YOUR Religion

Do you see what you are saying here? You don't believe in the resurrection and probably think that it is illogical and unsupported. And now you are essentially saying, "Believing in reincarnation is really no different that believing in a resurrection."

I think you are essentially admitting that you believe simply out of faith w/ little evidence?

 

I think it is christianity that believes with not much evidence. There are four people who said they saw something and wrote down what they think they saw. These are less credible because their testimony is controlled by a less than credible institution.

From more contemporary, credible, multiple, uncorreleated sources, I have dowsed that there is a high probability that the Master resurrected himself. I have some confidence in a very high probability factor. I believe in my ability to factor this probability from resonant sources.

Even so, there is an equal or greater probability factor for reincarnations based on a preponderance of evidence that is weightier than four people who said they saw Jesus after he was crucified. That's all you have, yes?

People die on the operating table and come back with a wider perspective, including reincarnations. That is just one other example.

People explore sans-physical body and come back with the same viewpoints...traveling back in time, here and there.

Virtually all channeled info takes this aspect for granted. No one is even attempting to prove something so obvious. It's no big deal unless it threatens your identity.

 

You mean a few is not enough, but one is ok for christians? I've heard of as many as 50. We also have 450,000 years timeline to work with. We've had great civilizations come and go...Mu and Atlantis recently. The math works out fine.

Question: What do you plan to do when you get to heaven? Imagine you have been there ten thousand years...what is important to you? You have all of eternity. How will you occupy the next million years?

 

"Only" the gnostic gospels? But what if those were the ones that had reincarnation right? Now you are relying on the C church to tell you what's what?

You have to ask, what was saved? And from what?

To understand the cross you'ld have to understand the problem. You don't understand the problem so the cross is a mystery that doesn't fit your prejudices about reality.

What does the cross mean to you?

 

You’re missing my point though: you’re using the resurrection, which you don’t believe in, as your main argument for reincarnation. I’m pointing out that that is a weak line of reasoning.

In other words, you’re doing the classic debating technique of attacking my position in the hopes that somehow your position will look better. But I’m not trying to even present my position here...

I was merely pointing out that there are many explanations for the supposed reincarnation evidence and there is a lot of mathematics that shows it is very likely false (unless you believe in past lives as animals or ancient civilization for which there is no evidence, etc.)

 

You're telling me that you think reincarnation is obvious???

 

C'mon. All evidence shows that CroMagnon is only 40,000 years old. And I don't think either of us believe that Neanderthals composed some ancient civilization several hundred thousand years ago...

 

I agree that every person has to make a choice between the message communicated by the gnostic gospels and that of the traditional. These were two competing set of writings that have diametrically opposed ideas.

And you cannot explain away the idea of the cross to traditional Christians. There's no way to New Age-ify it. It's either self-effort or it's the Cross. There's no way to blend those two concepts as they are mutually exclusive...

 

Suppose the cross was about saving the integrity of free will. Then there's not problem or a conflict. We have the free will to walk away. When we were in danger of not having the free will to walk back, someone made it within grasp for everyone. Now its just a matter of walking back. Make sense?

 

"Diametrically opposed" is a clue. You should look at the big picture. Who is opposing? Why? Why do you give credence to the victor who writes history?

Haven't explained away anything except maybe your idea of the cross. The cross is still there. Why is your's exclusive? What does it mean to you?