View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Reincarnation - Michael Newton vs. Carl Wicland

Discuss General Topics.

Reincarnation - Michael Newton vs. Carl Wicland

Postby Alexander1304 » 16 Mar 2012, 03:29

Hello All,
I've read about Stevenson's and others research ,and a lot of people of paranormal circles regard them as good evidence for reincarnation.Let me post just few quotation about reincarantion:
Dr Arthur Guirdham, English psychiatrist, maintains that he has been a skeptic ever since he was nicknamed 'Doubting Thomas' as a boy. But after his experience of 44 years doing hypnotic regressions he claims:"If I didn't believe in reincarnation on the evidence I'd received I'd be mentally defective' (cited Fisher 1986: 65)."

Dr Helen Wambach was a skeptic who in 1975 undertook a major study of past life regressions in order to find out once and for all if there was any truth to reincarnation. By doing a scientific analysis on the past lives reported by her 10,000 plus volunteers she came up with some startling evidence in favor of reincarnation:

• 50.6 % of the past lives reported were male and 49.4 % were female—this is exactly in accordance with biological fact
• the number of people reporting upper class or comfortable lives was in exactly the same proportion to the estimates of historians of the class distribution of the period
• the recall by subjects of clothing, footwear, type of food and utensils used was better than that in popular history books. She found over and over again that her subjects knew better than most historians—when she went to obscure experts her subjects were invariably correct.

Her conclusion was: ‘I don't believe in reincarnation—I know it!’(Wambach 1978).

Eric Weiss ,for example,cites Stevenson's research as "powerful evidence for reincarnation",also books of Michael Newton and Brian Weiss...

But,there is the book of Carl Wickland "30 years amond the dead",book that rejects reincarnation.Moreover,ironically,in this book even Madame Blavatsky appears personally as spirit communicator and says that she was wrong in life(she was very great supporter of reincarnation).
So,I'm confused here,and don't know whose side has better arguments.

Tnoughts,anyone?
Alexander1304
 
Posts: 43
Joined: 06 May 2011, 23:51






Re: Reincarnation - Michael Newton vs. Carl Wicland

Postby Arouet » 16 Mar 2012, 03:33

Hey Alex! Nice to see you over here, though when I saw your name I thought you were going to ask about shadow people!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Reincarnation - Michael Newton vs. Carl Wicland

Postby Alexander1304 » 16 Mar 2012, 03:41

Hi Arouet,
The latest talk of shadow matter is here,in this article by physicistg Stephen Phillips,when he combines particle physics,theosophy and "tree of life" of kaballa,you are wlcome to read.Not sure,how convincing/scientific,though:

http://www.smphillips.8m.com/article-2.html

This is interesting article,even if one don't agree with the ideas

Nice to meet You here as well
Alexander1304
 
Posts: 43
Joined: 06 May 2011, 23:51

Re: Reincarnation - Michael Newton vs. Carl Wicland

Postby Arouet » 16 Mar 2012, 03:42

sorry, right: shadow matter, not just shadow people.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Reincarnation - Michael Newton vs. Carl Wicland

Postby Alexander1304 » 16 Mar 2012, 03:44

BTW,I'd like to get Your opinion on the article,though attempt to link physics to theosophical ideas through kaballah seems somewhat doubtfull.
Alexander1304
 
Posts: 43
Joined: 06 May 2011, 23:51

Re: Reincarnation - Michael Newton vs. Carl Wicland

Postby Arouet » 16 Mar 2012, 03:52

Alexander1304 wrote:BTW,I'd like to get Your opinion on the article,though attempt to link physics to theosophical ideas through kaballah seems somewhat doubtfull.


Erm, took a quick look at it and felt my head literally starting to explode, so I thought I had better stop for my own health! I'm sorry, the topic just doesn't interest me enough to devote the kind of time I would need to even begin understanding that article!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Reincarnation - Michael Newton vs. Carl Wicland

Postby Alexander1304 » 16 Mar 2012, 03:54

yes,linking physics with kaballa and theosophy is indeed hard to understand,let's back to reincarnation :)
Alexander1304
 
Posts: 43
Joined: 06 May 2011, 23:51

Re: Reincarnation - Michael Newton vs. Carl Wicland

Postby Suncross74 » 16 Mar 2012, 05:08

It's very interesting to be sure. You should read "Life before Life" by Jim B. Tucker. It's the best and most scientific book on the matter as far as I know. It involves cases of people remembering details about past lives that were later verified to be true exactly, and also, people having birthmarks that match with a scar on the deceased person they claim to be where a weapon killed them. A slash-mark across the back of the head in one case, for example. I admittedly need to get the book and read it (can't right now or I would have already done so), but so far, based on what I've seen, I personally do believe in reincarnation.

-Suncross74
User avatar
Suncross74
 
Posts: 20
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 07:31

Re: Reincarnation - Michael Newton vs. Carl Wicland

Postby Alexander1304 » 16 Mar 2012, 05:25

Suncross74 wrote:It's very interesting to be sure. You should read "Life before Life" by Jim B. Tucker. It's the best and most scientific book on the matter as far as I know. It involves cases of people remembering details about past lives that were later verified to be true exactly, and also, people having birthmarks that match with a scar on the deceased person they claim to be where a weapon killed them. A slash-mark across the back of the head in one case, for example. I admittedly need to get the book and read it (can't right now or I would have already done so), but so far, based on what I've seen, I personally do believe in reincarnation.

