Why I reject karma and reincarnation, as illogical and nonsensical

[Alan McDougall]

Alan - The idea of having to post a link to show that the Buddha did not teach reincarnation is exactly my complaint. This is a science forum and the topic is reincarnation and everybody has an opinion. How on earth would it be possible for it not to be well known here what the Buddha taught on the topic? I was objecting the use of the words, since rebirth is better, but I did at least assume that those expressing their opinions had got as far as Wikki.

 

I know this is a science forum Peter, but this is a sub-forum created by the Owner of this site?

 

So why the heck can't we discuss religion, religion is faith based and something that scientist can prove or disprove.

 

As for me I hate the idea of reincarnation, I have gone through this life with some terrible struggles, pain and ill health.

 

So why would I want to return to this bleak grey earth zone, be born, become a child again , go to school again and repeat the whole struggle of life again??

 

It is appointed "ONCE FOR MAN TO LIVE" and then the judgment.

 

Every person that has ever lived, will account for what they did or did not do during their very very brief existence on earth.

 

Eternity come after and eternity is a very very long time indeed.

 

There is a way that seems right to man , but the end thereof is death!.

 

I have set before roads, choose the one that leads to everlasting life!

[PeterJ]

Sorry, Tar, but I don't intend to spend time explaining anything. It would be a waste of my time when all the information is readily available. Not readily comprehensible, maybe, but I can't help much with that. All I'm trying to do is convince you that you don't know enough about the topic to have a reliable opinion, so are in danger of making mistakes.

 

My apologies for the third-person comments. I shouldn't do that.

 

Alan - I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't discuss anything. I was suggesting that as this is a quite academic site when we do discuss something it should be as a good philosopher or scientist might.

 

"There is a road that seems right to man, but the end thereof is death. "

 

Yes, This is the karmic road. To overcome karma would be to overcome death. This would be the answer to Tar's question. We are an individual and subject to karma until we realise that we are not and learn how to escape. So, there are individuals and there are not, depending on how we look at it. For the theory of karma we would need to become familiar with the Buddhist doctrine two worlds and two truths, the conventional and the ultimate.

Edited May 25, 2015 by PeterJ

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

Well me not knowing "enough about the topic" implies you know the sufficient amount. I don't believe your arguments are unassailable, nor that the body of knowledge you would have me investigate, is based on sound, logical thinking. I am not asking you to explain Taoism to me, I am challenging your logic in defending Eastern Philosophy over Western Philosphy, and I am challeging your grasp of reality. I am not making any mistakes, as per my own understanding of reality, and I have no interest in being your student on the subject. I have only the interest in matching your take against my take, and seeing which one makes the most, logical sense. Especially, in reference to the thread topic of Karma and Reincarnation.

 

You act as if I am not your equal and should not be nipping at your heels. I have asked you direct, logical questions, raising objections to various of your conclusions, and you have answered a few, but for the most part, not answered by instead telling everybody I don't know enough to even be talking to you.

 

 

What does that appoach have even a little to do with the topic of whether or not Karma or Reincarnation are topics concerning the waking world, or the dream world.

 

Regards, TAR

Alan,

 

I am sorry you have had a less than 100% enjoyable life. That, however is not sufficient enough reason to dismiss reincaration, just because you would chose not to go another round.

 

If your thread topic was posted as a complaint, and you have no interest in investigating the logic deficit in believing in Karma, if investigating the deficits in the logic of you believing in your god would concurrently be questioned...then indeed engaging in this discussion with you, is pointless. I just now understand, that I lost all those rep points in this thread, because you and PeterJ don't want to be wrong, about your beliefs. And would rather chase me out of the discussion, than face such a possible admission.

 

So be it. I will leave you both to your delusions.

 

Disregards, TAR

[PeterJ]

Yes, that's probably the best thing. I have no idea how to proceed under the circumstances.

[Lightmeow]

Yes, that's probably the best thing. I have no idea how to proceed under the circumstances.

 

I don't know. Maybe give tar direct answers to his direct questions?

[PeterJ]

What question was that?

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

I was planning to not post any more to this thread, but your edit to 102, I was not aware of, when I wrote 103, and there you gave me something to respond to.

