What if all of humanity is a single entity - a single "spirit" that lives as one human, dies and is reborn as another human over and over until the spirit experiences the sum of all human existence. In one lifetime this spirit finds itself as the rapist, in the next life the spirit finds itself as the rape victim. It finds itself as the king in one life and serf in the next, as the communist dictator in on round and gulag prisoner in another, corrupt judge and defendant. This spirit, which is both you and i, experiences all cause and effect of humanity.
Im this example life is entirely fair and deserving as the spirit experiences both action and consequence. The most horrific acts imaginable are but the spirit acting upon itself as the horrors delivered in one lifetime are the horrors received in the next.
The point? Perhaps this is all a trial for the spirit to come to the self realization of its wrongs and previous departing from God. Maybe at the end of this the human spirit will experience the sum total of all human lives at once and transcend into something else. Or maybe this is some perpetual self-deserving hell that is inescapable due to past sins we are unaware of.
What do you think?
I always gives thanks for just being...I'm appreciative of the fact that there is creation and my soul is a part of it. The alternative is nothingness, non existence which is unfathomable.
There's no doubt that we were created by a higher being and the fact that we have individuality and freewill is the greatest of all possibilities that could exist.
a) What if it's all way (inception towards death) which gives each one being (life)?
b) What if one cannot give without ignoring that all was already given before one came to be within?
c) To thank implies to respond to what came before...what if ones being implies response-ability within all that comes before/for being?
a) What if all generates (inception towards death), while each one within alternates (life)?
b) What if nothing (Latin nihilo) implies ones de-nial of everything perceivable for suggested nihil-ism?
c) What if fathom; verb - ""to embrace, surround, envelop" implies each one within all? What if ones ignorance of perceivable for suggested tempts one to also ignore self discernment; hence becoming unable to fathom being one within all?
Where is that "no" which can't be doubted and how could free will of choice be prevented from doubting the existence of "no; not; nothing; nothingness"?
What if suggested pluralism (we) tempts perceiving singular (one) into a dualism (in-dual) by consenting to hold onto the suggestion of another one...a chosen one?
a) Who suggests "free will" without "of choice" and what happens if ones consents to suggested free will without of choice?
b) What if free implies within dominance; will/want implies within need; of implies out of, hence within and in response to; and choice implies within balance?