Blog powered by Typepad

« Of is and ought | Main | The widening gyre »


Antonia Mills said that she never found one single case of a child who remembers to have been a suicide bomber in the previous life. Her exactly words:

"One hears about cases of rebirth in which a bride is murdered by her mother-in-law—Preeti Misra is just such a case—but one does not hear about suicide bombers or Sati practitioners being reborn. They died expecting not to come back and they do not seem to. They think they have passed that fragile border for good."

Reference: Back from Death: Young Adults in Northern India Who as Children Were Said to Remember a Previous Life, with or without a Shift in Religion (Hindu to Moslem or Vice Versa)

They are terrorists from our perspective, not from theirs. They consider us their enemy, so killing us is a victory for them, nothing to regret. When the American military killed Bin Laden, to us they were heroes, but to Bin Ladin;s followers, they were murderers.

It is always a matter of perspective. There is no reason to think terrorists are punished in the afterlife, since the national boundaries would probably not be the same there as here.

Enemy groups fight and kill each other, that is how life is. You will see it differently depending on which side you happen to be on. Bin Ladin was loved by many. I personally hate him, since I am an American. But I can see there is another side.

"It is always a matter of perspective."

I'm open to all the possibilities, realpc. But it does seem to me that when you look at the focus of bin Laden's adult life, it was more about hating than loving.

"There is no reason to think terrorists are punished in the afterlife"

The excerpt Michael posted doesn't talk about punishment, as far as I can see, but rather "a learning process." And that goes too, for much of the conversation that's been taking place here in recent weeks.

[The excerpt Michael posted doesn't talk about punishment, as far as I can see, but rather "a learning process."]

I was thinking of an earlier post, where he speculated that Bin Ladin might be punished.

"when you look at the focus of bin Laden's adult life, it was more about hating than loving."

I think that's somewhat true of all of us, although we might not realize it. Pacifists hate the people they see as responsible for war. Socialists hate the "greedy" capitalists. Christians claim to be all love, but I am skeptical about that, especially when they turn their political force against homosexuals. Secular humanists hate religion because religious people can be so judgmental and hateful.

I think that when you love one thing, you will necessarily hate another thing. That's just how life goes. Bin Ladin seems like an atrocious hateful person to us, his enemies, but to his followers he was probably a loving saint.

I don't know of material channeled in regards to suicide bombers.But I do know of material which goes into detail about suicide.

The most relevant question I think is about the silver cord.

When does it break and when does it not break?
There are some (spiritualistic) sources which say that suicide means the silver cord doesn't break immediately upon suicide which has many not so pretty consequences when you consider it's the silver cord that connects the body to the spirit.

Do terrorists deserve punishment?
Nobody deserves punishment,there is no god of retribution to dish out punishment.

Cause and effect means whatever murder the suicide bombers have done will have to be made right in the various lives into which they might reincarnate.

Taking life means giving life.
If not,being a mass murderer will only mean the deepest sphere of "darkness" will be their home.

Murder by default blocks all acces to any sphere of light.

Then again,since all material about the afterlife is pretty subjective it's hard to know for sure who has the right set of ideas and who does not.

On another note:
Have you seen this article?

Always curious as to how such intelligent people got to their conclusions.

I said: "when you look at the focus of bin Laden's adult life, it was more about hating than loving."

realpc said: "I think that's somewhat true of all of us, although we might not realize it."

Really? Do you think it's "somewhat true of all of us" that we're more about hating than loving?

realpc, I've been thinking some more, and I do hear what you're saying. We're probably not very far apart, really.

Well I am going to throw one out.

When I was in Iraq sometimes insurgents would kidnap a man's family and give him two choices; either become a suicide bomber or he and his family would be murdered. Of course if he became a suicide bomber his family would be released after his death ( they always kept their word on that part). So what say everyone in here, how do we view those suicide bombers. Talk about a rock and a hard place.

"So what say everyone in here, how do we view those suicide bombers. Talk about a rock and a hard place."

If we want to save someone by killing someone it still means you're not going to a happy place thereafter.Not to say it's good/bad but it has similar consequences to regular murder.

