Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: QUESTIONS about life, death, justice/peace/economics/ecology and other issues, RAISED by ...
BrainMeta.com Forum > Philosophy, Truth, History, & Politics > Philosophy
Lindsay
QUOTE
"The only problem with life I have, is death."
Flex, 17, comments.

Lindsay responds:
QUOTE
Indeed it is a problem! for all of us.BTW, are you referring to death in general? Or your personal death, in particular? Or both? I know I do not need to remind you: Death is no respecter of age.

Keep in mind that the main focus of all good religion, including Mormonism, is what to do about the fact that we are alive. The fact of life is problematic, especially for those of us who are conscious that we ARE alive. Along with the philosophers and scientists, theologians, including artists--many of whom are philosophers and scientists--ask questions like:
1. What is life? Who, or what, is the source of life?
2. What about evolution, creation and/or emanation?
3. Now that we have it, what can we, and ought we, do about it?
4. Is death an enemy? Or a friend?
5. What happens after the death of the body? Most religions believe that there is no death; that both evil people and good people will survive the death of the body, but that life after death will be heaven for those who choose the good, and hell for those who choose the evil. There is no limit to the questions one could ask about all this.

Keep in mind: Here, I am talking about what religions in general believe. To get a more precise answer we need to ask each religion: What is your doctrine of life and death, and the life everlasting? We could even pose this question to all reading this post. How about beginning with you?
Lindsay
Flex, I will put your response here:
QUOTE
I like the idea of the thread~It may be essential to discuss the processes various religions have undergone.

The Christian idea of hell, for example, has been shaped in a large part by poets, not prophets (Milton--Paridise Lost, Dante--The Inferno). As far as my beliefs go, I can say that I am more so influenced by poet, than prophet. Just today, I read, The Alchemist, and it seems like the entire work is based around a philosophy very similar to my own. I also find that William Blake holds value in many of my same fundamental beliefs.

Okay so I guess I wasn't influenced by these people, seeing as I have held my beliefs for years, but only recently read their works, but the idea of the power of imagination and determination is one that speaks greatly to me.

Let's initiate this new thread before we go into any real detail~
I agree: Your IMAGINATION is a very powerful pneumatological tool. When Genesis 1:27 speaks of humanity being created in the IMAGE of God note that it includes male and female: "So God created human beings, making them to be like himself. He created them male and female." (The Bible in Today's English).

For me, this solves the gender problem regarding the best preposition to use when speaking of GØD. Is GØD a he/him, or a she/her? Perhaps, as a male, it is okay for me to speak of a "she/her", and for a females to speak of a "he/him".
Joesus
QUOTE
For me, this solves the gender problem regarding the best preposition to use when speaking of GØD. Is GØD a he/him, or a she/her? Perhaps, as a male, it is okay for me to speak of a "she/her", and for a females to speak of a "he/him".


From the waking state mind there is nothing known beyond the identity of man. God is often projected within terms of the relative. Images of God according to belief are those images the mind identifies as real.


Here's an interesting excerpt from one of JJ Deweys articles.

MAN EXISTED BEFORE BIRTH

The orthodox Christian believes that man began at birth, but after that point in time he will live on endlessly never dying again. In other words, before birth for every person there is a total blank. He was nothing. He did not exist.

To begin with this is a mathematical impossibility. If a line has a beginning and no end then it extends in to infinity. Every mathematics class teaches that one half of infinity is still infinity. In other words, if a thing has no end mathematically it has to have no beginning. Nothing exists in nature which has no end unless it had no beginning. Anything in nature that has a beginning can be proven to have an end.

A ring provides a good example of this principle. It is circular and has no beginning and no ending point. On the other hand, if one puts a slit in it one will have both a beginning and an end. Nevertheless, it is impossible to cut or mold the ring in such a fashion as to produce an object with a beginning but no end. Such a form does not exist anywhere because one half of infinity is still infinity.

Those who believe in reincarnation recognize the fact that the body of form we live in has both a beginning and an end, but there is within us an intelligent part of God that is one with God and never had a beginning or end. Paul talks about this and calls it "eternal" which would mean without beginning or end: "The things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle (the physical body) were dissolved, we have a building of God, (our Spirits) an house not made with hands, ETERNAL in the heavens." II Cor 4:18; 5:1.

Here we are clearly told that if the body were dissolved we will yet have an "eternal" house to live in, or that eternal part of ourselves we call the Spirit. If it is eternal as Paul says then it existed before birth for that which is everlasting has neither beginning or end.

Paul tells us that this eternal part of us is connected with the Heavens. No wonder Jesus told us that "The kingdom of God is within".

Paul mentions again this spirit: "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, "whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether OUT OF THE BODY, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven." II Cor 12:2.

Paul's out of body experience isreally not that unusual for now that mankind has ceased burning out-of-the-ordinary persons at the stake people are talking more-about their spiritual experiences. Many who have experienced the near death state have re ported actually leaving their bodies in the spirit and returning with an accurate memory of all the conversations of the doctors and nurses.

Some who have gone through this report that their spirit body is connected to their physical by a silver cord of great elasticity. Many believe that death occurs when this silver cord is severed. Interestingly, the Bible makes reference to this: "Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel be broken at the cistern. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall RETURN unto God who gave it." ECCL. 12:6-7

Evidently Solomon had knowledge of the silver cord which connects the spirit and body as well as the golden bowl which is a golden etheric life energy (invisible to the untrained eye) which ceases or is "broken" also at death. The broken pitcher and wheel describe a cessation of bodily functions.

Next we are told that at death the spirit "returns" to God. One may object here and say that if there is reincarnation then why doesn't the spirit go to a new body. The objector forgets that there is always a resting space between lives and during this interim period the spirit returns to God.

The word "return" here is a powerful proof for a premortal existence. If all that which is us began at birth how can we return to God? If orthodox Christian thought is true all we could return to would be nothingness. We can only return to God if we came from God and we can only come from the presence of God if we had some form of existence with him before birth.

The scriptures reveal that the Lord knew numerous people before they were born. Concerning Jacob and Esau he said: "The Elder shall serve the younger." Gen 25:23 Eve said of Cain: "I have gotten a man FROM the Lord." Gen 4:1 Another good example comes from Jeremiah: "Then came the word of the Lord unto me saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Jer 1:4-5

Concerning himself Isaiah said: "The Lord called me from (can be translated 'before') the womb; and from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name." Isa 49:1

Of John the Baptist it is written: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John." John 1:6

Evidently The Lord knew Paul before his birth for he said: "He (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel." This was spoken before Paul began his work.Paul also wrote that God "set me apart from (or before) birth and called me through his grace." Gal 1:15 New English.We are told that the saints are written in "the book of life from the foundation of the world." Rev. 17:8

In addition we are supposed to be "In hope of eternal life which God who cannot lie promised BEFORE the world began." Titus 1:2 How did God promise eternal life to us before the world began if we were not there? It would be silly for God to make promises to nothingness.

The scriptures seem to make it crystal clear that people existed, were called, ordained, and had promises made to them before they were born. It makes it amazing to see the objections that come forth. The objector says that Jeremiah and others were not in existence before they were born, but they were in God's mind like an architect has a building in his mind. Therefore, they feel it was like God "sanctified", "ordained", "knew", and "promised" to a blueprint. The argument sounds very weak to anyone who thinks about it. One doesn't have to "Wrest" the scriptures when he merely accepts them the way they read.

The Bible gives us powerful evidence that Job was with God before he was born. In chapter 38 God is reprimanding Job for questioning his wisdom and sovereignty and reminds him of works and events which he is supposed to already be aware of. He tells Job that he will demand an answer of him evidently aware that Job should know the answer to the following: "Where was thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding...When the morning stars sang together, and all the SONS OF GOD shouted for joy?" Job 38:4~6.

