Just so tragic. Words can never do justice.
I feel the whole “lesson learned” is just a way to try to make sense of the suffering.
I was three pounds at birth. Nobody thought I’d live. And for years it was touch and go. I’d get fevers so high the only thing my mom and dad could do was to put me in a bathtub full of cold water and ice cubes to lower the temperature.
I went through quite a lot in my early years. However, I don’t see any lessons. I have a strong will to survive or was just lucky or my parents had the means to provide me care. I’ve always been convinced if I’d been poor, I’d have died.
“what lesson did the daughter learn? How did she grow?”
I dunno.
What lessons (if any) did this guy learn, and how (if at all) did he grow?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
habingfamilyfuneralhome.com/obituary/michael-mike-granata
Message from Mike:
“Many nurses and non-nursing staff begged me and my wife to get the truth out to the public about the Covid-19 vaccines because the truth of deaths from the vaccine was being hidden within the medical profession.
I promised I would get the message out.
So, here is my message:
I was afraid of getting the vaccine for fear that I might die.
At the insistence of my doctor, I gave in to pressure to get vaccinated.
On August 17th I received the Moderna vaccine and starting feeling ill three days later.
I never recovered but continued to get worse.
I developed multisystem inflammation and multisystem failure that medical professionals could not stop.
My muscles disappeared as if to disintegrate.
I was in ICU for several weeks and stabbed with needles up to 24 times a day for those several weeks, while also receiving 6 or 7 IVs at the same time (continuously).
It was constant torture that I cannot describe.
I was no longer treated as a human with feelings and a life.
I was nothing more than a covid vaccine human guinea pig and the doctors excited to participate in my fascinating progression unto death.
If you want to know more, please ask my wife.
I wished I would have never gotten vaccinated.
If you are not vaccinated, don’t do it unless you are ready to suffer and die.”
“for years it was touch and go.
I’d get fevers so high the only thing my mom and dad could do was to put me in a bathtub full of cold water and ice cubes to lower the temperature.
I went through quite a lot in my early years. …
I’ve always been convinced if I’d been poor, I’d have died”
What influence (if any) did your experience have on your attitude toward people who are:
poor?
infirm?
What lessons (if any) did Matt learn, and how (if at all) did he grow?
Daniel Hallock, _Six Months to Live: Learning from a Young Man with Cancer_ (2015)
“I wouldn’t trade my life for anyone else’s.
If I could choose not to have cancer, and continue my life as it was, I wouldn’t do it.”
– Matt Gauger.
David I have a problem with the wisdom that requires other people suffer. I’m not that special. Nor do I want to be.
My point is pretty straightforward. Future bliss does not undo present suffering. It sure as hell doesn’t compensate for it. Unless of course like Job you’re satisfied with new children, new wealth, new lands to replace the old.
If we operate under the assumption that human beings are fundamentally replaceable, or that we simply read the same data and cycle through the identical human experiences, then the entire point of existence shifts. True utility does not lie in the mechanical repetition of shared facts, but in the radical act of taking a standpoint—if one has the courage to take a standpoint at all.
Crucially, establishing this standpoint is not an attempt to relativize human suffering or historical pain. On the contrary, compassion itself is a matter of perspective. Compassion requires a stable, unwavering vantage point from which to perceive, honor, and respond to trauma. When systems distort our shared frameworks to enforce violence, they do not just alter concepts—they alter our capacity for empathy by breaking our perspective. To fight for a true, uncompromised baseline of understanding is to restore the precise perspective from which genuine compassion becomes possible.
“I have a problem with the wisdom that requires other people suffer”
Who or what advocates “the wisdom that requires other people suffer”?
In the realm of biology, do you believe that there’s a requirement that particular animals suffer?
“I’m not that special”
Are you unique?
“Future bliss does not undo present suffering”
Makes sense.
What happens tomorrow can’t change what happened yesterday.
“It sure as hell doesn’t compensate for it”
If something is “sure as hell,” how sure is it?