-Suncross74

Thanks,Suncross74.It's all nice and well,but:
"It involves cases of people remembering details about past lives that were later verified to be true exactly, and also, people having birthmarks that match with a scar on the deceased person they claim to be where a weapon killed them."

Isn't "spirit posession" also plausible here?I don't know.But anyway,it seems to me that if not reincarnation ,some other PARANORMAL explanation should suffice.I simply don't see how non-paranormal would...
Alexander1304
 
Posts: 43
Joined: 06 May 2011, 23:51

Re: Reincarnation - Michael Newton vs. Carl Wicland

Postby Suncross74 » 16 Mar 2012, 08:37

Spirit possession? That sounds like a load of hooey.

And please don't say "paranormal." There is no such thing as "paranormal." If it happens, it's perfectly normal. If reincarnation exists, it's because the universe/multiverse is designed to work that way. This whole field is a scientific investigation; let's not make it sound like tea-room spookyness.

-Suncross74
User avatar
Suncross74
 
Posts: 20
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 07:31

Re: Reincarnation - Michael Newton vs. Carl Wicland

Postby Alexander1304 » 16 Mar 2012, 21:52

Yes,"spirit posession" seems like nonsense.But it was how Carl Wicland explained what seemed like evidence for reincarnation.I agree,the word "paranormal" doesn't fit here.And to my opinion,Stevenson's research trumps it all..
Alexander1304
 
Posts: 43
Joined: 06 May 2011, 23:51

Re: Reincarnation - Michael Newton vs. Carl Wicland

Postby Arouet » 16 Mar 2012, 21:55

Suncross74 wrote:Spirit possession? That sounds like a load of hooey.

And please don't say "paranormal." There is no such thing as "paranormal." If it happens, it's perfectly normal. If reincarnation exists, it's because the universe/multiverse is designed to work that way. This whole field is a scientific investigation; let's not make it sound like tea-room spookyness.

-Suncross74


So what succinct term would you use? Or do we have to use: "doesn't correspond with the current understanding of the laws of physics"? Pithier to use "paranormal" but I'm happy to use some other term...
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Reincarnation - Michael Newton vs. Carl Wicland

Postby Suncross74 » 17 Mar 2012, 04:51

Arouet wrote:So what succinct term would you use? Or do we have to use: "doesn't correspond with the current understanding of the laws of physics"? Pithier to use "paranormal" but I'm happy to use some other term...


I would say "reincarnation" since that's what we're talking about. If there was a new theory proposed in quantum mechanics that went against some currently-established principles, people wouldn't be coming up with some buzzword to describe it, they'd just call it by its name.

-Suncross74
User avatar
Suncross74
 
Posts: 20
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 07:31

Re: Reincarnation - Michael Newton vs. Carl Wicland

Postby Arouet » 17 Mar 2012, 05:05

Can you come up with a sentence where you'd substitute the word "reincarnation" for "paranormal"?

Reincarnation is the particular thing we're discussing. We're asking whether reincarnation has a paranormal explanation. You can't just replace paranormal with reincarnation, right?

I do get your point. But we use labels like this to help us understand what we're talking about. I think paranormal works in conveying the ideas we want to get through: ie: the explanation is not consistent with the current known laws of physics but still considered real. All of that is a mouthful, so we shorten it to: paranormal! Again, I'm happy to use a different word!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Reincarnation - Michael Newton vs. Carl Wicland

Postby Suncross74 » 17 Mar 2012, 11:06

Arouet wrote:Can you come up with a sentence where you'd substitute the word "reincarnation" for "paranormal"?


Well, no, because they are two different things. One is a very broad category, the other is a specific phenomenon.

Arouet wrote:Reincarnation is the particular thing we're discussing. We're asking whether reincarnation has a paranormal explanation. You can't just replace paranormal with reincarnation, right?


I'm not sure what you mean by "paranormal explanation." That's what I mean, though. When you phrase it like that, it just makes it sound spooky and weird. I'm here, at least personally, to find out:

a) If reincarnation does, in fact, happen (or at least, whether there is good evidence that it does, since it's not something we'll likely ever be able to prove 100% absolutely), and
b) What is the mechanism behind it?

To me, it's just any other scientific inquiry, except this one goes into an under-studied realm that is considered "unusual" by society.

Arouet wrote:I do get your point. But we use labels like this to help us understand what we're talking about. I think paranormal works in conveying the ideas we want to get through: ie: the explanation is not consistent with the current known laws of physics but still considered real. All of that is a mouthful, so we shorten it to: paranormal! Again, I'm happy to use a different word!


Yeah, I get what you mean. I guess it just bugs me because it sounds like ghost busters or something. "The Paranormal!" Woooh! It makes me think of ouija boards and reality TV, instead of a legitimate scientific inquiry. I don't have a better word for you, I guess I'm just frustrated... or maybe I'm just being difficult... I have a real talent for that, lol.

-Suncross74
Last edited by Suncross74 on 17 Mar 2012, 23:41, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Suncross74
 
Posts: 20
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 07:31

Next

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron