A Pagan's Theories on Recinarnation
 

Reincarnation

This is an article I wrote on the theories of Reincarnation. Naturally, there is no way to verify them, but they offer a comforting perspective on the subject of death. There are a number of comparisons to the Christian Ascension Theory and several points that contradict it. However, I mean no disrespect or offense to the Christian path.

Reincarnation

Read and comment, but do NOT flame.

Read and comment, but do NOT flame.
 

I would never flame ! Did I miss something here. Was there more copy that is missing from this post. That was a very general statement. Could you give more detail ?
Snow Man :cool:

Yes, there is more. I only posted the opening here because I wanted to keep the post fairly short. The whole article is on the link above it.

Yes I read it
 

Do not agree. Keep those post short and to the point :rolleyes:
Isaac

I just watched part of a show on National Geo and they where showing Pagans practicing "Sky Clad" My question to Tomoshibi is do you practice sky clad ?? :confused::confused:


:peace::peace::peace::peace:

Attachment 1894

zuibun mae no koto ni naru kedo ano toki no yakusoku wo oboete iru kai?

yuuhi ga shizumu magiwa no kyou****su de iron na koto wo katariatta darou?
ore ga baka datta no ka? anna yumemonogatari wo unomi ni ****e made
dakedo ima no sono omae no kawari you wa nan da?

michibata ni saku yowayowashii hana wo fumitsubu****e mitari...
iya da to wakatteru no ni heiki de tsumi wo nasuritsukete mitari...
sore ga otona ni naru tte iu koto naraba ore wa kyohi suru...
sore ga otona ni naru tte iu koto naraba...

mou iwanai ano yakusoku wo chikatta toki no omae wa koko ni inain darou?
itsumademo isshoni waraeru nante honki de shinjiteta ore wo kono mama houtte oite

dakara ore wa wasureru koto ni ****an da...

michibata ni saku yowayowashii hana wo fumitsubu****e mitari...
iya da to wakatteru no ni heiki de tsumi wo nasuritsukete mitari...
sore ga otona ni naru tte iu koto naraba ore wa kyohi suru...
sore ga otona ni naru tte iu koto naraba...

kono rousoku no you na tomoshibi ga kiete shimatta to ****e mo...

ano kako wa kie wa shinai.

A fascinatin and well written article, which I thoroughly enjoyed. Thank you, Tomoshibi.

No, I don't do sky clad myself. I prefer wearing ritual regalia such as cloaks, medalions, and such.

Yeah.....good luck with that.

I get all of my religious history/theory from Cracked Magazine.

That makes sense. :p

You just love that crack no matter what kind of crack it is ! Self reliance is just perfect for you jp. I bet you are a sky clad kind of guy.

Hey Sir Tom,
I would like to sit back on the hill a watch some sky clad gals dancing around the fire. :D

Attachment 1899

I read it and I disagree, but I also think the writing was flawed. I am not flaming you, but if you think your argument was well thought out and presented you are mistaken. You only provide support for your view, and for the opposing view you offer only criticism. Then you haughtily state: Now that you are familiar with the theories of reincarnation, you can better form your own theory on the matter. This is likely as close to knowing the truth as we will ever come. However, I find it wiser to base theories on observed truth instead of basing theories on other theories. The truth is you have spoon fed only your dogma hoping that the weak minded will swallow it down like pablum. If you were truly convinced that any intelligent reader could be swayed to your particular fantasy then you would have presented both the PROs and CONs of BOTH theories. But the TRUTH is that you likely DON'T KNOW enough about Christianity or ascension theory as you describe it to intelligently present both sides. I do not fault you for this as I wouldn't feel particularly qualified to tackle either issue, but I do know when someone tries to piddle on my leg and tell me it's raining.

>If you were truly convinced that any intelligent reader could be swayed to your particular fantasy then you would have presented both the PROs and CONs of BOTH theories.

That is not a tenet of a successful argument. A successful argument offers the strengths of one side and the weaknesses of the other. Otherwise it's news, not an argument.

If you were arguing with me about whether or not the world was flat, would you give any evidence that supported my (obviously wrong) argument that it was, indeed, flat? Of course not.

au contraire my bum watching friend. If I were truly convinced that I was right then I could confidently take the pros of your argument and refute them, or at least cast serious doubt as to their validity.

If you don't do this then you have not proven anything and you have not won the argument. You're example regarding whether or not the world is flat is an excellent example of this.