 

The Buddist and Taoist things that I have read are repleat with the kind of thing you say is an answer to my question, when they instead indicate, and support my thinking about how I am right in questioning the logic of Buddist thinking, and right to parse Buddist thinking and all human thinking, into the model, the modeler and that which is being modeled. It is NOT logical in my mind for you to both preach nondualism, and that there is the conventional and the ultimate. And I don't believe you can say the individual is ever dismissed, when the individual is still present. And I do not believe you see how easy it is to parse things into things that are true in the waking world, and things that are true ONLY in the imagination.

 

There is, in my philosophy, a requirement, that the individual is separate from the universe, inorder to witness the universe. That is, as I have said, before here, and in other threads, the sage, reaching Nirvana on the hilltop, does it by himself/herself. He/She does not take me along for the ride. The connection with the ultimate, is imaginary, and is not a true thing, is not manifest, unless you consider it already, automatically true, by the mere fact you are in and of the universe and have therefore total connection with all there is to have connection to already, or it is manifest, when you die, and your being, is returned to a non-individual state...what ever that may literally be...that is much as it was, before you were born.

 

The whole excercise of "losing yourself" is a complete and utter misappropriation of funds, as far as I am concerned. The whole reality of being is encapsulated in your being, which in the case of everybody reading this, is in the body of a human being. That is the nature of my existence and is the nature of your existence. When you tell me the "answer" is to exist in both the conventional and the ultimate, I say fine, but I am already doing that, and not by dismissing existence as the "answer", but by embracing existence. That life is fleeting and fragile is true, but since its the only thing we have, it makes the most sense to me, to protect it, cherish it, foster it, and make it possible for others to do the same.

 

When you say I am doing it wrong, I have to tell you why I think you are mistaken in that take. You have valued imaginary things more highly than actual things. You have imagined yourself in possession of some connection with the master soul that I could not possibly ever achieve, until I have read all the mystical nonsense that tells me how to do that, by being tired of being tired of being tired.

 

And as I have said, I do not mind the thought of seeing my "Shady" girl again, playing in the field on the other side of the rainbow bridge...but that is a dream, there is no actual rainbow bridge.

 

We are separated from the master soul, by time and space. Exactly because we are here and now. Lose here and now, and you have lost yourself. This is not advisable in my estimation, for if you were to lose yourself, you would be gone...unable to get even a little dopamine to make you feel good about the situation.

 

So, if I am right, there is no such thing as reincarnation, if I am wrong, and there is such thing as rebirth, then it makes no sense to consider the self an expendable item. Rebirth of an individual soul would accentuate the importance of a self, not depreciate it.

 

Promoting the disolution of the self puts you, PeterJ, in a logical predicament. The same logical predicament that belief in reincarnation puts the believer in reincarnation. And Karma, to be logically consistent would absolutely require that the self is immortal, and gets graded on its individual efforts and rewarded or punished depending on whether or not the self performs well.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited May 26, 2015 by tar

[Lightmeow]

 

Promoting the disolution of the self puts you, PeterJ, in a logical predicament. The same logical predicament that belief in reincarnation puts the believer in reincarnation. And Karma, to be logically consistent would absolutely require that the self is immortal, and gets graded on its individual efforts and rewarded or punished depending on whether or not the self performs well.

 

Regards, TAR

 

The amusing thing is is all of you people think all of the others are is delusional. You cannot use logic to explain this. Tar, can you please explain how you use logic to explain your comments? I am a little confused. I do not think that this is a logical conversation. Maybe we need to redefine logic for this conversation?

[PeterJ]

Thanks Lightmeow. You saved me saying the same. As a staunch supporter of logic and analysis I cannot recognise Tar's complaint here.

 

The only thing I am arguing for is doing justice to theories before dismissing them.

 

If we want to do some logic though, here's some.

 

The theory that underlies karma is a neutral metaphysical position. This states that all positive or partial metaphysical theories are

false. It cannot be demonstrated that they are false, but it can be demonstrated that they give rise to contradictions and must be judged absurd. This would explain why philosophers are unable to make any of them work despite a few millennia of trying. .We see this when Kant writes, 'All selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable'. It is not possible to decide between two absurd theories.

 

This is all about logic and little else. As I have said already, while logic endorses the theory that underpins karma it appears to leave the question of karma open as a 'lemma'. It is not demonstrably absurd, but nor is it an ineluctable consequence of a neutral metaphysic.

 

So I wouldn't want to argue about karma other than to note that it is not what Tar thinks it is. .

Edited May 26, 2015 by PeterJ

[tar]

Lightmeow,

 

Such logical deductions as PeterJ makes, such as all positive metaphysical claims are false or absurb, are merely self fulfilling circular arguments, constructed from premises already suspect, because the human senses and judgement are already concluded to be suspect, and incapable of correct judgment of the situation.

 

I like to give human judgement the benefit of the doubt. There has to be something that we base truth and goodness on, that is recognizable to all, or we would not have courts and religions, and universities of science.

 

The judgments of Kant are based on the two apriori intuitions of space and of time. From these premises the other judgements are synthesized. The basis is given. The basis is understood, and the other human judgements build upon this basis. That all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecideable is obvious since the world is too big and too long lived to pretend you can get outside of it, and understand it, as a whole.

 

Yes, I have my own subjective take on things, but I try and build, and I try and express, a consistent picture of the world, that jives with other people's senses, and jives with other people's metaphysical take on things. I assume that human's have something in common, and if it is good to me, and good to you, that is close enough for government work...the thing can be called good. Even the humanists, devoid of religion, can make positive metaphysical claims, about what is good for humanity.

 

Life after death is true, in the sense that after I die, others will still be alive. If Kant talks of life after death, it may not be a metaphysical claim he is making. Just a statement of fact.

 

PeterJ,

 

Perhaps I do not know what you mean by Karma, but I look at it this way. If it is something true about life and the world that we are talking about, then it is not required to make up the rules and learn the rules that someone else made up. You could just observe (sense) the thing.

 

Regards, TAR

[Alan McDougall]

PeterJ,

 

Well me not knowing "enough about the topic" implies you know the sufficient amount. I don't believe your arguments are unassailable, nor that the body of knowledge you would have me investigate, is based on sound, logical thinking. I am not asking you to explain Taoism to me, I am challenging your logic in defending Eastern Philosophy over Western Philosphy, and I am challeging your grasp of reality. I am not making any mistakes, as per my own understanding of reality, and I have no interest in being your student on the subject. I have only the interest in matching your take against my take, and seeing which one makes the most, logical sense. Especially, in reference to the thread topic of Karma and Reincarnation.

 

You act as if I am not your equal and should not be nipping at your heels. I have asked you direct, logical questions, raising objections to various of your conclusions, and you have answered a few, but for the most part, not answered by instead telling everybody I don't know enough to even be talking to you.

 

 

What does that appoach have even a little to do with the topic of whether or not Karma or Reincarnation are topics concerning the waking world, or the dream world.

 

Regards, TAR

Alan,

 

I am sorry you have had a less than 100% enjoyable life. That, however is not sufficient enough reason to dismiss reincaration, just because you would chose not to go another round.

 

If your thread topic was posted as a complaint, and you have no interest in investigating the logic deficit in believing in Karma, if investigating the deficits in the logic of you believing in your god would concurrently be questioned...then indeed engaging in this discussion with you, is pointless. I just now understand, that I lost all those rep points in this thread, because you and PeterJ don't want to be wrong, about your beliefs. And would rather chase me out of the discussion, than face such a possible admission.

 

So be it. I will leave you both to your delusions.

 

Disregards, TAR

 

Dear, dear tar?

 

Why are you so worried about you "REP POINTS" I have nothing against you or your rather odd logic and would be sad and sorry to see you exit debate!

 

Peter J

 

This being a religious subforum in my opinion does not lead to philosophical debates, which are never-ending and get absolutely nowhere.

 

As for me I repeat!! Reincarnation and rebirth after countless rebirths, is an unpleasant idea, to which I refuse to prescribe. When we die, we leave this mortal body that decays due to entropy and go on to exist forever in ethereal planes, some lower than our earthly one and some higher.

[tar]

Alan,

 

Forgive me for the "Disregards". I am concerned about the rep points, because for me, it is you guys and gals, who are objective reality, and it is you who I wish to please.

 

Presenting my own "odd logic" is an attempt to derive a worldview, that anyone could subscribe to, because it is made up of stuff we can all relate to. You don't have to have a special key to join my club. Everybody is already in.

 

Since I am not waiting for my rewards and punishment 'till an afterlife, or 'till my next life, its important to me, how I am judged, here and now. As a contributor, or a detractor, a creator or a destroyer, a helper or a hinderer.