Who are the "sons of God"? The scriptures give a clear answer. John the beloved said: "WE are the sons of God..." I John 3:2

It is only fitting that we should be called the "sons of God" for he is called the Father of our spirits in Heb 12:9 Paul also said: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that WE are the children of God." Rom. 8:16

Since Job was one of the sons of God and "ALL the sons of God shouted for joy" at the foundation of the earth then Job had to be there shouting for joy with them. Evidently, the sons of God (which included you and me) were rejoicing over the planet that was prepared for us to inhabit.

Who are the "morning stars (that) sang together"? They were the lightbringers and the prophets to the people of earth with the Christ being at the head. Jesus said: "I AM ... the bright and morning star." Rev 22:16 Others will be given the morning star and evidently become morning stars them selves in a future round. (See Rev. 2:28)

The writer of Proverbs gives us a definite confirmation that the sons of men were present at the foundation of the world. The voice speaking in the eighth chapter of Proverbs is identified as wisdom and understanding. In other words, the wisdom and understanding of God has always been in existence and Solomon writes of it as if it were an entity: "Doth not wisdom cry? and under standing put forth her voice?"

After explaining some of the attributes of wisdom the writer emphasizes how long wisdom has been around and how eternal she is: "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: When he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: When he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; rejoicing in the habitable part of HIS EARTH; and my delights were WITH THE SONS OF MEN. " Prov 8:1,22-31.

This scripture makes it clear that when God promised us "eternal life...before the world began" (Titus 1.2) that he was not merely speaking to blueprints, but the "sons of men" were with him in "the habitable part of HIS EARTH." Evidently, we dwelt on another earth in another time where the wisdom of God was manifested. Here the Bible clearly tells us that the sons of men are very ancient beings.

Orthodox people will not like the above interpretation, but they can produce no argument against it. It must be frustrating for them to even read it.

This Proverbs scripture, however, helps us understand numerous scriptures from the New Testament. For instance, Paul said: "For whom he did fore know he did predestinate." Peter said that the Saints were "elect according to the foreknowledge of God." Evidently God gained this "foreknowledge" of us "in the habitable part of his (God's) earth".

Another powerful witness that we have had a pre-mortal existence comes from the eleventh chapter of Hebrews. This is a famous chapter on the faith of the prophets (the Morning Stars) on the promises of God. One of the most interesting promises God has made concerns the heavenly city of the New Jerusalem. In describing this city John said he "saw the holy city of the new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband ( Jesus Christ). And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the TABERNACLE OF GOD is with men, and he shall dwell with them...And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." Rev. 21:2-3,14

It's quite possible that the new Jerusalem is presently located "in the habitable part of his (God's) earth." The author of Hebrews tells the saints who presently dwell there' "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the City of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant." Heb. 12:22-24

From these verses we have quoted we find that the inhabitants of the heavenly city Sion (Zion) or the new Jerusalem are: (1) God (2) The twelve apostles (3) Jesus (4) Angels (5) The general assembly (6) The church of the firstborn (7) The spirits of just men made perfect.

The question naturally arises as to how long the city of the New Jerusalem has been in existence and how long the various types of inhabitants have been there.

Since the New Jerusalem in heaven is the habitation of God one would assume it is very ancient. One thing we know for sure is that it is older than Abraham for the scripture says: "He (Abraham) looked for a city which hath foundations (the twelve apostles of the Lamb), whose builder and maker is God." Heb. 11:10.

Since Abraham was aware of the foundations of the city and the foundations had in them the "names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" it is natural to assume that the twelve apostles lived in the city from the days of Abraham or earlier.

The writer of Hebrews tells us concretely that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sara, Noah, Enoch, and Able all lived in the Heavenly New Jerusalem before they were born: "These (those just named) all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were STRANGERS AND PILGRIMS ON THE EARTH. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country ('country' is from the Greek PATRIS which literally means FATHERLAND and figuratively means: Heavenly Home) And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. (If they were looking for any country on the earth they would have had no trouble finding and returning to it). But now they desire a better country, THAT IS AN HEAVENLY: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them A CITY." (The New Jerusalem) Heb. 11:13-16.

This interesting scripture deserves a closer examination. First, the prophets are called "strangers and pilgrims on the earth." This is significant because both words imply that they originated somewhere else besides the earth.

"Strangers" comes from the Greek XENOS and means "foreigner" or "alien". "Pilgrim" comes from PAREPIDEMOS and literally means "resident foreigner".

No matter which translation one uses a previous existence is indicated here. For instance if a man were a stranger in New York it means he had an existence and residence in another city before he arrived there.

The prophets are "strangers" on the earth; therefore, they lived somewhere else before they lived here.

If a man is a foreigner or an alien in the United States then he had to have a true citizenship in another country before he arrived here.

Therefore, if the prophets are foreigners or aliens on the earth, then their true citizenship belongs to another country that they originated from before they were born.

The pilgrims who arrived at Plymouth Rock did not originate in America but came from a distant land. They had a pre-America existence.

The prophets are called "Pilgrims on the earth" meaning that they had a "pre-mortal" existence. A pilgrim is a traveler who comes from somewhere else.

The next verse makes it crystal clear that the choice of these words was no accident. We'll quote it using the more accurate translation of "fatherland" instead of "country": "For they that say such things (that they are strangers and pilgrims) declare plainly that they SEEK A FATHERLAND." Verse 14

It's amazing that this scripture is not universally accepted as proving that the prophets lived before they were born for the writer says that it is "declare(d) plainly" that those who say they are strangers and pilgrims on the earth are seeking a Fatherland, or an origination point that they could have only lived in before they were born.

The next verse puts a seal on this point: "And truly, if they had been mindful of that country (fatherland) from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned." verse 15.

In other words, if their originating country was on the earth they could have returned to it while in the flesh. They were in an unfortunate position in that they were citizens of a Father land that was not on the earth, and that they could only return to after they died.

The next verse elaborates this: "But now they desire a better country, that is an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God for he hath prepared for them a city." (the New Jerusalem) Verse 16.

The prophets all sought the day when the heavens and the earth would come together and their Fatherland, the New Jerusalem, would descend on the earth so the tabernacle of God would be with men, and the prophets would no longer be strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

John talks of those whose names are "written in the book of life from the foundation of the world." Rev 17:8 Most probably these would be those who lived in the heavenly New Jerusalem since that time. Those who are true citizens of the city would have their names recorded there. This record could very well be the book of life, since the inhabitants thereof are living life most abundantly.

THE PROPHETS LIVED MORE THAN ONE LIFE

The Bible gives numerous indications that the holy men-of the scriptures have lived before. The Lord actually revealed to David two of his previous lives. He wrote: "This he ordained in JOSEPH for a testimony, when he went out through the land of Egypt: where I HEARD A LANGUAGE THAT I UNDERSTOOD NOT. I (the Lord) removed his shoulder from the burden: his hands were delivered from the pots. Thou callest in trouble, and I delivered thee; and answered thee in the secret place of thunder: I PROVED THEE AT THE WATERS OF MERIBAH." Psalms 81:5-7

David here gives us the startling revelation that as Joseph in Egypt he heard a language he didn't understand. Read the scripture carefully and see that when David said "I heard" he was referring the strange language that Joseph heard when he was taken captive in Egypt.

