Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: krampus! ( )
Date: February 08, 2015 03:52PM

Whats with the preoccupation with reincarnation by right wing propoganda tabloid outlet named FOX. They did another story about a boy to died as a world war II fighter pilot. Another story was about a blind boy that sonar ability through clicking his teeth. And yet another was about a little girl who painted master peices based on visions of the afterlife. Other stories about near death experiances. Non of these stories can be validated of course. Fox makes up news stories about stuff like this. They are a tabloid.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: lurking in ( )
Date: February 08, 2015 05:52PM

1. The story linked by the OP about the little boy supposedly being the reincarnation of a black woman is from a local Fox affiliate in the Midwest. The local Fox affiliates do their local news reporting independent of the Fox News Channel or foxnews.com website. I couldn't find this story anywhere on the foxnews.com site.

2. The story about the boy who claims he is the reincarnation of a World War II fighter pilot wasn't made up by Fox News. The boy and his family were interviewed on the CNN "Larry King Live" show. You can read the interview here:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/22/lkl.01.html


3. Sonar/echolocation used by blind people is a real thing. The BBC has a story about it here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19524962


And the US government verifies the phenomenon here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20514997


I couldn't find any report on foxnews.com about a girl painting visions of the afterlife. Maybe you could point me in the right direction.

And, lastly, lots of news outlets do "human interest" stories about near-death experiences.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: MJ ( )
Date: February 08, 2015 06:13PM

The OP claims it proof but you use words like "supposedly"?

Not very compelling proof. Proof requires it be verified, not supposed.

Yeah, JS stuck his head in a hat and translated the BoM proving TSCC is true. Buy that as well?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2015 06:16PM by MJ.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: beyondashadow ( )
Date: February 08, 2015 06:24PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: lurking in ( )
Date: February 08, 2015 07:22PM

I think OP was using the word "proof" facetiously. I don't know for sure, I could be wrong, because I'm such a stupid idiot.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: eternal1 ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 11:03AM

The headline claims the little boy "proves" he was a black woman.

Personally, I don't believe in reincarnation, but, obviously his mother does, otherwise there would be no story.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: lurking in ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 02:50PM

Yeah, I was pretty sure the comment in your first post about "proof of reincarnation" was sarcastic.

: )

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: beyondashadow ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 02:59PM

How do you square your non-belief in reincarnation with the story?

1. The story was all fabricated. None of the depicted events actually happened. The people in the story are liars and made it all up ... similar to Joseph Smith's deceptions.

2. The events in the story were not made up, but .... what? What is your theory to explain the events ... if not reincarnation?

Beliefs are OK until you are presented with data that challenges your belief. This is similar to a TBM saying they believe the Church is Twoo when presented with the CES Letter, etc.

You either have to rebut the new information, or alter your belief. Just saying you don't believe something because you don't believe it is in the TBM zone.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: tumwater ( )
Date: February 08, 2015 08:14PM

Thanks 'lurking in' I thought most of the Fox news is political and must have missed these reincarnation stories.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: beyondashadow ( )
Date: February 08, 2015 05:59PM

Sorry, Krampus!, but your argument is clearly fallacious ... equivalent to ad hominem ... attacking the messenger (Fox) and not the message.

Just curious. What do you have against the concept of reincarnation? It's clear you don't like it. Would you be willing to share some thoughts about why reincarnation does not appeal to you?

From where I see it, there seems to be a boatload of anecdotal evidence out there suggesting we humans do indeed reincarnate on the planet.

The only way to 'disprove' reincarnation would be to expose a preponderance of the anecdotal evidence as fallacious or fraudulent. Some of the 'evidence' has to be BS of one kind or another, but ALL of it?

Anyway, a penny for your thoughts?

BTW, my TBM mom (90 years old) thinks the idea of "recycling people" is ridiculous. If you don't like something, give it a stupid label and then make fun of it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2015 06:26PM by beyondashadow.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: randyj ( )
Date: February 08, 2015 10:51PM

"BTW, my TBM mom (90 years old) thinks the idea of "recycling people" is ridiculous."

But I'm sure she has no problem believing that guys who have been dead for 1500-2500 years became alive again and visited Joseph Smith.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: beyondashadow ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 01:11AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: lemmie ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 03:20AM

beyondashadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry, Krampus!, but your argument is clearly
> fallacious ...
>
> The only way to 'disprove' reincarnation would be
> to expose a preponderance of the anecdotal
> evidence as fallacious or fraudulent. Some of the
> 'evidence' has to be BS of one kind or another,
> but ALL of it?