 

I accept the neg reps as indication that I have displeased someone, or stated falsehoods, or hurt someone's feelings, or shown stupidity or otherwise angered, frustrated or disturbed someone, but I like to know why and what I did, other than just disagreed with someone's opinion. If you just disagree with me, you can say that, this is a discussion board. I just take offense at seeing neg reps accrue to my posts, with no reason given. No opportunity given to stand up for myself. That is why I gave PeterJ random neg reps, and announced the fact, to prove the point that neg reps hurt, and they should be subtantial when given and not random or spiteful, nor given due to the lack of a constructive argument against a poster's points.

 

I say stupid stuff in other threads as well, so I can not attribute a fall from 214 to 195 completely to this thread, but I don't think what I am saying here is foreign enough from sensible dialog to be consistently given neg reps like I was accruing...THAT is why the neg reps concern me.

 

But, the "Disregards" directed at you, were because I had the feeling you may have given me some of the neg reps, and I was on this thread, in the first place, in your defense.

 

You took a hit when you mentioned God as a fact, while discounting Karma. Is this sensible and logical?

 

Regards, TAR

Edited May 26, 2015 by tar

[Phi for All]

 

As for me I repeat!! Reincarnation and rebirth after countless rebirths, is an unpleasant idea, to which I refuse to prescribe. When we die, we leave this mortal body that decays due to entropy and go on to exist forever in ethereal planes, some lower than our earthly one and some higher.

 

This must be where I've gone wrong. I didn't know it was as simple as refusing to "prescribe" because of unpleasantness. This seems MUCH easier than using reason, AND I get to make up something pleasant and then state this is the way it is for everybody.

 

It's almost like I'm a god myself!

[Alan McDougall]

tar,

 

I have never, ever used that facility on the forum, because I don't like it and it is hurtful to others.

 

I express my opinions in the thread and nowhere else!

[tar]

Alan,

 

"go on to exist forever in ethereal planes, some lower than our earthly one and some higher"

 

How is this, not belief in Karma? What, other than good Karma would put you in a higher plane? What other than bad Karma, would put you in a lower etherial plane?

 

Regards, TAR

Alan,

 

Accept my apologies then for accusing you of spiteful neg repping.

 

I will redirect my displeasure toward who ever neg repped me, without identifying, which aspect of my opinions were displeasing to them.

 

Regards, TAR

(and I rarely ever use the neg rep facility myself...other than spitefully giving PeterJ two days alotment in retribution for his ad hominums and their contribution to the heavy neg rep toll I've taken here.)

[Lightmeow]

So why the heck can't we discuss religion, religion is faith based and something that scientist can prove or disprove.

I would like to clarify this quote, because it could be taken two ways. Alan, are you saying that faith is something that can be proved or disproved? I think know faith is something that cannot be proven, thus the word faith. Also scientists cannot prove or disprove faith, because if we could, then religion would rule our life, or it would have been wiped off the face of the earth a long time ago.

 

Why are you so worried about you "REP POINTS" I have nothing against you or your rather odd logic and would be sad and sorry to see you exit debate!

Odd logic... I guess odd is in the eye of the beholder, for I find your logic strange myself.

 

This being a religious subforum in my opinion does not lead to philosophical debates, which are never-ending and get absolutely nowhere.

Don't philosophy and religion go hand and hand? I think the debate of "The Almighty God" existing is a very philosophical debate.

 

As for me I repeat!! Reincarnation and rebirth after countless rebirths, is an unpleasant idea, to which I refuse to prescribe. When we die, we leave this mortal body that decays due to entropy and go on to exist forever in ethereal planes, some lower than our earthly one and some higher.

As for me, I think the thought of going to another place forever after this short life would be pretty boring, don't you think? There is much more to this Earth that I would like to see. And just the thought of being stuck in a place after I die forever is really scary for me... I feel I would get bored as hell after a few billion years.

 

Lightmeow,

 

Such logical deductions as PeterJ makes, such as all positive metaphysical claims are false or absurb, are merely self fulfilling circular arguments, constructed from premises already suspect, because the human senses and judgement are already concluded to be suspect, and incapable of correct judgment of the situation.

Isn't it nice that all of our arguments conveniently self fulfilling?

 

Sorry, Tar, but I don't intend to spend time explaining anything. It would be a waste of my time when all the information is readily available. Not readily comprehensible, maybe, but I can't help much with that. All I'm trying to do is convince you that you don't know enough about the topic to have a reliable opinion, so are in danger of making mistakes.