The Lord also told David that he was proved (or tested) at the "waters of Meribah". This is a flashback to his life as Moses where he smote the rock at the place he named Meribah and brought forth water for Israel to drink, but at that time Moses failed the test and did not give glory to the Lord; thus he was not allowed to enter into the promised land. (See Exodus 17:5-7)

Seeing then that the Lord was aware of David's valiant lives as Moses and Joseph he called David "a. man after his own heart" (I Sam 13:14) when he was but a lad. We can also see why "Moses took the bones of Joseph with him" (Ex 13:19) when he left Egypt, for Moses was once Joseph. In a strange way Moses was taking the bones of Joseph with him by merely taking himself out of Egypt. It was quite fitting for this entity to deliver Israel, for it was because of him that Israel moved into Egypt in the first place.

The prophet Daniel was promised a life at the end of the age: "And he said, Go thy way Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end...But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days." Daniel 12:9~13. The New English version gives a clearer rendering of that last verse: "But go your way to the end and rest, and you shall arise to your destiny at the end of the age."

The scriptures also give a prophesy about the coming of Elijah the prophet to do a great work on the earth: "Behold, I will send you ELIJAH THE PROPHET before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." Malachi 4:5-6

Here we have a clear prophecy that Elijah the prophet will come back before the Lord comes. When the Bible speaks of the "fathers" it is usually referring to the prophets and patriarchs of Israel. Thus his work will be connected with turning the hearts of the children (humanity today) to the teaching of the fathers (the prophets). If the teachings of the prophets are not planted in the hearts of this generation then the earth will be smitten with a curse.

Now if Elijah is to make an appearance before "the great and dreadful day of the Lord", commonly called the second coming, does it not make sense that he would also precede the first coming of Christ?

The disciples were curious about this possibility so they asked the Lord: "Why then do our teachers say that Elijah must come first? He replied, Yes Elijah WILL COME and set everything right. But I tell you that ELIJAH HAS ALREADY COME, and they failed to recognize him, and worked their will upon him; and in the same way the Son of Man is to suffer at their hands. Then the disciples understood that HE MEANT JOHN THE BAPTIST." Matt. 17:10-13 New English

Notice how definite the statement made by Jesus is here. Even so, orthodox interpreters refuse to accept it. They say that John was not Elijah reborn but was merely like Elijah. They quote Luke to support their case: "And he (John) shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just." Luke 1:17 (Remember that Elias is Greek for Elijah)

This was spoken by the angel Gabriel to Zacharias, and objectors tell us that this proves that John was just similar to Elijah. On the other hand, if John was Elijah reborn it would certainly explain why he could go forth "in the spirit (with Elijah's spirit) and power of Elias". This scripture does not in any way void the words of Jesus.

Another objection is that both Elijah and Moses appeared to Jesus on the mount of transfiguration. If Elijah was later John why didn't the apostles recognize him as such?

It's quite possible they did recognize Elijah as John. There's not enough information to tell for sure, but a few verses later as Jesus was talking about Elijah it is written: "Then the disciples understood that he spake to them of John the Baptist." Matt. 17:13 (read all of verses 1-13)

This appearance was shortly after John was killed and we have no way of knowing whether he appeared in the form of Elijah or John, but it could have been either for an advanced entity can appear in any of his bodies. This was demonstrated by Jesus on the road to Emmaus. Mark says that "He appeared in another form unto two of them (disciples), as they walked and went into the country." Mark 16:12 When Jesus was in this other form we are told they could not recognize him. See Luke 24:13-31

Those who do not think that John is Elijah quote one more scripture. The Jews sent priests and Levites to John to find who John was: "And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No." John 1:21

Here we have an interesting contradiction. Jesus said definitely that John the Baptist was Elijah and John says he is not. Jesus said that he was the prophet to fulfill the prophecy of Malachi (Matt. 11:9-10) and John said he was not. What is the explanation.?

First, we must realize that the words of Jesus are reliable above all other men so let us accept them as true. Why did John contradict them?

The answer is quite simple. As John the Baptist he had lost all memory of his life as Elijah. It is quite possible that he was not aware of who he was in the past. It is also possible that he did not know that he was the prophet that Malachi predicted. He was probably looking upon himself as merely a man who was seeking to teach the truth.

On the other hand, even if John suspected his true identity the priests and Levites would be the last ones he would want to tell who he was. The Jews kept pestering Jesus to identify him self as the Christ, and this he didn't do until he was ready to die. John knew that if he identified himself as either Elijah or a great prophet then the Jews would try and put him to death for blasphemy. Even if John knew or suspected he was Elijah in a past life he was technically telling the truth because in that life his name was John, not Elijah.

Whatever the case John had to keep his identity from the Jews until his mission was finished.

We will close this train of thought with a second powerful statement from Jesus: "...Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John...A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he of whom it is written, Behold I send my messenger before my face, which shall prepare thy way before thee (This is a quote from Malachi near the prophesy of Elijah) Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven (Christ) is greater than he...For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, THIS IS ELIAS, which was for to come." Matt. 11:7,9-11,13-14

This is really a poor translation evidently because of bias against reincarnation. The Concordant version says it most accurately: "And if you are willing to receive HIM, HE IS ELIJAH..."

Now we can see why Jesus called John the Baptist the greatest prophet. He was aware of his past lives. He was possibly other great prophets besides Elijah.

It seems at this point that one would have to go out on a limb to claim that John was not Elijah, but merely one like Elijah. For one thing his mission was quite different from the historical Elijah and most importantly Malachi says that Elijah, THE PROPHET (Malachi 4:5) shall return, not Elijah the personality.

Accordingly, we may look for the appearance of Elijah again in this age to prepare the way for the coming of Christ. Rest assured though that his name will not be Elijah in this life, but it will be the entity that was Elijah and John the Baptist nevertheless.

Paul tells us that he lived a past life where he was not under the law of Moses: "FOR I WAS ALIVE WITHOUT THE LAW ONCE: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Rom 7:9

Here Paul could only be speaking of a previous life because in his life as Paul he was born under the law of Moses. So when was the time that he "was alive without the law"? He could have only been referring to previous lives when he was not subjected to the law of Moses. "When the commandment came" refers to the period of Moses. When he was born on earth after this period "sin revived" and he suffered spiritual death.

The scriptures make it clear that John the Revelator will have numerous incarnations. Peter, wondering about the future of this man said: "And what shall this man do? Jesus said unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said NOT unto him, he shall not die; but if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" John 21:21-23

It sounds as if disciples have been misinterpreting the words of Jesus from the beginning. Some believe that John was translated so he would not suffer death, but John's own book declares that Jesus did not promise him that he would not die, but indicated that it was his will that John tarry till he come. If then John did not have the promise of deathlessness the only way he could tarry here on the earth until the Lord comes is by a series of lives.

Indeed he will have to be born again to fulfill the prophesy that is written of him: "And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter. And he said unto me, THOU MUST PROPHESY AGAIN BEFORE MANY PEOPLES, AND NATIONS, AND TONGUES, AND KINGS." Rev. 10:10-11

Have we heard any announcement over the news lately that John the Revelator has prophesied to kings and is appearing in many different lands speaking in numerous languages??? No, we have not, nor will we for when he comes he will not be known as John the Revelator, but will be in a different body having a new name.

Jesus gave us an interesting indication as to what was in store for his disciples. He said: "There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, and sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, but HE SHALL RECEIVE AN HUNDREDFOLD IN THIS TIME, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the WORLD TO COME eternal life. And many that are first shall be last and the last first." Mark 10:29-31

Here Jesus talks about two time periods or ages. The first he calls "in this time" or the period of our mortal existence. The second he calls "the world to come". In the world to come we receive "eternal life", but in this age or period of normal earth life if we accept the gospel we will receive "an hundred fold" of houses, at least a hundred brothers, a hundred sisters, a hundred mothers, a hundred children, and a hundred different lands or places where we will live. This prophecy cannot be liter ally fulfilled without reincarnation. On the other hand, Jesus knew that "in this time" or period of human existence we go through more than a hundred lifetimes. Thus he realized his words would be accurate.

Up to the time that Paul wrote the letter to Timothy we see that Jesus Christ was the only man that possessed immortality, or deathlessness: "That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he will shew, who is the blessed and only potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; WHO ONLY HATH IMMORTALITY, dwelling in a light which no man can approach unto." I Tim 6:14-16.

Even though we have an indication that others came out of their graves at the resurrection of Jesus (Matt 27:52-53) we see that only Jesus had obtained the resurrection of-life or "put on immortality". Before we can achieve the same immortality we have to overcome all things as Jesus did.

We are told that "the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is." I Cor 3:13. Paul had the hope "that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." Col 1:28. Paul spoke of God "WHO WILL HAVE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." I Tim 2:4

I believe that God has power to carry out his "will" and the scriptures say that he "WILL have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. Every man will be tried in the fire, and Paul has the hope that "every man" will be perfect. These scriptures cannot be fulfilled if every person is merely given one shot at life, but if men are born over and over until they fulfill the commandment to "overcome" exactly as Jesus did (Rev 3:21) then these passages can be literally fulfilled.

INTERESTING SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE

The great Solomon wrote: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing." Pro. 25:2 Imagine. God actually conceals things from us so when his secrets are revealed it will add to his glory. Jesus said: "For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known." Luke 12:2 Isaiah prophesied: "The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea." Isaiah 11:9 Daniel said that at the time of the end "knowledge shall be increased." Dan. 12:4.

What are some of the things that God has concealed from us? What are the things "which have been kept secret from the foundations of the world"? Matt 13:35

Obviously one of the doctrines kept secret is the law of re birth. Many of the prophets did not openly teach it because they felt the people would misuse the knowledge. Many people will not try hard in the present if they think they will get a second chance in the future. The emotionally polarized person will tend to feel that it is no big deal to waste a lifetime if he has another one coming down the road. However, the mentally polarized person will use common sense and will not want to waste a month let alone a lifetime. Thus the Spirit of God has waited until the race of man is more mental, as it is approaching now, before it caused the doctrine to permeate our consciousness. Most of the prophets, initiates, and wise men of the past, however, have been aware of it, but have used constraint in speaking of it.

There were many things that even Jesus could not speak to his most trusted followers: "I have many things to say unto you, but ye CANNOT bear them now." John 16:12

In other words, Jesus knew many things that would be hard for them to accept. If he would have told them some of the secrets he knew they probably would have thought their master was mad and turned against him.

As it was he revealed more than the Jews could accept and they fought against him. Even so this treatise will be difficult for many people to accept and they will refuse to believe it even though the truth stares them in the face. We must mentally force ourselves to remain open and "rejoiceth in the truth; Heareth all things, believeth ALL things, hopeth all things..." I Cor 13:6-7

If we become as a little child and are open to believing all things then we will avoid becoming modern day Pharisees and scribes who fight against truth. Isaiah declared: "Wo unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet. and sweet for bitter!" Isa 5:20 Many Christians have formed the non scriptural opinion that reincarnation is evil, but why is this when the doctrine is interspersed throughout the Bible? And why do they call it evil when it is such a good and holy doctrine?

Why do they call it "good" if their child fails the first grade and he gets a chance to repeat it so he can honorably go on to the second, yet call it "evil" to consider the thought that if someone fails in one of his lifetimes then God will give him a chance to correct his errors in the "resurrection of correction"? Let us be more consistent than the Jews in the days of Jesus.

Jesus certainly attracted a lot of attention when he began his work and many people were speculating as to who he was. There were many who actually considered that he may have been one of the prophets born again. Jesus asked his disciples: "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, some say that thou art John the Baptist: some Elias, others Jeremias, or one of the prophets." Matt 16:13-14

Notice here that Jesus did not refute this belief in rein carnation, but merely accepted Peter's answer that he was the Christ.

The apostles evidently believed in reincarnation at the time that they were current disciples of Jesus: "And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" John 9:1-2

We see here that the disciples thought that the man who was born blind may have had to suffer so because of a previous sin. In other words, they thought he may have committed sins in a previous lifetime that led to his present condition. Jesus pointed out that the man was a special case. He was not born blind because of sin, but so that the works of God should be manifest. In other words, the man came with a mission to glorify the works of Christ by the great miracle to his eyes. Jesus did not, however, say anything to indicate that the disciples belief in a sin before birth was not a possibility.

Many people attribute unusual questions such as these to the ignorance of the apostles. They believed that Jesus just picked up a handful of uneducated derelicts and his teachings were all the education they received. This is not correct. John the Baptist was their first teacher and Jesus called John the greatest prophet in history, partly because he did such a good job in preparing and teaching the disciples. If the disciples believed in reincarnation (which they undoubtedly did) then they had to first learn it from John.

In the Apocrypha we are warned that the way we live in one life can affect our bodies in a future life: "Woe to you, ungodly men, who have forsaken the law of the Most High Lord. AND IF YOU BE BORN, (indicating born in a future life) you shall be born in malediction, and if ye die, in malediction shall be your portion." Ecclesiasticus 4:11-12 Another example: "And I was a witty child and had received a good soul, and where as I was more good (in a previous life), I came to a body undefiled." Wisdom 8:19-20

No wonder David wrote: "Guilt was with me already when my mother conceived me." Psalms 51:7 Knox Version In other words, we have original sin because of previous lives. "All these things God may do to a man, again and yet again, bringing him BACK FROM THE PIT (death) to enjoy the full light of life." Job 33:29-30 New English

No wonder Jesus told a man who had been sick for thirty eight years to "sin no more lest a worse thing come upon thee." (See John 5:1-9) If it was any worse than suffering for thirty eight years he would have to pay the debt in a future life. This also illustrates that sin can result in the punishment of a physical affliction as the apostles believed.

The doctrine of reincarnation teaches us that when we commit any act either good or evil then we must receive a payment for that deed either later in the present life or in a future one. This reward i5 called Karma. If we are said to have "good karma" it is indicated that we have paid off most of our bad debts and can now collect on our good ones. If we have "bad karma" then we have debts coming due that we have to pay for. Jesus confirmed this doctrine when he said "he shall reward every man according to his works." Matt 16:27

John also wrote the words of an angel: "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord...their works do FOLLOW them." Rev 14:13

Again he said: "They (the dead) were judged every man ac cording to their works." Rev 20:13

If the dead are judged according to their works and their works follow them then the doctrine of karma coincides perfectly with the Bible. There are some works that could only follow us if there were future lives on the earth awaiting. Either killing or saving physical lives would fit in this category.

One may naturally wonder about the fate of those who crucified our Lord. What is their destiny? How could they possibly pay for their sin? What punishment could be fitting enough to recompense such an evil deed?

This is one of the most interesting thoughts of the entire range of the scriptures and amazingly the question is answered with startling clarity.

First, we know they will be forgiven because Jesus requested it. On the cross he said: "Father forgive them; for they know not what they do." Luke 23:34

Later Peter was preaching to these Jews and said: "Ye denied the Holy One and the Just...and killed the Prince of life... Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, WHEN THE TIMES OF REFRESHING SHALL COME FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD. And he shall send Jesus Christ (speaking of the second coming), which before was preached unto you. whom the heaven must receive (hold - Greek) until the times of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." Acts 3:14-15,19-21

We are told that the heavens must hold Jesus until all things are restored that was spoken of by the prophets. Reincarnation is one of those things for many of the teachings about the doctrine of rebirth were taken out of the church in the days of Constantine.

