What is the meaning of this Life and Death

[Blue]

Guru,
I do not think I have denigrated your Faith anywhere below - in this Thread...forgive me if that may be your impression.
I am always suspicious of all forms of proselytising that endeavour to tell me how to feel.
Notice I have not said 'think' in that last sentence, because that should presume a cognitive and reasoned response with respect to rationality and logic- and external evidence.

I fully respect the right of every individual to believe whatever they say they believe, but they can only cite personal affective validations, in my opinion.

My point is a very simple one...

A personal belief, that we affirm and explain, never - to my poor old mind and heart, can be simply declared a 'truth' for all as if there actually is an ultimate truth for all peoples at all times. If there were such a truth, do you not think there would be a larger measure of agreement after some 4,000 years at least?

That we all can seem to experience 'spiritually' seems patently obvious to me, but why should there not simply be partial truths in all sincerely held beliefs and Faiths that are not purely based in doctrines and dogmas RECEIVED from so-called 'authorities'?

I can also accept the sincerity of your personal faith and even admire it...

Peace, my sincere friend, if I have upset you.

[Sacredstar]

Dear Blue

Originally Posted by Blue

Guru,

A personal belief, that we affirm and explain, never - to my poor old mind and heart, can be simply declared a 'truth' for all as if there actually is an ultimate truth for all peoples at all times. If there were such a truth, do you not think there would be a larger measure of agreement after some 4,000 years at least?

Do you not accept that there are universal truths that will never change? E.g. unconditional love, compassion, forgiveness, charity, etc. I think there is a large measure of agreement on this, but sadly it as still not been integrated by a majority of humanity, due to greed and selfishness.

It is frustrating that the majority of humanity as not learnt and implemented these basic ingredients for harmony, true balance and GODs grace in human life. I can understand why Jesus got frustrated and angry with his contemporaries. The simple truths that can create the Kingdom of GOD on earth e.g the Kingdom of Love.

being love

Sacredstar

[green lantern]

The meaning of this Life is to experience our limitations and accomplishments so we can enjoy a greater life in the spiritual realm to learn what we need to appreciate the greater awards and joy in a higher place. We are here for spiritual lessons taught in a physical life.

Death is a transitional phase in experiencing the physical to spiritual life.

[Sacredstar]

Sharing a different perspective

Archangel Michael said we are here to experience our potential and that planet earth is the best Academy in the cosmos, which is why we like to come here. We are not here to learn leasons, we are not little children in school.

It is the only planet where we can experience every emotion possible. We are spiritual beings having a human experience. As above so below, if we do not appreciate the rewards and joy here we will not do so in the afterlife. The grass is not greener, heaven is within.

being love

Sacredstar

[Blue]

What you personally and affectively believe, Green Lantern is fine, but I cannot let this go:

"Death is a transitional phase in experiencing the physical to spiritual life."

Affirming this to yourself according to your personal validations is not 'evidence' to anyone, but yourself, as I think from your other recent post you appreciate. You cannot generalise it to others legitimately without external evidence beyond yourself.

A personal affirmation does not indicate 'truth' to anyone but yourself.

You see, I have never read, seen or heard any objective evidence of the truth of this statement.
If death of our organism is just a transition into anything other than rotting tissue, bone, etc., please present the evidence.

Just affirming a 'spiritual' plane beyond death is not enough, except to yourself.
You appear to be affirming this to others on the basis of no evidence whatsoever... or are you going to claim spiritualist mediums are evidence, or ghosts... or something similarly 'super'natural?

[OnlineGuru]

I have the evidence if one is ready to believe. But the problem is people in this age of freedom cannot accept anything that is beyond their understanding or
comprehension.

Jesus and others after him and even before him had to perform miracles to
make people believe in their messages.

In todays age people would have called him a magician or illusionist.

The evidence I have is coincidental and my life experience. But every one
have their own. don't they. Thats what makes humans different from chimps.

Much of my evidence is also based on logic like darwins evolutionary theories.

Yet, I doubt people will accept them untill they experience it themselves.

I do not want to convert people but only convey to them the message of
the SELF and the good Lord.

Guru

[mirrorinthefog]

Originally Posted by Blue

What you personally and affectively believe, Green Lantern is fine, but I cannot let this go:

"Death is a transitional phase in experiencing the physical to spiritual life."

Affirming this to yourself according to your personal validations is not 'evidence' to anyone, but yourself, as I think from your other recent post you appreciate. You cannot generalise it to others legitimately without external evidence beyond yourself.

A personal affirmation does not indicate 'truth' to anyone but yourself.

You see, I have never read, seen or heard any objective evidence of the truth of this statement.
If death of our organism is just a transition into anything other than rotting tissue, bone, etc., please present the evidence.