I'm not saying It would be an easy choice for me,not at all,who knows what I would do, but murder will never get you or me passage to the light.

What if the families ordeal was part of their cause and effect,it would mean you are trying to sidestep the laws of cause and effect by murdering/suicide.Fair?What if in a past life that same family that was kidnapped was doing the kidnapping and the "suicide bomber"/family had a lesson to learn either emotionally or what not.

I don't know for sure but there are many variables to consider.

The text you quoted resonates with me. It sounds other-worldly. Often spirits seem very high-level but at the same time struggling to cram their intellects into our words and concepts. The account seems believable to me.

Bryan, in a way I'm not surprised at Hawking's conclusion considering last fall he stated the universe didn't need God. Back in high school, a teacher of mine made out Hawkings to be an agnostic of sorts. That was the late '90s and I think back then Hawking's belief on God and the supernatural was more ambiguous, but I guess within the past year Hawking has finally stated his beliefs firm.

I find the comments section a lot better with regards to such a topic, and I wonder if this might have something to do with high profile atheists and skeptics such as Phil Plait or even CSICOP co-founder Paul Kurtz speaking out against militant atheism and the rudeness associated with it, thus allowing more peaceful discussion as of late (or maybe it could be the Guardian monitor's their comments very well).

I have noticed that some of the atheist comments state that some of the religious (or non-materialists) feel the need to tell them (the atheists) they are wrong, hinting that it is because their beliefs feel threatened. On the flip side, I've noticed a lot of atheists very vocal about the suggestion of the existence of God or the afterlife, so one can wonder if this is also a result of cognitive dissonance of having the possibility of the above's existence being true.

The account in the text does seem rather realistic. Interesting that it does not speak of burning in hell or being trapped in a nether world of demons. rather, there is confusion and lessons to be learned; albeit in a less than blissful state. This too seems realistic.

What of a US soldier who covers his buddies' retreat, standing alone against an overwhelming enemy force, knowing he will be killed, but hoping to buy his buddies enough time. Is that not a form of suicide? Would he experience the same afterlife fate as the bombers (assuming the bombers are not coerced as in Kris' example and assuming they believe they are at war)? If not the same, why not? Where is the line drawn?

I think the line may be 'motive'.

I read Klimo's book several years ago and found it to be intelligent, plausible, and it resonated deeply with my intuitive"internal tuning fork" that I use for discriminating this type of material over a 30 year period of deep study and approximately 40,000 hours spent listening and Being with the suffering and pain of others experiencing the Human Condition.

I have given this book to three suicidal patients with the caveat that the book must resonate for them. They are still among the living so far.

Everyone becomes enlightened when they become connected to that light. It's a holographic universe thing. Oneness and connectedness on the other side.

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,"

And Hawking believes in a different fairy story, told by materialist atheists, that the brain is a computer.

Yes, the mind does seem to need a brain to interact with this level of reality. The materialists' mistake is in thinking that therefore the mind IS the brain.

Hawking doesn't believe this because he is intelligent. He believes it because it's the current fashion in science.

I suspect that if I had a horrible disease like ALS, I would find it difficult to believe in God, too. Hawking's feelings are understandable.

I agree Michael, it reminds me of the blog post you made a couple of years ago on valid reasons why people would not believe in the afterlife. I don't know if it is ALS but also his training within science that influences his opinions.

Mentioning ALS reminds me of a dialogue exchange from a movie or TV show - I forget the source.

Woman: What did Lou Gehrig die of?
Man: Lou Gehrig's Disease.
Woman: Wow. What are the odds?!

Hawkings is stuck in another era. What a shame he doesn't understand or isn't open enough to learn about the recent discoveries in quantum physics and other proof yes, proof from scientists, researchers and educators that the afterlife is indeed real and consciousness is non-local, that is, can survive outside the physical body. I am so tired of debunkers who claim there is no evidence of an afterlife, when there is tons of it. But an open mind is required to "see" it.