Peter told those who crucified the Lord to repent but told them that they would not receive forgiveness in this life, but in the times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord or at the time of the second coming. Why do they have to wait until then? Because no one can repent unless they realize they are wrong and the Bible goes on to tell us that these murderers will not realize they are wrong until they see their Lord again.

They certainly did not believe the first time he told them who he was: "And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter SHALL YE SEE the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Matt 26:63-64

No wonder Peter promised forgiveness at the second coming because those who put him to death will see him coming in the clouds.

John the Revelator makes this point clear beyond dispute: "Behold, he cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, AND THEY ALSO WHICH PIERCED HIM (The Jews in 34 AD): and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him." Rev 1:17

At the second coming they will finally be able to be for given because they will realize they made a great mistake: "They (The Jews of 34 AD who will be reborn for the second coming) shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first born." Zech 12:10

There is perhaps no punishment greater than coming face to face with a great error and having to accept the truth whether you want to or not. When Jesus comes again the ancient Jews reborn will definitely recognize him for who he is. They will also see their blindness in their current lives, but it is also quite possible that their memory of their past lives in the days of Jesus will return to them so they can feel the enormity of their shame. After two thousand years they will realize they killed their Savior.

Jesus spoke further of this: "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the Children of the kingdom (the Jews 34 AD) shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt 8: 11-12

When the reincarnated Jews (and they may not be Jews in this life) face their rude awakening they will weep and gnash their teeth in despair and disgust with themselves and may not feel worthy or ready for the teachings of Christ for sometime. Forgiveness is promised them at the second coming, but apparently they have to go through some anguish (and who knows what else) first.

Our prayer should be that we will not be caught in the same predicament as the ancient Jews where the blind were following the blind and refused to examine any doctrine that was not approved by authorities. Let us be open as a little child and be pre pared to "believe ALL things" so when the Christ does come again we will not be caught without our wedding garment.

Jesus taught a very important principle: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you. For EVERY ONE that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, HOW MUCH MORE shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" Matt 7:7-11

Indeed. We know how to give good gifts to our children, and whenever they ask for any good thing no matter how bad they have previously been, we will go out of our way to give it to them. We would not consider saying to our children: "I will forgive you for a certain time period, and then no more for all eternity."

Hypocrites! They think they are more righteous than God, that they will go to greater extremes to save their children than God will for us. NO NO NO!!! The opposite is true. God knows how to give better gifts than we do and when we ask for a good thing he is committed to give it to us. He has put no time limit on it. He did not say ask only until you die but merely ASK. Period. If we ask during this life, the space between lives, or in the next life, then he is our committed Father waiting with love to respond and has devised a plan where we can all receive a second chance because a father (that is a loving Father) will ALWAYS give his children a second chance, and a third, and a forth...etc.

One should feel good about contemplating the doctrine of reincarnation, especially when thinking of all those who died in ignorance of the gospel, many who may be good friends, loved ones, or family. It is scriptural to believe the following: If we wish our loved ones could achieve salvation, then God wishes something better and has complete power to carry out his will. "God having provided something better for us, that they (the dead) WITHOUT US should not be made perfect." Heb 11:40

The dead and the living have a karma that is intertwined and we must both work together in the flesh again to correct all of our problems and the problems of the planet. We shall all rise again and work together and be perfected until the "last enemy" of death is destroyed and we achieve immortality or the resurrection of eternal life.
Flex
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 06, 2006, 11:10 PM) *

QUOTE
"The only problem with life I have, is death."
Flex, 17, comments.

Lindsay responds:
QUOTE
Indeed it is a problem! for all of us.BTW, are you referring to death in general? Or your personal death, in particular? Or both? I know I do not need to remind you: Death is no respecter of age.

Keep in mind that the main focus of all good religion, including Mormonism, is what to do about the fact that we are alive. The fact of life is problematic, especially for those of us who are conscious that we ARE alive. Along with the philosophers and scientists, theologians, including artists--many of whom are philosophers and scientists--ask questions like:
1. What is life? Who, or what, is the source of life?
2. What about evolution, creation and/or emanation?
3. Now that we have it, what can we, and ought we, do about it?
4. Is death an enemy? Or a friend?
5. What happens after the death of the body? Most religions believe that there is no death; that both evil people and good people will survive the death of the body, but that life after death will be heaven for those who choose the good, and hell for those who choose the evil. There is no limit to the questions one could ask about all this.

Keep in mind: Here, I am talking about what religions in general believe. To get a more precise answer we need to ask each religion: What is your doctrine of life and death, and the life everlasting? We could even pose this question to all reading this post. How about beginning with you?



The World According to Flex~
What is life? The ability to process matter into energy.

What is the source of life? The source of life is matter--the source of matter is energy. As is apparent throught the idea of metabolization (hope that is a word smile.gif ) matter in the form of food is capable of producing energy. I believe that energy inversely has the potential to create matter. Just as motion of a conductor in magnetic fields produces electricity, and current of electricity produce magnetic fields. I do not accept the idea that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. I believe that at some point of time, there was most likely some set amount of cosmic energy or some almost infinitely dense matter that for some reason or another transformed into the form of both matter and energy. The amount of entropy in the universe is always increasing (or so I have been told) but the idea of absolute zero seems to defy this principle. I believe that once we achieve absolute zero many questions will be answered.

Evolution, creation, or emination? Now that the wheels of life have been set in motion, perhapse by some creator--who knows--it seems obvious that evolution must exist. Even in our life time the concept is apparent through bacteria and the likes. Anti-bacterial soaps kill say 99.9% of the bactiria; however, the remaining little A**holes reproduce and create new life resistant to the soaps. I don't believe that evolution and creationism are mutualy exclusive--neaither answers all of the questions.

Now that we have it (life I am assuming), what can we, and ought we, do with it?
That is up to the individual. For one we should eliminate all government and favor pure capitalism. If each individual is working to his/her full potential, they will get what they deserve. Laws are only implimented to control people by instilling fear and guilt. If you believe we have free will, then we should be alowed to practice such beliefs--if you believe in determinism, then you should believe that those who believe in free will, will control the world because your destiny is just that pre-destined.

Is death an enemy or a friend?
I think it is best to assume that death is an enemy. If one honestly believed death to be a friend they would commit suicide. Death may be the easiest solution to lifes problems, but that is not to say that it should in anyway be a friend. We know that death (an end to ones current state) is inevitable. "As a well-spent day brings happy sleep, so life well used brings happy death" -Leonardo da Vinci. Reguardless of weather you are a "Christian" a "Muslim" or have no religion at all, there is no reason to waiste a perfectly good life. Jesus was a great man because he followed his heart, and did what he honestly felt right, even at the cost of death. Ghondi followed his heart, as did Martin Luther King. They all stood up for what they honestly believed no matter what. I think alot of times religion functions as government. Individuals of a given faith often times are condemned to those values without thinking for themselvs and following their hearts. "The wisest men follow their own direction" -Euripides.