Just affirming a 'spiritual' plane beyond death is not enough, except to yourself.
You appear to be affirming this to others on the basis of no evidence whatsoever... or are you going to claim spiritualist mediums are evidence, or ghosts... or something similarly 'super'natural?

In my opinion, not being able to prove something doesn't mean it's impossible. It just means it's unproven. There are things that we can never prove...That just means we can't validate their existance, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

There's no need to criticize someone's personal beliefs on the grounds that they are not 'logical' or 'cannot be proven'...We're human beings, not machines and we certainly don't have to justify every single behavior we produce and ground them in logical scientific deduction.

I respect your point of view, but it seems you disregard everything that doesn't fit your explanation of the world, which to some is only part of the picture. You may disagree, but I don't think it's right to belittle others' beliefs, particularly using a system that in itself is flawed and human.

We are simply expressing beliefs, which don't have to have logical foundations, so it seems to me that you're just stating the obvious, which is that there is no evidence that they exist beyond ourselves.

To many, that evidence is not necessary in the way you demand it.

Just my two cents worth..

[Blue]

Hi MitF,

Here again we have the same obvious misunderstanding of Rationality and Logic... and the Pragmatic.

Yet again the accusation is made that judgements based in reason are somehow therefore 'robotic'/machine-like and uncaring... NO one is saying that Humanism doesn't play a part... psychological, anthropological, sociological, cultural aspects do not play their part.

I - for one - would not disagree with this:
"In my opinion, not being able to prove something doesn't mean it's impossible. It just means it's unproven. There are things that we can never prove...That just means we can't validate their existance, that doesn't mean they don't exist."

That is part of scientific methodology!
It is never simply assumed that x , y , - or z are impossible!
Logically... if someone hypothesises a 'spiritual' domain beyond death... the answer is that logically we do not know! That is why it is important to examine the hypothesis and constantly reassess it. It is a claim that goes beyond 'self' and self validation. It must therefore be rationally and objectively investigated.

Are you under the misapprehensionj that I would deny what you wrote in the above quotation from your last post?

You then say:

"There's no need to criticize someone's personal beliefs on the grounds that they are not 'logical' or 'cannot be proven'...We're human beings, not machines and we certainly don't have to justify every single behavior we produce and ground them in logical scientific deduction."

Firstly, there is a need to criticise the patently demonstrable and external validations for what is irrational, affective and subjective in terms of 'religious/spiritual extensions into the material domain.
There is no external evidence.
We are discussing matters of Faith,and I have to repeat what I have already said to you... FAITH does not necessitate proof beyond yourself. If it had proof beyond yourself, it would not necessitate the use of the word 'Faith'. The word would be redundant!
Because of this, it is rationally imperative to criticise and point out the fundamental error in understanding concerning matters of Faith.

"...we certainly don't have to justify every single behavior we produce and ground them in logical scientific deduction."

Of course you don't! No one does!
BUT if you then wish to extend your personal validations into the real world as hypotheses... you MUST rationally justify them and submit them to objective considerations.

I would say that if one cannot rationally justify one's actions in driving (badly)... or in killing another human being, we are patently acting irrationally or under duress.

I have used the following example before...Many people 'fall in love' and rational considerations fly out of the window in many western cultures.
Well - such considerations came into my behaviours, and my wife's! We have been happy for over forty years now, in spite of the rows and sometimes tempestuous emotionalism.

Evidence shows in the West today that 'falling in love' is the nonsense that Shakespeare understood all too well! If you do not bring 'reason' to bear... at the time, the dangers are there for all to see.

You can't have it both ways, as you seem to imply in many of your statements. Forgive me, if I am wrong.

You see, I think you do understand very well when you kindly reiterate the thrust of what I say:

"We are simply expressing beliefs, which don't have to have logical foundations, so it seems to me that you're just stating the obvious, which is that there is no evidence that they exist beyond ourselves."

Well said, Mirror in the Fog. I couldn't agree more, except I base what I say in reason and do not cite 'personal' affective beliefs about spiritual concerns as a basis for statements about the material and objective domain beyond self.

I do not criticise people,
I only criticise what they say, when they extend their Faith(s) into the material domain as 'truths' ... (All too often as 'ultimate' truths!)
as rationally and coolly as I can, with respect for their Faith(s) and for them as fellow human beings.

Peace.

[mirrorinthefog]

Blue,

Belief in supernatural forces in the material world do not have to be proven. It is a belief. Not a scientific proposal. We're here to discuss opinions and matters of beliefs, whatever they might be, logical or illogical, what's silly to me may be quite a solemn subject for another. We're not here to write doctoral thesis justifying them or arguing the rational arguements and external evidence of why we believe what we believe.

Unless one feels forced to accept someone's version of the truth (or is trying to grade term papers) nobody has a right to demand such a thing from another person who is simply expressing subjective ideas and doesn't assume that their version is the only version of what is possible.