In your view, is there an afterlife, and if so, do some people experience a hellish environment in their afterlife?
“Unless of course like Job you’re satisfied with new children, new wealth, new lands to replace the old”
Reference that he was “satisfied with new children, new wealth, new lands to replace the old”?
Did Early Christians Believe in Reincarnation? – Bart D. Ehrman
light edits, 26:07+
I will say, though, that there’s not so much a move toward reincarnation– although some people are moving that way– but the bigger move is towards some other kinds of universalism.
Because in a way, Origen’s doctrine of reincarnation was a way of expressing how God’s power _ultimately_ will dominate, that you cannot stop God.
You might try, you might resist, but you can’t, and in the end, you too will be convinced.
And in Origen’s view, God’s not _forcing_ you to agree.
He’s not.
It just, over time, after a few million ages, you’re going to realize you’re wrong, because you _are_ wrong, and so God’s being merciful.
But this modern universalist movement is really a lot more about that, it’s not just for God to say,
‘You died, now time’s up’– boom– ‘heaven or hell– you don’t get more chances.’
‘Why not after death? Why isn’t God merciful? Why does he torture you for trillions of years for 20 years of sin? That just doesn’t make any sense.’
And so people are moving toward more of a universalist model– even Evangelical Christians– many I know Evangelical thinkers apologists theologians, who are moving in that direction.
DavidFord said
Did Early Christians Believe in Reincarnation? – Bart D. Ehrman
light edits, 26:07+
I will say, though, that there’s not so much a move toward reincarnation– although some people are moving that way– but the bigger move is towards some other kinds of universalism.
Because in a way, Origen’s doctrine of reincarnation was a way of expressing how God’s power _ultimately_ will dominate, that you cannot stop God.
You might try, you might resist, but you can’t, and in the end, you too will be convinced.
And in Origen’s view, God’s not _forcing_ you to agree.
He’s not.
It just, over time, after a few million ages, you’re going to realize you’re wrong, because you _are_ wrong, and so God’s being merciful.
But this modern universalist movement is really a lot more about that, it’s not just for God to say,
‘You died, now time’s up’– boom– ‘heaven or hell– you don’t get more chances.’
‘Why not after death? Why isn’t God merciful? Why does he torture you for trillions of years for 20 years of sin? That just doesn’t make any sense.’
And so people are moving toward more of a universalist model– even Evangelical Christians– many I know Evangelical thinkers apologists theologians, who are moving in that direction.
I’ve sometimes wondered if, in the concept of being tortured for all time, if at some point time does end and one enters eternity, or something like that. Like Heaven is beyond time or something.
Or one needs to evolve and reincarnate out of “hell”, into or back into the Light, or one keeps reincarnating over and over again until one finds their way out.
I’m not saying I believe any or all of this. I’m just putting the ideas out there and on the table.
If you accept what seems to be the case, that the earliest Jesus movement was a Jewish apocalyptic sect, then this would seem to mitigate against a belief in reincarnation since they looked forward to a final bodily resurrection into an earthly Kingdom. Later, as the movement became full of pagan converts, then maybe reincarnation entered the mix. Origen seems to have believed in the pre-existence of the soul. Of course he was later condemned as a heretic.
“what seems to be the case, that the earliest Jesus movement was a Jewish apocalyptic sect”
What’s involved in being an “apocalyptic sect”?
“Origen seems to have believed in the pre-existence of the soul”
Did he believe that Jesus pre-existed before Jesus was on earth?
“he was later condemned as a heretic”
Over what? (believing “in the pre-existence of the soul”?)
Elizabeth Clare Prophet, _Reincarnation: The Missing Link In Christianity_ (1997), 414pp.
Geddes MacGregor, _Reincarnation in Christianity: A New Vision of the Role of Rebirth in Christian Thought_ (1978), 190pp.
Quincy Howe Jr., _Reincarnation for the Christian_ (1974), 112pp.
