4-year-old recalls past life 9/11 experience

[+OverSword]

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Is the way you see reincarnation religiously orientated? 

Not necessarily. I don’t hold to organized religion and the one I was raised in you live, due and go to heaven. I mainly reached my current beliefs just by thinking things over and deciding what felt right to me.

[Rolci]

On 3/29/2021 at 6:00 PM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Rolci

Why would I have to explain anything the link I gave pretty much sums it up as to how law enforcement is looking at this. I have had a hypnotist try on me twice and couldn't put me under so personally I don't put a lot of stock in it to start with and am well aware of how cops worked back home and don't put a lot of stock in them either.

jmccr8

"I don't put a lot of stock in it" somehow doesn't explain how a skeptic police captain (or anyone for that matter) could possibly know that the painter of the Hunchback Woman lost his mother due to a blod clot. It could've been anything else. The VAST majority of people that die will WITHOUT a blood clot in the brain. He identified and years later verified 28 independent facts in the life of someone that had lives a LONG time ago and someone who was so unimportant it was a real detective work to find the painter's name. All 28 facts (all of which could be simplified to yes/no questions) all checked out, NOT ONE missed. The point is, he WASN'T SUPPOSED TO KNOW all that stuff about the painter of the Hunchback Woman (Barroll Beckwith, who died more than 30 years before Snow was born). And the other point is that anyone can carry out the same investigation, and indeed we have literally thousands of such stories, however most are not experienced by people who are willing to spend time and energy to investigate the possible truth (or lack thereof) behind the phenomenon. A very few do, and these are the ones that make it to the news. The rest are shrugged of as "coincidences" or just as a "curiosity".

[quiXilver]

Intriguing topic, thanks for sharing.

[Abramelin]

On 3/13/2021 at 7:37 PM, papageorge1 said:

Correct. I mistakenly did the math from 2011 not 2001. She was four in 2018. I corrected the post to thirteen years but thirteen years is still a quick reincarnation.

If I have to believe what I once dreamt decades ago, then I was once a Sardinian pirate around 1200 bce (think "Shardana").

Apparently I wasn't in a hurry to 'reincarnate'.

Hmmm.... I just remember there's a thread about procrastination somewhere.

[papageorge1]

22 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

If I have to believe what I once dreamt decades ago, then I was once a Sardinian pirate around 1200 bce (think "Shardana").

Apparently I wasn't in a hurry to 'reincarnate'.

Hmmm.... I just remember there's a thread about procrastination somewhere.

Still you may well have had some less swashbuckling incarnations between Sardana and Abramelin.

[glorybebe]

When I was around 4-5 years old, I would wake up from dreams of being an adult and a life so horrible that I didn't want to grow up. The memories have faded, but, I still remember the feeling.  Now, I did go through some extremely rough times, but not with the hopelessness I felt upon waking up from those dreams 

[Abramelin]

54 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Still you may well have had some less swashbuckling incarnations between Sardana and Abramelin.

Yeah. I can dream up a lot, but that dream somehow stuck with me. Well, it was actually more of a nightmare.

[acute]

On 3/15/2021 at 12:18 AM, psyche101 said:

[...] and she flew like a bird. Not plummeted to a horrible death but flew. I find that the most important detail here. 

"Flew" is a good description of what happened to her.

In that situation, most people are dead before they hit the ground.

Her body would fall, but her soul wouldn't.

[psyche101]

On 12/11/2021 at 8:06 AM, acute said:

"Flew" is a good description of what happened to her.

In that situation, most people are dead before they hit the ground.

Her body would fall, but her soul wouldn't.

But your making stuff up so it makes sense to you.That's a not what she said at all. It was from the moment of supposed jumping, if one translates the story as a description of someone in the tower. One is not dead at that point. 

Dying on the way down is a myth. It could happen to someone ready to have a heart attack, but think about it. How many people jump out of perfectly good airplanes everyday and reach terminal velocity and live to tell the tale? 

I simply cannot imagine that falling to one's death from a fiery building would be anything but a horrifying experience. There's no way it could be seen as wonderful. That indicates a dream. Very much so IMHO.  Honestly, could you say a dream is outside the realm of possibility here?

It honestly seems the most likely conclusion.

I don't think it helps to imagine that people are describing something other than they actually are. I honestly don't think that helps if one is regarding these claims honestly. It's slipping into PG territory. From there the next step is desecration of human remains to maintain a false narrative. 

It's just a hole to dig for oneself. It doesn't get better as you can see from the posters who have already relinquished their grasp on reality. And they don't care who they tread on to maintain the fantasy. Don't become a walker or PG. That's only letting yourself down.

[Bendy Demon]

On 3/16/2021 at 9:50 PM, psyche101 said:

We understand atomic structure. Pretty bloody well actually. There might be more to learn, even so, that won't change what we do know.

Hi Psyche..I read and re-read this particular statement and I would like to respectfully disagree on that...sort of..in a way...or something...

When we learn more about a particular subject it indeed changes what we think we know. How about evolution, our understanding of it has changed time and time again once we uncovered more information, developed better methods of analysis and so forth. Even what we thought we knew about black holes, for example, has changed once we had developed the tools to observe such things better.

Naturally this does not imply that physics has changed 'cuz it doesn't, only our expanding knowledge base and understanding makes it SEEM like it has.

Sorry if I am not making sense..my reservoir of coffee has made intellectual processes a very precarious venture.

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, Bendy Demon said:

Hi Psyche..I read and re-read this particular statement and I would like to respectfully disagree on that...sort of..in a way...or something...

When we learn more about a particular subject it indeed changes what we think we know. How about evolution, our understanding of it has changed time and time again once we uncovered more information, developed better methods of analysis and so forth. Even what we thought we knew about black holes, for example, has changed once we had developed the tools to observe such things better.

Naturally this does not imply that physics has changed 'cuz it doesn't, only our expanding knowledge base and understanding makes it SEEM like it has.

Sorry if I am not making sense..my reservoir of coffee has made intellectual processes a very precarious venture.

Hi BD 

Sure your making sense. It's a common idea and why people think science changes. 

And it does get added to. Your example of a black hole is a good one and one we can use here.

I assume you are talking about Hawking radiation. Evaporation of radiation eventually depleting the black hole. 

It's an interesting development. But it hasn't changed anything that we do know about black holes, which is very minimal. It doesn't change how a black hole comes to be, how it functions or its strength. It's still the same. Now we know how it evaporates. And quite honestly, that's entropy at work. Other sciences indicate and support that additional knowledge. Universe death had always been the theorised end of everything. Which would have to include black holes. 

Like the Higgs. We couldn't prove it existed but the standard model told us it did, and where to look. Took half a century but we found it. Science tells us what should be based on what is. 

The important thing to take away from this is what we know is solid. There are definitely more things to learn about, but if what we do know is wrong, then that's a re-write of all basic knowledge right down to atomic structure. 

And quite honestly I just can't see that happening. Can you?