What happens after the death of the body?
I don't know what happens to the "soul" or "spirit". I don't know if such things even really exist. The only evidence of my own spirit I can find lay in my thoughts. Once one dies they no longer have human thought, and I don't know what other thoughts one could possibly posess, so I think for all practical purposes it is safe to assume that once the body dies, you die. Your body will inevitably fuse with the earth and supply new energy for plants. Your life energy will return to the earth from which it came, but your sould will seise to exist (in my opinion). One thing that will live on though is your legacy--for this reason I want to accomplism much with my life, so that in some way, at least in memory I will live on.
Lindsay
Flex, have you visited BRAIN-MIND.COM? Here is the link http://brainmind.com/Contents.html

http://brainmind.com/BrainReligion.html
Interestingly, back in 2002 brain-meta was called brain-mind. I will give you more information about this, later.
======================================================
Here is a quote about:
QUOTE
THE LIMBIC SYSTEM AND THE SOUL
=========================================
Evolution and the Neuroanatomy of Religious Experience1

R. Joseph, Ph.D.

Brain Research Laboratory

ABSTRACT. The following is the opening paragraph:

=======================================
Humans have been burying and preparing their dead for the "Great Beyond" for over 100,000 years. These behaviors and beliefs are related to activation of the amygdala, hippocampus, and temporal lobe, which are responsible for religious, spiritual, and mystical trance-like states, dreaming, astral projection, near death and out-of-body experience, and the "hallucination" of ghosts, demons, angels, and gods. Case studies and the evolutionary neurological foundations are presented and it is postulated that these structures evolved in order to make spiritual experience possible, and account for the sexual and violent aspects of religious behavior. Abraham, Moses, Mohammed, and Jesus Christ, and others who've communed with angels or "gods," display limbic system hyperactivity. Patients report religious "hallucinations" or out-of-body experiences when limbic structures are stimulated. As over 96% of human DNA is dormant, whereas 50% of activated DNA is devoted to the brain, these capacities may continue to evolve....
Here is the closing paragraph:
QUOTE
ALPHA & OMEGA

Although questions about God cannot be answered here, the role of the limbic system in spiritual and religious experience cannot be rationally denied--though Temple Priests masquerading as scientists may wish us to believe otherwise. Indeed, when it comes religious experience many of those who dare to call themselves scientists become irrational and hysterical, closing their minds and cloaking themselves in the mantle of dogma as they bow down and worship at the altar of innumerable "scientific" myths. These so called "scientists" are in fact proclaiming: "though shalt not know," and in this regard they have no right to call themselves scientists, as they are little more than Temple Priests who fear discovering the hand of "God" in the creative process.

Nevertheless, it is rather clear that there is in fact a scientific foundation for religious and spiritual experience, though why that is, is yet to be determined. Indeed, given the obvious role of the temporal lobe and limbic system in the generation and perception of myriad spiritual states, it also appears (at least at the level of metaphor) that the limbic system may well be the seat of the soul, and/or serve as the transmitter to God. If that is indeed the case, then Buddha, Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, the Taoists, Sufis, and Jesus (like so many other Jewish, Arabic, Muslim, Indian, Babylonian, Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and Gnostic mystics), were correct when they proclaimed:

"The kingdom of God is within you."
Joesus
QUOTE
One thing that will live on though is your legacy--for this reason I want to accomplism much with my life, so that in some way, at least in memory I will live on.


Why?

"I would not live forever, because we should not live forever, because if we were supposed to live forever, then we would live forever, but we cannot live forever, which is why I would not live forever."
-Miss Alabama- 1994 Miss America Pagent
Lindsay
Here is the link which tells how BrainMeta came into being:
http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=8856&st=0
Flex
QUOTE(Joesus @ Nov 08, 2006, 09:53 AM) *

QUOTE
One thing that will live on though is your legacy--for this reason I want to accomplism much with my life, so that in some way, at least in memory I will live on.


Why?

"I would not live forever, because we should not live forever, because if we were supposed to live forever, then we would live forever, but we cannot live forever, which is why I would not live forever."
-Miss Alabama- 1994 Miss America Pagent


Since I have no higher power to answer to, I must have some reason to live. If not for the betterment of society, then what? If I had no desire to leave a legacy, life would hold no purpose what-so-ever for me, and it would be best to terminate my life. It isn't anything self rightious (well I guess to some extent). I simply want to exploit my talents and live up to my full potential in whatever makes me happy.

i.e. I love to travel, explore, and meet new people. I had the opportunity to be a road manager, but I was in highschool. There wasn't even a second thought that highschool was not where I was meant to be, so I took classes at community college at night and completed a year and a half in a semester. It was the best thing I could have ever done. When you meet a truely honest person it can change your life, and I have been fortunate enough to meet many honest men. Donnie Einer, Pat Magnarella, Coach Ben Parks and most of all, my brother have all shown me that when someone is true to themselvs nothing will stand in their way.
Joesus
So these great people you speak of, you think they intentionally made an impression so that you would remember them?
Lindsay
Flex et al, am I right in assuming that most, if not all, of us who post to and read in this forum are, moral, ethical, kind and honest people who are living at a reasonably good standard of living. That is, we have enough income to pay our bills and live at least a few notches above the poverty line. Feel free to correct me if I speak out of turn. In comparison with the world, perhaps many of us are rich.

BTW, until I got an education and established in my life's career, I lived below the poverty line. So did many of the people around me, and, in the place where I was raised, many still do. In the area where I now live there are homes from $400,000 to $1,000,000. But even in the upscale area of Markham there is poverty.

As this thread is about the important life-questions of world poverty I would like to discuss: The reality and nature of poverty.

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ABOUT POVERTY
What is poverty and why do we have so much of it?
What is your definition of poverty?
Have you ever experienced it?
In your family?
Have you seen it in people around where you live?
How do you feel about the poverty we see, daily, depicted on the TV?
How does this news affect you?
Does the objectivism and the right-wing capitalism of Ayn Rand explain it and give us reasonable solutions?
What about socialism? Left-wing collectivism?
What do you suggest?

Flex, back in June I started a thread about my personal interest in complementary and community currencies (CCC)--to be used incooperation with federal currencies--as a way of dealing with the problem of poverty. I don't think you were with us then, were you? Here is the location of the thread:

http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=14987

ONE SOLUTION THAT I BELIEVE WILL HELP US DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM IS: A new and daring look at the nature and function of money, and its sister, currency. Check out:
http://www.odemagazine.com/article.php?aID=4147
Flex
QUOTE(Joesus @ Nov 08, 2006, 08:02 PM) *

So these great people you speak of, you think they intentionally made an impression so that you would remember them?


Not a chance in hell. My brother has no need to leave an impression on me. Pat Magnarella has never impressed me with his personality, but rather his accomplishments. Donnie was the CEO of Sony music, yet was so passionate that he would call just to say he was listening to the album and loved it--he really had no need to leave an impression.
Flex

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ABOUT POVERTY
What is poverty and why do we have so much of it?
to me poverty is not being satisfied with what you have. I don't think that most people will ever truely be satisfied and thus poverty will always exist.

What is your definition of poverty?
see above

Have you ever experienced it?
For sure--I am not satisfied with where I am in life and I will always try to improve.

In your family?
In the traditional sense of poverty yes--I have been homeless for two months when I was 7 and once again when I was 12 when my father went into mania. Just about a month ago he went into mania again; however, now we not only had the means to support ourselvs, but his destruction and spending habits as well.

Have you seen it in people around where you live?
The poorest family I know would be my ex-girlfriend. Her mother was the CFO of San Disk and took the company public. They live in a multi million dollar house, and each one of the kids is set to inherit $6 million (not including stocks and bonds or property). Not a single member of their family is happy. That to me is poverty.

How do you feel about the poverty we see, daily, depicted on the TV?
I feel that it is a media tool, and a government propoganda tool set out to make individuals feel that they can not overcome their circumstance. You always see the gangs and the negative, but you never see the positive. The news is the worst of all of the rating whores.

How does this news affect you?
It shows me how set our government is on preserving poverty in the monitary sense.

Does the objectivism and the right-wing capitalism of Ayn Rand explain it and give us reasonable solutions?
I would like to think so. If you work hard you will be rewarded.

What about socialism? Left-wing collectivism?
Only for education, roadways, and especialy ensuring that the disabled are able to function.

What do you suggest?
People go out and make the world that they want to live in.

Joesus
QUOTE
People go out and make the world that they want to live in.

This is much more than living with the intent to leave behind a legacy.