And your argument is fallacious as well. There is no logical reason that requires SOME of many idiotic stories to be true.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: beyondashadow ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 03:01PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 04:51PM

beyondashadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Actually, the position that all "stories" are without merit until verifiable evidence shows them "true" isn't idiotic at all -- it's reasonable and rational. What's "idiotic" is to believe stories for which there is no supporting evidence of any kind. That's how you become a mormon, for example.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Carol ( )
Date: February 08, 2015 06:25PM

The mother used a similar expression, 'well Duh!', that the mother in the WW2 pilot story used, even with the same voice inflection.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: beyondashadow ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 03:07PM

"By the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every truth be established."

I don't know what copycat story you are referencing.

If you DON'T like the suggested explanation for events, you can call it a copycat story.

If you DO like the suggested explanation, you can call it corroborating evidence.

See how easy it is for us humans to filter incoming data to suit our foregone conclusions/beliefs?

Taking a neutral position and evaluating incoming data on its own merits is a tall order for us peoples.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: bentleye ( )
Date: February 08, 2015 07:58PM

There was one billion people alive in 1804. There six billion people by 1999. If there is such thing as reincarnation, most people haven't participated. Do animals also reincarnate. I wonder why. I also wonder how. What is a soul separate from a body? I don't think there is one.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: beyondashadow ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 02:04AM

bentleye Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There was one billion people alive in 1804. There
> six billion people by 1999. If there is such
> thing as reincarnation, most people haven't
> participated. Do animals also reincarnate. I
> wonder why. I also wonder how. What is a soul
> separate from a body? I don't think there is one.

I don't recall that Michael Newton addressed the math problem re increasing planet population vis-a-vis reincarnation. He did talk about space/time in the Spirit World being totally different than Earth time. My thought is that skipping generations would open up more incarnation slots, but that's my brain fart. I don't have a good answer for you ... yet. I believe there is a good answer. I just don't know everything for some damn reason.

I don't recall MN saying anything about animals reincarnating. They do have souls, and it is possible to reconnect with the soul essence of beloved pets in the Spirit World. My guess is there's no reason for animals to reincarnate because they aren't on a spiritual growth track like humans.

Our souls are individuated, non-physical, intelligent energy entities that were created/spawned by a process described by some of MN's hypnosis subjects. Kinda like tendrils or wisps of light energy that extend outward from a larger energetic source and then break off to become an individual soul. It seemed like a birthing process but no physical body or womb or gestation needed. My mental image was kinda like a roaring fire where you see tendrils of flame separate off from the main fire. Kinda like that, except the flamelet does not extinguish and takes on a life of its own and becomes a soul person. (The fire imagery is my own, not MN's words. It's how I pictured what he wrote.)

The non-physical soul is who we are. And we are immortal. The soul merges with a human fetus and meshes/integrates with the baby brain to become an unique human being with a personality that's a composite of the genetic brain and the passenger soul who exists inside the body and tries to operate the physical vehicle as best it can during a life time. The challenge is for the soul to influence the human brain ego to exhibit the higher core values of the soul and avoid self-centered, egocentric choices that might harm others. Immature souls are not very adept and are in need of Earth experience to feel what happens when they make destructive behavior choices. Karma kicks in and they get to be on the receiving end of poor choices in a subsequent life, etc.

It is an error to believe that your Earthbound personality is all of who you are. How you perceive yourself and your personality is a temporary condition that stops when you die. At that point, your soul leaves and you get to be your unadulterated self once again and return to your true home - where you are totally and completely safe and loved unconditionally - regardless of how badly you screwed up your latest ride on Earth. (If you screwed up royally and did mega damage on the planet, your soul gets special attention from really wise souls who help you clean up the huge mess you made of yourself. This would be in lieu of burning in Hell. There is no Hell. There are also no Earth religious deities wandering around, at least none of MN's subjects reported seeing any. One subject thought he saw Jesus coming, but it turned out to be his personal guide soul coming to meet him. Man made religions got a few things right here and there, but they are mostly BS.)

It's almost like you put on a Halloween costume and ride the wild ride until it finally stops. When you come back next time, it's a different costume and another, different ride designed to bring you another series of character building challenges.