Then why are you here? If you want to help him gain perspective, you need to help him comprehend it. What would be the point of having this science forum if no one wanted to help each other comprehend the info? What would happen if I asked a math question, and the people here said, here read this, and if you don't understand what you read, then, thats your problem. I find your above statement fairly ludicrous. Please help him out instead of telling him he is ignorant.(And may I note, conveniently playing off of his ignorance)

 

Lets all be friends and get back on track, will you people? This is a great thread, and I would hate to see it closed!

 

And also Alan, even though I totally disagree with you, you do have some really great points! :-)

[PeterJ]

Okay. I know when I'm beat. Once again I leave this forum in despair. It is as if it is bewitched. Whatever, I cannot cope.

[tar]

Lightmeow,

 

Well perhaps this is not religion purely, nor philosophy purely, but brain chemistry.

 

It struck me, in thinking about heaven, and the rainbow bridge, and being reincarnated as a rich beautiful/handsome powerful person as a reward for being good, or being rewarded by satin sheets and rivers of honey, or being admitted into the warm embrace of Jesus, rather than enduring boiling liquids and fire and pain and such for being bad, that we are more likely to behave in a manner that will bring us pleasure, than in a manner that will bring us pain. We would rather think we are doing good, feeling good, getting dopamine, then think we are doing harm, feeling bad, not getting dopamine, and getting pain and displeasure, for eternity.

 

In terms of behavior modification, there is a thread, in all religions that I can think of, off hand, an idea that its OK to suffer a little while you are alive, to ensure the lasting rewards.

 

I am Protestant by upbringing, and there is the Protestant work ethic that suggests "delayed gratification" is the way to go. Scrimp and save, work hard and then put the down payment down on your comfortable, pleasant, beautiful house.

 

The teachings of Karma, and Rebirth, or reincarnation, and specifically the denouncing of the self and pleasure as ways to add to the pleasure your immortal soul will experience later are maybe not religion, or philosophy, but brain chemistry. You feel good thinking you are scrimping and saving, suffering and denying, for a future reward. You get dopamine released just knowing you are good according to the rules and morals and morays of your group.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited May 27, 2015 by tar

[dimreepr]

Tar and PeterJ please consider the following:

 

You’re issues in this thread, and no doubt many others, are that neither side understands the other.

 

Tar you fail to see beyond your cultural thinking; anything beyond seems unintelligible.

 

PeterJ whilst I have no doubt that you can transcend the cultural barrier you seem to struggle when confronted with someone who can’t.

 

Understanding ones fellows is by no means automatic and has almost nothing to do with what most consider ‘intelligence’ but if one wants to be fully understood it is necessary.

 

The above is in no way meant to insult or imply superior intelligence too either side.

[tar]

Dimreeper,

 

If there is to be an understanding between believers and non-believers in any cultural norms, one must find the realities behind the beliefs. The meanings behind the words. What is literal and what is figurative.

 

My disagreement with PeterJ stems from his disregard for the self. I find this, not logical in exactly the ways I have expressed on this thread. I have offered a theory, as to why religions might find it useful to teach its followers to deny the self, for the the good of the group. I apply that insight to the religion I was brought up in as well as to those I have not been brought up in. It has nothing to do with my inability to see beyond my own culture. My viewpoint is from a position that would look at PeterJ's beliefs and Alan's beliefs, through the same glasses. And with the particular glasses I have on, I see us all as human beings, on an Earth that have evolved, in and of the place. Made of the same chemicals, under the power of the same Sun. We have plenty to love and belong to, in common.

 

Stories of 3 souls and 7 spirits though, if they are referring to actual stuff, would have to be referring to the SAME actual stuff. The rules of life, the actual existence of one God, or 3 gods or 7 gods or 173 gods would not be different, depending on which side of the bed you got up from this morning, or what language you speak, or what time zone you are in. The only sensible way to parse other people's beliefs, is to do it in the same breath that you parse your own.