[Blue]

"We are simply expressing beliefs, which don't have to have logical foundations, so it seems to me that you're just stating the obvious, which is that there is no evidence that they exist beyond ourselves (I agree with that last nine words.)"

I am sorry if you cannot appreciate the connection between the domain of the Material and that of the Affective, MirrorInTheFog, or that people say these things as if they are materially true because they have personally validated what they say.

Again you seem to think I would disagree with statements of belief and their nature , on which in any case you have said you agree.

But look what you written above...." which don't have to have logical foundations"... implying, in my personal opinion, that you are doing no more than expounding your personal opinions - as you say. That would be fine, I agree, if that was all that you have done. I have selectively taken comments of yours that say or imply other.

Where I have taken issue with your comments, I have done so to demonstrate that reason and logic should have been applied if you suggest what you say has some kind of application beyond your opinions... ie., is a 'truth' of the world, in reality.

Look at a quick example, not by yourself, but the one that has given rise to these last few posts:

"Death is a transitional phase in experiencing the physical to spiritual life."

Now, forgive me, but that statement turns on the word "is'.
If someone believes this, they are irrational and wrong... in fact, in the state of current knowledge. There is no evidence that death is a 'transition' to a 'spiritual life'. They have a right to that as a personal opinion, but should not have said "is".

People who make such statements should, in all honesty, and with respect, at least understand what they have claimed... beyond their personal spiritual understandings... and not use the verb 'is'.

If people simply wish to compare spiritual beliefs... that's fine too. (So I agree with you again...) They should just not speak of them as if they have any reality at all beyond their personal validations. If they do that, they should then expect people to come along and criticise what they have said.

===
The meaning of life is that there isn't one that can be validated and tested beyond oneself. There is only the biological fact,made according to what 'life 'exhibits as opposed to what 'death'of an organism exhibits.
Death is the cessation of life, and as there is no external evidence for spirit, and it does not necessitate proof or disproof, there is no eviodwence for anything like 'spiritual life'. That is pure opinion and cannot be said to be so in fact.

If exteranl evidence wasfound and verified and was repeatable by others with the same result, it wouldbe a different matter.

Re: Scientific examination of claims re: ghosts, the supernatural.. Are always going to be investigated by those interested enough, from a scientific standpoint. That is also fact.

[mirrorinthefog]

To each his own...I believe we've veered off the subject at hand. Again I've said what I wanted to say and I don't need to prove anything as I'm not trying to impose my ideas on others.

[OnlineGuru]

Here is my Theory which I want to test...Philosophically not scientifically.

"Every soul starts from the basic of all life forms and progresses towards the Supreme SELF - GOD" - an extension of Darwins Evolution Theory.

The Human Form is part of this evolution chain which we are now experiencing and the soul has a SELF which is conscious of its existence and express it.

I am not sure if this chain includes lifeforms only from Earth or from all over the Material Universe.

Will write more later....Meanwhile try to explore this theory.

Guru

[Sacredstar]

I did provide some links for the 'scientific proof of life after death'. I thought it was on this thread.

being love

Sacredstar

[Blue]

I've said what I wanted to say and I don't need to prove anything as I'm not trying to impose my ideas on others.

That is your right, Mirror in the Fog, but I still have to be awkward and suggest that if you do not ask certain questions of your spiritual beliefs. you are being dishonest to yourself... you appear to be saying, I believe - blindly...
If not you would be brave enough to answer my points.

Whereas external facts havea very large impact upon personal spiritual beliefs, the converse is that personal spiriyual beliefs cannot in all honesty be projected into comments on this thread like the one I quoted from someone else.

Why not discuss that, as it is pertinent to the Thread?

IS it possible to claim there actually IS a transition from Death into some other spiritual existence? If so, as this is then an external concern, why ignore or as you do, deny, the scientiifc investigations of 'spirit' in the real domain?
==================
SacredStar,

I have searched the Thread, perhaps a bit too quickly, and couldn't find the references/LINKS to which you refer.
Would you be kind enough to post them again?

[mirrorinthefog]

I've answered you several times. You're misinterpreting my answers, and I choose not to answer you further because you are doing so consistently and it's become offensive.

I'm trying to keep the dicussion civil.

As I see no reason to justify my beliefs to you.

I was making the point that certain beliefs are simply beliefs and nobody is suggesting otherwise. It is not your place to demand such proof from me. I refuse to continue the arguement on those grounds. If you wish to call that lack of bravery, or integrity, then so be it. If you wish to say I believe what I do blindly, it is only proof that you don't know who I am and what I believe.

I will not lower myself to make such personal assaults on your character, or anyone else's.

I refuse to take up any more space on this thread answering you.