_A Course in Miracles: Combined Volume_, 3rd ed., “Manual for Teachers” (2007)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Section 24
Is Reincarnation So?
In the ultimate sense, reincarnation is impossible. There is no past or future, and the idea of birth into a body has no meaning either once or many times. Reincarnation cannot, then, be true in any real sense. Our only question should be, “Is the concept helpful?” And that depends, of course, on what it is used for. If it is used to strengthen the recognition of the eternal nature of life, it is helpful indeed. Is any other question about it really useful in lighting up the way? Like many other beliefs, it can be bitterly misused. At least, such misuse offers preoccupation and perhaps pride in the past. At worst, it induces inertia in the present. In between, many kinds of folly are possible.
Reincarnation would not, under any circumstances, be the problem to be dealt with <now>. If it were responsible for some of the difficulties the individual faces now, his task would still be only to escape from them now. If he is laying the groundwork for a future life, he can still work out his salvation only now. To some, there may be comfort in the concept, and if it heartens them its value is self-evident. It is certain, however, that the way to salvation can be found by those who believe in reincarnation and by those who do not. The idea cannot, therefore, be regarded as essential to the curriculum. There is always some risk in seeing the present in terms of the past. There is always some good in any thought which strengthens the idea that life and the body are not the same.
For our purposes, it would not be helpful to take any definite stand on reincarnation. A teacher of God should be as helpful to those who believe in it as to those who do not. If a definite stand were required of him, it would merely limit his usefulness, as well as his own decision making. Our course is not concerned with any concept that is not acceptable to anyone, regardless of his formal beliefs. His ego will be enough for him to cope with, and it is not the part of wisdom to add sectarian controversies to his burdens. Nor would there be an advantage in his premature acceptance of the course merely because it advocates a long-held belief of his own.
It cannot be too strongly emphasized that this course aims at a complete reversal of thought. When this is finally accomplished, issues such as the validity of reincarnation become meaningless. Until then, they are likely to be merely controversial. The teacher of God is, therefore, wise to step away from all such questions, for he has much to teach and learn apart from them. He should both learn and teach that theoretical issues but waste time, draining it away from its appointed purpose. If there are aspects to any concept or belief that will be helpful, he will be told about it. He will also be told how to use it. What more need he know?
Does this mean that the teacher of God should not believe in reincarnation himself, or discuss it with others who do? The answer is, certainly not! If he does believe in reincarnation, it would be a mistake for him to renounce the belief unless his internal Teacher so advised. And this is most unlikely. He might be advised that he is misusing the belief in some way that is detrimental to his pupil’s advance or his own. Reinterpretation would then be recommended, because it is necessary. All that must be recognized, however, is that birth was not the beginning, and death is not the end. Yet even this much is not required of the beginner. He need merely accept the idea that what he knows is not necessarily all there is to learn. His journey has begun.
The emphasis of this course always remains the same;–it is at this moment that complete salvation is offered you, and it is at this moment that you can accept it. This is still your one responsibility. Atonement might be equated with total escape from the past and total lack of interest in the future. Heaven is here. There is nowhere else. Heaven is now. There is no other time. No teaching that does not lead to this is of concern to God’s teachers. All beliefs will point to this if properly interpreted. In this sense, it can be said that their truth lies in their usefulness. All beliefs that lead to progress should be honored. This is the sole criterion this course requires. No more than this is necessary.
Reincarnation is discussed in several places across the *Conversations with God* series by Neale Donald Walsch.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The most direct and detailed treatments appear in *Book 1* and especially *Book 3*, with further exploration in the later dialogue book *Home with God: In a Life That Never Ends*.
### *Conversations with God, Book 1*
Near the end of the book (around page 138 in many editions / in the section answering remaining questions from the author’s original list), Walsch asks:
> “Is there such a thing as reincarnation? How many past lives have I had? What was I in them? Is ‘karmic debt’ a reality?”