I agree with the commenter who said it's all a matter of perspective who the "terrorist" is. I believe to the Universe it all comes down to taking another's life, even if it's only one. George Bush has more blood on his hands than Bin Laden, including civilian deaths. Is he any less of a "terrorist" than Bin Laden, when it comes right down to taking innocent lives, even though obviously it seems more justified? Will he have less or a tough time during his life review? Probably the bigger lesson is all this is fear, control & ego, which is what drives people to kill. That's where the real lessons will be in crossing over, not which "terrorist" is ultimately correct in their reasons for murder. The Universe could care less how they rationalize it. And ultimately, I think we judge ourselves through a life review once we get "there."

Just think of how fun it will be though after Stephen Hawking sheds his physical body and he crosses over into the light and all his deceased friends and relatives are there to to shout "SURPRISE!" It will be like a surprise birthday party. How fun!

He'll probably stay in the tunnel with Carl Sagan, both of them refusing to move forward into the Light, repeating over and over, "Well? Where's the evidence that we're really dead?!" even though the LIght is staring them in their faces. They'll probably be sitting in that tunnel for eternity!!

If the channeled material can be trusted, the spirit world looks upon terrorism with an attitude that is close to neutrality. But we don't live in the spirit world. We have to deal with the messy realities of life on earth.

I have noticed that much of the advice allegedly coming from "the other side" seems oddly impractical. Consider Jesus' teaching to emulate the lilies of the field, who don't toil or spin. It's a beautiful thought. But here on earth, if we humans don't toil, we starve and die. If we turn the other cheek and resist not evil, we get stomped on by bullies and tyrants. If we never pass judgment, we let bad behavior rule.

So we have to take all such teachings with a grain of salt. They are probably intended not to be taken literally, but to mitigate our natural tendency to overreact - our tendency to focus exclusively on physical survival at the expense of spiritual growth, to retaliate at the slightest provocation, to judge everyone all the time. I think the purpose of such teachings is to "over-correct" our natural biases in order to help us steer a middle course.

As far as neutrality is concerned, it may be true that in the largest scheme of things, all actions are woven together in a grand tapestry, in which evil and suffering have their place just as much as goodness and joy. But we can't live our lives from that perspective, any more than a character in a novel can step out of its pages and comment on the text.

Another thing that is a bit perplexing, is here on earth, we have to learn to share, to hold a job, to gather food and resources, to be good to those less fortunate.

YET, in the afterlife, you can summon all the food you want, create all the houses and surroundings you want, not have to share anything, and at least those on your same level of sphere are not less fortunate in a financial or down on their luck in life way.

So, if we can summon everything we need in the afterlife and that place is the true reality, where is the usefulness of those key skills we learn here (sharing, buying a house, holding a job and pleases everyone, feeding the needy, etc) over there? If it's the place we are practicing for, or whatever? How does all of that translate into a realm where you can essentially have everything to your desire? (Given you're on the right afterlife level.)

We apparently learn skills here to help us in a realm where they are useless.

Now the obvious possibility for all of that is for us to spiritually grow and become better and more mature souls overall. Even if the skills, traits, and things we need to learn here are utterly useless on the other side. They progress us.

One more note about Hawking, and it's not just me that has noticed it but why are Hawking's comments news? You may argue it is because Hawking is contemporary one of the world's greatest scientists and thinkers, but he isn't the first famous intellect to say something like he did. I think David Hume while close to his death said the afterlife was a fantasy more than 200 years earlier. Is the media going to report every famous person's beliefs every time they open their mouth? Another thing I've noticed is some people seem to be equating Hawking's words as if he has discovered proof of the absence of hereafter, when rather it is really just his beliefs (which I think most of us will say is valid, as Michael has pointed out here many times there is not 100% proof of the afterlife).


A little off topic here but I think you may be interested in the experience of Dr Eben Alexander who nearly died from e-coli-meningitus which is normally deadly. This bacteria is so dangerous that it completely shuts down the neo-cortex which is the part of the brain responsible for all experience so no experience should have been possible. Yet he had a very deep NDE, ultra-real which has radically changed his previous conceptions from believing that the mind was purely a product of the brain to regarding the mind as a separate entity that survives. The guy is a Harvard trained neurosurgeon with a string of qualifications as long as his arm and this case is therefore very significant.

The comments to this entry are closed.