You sound like a kid with good intentions and lots of judgments
Flex
QUOTE(Joesus @ Nov 09, 2006, 09:37 AM) *

QUOTE
People go out and make the world that they want to live in.

This is much more than living with the intent to leave behind a legacy.

You sound like a kid with good intentions and lots of judgments


Don't be fooled my intentions are totaly self righteous--they may be "good" but they are still selfish.

My judgements are only on society as a whole, not on the individual. And what greater legacy could I possibly leave behind than some greater good for humanity (the world I want to live in)? I guess you could say that a greater good would be relative. But I do not see what is wrong with living by the golden rule--for me it is the only rule to live by--follow whatever rules you like.
Joesus
QUOTE
Don't be fooled my intentions are totaly self righteous--they may be "good" but they are still selfish.

Yeah, I think that's what I said. Good intentions are always self absorbed.
Flex
QUOTE(Joesus @ Nov 10, 2006, 01:01 AM) *

QUOTE
Don't be fooled my intentions are totaly self righteous--they may be "good" but they are still selfish.

Yeah, I think that's what I said. Good intentions are always self absorbed.


Ahh sorry it totaly went over my head smile.gif
Lindsay
QUOTE(Flex @ Nov 10, 2006, 01:17 AM) *
...Ahh sorry it totaly went over my head smile.gif
Flex, and all: Take note of the change I've made in the title of this thread. If it does not meet with approval let me know. I'm easy.
Rick
QUOTE(Flex @ Nov 09, 2006, 11:53 PM) *
... But I do not see what is wrong with living by the golden rule--for me it is the only rule to live by--follow whatever rules you like.

The golden rule is my rule too. Strictly applied and followed, it leads beyond egoism toward a liberal political philosophy, because it leads to respect for others and therefore respect for society's institutions. Hence, to "promote the general welfare" (from the preamble to the US Constitution).
Culture
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 08, 2006, 09:44 PM) *

What is poverty and why do we have so much of it?


a lack of essential items – such as food, clothing, water, and shelter.

QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 08, 2006, 09:44 PM) *

What is your definition of poverty?


see above

QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 08, 2006, 09:44 PM) *

Have you ever experienced it?
In your family?
Have you seen it in people around where you live?


Yes in the first two instances, strangely enough in the socialist countries not as much. What makes it strange is that in Asia the people regard themselves as poor, but when juxtaposed with the poverty in Africa (where I am from by the way) Asia has is pretty well off.

I think the problem comes in when we try to measure poverty by 'how much money one averages per day'

To further clarify this I recall as a child having to walk to school in quite cold weather and thought it normal that I would wake a cow, the cow would urinate (usually the first thing they do when awoken) and I would then stand (had no shoes) in the urine to warm my feet up. I would repeat this procedure till just before I got to the school grounds and rinse my feet in the bathroom. When people around here (Vietnam) hear this they generally do not believe me. Yet I had one meal a day, access to education (however simple) a coal stove and a shelter. I would not regard this as poverty.

QUOTE(Lindsay @ Nov 08, 2006, 09:44 PM) *

How do you feel about the poverty we see, daily, depicted on the TV?
How does this news affect you?
Does the objectivism and the right-wing capitalism of Ayn Rand explain it and give us reasonable solutions?
What about socialism? Left-wing collectivism?
What do you suggest?


I do not have to watch TV to see poverty, I see it everyday. Socialism in theory is wonderful but in reality it is open to corruption and abuse as is democracy.

We need to look at the bigger picture if we want to make any significant suggestions.
First address the lack of material goods and education and possibly decentralised industrialisation.
There is a lot of good work happening to fight poverty and I believe it is growing, new techniques for distribution of wealth are investigated and so on.

In an ideal world people would make an effort and put a few bucks away
www.Children.org
www.unicef.org
http://www.unmundo.org/en/what/education/break

instead of just talking about it, the difference, however small.
Lindsay
QUOTE(Flex @ Nov 09, 2006, 11:53 PM) *
... But I do not see what is wrong with living by the golden rule--for me it is the only rule to live by--follow whatever rules you like. Rick adds: The golden rule is my rule too....
But, depending on how it is stated, there can be DROSS in the gold of the Golden Rule: Don't get me wrong, I love the GR. However, if I believe in capital punishment and that it should apply to everyone, including me, then I can use the GR to back up the idea. Right wing Christians use this to argue in favour of CP.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
"Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal." The Dalai Lama

http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html

The Universality of the Golden Rule in the World Religions
QUOTE
Christianity==All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1
Confucianism==Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Analects 12:2
Buddhism==Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1
Hinduism==This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517
Islam==No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Sunnah
Judaism==What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 3id
Taoism==Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien
Zoroastrianism==That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

Adapted from "The Christopher Newsletter"

I like to put it this way: GØD is Love! Therefore, love others and yourself, with a compassionate love, and expect others to do likewise.
lucid_dream
QUOTE(Culture @ Nov 11, 2006, 01:10 AM) *
In an ideal world people would make an effort and put a few bucks away
www.Children.org
www.unicef.org
http://www.unmundo.org/en/what/education/break


In your ideal world perhaps, but in mine, the masses don't need saving, nor should they be saved. There should not be the guarantee that Life is a cake-walk. Life demands struggle. Life demands victims. We largely have the choice of whether to become a victim or not. The poverty-stricken people you see around you, that is largely their choice. That is Life. When you realize that the slayer and the slain are one, then you go beyond this dualistic nonsense.

Is this too extreme? I would suggest that your position of saving the poverty-stricken and disadvantaged is too extreme and foolhardy, since where do we draw the line? Should we start saving all beetles and mice too, to save them from their predators and from natural catastrophe? Man is predator to man, so why should we save man from his natural predator? This whole business of trying to save the disadvantaged is just a lame attempt to escape our real responsibilities by settling on lesser pseudo-responsiblities. It's like the person who has an important task to do, but instead procrastinates and invents all sorts of other pseudo-tasks to distract their attention away from their real goal. I'd suggest focusing on the real goal here, not on the pseudo-task of saving disadvantaged people.

And please don't ask what the real goal is, since I have taken this up elsewhere.

Lindsay
QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Nov 11, 2006, 01:10 PM) *

QUOTE(Culture @ Nov 11, 2006, 01:10 AM) *
In an ideal world people would make an effort and put a few bucks away
www.Children.org www.unicef.org
http://www.unmundo.org/en/what/education/break


In your ideal world perhaps, but in mine, the masses don't need saving, nor should they be saved. There should not be the guarantee that Life is a cake-walk. Life demands struggle. Life demands victims. We largely have the choice of whether to become a victim or not....
I'd suggest focusing on the real goal here, not on the pseudo-task of saving disadvantaged people.

And please don't ask what the real goal is, since I have taken this up elsewhere.
Culture, I think of myself as a VERY compassionate person, however, I THINK I agree with you......I will check out your posts to see if I can discover your "real goal".
Lindsay
A MUST READ:
http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=13729&hl=

Feb 12, 2006, 10:05 PM
A sample:
QUOTE
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always."

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is brought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"

"There is more to life than increasing its speed."

"That service is the noblest which is rendered for its own sake."

"Satisfaction lies in the effort, not in the attainment. Full effort is full victory."

"Peace is its own reward."....

Lindsay
As part of the current thread on Questions about LIFE, and with some editing, I bring forward and include the following. Max, feel free to correct me:
QUOTE(maximus242 @ Apr 20, 2006, 12:53 PM) *

THE FRAUD OF BANKING
Max, I will delete this thread, if you say so, okay? But here goes. It is my understanding that you wrote as follows:
=============================
Well, essentially, banking is fraud.