More esoteric are faith based arguments, where you cannot "prove" anything. I don't agree with Tomoshibi's views, but I respect his right to choose his own "path" as I think he would say. However, I was not the one who was pretending to tell the truth and the whole truth so that others could make an informed decision, when in fact I had not.

here we go :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

>I could confidently take the pros of your argument and refute them

That is not "presenting both sides of an argument," that is presenting one side of an argument.

I'm not following your superior intellect Joe. How can I refute something that I do not present?

For example, my colleague, Joe, says that the world is flat. In defense of his theory, Joe states A, B, and C (it will help if you imagine that A, B, and C are consistent with current accepted science). Well my friends, Joe is not correct. On point A (disprove A), on point B (disprove B), and finally on point C (disprove C). This is Comp 101 Joe.

BTW Tomoshibi, sorry to hijack your thread. I don't mean any disrespect.

I think "Tom" correctly assumed that everyone is by now completely familiar with the "ascension" theory, which is why he didnt bother rehashin it in his article.

Morpheus 1
Joepole 0
next round :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Time for someone to go see the oracle.
Attachment 1901

Easily. I could present it, you could assume the listener knows it, it could be present in some referenced material, etc.


But in that case you're only providing support for your own point of view, something you earlier described as something only someone with a weak argument does.

You were the referee in charge of watching Arkansas' defensive players for holding, weren't you?

Morph, the real question isnt how but why would ya refute somethin ya didnt present? Not that it matters anyway, since we can count on Joe to do the refutin!

Because that's how every argument/disagreement/discussion of opposing viewpoints ever happens. Person A says something Person B disagrees with and Person b refutes it.

I refute that! Maybe Person B agrees to disagree. Person A may still disagree to 'agree to disagree'.

I can't agree to that.

BAM ! In your face !! LOL :laugh: :cool:

Lets all just refute everything each other says, every time one of us says somethin. Wouldnt that be fun?

No, ya could agree to it. Ya just wont. There's a difference.

Note how I successfully refuted that statement. Joe is now squirmin in the grip o' reason.

Just how did you know that JP ? Now when I see you losing a debate like this I have to call it like it is. This board is better than instant replay. 15 yards JP back it up and replay the down or punt :laugh::laugh::laugh:

I'm seriously amazed. Joe is actually using quote tags now. :D

Anywho, back onto the actual topic of this discussion, my thoughts of recincarnation are that no one will ever know what the truth is, neither Christian nor Pagan. We all have books, spiritual leaders, and other information sources, some having been around for thousands of years, describing the afterlife. The problem is many of them disagree. Personally, I'm a supporter of reincarnation.

Writings like Tomoshibi's article, I think, are meant to boost the validity of a topic that goes widely misunderstood. In this case, he explained reincarnation so baseless supporters of the ascension theory would not be so quick to throw it out. It is meant to help the reader's opinion become one that is educated and not based on one-sided education.

I wouldn't say the article "critisizes" the asension theory. It simply states the supporting facts (or as close to fact as you can get on this topic) and tries to debunk the opposing topic. Such writing styles are quite common.

Hey anime, your baseless bias is showing. You are implying that those who hold views that are different from yours are uneducated, and that this resulted from their presumably incorrect "one-sided" education. I have come to expect this type of reverse discrimination and persecution from minority groups that always claim to promote "equality and freedom" but who really are bigots themselves.

I just have to type squirmin' in the grip o' reason for myself. I hope you'll excuse me, Al, if I use that in the future. You guys crack me up.

LOL "Squirmin' in the Grip o' Reason" if there's not a song in that somewhere !!??

I feel a drink comin' on.. it must be Friday ! ! !

Can I get a witness ?

can I get an AMEN ?

So say we all :laugh:

Ah we have reached the crux of the matter. Everybody has something to hid except for me and my monkey
:monkey::monkey::monkey::monkey:

Monkeys?

Once again Cracked has the answers you seek.

So how many monkeys would it take before you stopped caring?

That's not a rhetorical question. We actually know the number.

So Cracked is your Oracle of sorts ?? :rolleyes: and all this time I thought you could think for yourself !

Why create an argument here? About this? That's what I want to know.

You sir Issac has one thing you are hiding:
Attachment 1903

Belle kicking your speedo butt.:laugh::laugh:
Monkeys didn't help then, can't help you now.