God’s reply affirms reincarnation as real, states that the author has had 647 past lives (this being the 648th), and describes having been “everything” (king/queen, serf, teacher/student, male/female, warrior/pacifist, etc.).
It explicitly rejects the idea of karmic *debt* (as something that must be repaid) while allowing that prior experiences can influence present desires and choices.
### *Conversations with God, Book 3*
This contains the most extended discussion.
– **Chapter 7** is frequently described as providing an in-depth exploration of reincarnation.
– The dialogue addresses religious claims that reincarnation is a false doctrine, explains why some traditions reject it, and frames reincarnation as fitting the larger purpose of the soul (and of God) experiencing and expressing itself “lifetime after lifetime.”
– It discusses free choice in returning to physical form, the soul’s ability to “start over” or recycle through forms, the non-linear nature of time (souls existing in multiple places/times), and related ideas such as soul partners and “past lives” being aspects of a larger soul.
– Later sections (including around Chapter 8) reaffirm that “Reincarnation is a fact” and that one may return to mortal form whenever and however one wishes.
### *Home with God: In a Life That Never Ends*
This later book focuses on the process of death and the afterlife.
It treats death as a change of address / process of re-identification rather than an ending, describes stages the soul moves through, and discusses the voluntary choice to return (or not) to physicality via reincarnation.
Related themes include the soul retaining broader awareness across lifetimes (while the mind typically “forgets”), the possibility of guidance from loved ones even if they have reincarnated, and the soul’s freedom in choosing further physical experiences.
### Broader context in the series
Reincarnation is presented as voluntary (not obligatory), part of the soul’s evolutionary process of remembering and experiencing its divine nature, and compatible with the idea that time and space are illusions.
There is no traditional karmic debt or punishment; prior lives simply contribute to the soul’s ongoing creation and experience.
The topic also surfaces in Walsch’s later writings, interviews, and responses to readers, often referencing or expanding on the core books.
Exact page numbers can vary slightly by edition (hardcover, paperback, international, etc.), so searching within an electronic version for “reincarnation,” “past lives,” or the specific questions above is the most reliable way to locate the passages.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
**Maria Valtorta firmly rejected reincarnation.** In her writings (particularly the notebooks known as *I Quaderni* / *The Notebooks*), the concept is explicitly condemned as a pagan error incompatible with Christian doctrine.
A key passage is a dictation dated **11 January 1944**, presented as coming from the Apostle Paul. In it, Paul addresses the persistence of reincarnation beliefs among people of Valtorta’s time and rejects them forcefully:
– The dead do not return in any new body.
– There is only one resurrection: the final one.
– Humans are not like seeds that cycle repeatedly through growth, death, and rebirth.
– Souls do not re-enter animal or human bodies after their earthly life.
– The only thing that “reincarnates” is the false theory itself, which periodically reappears during periods of spiritual darkness.
The text emphasizes that God is not limited and does not need to recycle souls; each person has one unique, non-repeatable earthly life, after which comes judgment and the final resurrection of the body (for the righteous in glory, for the wicked in corruption). It distinguishes Christian resurrection from any idea of repeated earthly lives.
Similar rejections appear elsewhere in her writings. In *The Gospel as Revealed to Me* (*L’Evangelo come mi è stato rivelato*, formerly *The Poem of the Man-God*), passages address related misconceptions (e.g., Nicodemus’s question about being “born again”), clarifying that Jesus speaks of spiritual rebirth, not physical reincarnation, and that souls do not return to earth in new bodies after death.
These statements align with traditional Catholic teaching, which rejects reincarnation in favor of one life followed by particular judgment, possible purification (purgatory), and the general resurrection at the end of time.
**Note on the writings**: Valtorta (1897–1961) claimed these texts were based on visions and dictations. Her major work was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books in 1959 (the Index was later abolished). In February 2025, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith stated that her alleged visions, revelations, and messages “cannot be considered of supernatural origin” and should be regarded as literary forms she used to narrate the life of Jesus in her own way.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)