Caveat: All of the above are my own words, based on what I recall from MN's books I've read so far.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 11:59AM

beyondashadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The non-physical soul is who we are. And we are
> immortal. The soul merges with a human fetus and
> meshes/integrates with the baby brain to become an
> unique human being with a personality that's a
> composite of the genetic brain and the passenger
> soul who exists inside the body and tries to
> operate the physical vehicle as best it can during
> a life time.

When you (or anyone else) has some *evidence* for that outrageous set of claims, they'll be worth consideration.
As there is no such evidence (and hasn't ever been any, despite thousands of years of humans imagining such things), they don't merit consideration now. They might never. But to just pretend it's all "true" because it appeals to you, or because of anecdotal stories and made-up nonsense, isn't useful or rational.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: beyondashadow ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 03:39PM

My inclination to take Michael Newton's "observations" seriously is based on the following:

1. I have read 2-1/2 of his books. He appears to guard against bullshit stories from his subjects, aka stuff made up by the conscious mind. He asks himself all the questions a skeptic/doubter would ask, and then answers the questions to the best of his ability/knowledge/experience. Sometimes he suspects that what a subject is saying may be unreliable (not from a superconscious state) and makes an effort to scrutinize further.

2. His dataset sample n=7,000+ independent observers reporting similar information from an allegedly deep superconscious mental state. 7,000 is very statistically significant.

When you say you need 'proof', what would satisfy you? HD video of what the subject is seeing in trance? You know that's not possible. Even if it were possible, you could claim it was photoshopped. It is a subjective experience and is inherently unverifiable by physical measurements or imaging.

So in reality, you are saying that you simply refuse to consider the possibility that MN's information could be legitimate. That's totally OK with me. Everyone has the right to block potentially useful information if they so choose. Just realize that YOU are blocking the information because you don't choose to consider it from a neutral position based on the merits of the data itself.

The information could all be BS, but that's very unlikely. Just because you don't understand the sensors being used to gather the data does not intrinsically invalidate the data.

Try this: Think of the information sensor as a black box. Look at the data only ... all by itself. You are forced into one of the following conclusions:

1. The data and MN's interpretation is contrived and fake ... designed to compel the desired conclusion. MN is a liar like Joseph Smith

2. There is no intention to deceive, but the process of data collection somehow causes the data to paint 7,000 similar pictures ... by humans who mostly don't know each other and with no opportunity to agree on the same 'story'.

3. The data is relatively untainted and worth serious consideration. Why? Because the data is way beyond statistically significant and supports conclusions based on the preponderance of the evidence.

If you simply don't like MN's conclusions and have no interest in digging deeper, that's fine. You thereby disqualify yourself from any benefit or harm or shakeup of your reality the information might inflict on you. The worst thing that could happen would be possibly feeling that your dearly held beliefs on topic might need some adjustment.

Human beings do not like to change our beliefs. We just don't like it. We have to have a compelling reason to do so. And we get to decide what is compelling and what has to be BS, and what might not be BS.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2015 03:45PM by beyondashadow.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: torturednevermo ( )
Date: February 08, 2015 09:30PM

I love these threads!

The echolocation skill developed by some blind people is something I was thinking about just the other day. It’s obvious (and has been for a long time), that when one of the senses is taken away, people, out of necessity, can develop their other senses beyond the ‘norm’ in order to compensate and adapt to their circumstances. Sighted people don’t need to rely on their hearing as much, so it doesn’t ever hyper develop in this manner. It’s like math … if you don’t need it, you don’t develop the skill. If you do need it, you can develop those pathways in the brain and increase your ability out of necessity. The brain is a pretty amazing thing in its ability to adapt.

The reason I was thinking about this, is because I’ve discussed this with others who feel that the same thing is happening when some people develop psychic and empathic skills that other people just don’t seem to. The concept is that these natural, subtle, psychic skills can hyper develop in victims of childhood abuse as a survival mechanism, much like how blind people will develop an acute sense of hearing. (Not all blind people can echo locate, but most do develop acute hearing as a compensation for their blindness. It can happen with smell too, I knew a blind person who recognized people that way).

I attribute my psychic and empathic abilities to my abusive childhood. I needed to learn to determine how people around me were feeling emotionally, so I could anticipate how I should behave to avoid pissing anyone off, and to detect if I *was* pissing them off. Do I make myself scarce, or is it ok to carry on with my activities, or was one of my grandparents going to create an ‘accident’ and try and kill me again today? Out of this, and under the duress of acute fear for my survival, I learned to literally ‘feel’ what others were feeling around me, and to ‘pick up’ from them what their intentions were.

