringe road you will lead any one stumbling on your trilogy away from reincarnation, and not towards it?

    Therefore be true to your word, and without this repetitive referring us to look in your trilogy, as we cannot unless we buy them, and without the need to replicate your books here for free, tell us how you came to be 100% convinced in reincarnation without any of those things you detailed? And after that, why don't you tell us how you came to be 100% convinced as to how the ethereal world is really made up, and the exactness of the natural laws there? And do try to give us one or two mathematical equations that explains the ethereal realm. For example, is E=mc2 also valid in that part of the world? And have they finally figured out the "theory of everything" in those neck-of-the-woods, since E=MC2 does not quite fit the "observations" in the little tiny Quantum mechanical world?
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017

Share This Page