Here is how it works: If you look on any modern bill you will see it says that "This is Legal Tender". This was actually a replacement for the old term, "Non-Redeemable". However, both mean the same thing.

Here is what it means: If everyone were to go into a bank to redeem their bills for the gold, the bank is supposed to hold the gold. If it did this, the bank would be bankrupt, so, instead, they (banks) print bills that cannot be redeemed for real value.

Why?

Because they print many, many more bills than they actually have any real value for.

So you see, banking first started when wealthy people went to goldsmiths and asked them to keep their valuables in the smiths' very safe and fire proof chests.

BTW, if you think that this is a made-up story check out any of the basic university texts on the history of economics and you will find that this information is there. For example, check out page 279, BASIC ECONOMICS (1972), by Richard S. Echaus, who was a professor of economics at MIT in the 1970's. He was a younger colleague of Paul A. Samuelson, who won the first Nobel prize in economics in 1969 for his book on ECONOMICS (1966). See page 324. Both agree that "banking began with the ancient goldsmiths" who invented reserve banking and paper money. As Max points out
QUOTE
The smiths gave the person who deposited the gold a piece of paper which said how much gold had been deposited. Anyone, upon giving the piece of paper back to the smith, could then receive and redeem their gold back.

Eventually, people found it was easier to just exchange the paper bills, rather than the gold itself. Then the goldsmiths figured something out: They simply printed more bills.

Since, it was assumed, not everyone was going to try and redeem them, the smiths could just pass out extra bills, with no extra gold in store, and no one would be the wiser.. and the rest, as they say, is history. Now, I'm sure, some smarty has figured out that you can buy gold with paper money.

This however has not been the case, for many years before, when all the gold was seized and used to try and pay off debt to international bankers.

And, besides, the gold price fluctuated. Whereas, if the bill had real value, then you could exchange your bill for a specific amount of gold.

There has been a few exceptions known in America as with Lincoln's "Green Backs" and Kennedys "Silver Certificates"--the much misunderstood and maligned $2.00 bill. These both had real value behind the bills. Ironically enough, both presidents who created real money were assassinated.

Coincidence?

I think not.


Interestingly, just today, CNN reported that the $2.00 bill is, once again, coming back into use--$61,000,000 now in circulation. However, no mention was made of the source of this paper: The Fed? Or the Treasury? Will someone tell us which is the source? Furthermore, what is the difference?
maximus242
Thats not the same thing Lindsay, silver dollar certificates are guarenteed to be backed by silver. Same thing with lincons green backs, except it is gold.
Lindsay
QUOTE(maximus242 @ Nov 11, 2006, 04:28 PM) *

Thats not the same thing Lindsay, silver dollar certificates are guarenteed to be backed by silver. Same thing with lincons green backs, except it is gold.
The same thing as what, Max?

BTW, check out the following references:

http://www.hku.hk/hkcer/articles/v10/rschuler.htm

If you can bring this up you will find it a most interesting story about how the goldsmiths dominated the financial history of England and led to the establishing the so-called Bank of England. I say "so-called" because it is not the Bank of England, it is the bank of the bankers.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=goldsm...lr=&oi=scholart
Davies book is a well-written and simplified story:
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/origins.html#points
Culture
QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Nov 11, 2006, 01:10 PM) *

In your ideal world perhaps, but in mine, the masses don't need saving, nor should they be saved. There should not be the guarantee that Life is a cake-walk. Life demands struggle. Life demands victims. We largely have the choice of whether to become a victim or not. The poverty-stricken people you see around you, that is largely their choice. That is Life. When you realize that the slayer and the slain are one, then you go beyond this dualistic nonsense.


In some parts of the world yes I agree with you that it is a choice. But when you journey through countries that were blown to pieces by other countries or genocide incidents, then it is another story altogether

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Nov 11, 2006, 01:10 PM) *

Is this too extreme? I would suggest that your position of saving the poverty-stricken and disadvantaged is too extreme and foolhardy, since where do we draw the line? Should we start saving all beetles and mice too, to save them from their predators and from natural catastrophe? Man is predator to man, so why should we save man from his natural predator? This whole business of trying to save the disadvantaged is just a lame attempt to escape our real responsibilities by settling on lesser pseudo-responsiblities. It's like the person who has an important task to do, but instead procrastinates and invents all sorts of other pseudo-tasks to distract their attention away from their real goal. I'd suggest focusing on the real goal here, not on the pseudo-task of saving disadvantaged people.

And please don't ask what the real goal is, since I have taken this up elsewhere.


Easy there...pseudo responsibilities in your view is a life changing chance for another, I manage to still take care of the real responsibilities that need to be seen to, but I am a bit shocked that you would knock the ones that do try to help, sure its a dog eat dog world and has always been so. This however does not mean that you should avert your eyes when there is someone standing in front of you with horrifying birth defects all thanks to Agent Orange. If you think that that was their choice then you must be a moron
Lindsay
Culture challenges:
QUOTE
...when there is someone standing in front of you with horrifying birth defects all thanks to Agent Orange. If you think that that was their choice then you must be a moron.
This poses a very some very important questions: Where do choices originate, anyway? Are we dominated by instinctual and unconscious drives?

What about Karma? Is the concept of karma--we reap what we sow- just so much irrational nonsense? Are we trapped in our karma? Or, do we have power to change things in any way at all? As we discuss the questions and comments raised by Angelroze, does how we think about karma play a role?

Having posed the above questions, I am willing to agree that there are some questions for which there are no definitive answers. However, if we can agree to disagree, agreeably, and without personal attacks--judgemental argumentum adhominems--it is fun to discuss them, anyway. Right?

I am also willing to agree that it okay to begin answering certain questions with the preface, "Seeing that such and such is so, could it be accepted that such and such is possible?
Flex
As far as agent orange is concerned, alot of the individuals who were effected, were loser, both before and after the were exposed. My uncle for example was exposed to agent orange durring the Viernam war, and he was a loser both before and after he was exposed--the only difference is he was given thousands of dollars by the government for a settlement. As for the children, I believe they should justly be compensated~ But anyone who actually faught in the war (on the American side at least) deserved what came to them--they did not have to fight if they did not believe in it. I know this is a very controversial statement, but it is what I feel to be true.
Lindsay
QUOTE(Flex @ Nov 14, 2006, 09:38 PM) *

...I know this is a very controversial statement, but it is what I feel to be true.
Flex, I am sure that you and others have noticed that all the recent interesting posts are controversial. Honest controversy is a good thing, right? They tend to make things happen. Keep in mind: Values without actions are useless, IMO.
Culture
QUOTE(Flex @ Nov 14, 2006, 09:38 PM) *

As far as agent orange is concerned, alot of the individuals who were effected, were loser, both before and after the were exposed. My uncle for example was exposed to agent orange durring the Viernam war, and he was a loser both before and after he was exposed--the only difference is he was given thousands of dollars by the government for a settlement. As for the children, I believe they should justly be compensated~ But anyone who actually faught in the war (on the American side at least) deserved what came to them--they did not have to fight if they did not believe in it. I know this is a very controversial statement, but it is what I feel to be true.


I was specifically referring to the people here in Vietnam and have little sympathy for the veterans from the US, however blinded they were by the government at the time.
Lindsay
QUOTE(Culture @ Nov 18, 2006, 12:49 AM) *

QUOTE(Flex @ Nov 14, 2006, 09:38 PM) *

... I know this is a very controversial statement, but it is what I feel to be true.
I was specifically referring to the people here in Vietnam and have little sympathy for the veterans from the US, however blinded they were by the government at the time.
Culture, what are you doing in Vietnam/Singapore/Japan? BTW, is Vietnam a social democracy? Or what? Tell us a little bit about what is going on.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright © BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am