As an adult now, I notice that rather than reading these things on demand, my ‘feelers’ are usually only activated when someone in my environment has negative feelings toward me, or is out to cause me harm, or stab me in the back somehow. The empathic trait is even more annoying, because it doesn’t involve ‘knowing’ how someone feels; it’s about actually feeling, within yourself, how someone else feels emotionally when they are in proximity to you (think Deanna Troy from Star Trek). It’s actually not a gift; it’s an annoyance outside of a survival situation. It can be hard to differentiate my feelings from someone else’s sometimes, which can be confusing until you learn ways to sort that out analytically.

That’s why I sort of chuckle and roll my eyes at James Randi, he got it backwards. “Come forward and prove to us these great skills.” As if we’re all eager to brag about them (although some do). Actually, most people suffer in silence because these ‘skills’ can often be more of a disability than an asset. Some of us prefer to steer clear of Randi, and instead, just seek out an intuitive healer who can help us learn to deal with this affliction, or help us to understand that we even have it. (Some people don't know they're an empath, and can be very confused until they learn from someone how to deal with it.) Most people are pretty critical, judgmental, and bigoted … are you sure you want to know what everyone around you is thinking and feeling about you?

Anyway, I just thought this was a thread I could throw this out there in, because of the reference to echolocation by the blind and all that. I had already put together my own theory about this by the time I read the same theory in the book ‘The Courage to Heal’. The authors noticed pretty much the same thing in their work with abuse victims regarding psychic abilities. And before you trash the book I just mentioned, I already know all about the backlash against the book. It had a section on organized ritual abuse, which upset many high up people in our world, and made them paranoid they might get ‘outed’ for abuse. So they organized a backlash against the book, and even fought back with their own silly book refuting repressed memory. But I know which side I believe, because I was there as a child with those mason’s, and I saw the crap they pull on children. They know how to repress memories, and it’s obvious they don’t want people undoing all their careful work. What a funny world this is!

There, that’s my controversial contribution for the day. … LOL! :0

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: WinksWinks ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 02:52AM

Uh huh, sure...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 01:37AM

or guilty of being a trans-spiritual if he was been female in a past life...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: beyondashadow ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 03:53PM

Good call!

Michael Newton reports that reincarnating souls choose the same gender body ~75% of the time. When a soul chooses the opposite gender body, there is a higher likelihood of same sex attraction. I'll add my own thought that trans-gender behavior maybe could happen as well.

The troubling thing about MN's theories/explanations is that they mostly make rational sense to explain what happens here on Earth, if you dare to consider that his data might not be BS.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 11:03AM

There ya go, proof of the ignorance and incredulity of some people.
Not of "reincarnation."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: eternal1 ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 11:11AM

But, but, I read it on the internet, it must be true!!! lol

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: beyondashadow ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 03:55PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: beyondashadow ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 03:58PM

incredulity /ˌɪnkrɪˈduːləti/ Brit /ˌɪnkrɪˈdjuːləti/ noun
Learner's definition of INCREDULITY
: a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real : disbelief
The news of his death was met with expressions of incredulity.

I suspect you meant 'gullibility' or something similar.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2015 04:15PM by beyondashadow.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 04:57PM

beyondashadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> incredulity /ˌɪnkrɪˈduːləti/ Brit
> /ˌɪnkrɪˈdjuːləti/ noun
> Learner's definition of INCREDULITY
> : a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or
> accept that something is true or real : disbelief
> The news of his death was met with expressions of
> incredulity.
>
> I suspect you meant 'gullibility' or something
> similar.

You suspect incorrectly.

In your case (and that of others), you can't believe that all of this "data" could be made up, or that it could be explained by anything other than the existence of reincarnated souls, so you assume it *isn't* made up and that it *is* explained by reincarnated souls.

The construct, "I can't believe these stories are made up or coincidence or anything else, so they must be true" is a classic argument from personal incredulity. It's the one you've been using.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: donbagley ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 12:38PM

And the boy wasn't coached when they showed him those photographs and talked about a specific woman who died in a fire?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: beyondashadow ( )
Date: February 09, 2015 03:57PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed. Please start another thread and continue the conversation.