 

With this background, my investigations into the meaning behind words and the thoughts of Pinker and Kant, and iNow's investigation into what cortical functions are hijacked by religion, and my understanding of Freudian Psychology, and my Presbyterian upbringing, and my living through the 60s as a young adult with "hippy" connections, and my many talks with people, about religion in the Army in Germany, and in Japan on business, and at work with people from India, and Taiwan, and China, and Latvia and Russia and Japan and other places, together with my reading and thinking about the Koran, after 9-11, to determine where such evil, as flying a plane full of people into a building full of people might come from, I have decided that religion must come from the imagination, and not from the world. Moses being told the law by God, and giving it to man on the carved tablets-could not have happened in my world. Not on this Earth. It has to be figurative in nature. It has to be man made stories, made by men and women, for men and woman. We are the only authors around.

 

Regards, TAR

I am an atheist with a very religious mom (departed) and a very unreligious dad. I have talked to and respected the beliefs of all sorts of religious folk, from all sorts of different cultures. I have studied the Dogon and the Mayans in school. I have been to the Yucatan and visited the temples. I have a Dogon drum downstairs that my Mom brought back from Africa. I have read a little about a lot. I have the ability to look past my own culture. I do it all the time. If I defend my way of life, its because its mine, and I think its good. And if I challenge PeterJ's beliefs, or Alan's, its because I think I have a good argument. Not because I am short sighted.

Besides, the Ad hominums do not address the thread question. It does not matter if PeterJ is smarter than me, or if I am ignorant of the teachings of rebirth. The question on the floor is whether or not Karma and Reincarnation are logical and sensible ideas to hold. Do they fit the world, or do they fit the imagination only?

Edited May 28, 2015 by tar

[dimreepr]

Tar given that you’re saying my post was an ad hom I have to assume that you’ve missed my point.

 

I may be wrong about your abilities tar, the point is I have no idea how accurate my opinion of you is; since our only connection is the written word, how could I possibly understand you properly?

 

PeterJ has asked you to read his material on the subject, a reasonable request, which you are, of course, entitled to refuse. That refusal does mean that you don’t understand what he means; your arguments are therefore from ignorance.

 

BTW no one here is offering an argument that reincarnation doesn’t happen.

[tar]

Dimreeper,

 

Again, the only point you are making, is mine. If you have to read the material of the sages, or of PeterJ, to understand the "truth" of rebirth, then the material is not of the sort that I could see for myself, by just sensing and modeling the world.

 

Anyhow, my point is that the world is absolutely true. And PeterJ has specifically claimed its illusion. Any material he has to offer is tainted with a misunderstanding of human perception, human ability and capability. And I have definite ideas about how to separate what is stuff of dreams and what is the real world that we internalize, through our senses, and what it is that we say about the world, that we build an internal analog model of, in the synapses and structures of our body/heart/brain group. My "material" is different than PeterJ's. If I don't agree with his take, reading the trailer, why would I consider it a mistake to miss the movie.

 

I would rather just discuss the points of disagreement, out in the open.

 

If you cannot discover the meaning of rebirth, on your own, without PeterJ's take, then rebirth has no meaning.

 

Regards, TAR

If I understand the meaning of rebirth, without PeterJ's take, and we are just calling rebirth something different than the other calls it, and it is a thing that everybody can witness on their own, without any guidance, then it is a real thing, that is logical and sensible. But if THIS is the case, I still have no need to read PeterJ's blog, to witness and understand, and comprehend the obvious.

But if PeterJ's Truth can only be had by listening to a particular person's take, with no objective, peer reviewable, waking world, actual inspectable, real world stuff...then I have a strong suspicion that it is not a crucial, actual, sensible and logical, part of this universe we share, and its existence is ONLY in human stories, hopes and dreams, and its truth is dictated only by human agreement to believe in the thing.

[dimreepr]

OK you win.

[tar]

That this "agree to believe" is the main component of Karma and Reincarnation, is evidenced by Alan's "deciding" he does not like the idea, and others voicing their opinions on what would be a good afterlife, and what would be a bad one.

 

I do not negate the power and truth of human agreement, nor the value of "believing" in the same guiding principles. However none of us can decide to believe in gravity or not, because its actually here to witness. We can however decide to exist in the loving embrace of Jesus, or to exist in a higher plane of existence, or to improve our behavior so we gain a more pleasant status, "next time".

The fact that "we can decide" makes it our internal, spiritual decision, and not a matter controlled by an outside source, or rule, other than human judgement and human agreement.

Edited May 28, 2015 by tar

[dimreepr]

WOW, even after a concession you feel the need to reply: