Evolution

[Amarok]

Take a student that try to assimilate 100% of what is written in a book.
He may or may not assimilate 100% but even in  case he assimilate only 10% you can not say that what he has assimilate is illusory.
Why should be?
As far as the book carry the golden truth even 1% of that book carry an amount of truth therefore is foolish to say that 1% is illusory.
Can't you see how wrong you are?  

Oh joy, yet another stupid analogy.  First of all, I wasn't asserting that the 10% which is accurate is illusory, but rather that his belief that the other 90% is accurate and his grasp of the material in that 90% is illusory.  More to the point, I'm pointing out that if the student has no clear way of determining what part of his understanding is in the 10%, and which part belongs to the 90%, then his understanding of any specific part is unreliable, and any truth he asserts based on his mixed understanding cannot be counted upon.  His having free will doesn't in any way improve that situation.  But since you seem to like analogies, here's a few to counter your belief that I am wrong.

Let's suppose that you have a roommate named Bart, and that you and Bart are college students working towards a bachelors in physics.  You both are taking a class in quantum mechanics, yet the two of you aren't faring very well.  Out of the material that you study, you understand maybe 10%, and the other 90% is a mess of misunderstandings, misremembered formulas, and general failure to grasp the concepts.  One week, your professor assigns five chapters to be completed by a week from Friday.  Come that Friday, the professor administers an exam, and when you get back the results, you find that both you and Bart only got two right out of twenty questions.  Another F grade.  Your professor assigns another five chapters, and as a favor, gives you 20 extra credit questions on the new material to help you raise your grade.  You spend a week working on the extra credit material, but are having a tough go of it.  According to your analogy, given that Bart has a history of poorly understanding the material, it would make sense to turn to Bart for help with the assignment.  Would you really look forward to receiving Bart's help, or would you rather depend upon a tutor who has a demonstrated grasp of the material?  And how will "free will" improve the quality of Bart's help?

Next analogy.  You're in the hospital, recovering from a heart attack.  You feel a pain in you chest, and numbness in your left arm, and know that you are having another heart attack.  Before you're able to reach the call button to summon your nurse, everything fades to black.  Suddenly you find yourself in a room, seated at a table upon which are two flasks, one containing a red liquid, the other containing a blue liquid.  Seated opposite you is a man wearing medieval armor and a winged helmet.  He introduces himself as Odin, and explains that if you drink the blue potion, you will be extinguished from existence and exist no more.  If you drink the red potion, you will be resurrected in Valhalla and celebrated as a hero.  You must drink one or the other potion.  You start to reach for the red flask, and suddenly a flash of lightning blinds you, accompanied by a crash of thunder.  You look up, but Odin is gone.   You're dumbstruck for a moment, but you shrug it off and proceed to reach for the red potion again.  A commanding voice shouts "Stop!" halting you in mid motion.  You look up, and there again is the figure in a winged helmet who identified himself as Odin.  He explains that the red potion leads  to permanent non-existence, that you should drink the blue potion, as it will deliver you to Valhalla -- the exact opposite of what you thought he had told you earlier.  You tell him that, and he explains that you must have been talking to Loki, pretending to be Odin, and that you had been deceived.  You start to reach again, but it occurs to you that perhaps this is Loki you're talking to now, and that you should believe the first Odin instead.  You must make a choice.  You know that one of the two Odin's is deceiving you, but which one?  Which Odin do you choose to believe, and which potion do you drink?  For bonus points, explain how free will helped you determine which potion to drink?

As a rule reality is perceived according to the degree of your own awareness in consciousness.
NDEs are not given to give you more awareness to the point in which you reach a parallelism between yourself and God.
If that would be the case nobody would come back into their body and everybody would be one with God.
That gap between you and God will have to be attain by one own effort.
Again the understanding of how the system in heaven works is directly related to one own degree of consciousness.
We are all different so obviously we all perceive differently God consciousness but the day or stage that we reach a parallelism with God consciousness then there will not be any more differences.
That day where all the students will have learn 100% of the book then they all will have the same awareness of the content of the book.  

You didn't answer the question.  How do you determine when the welcome is over?   What exactly is a "degree of awareness in consciousness" an how does one determine whether one has a lot or a little of it?  When I'm falling asleep, my consciousness is diminished, but otherwise, my awareness doesn't seem to have a greater or lesser dimension to it.  How do we know what level of awareness we have?  You believe that you're possessed of a greater awareness, but the evidence from this thread as well as the testimony of others seems to make it clear that you're a dimwitted twat with little actual awareness.  Regardless, I think it's a truism that some people believe themselves possessed of great awareness when in fact they are not.  So it's possible to be mistaken about one's level of awareness, and as a consequence overestimate the degree to which their perceptions and beliefs accord with reality.  How can one reliably determine one's level of awareness and be certain that one is not deceived?  How does free will assure that we are not deceived by ourselves?  How can you be certain that you are not deceived?

As far as I understand and has been proved the consciousness only leave the body when the body die however everything is possible.
Miracles may well happen.
By the way since when atheists believe in miracles?  

It hasn't been proved that consciousness ever leaves the body, other than in the sense of ceasing to exist.  
If clairvoyance is possible in the absence of blood and life, it's not necessarily a miracle, anymore than consciousness leaving the body would be.  Regardless, disregarding your snark, you still have yet to provide any evidence that an OBE isn't a result of clairvoyance.  Avoiding the question won't make it go away.

Free will determine how a person is willing to get close or far from God.
The closer the person wish to be the more he-she will get not just during an NDE but even after his-her physical death.
Obviously the degree of perception depend on this factor.

Can I will myself to understand quantum mechanics?  This is just a bare assertion on your part, that a person wishing themselves to be closer results in more accurate awareness.  How would you have determined this in the first place?  If you have no way to determine the accuracy of the content in an NDE, then you have no way of determining that this or that effort results in greater accuracy.  This is just a claim you pulled from your ass and can be dismissed as such.  One might will oneself to be closer and have no effect on the accuracy of one's perceptions.  You haven't established squat from any evidence.  And again, there is the problem of gauging the actual status of one's will?  How does one determine that one is willing?  How do you determine that closeness to god is being willed?  One can't.  And even if one could, it wouldn't distinguish cases, such as between fervent Jesus seekers and fervent Yoga seekers -- how does their fervency help decide which is perceiving things accurately and which one is not?  This is just another example of you confusing your dogmatic beliefs with fact.

God reality can be fully understood even without years of spiritual work.
If you follow mathematics the sums lead to a positive result.
Entropy is easily dismiss as the universe is not a close container, the universe itself can not appear as per magic and to exist for billions of years or most probably for ever it need a super mind to run it so if you take all these elements in consideration plus many other then the result indicate that God is alive and well.

Yeah, I think you're full of shit.  I don't believe you.  If you have any evidence from math, any evidence that the universe isn't closed, that it need a mind to run it, and so on, then bring it on.  This looks like more spiritual/religious dogma.  If you have any actual evidence, present it.  If you're just going to make unsupported claims like the above, then forget it.  You're going too have to show your work here.

I don't think anyone believes the universe pop up as per magic.  That doesn't imply that your specific God exists.  Your goal is to provide evidence for reincarnation and karma.  Even if you establish the existence of a God for which the universe is but a mental projection, you still haven't shown that karma and reincarnation are a part of that projection.

That is a load of garbo yog.
Perceiving even 1% of what God say doesn't mean that what God say is wrong.

It doesn't mean that the 1% is wrong, but it sure impugns the credibility of the other 99%.  Unless one can determine which part of an NDE experience is the 1% and which part is the 99%, then one cannot rely upon any of it being true.

Wrong again yog.
As far as there is reincarnation there is karma.
Why God would reincarnate people again and again if these people are free from karma?
Why punish people for nothing?  
Again you should understand why 1 + 1 = 2.

Who says that being reincarnated is a punishment?  And even if it were a punishment, how do you know that God is not a sadist?  Regardless, it's perfectly possible to have reincarnation without  having karma.  There is nothing logically contradictory about that. It is nothing more than a dogmatic belief of yours that you can't have one without the other.  The fact that you consider it a necessary truth like 1 + 1 = 2 only shows that you are completely unable to distinguish between arbitrary religious beliefs and necessary truths.  Your inability to distinguish between dogma and fact explains your delusional belief that you are free of dogma, because you can't tell the two apart.

It may sound very very strange but also LR is a Christian.

In fact I follow Jesus as well because Jesus reached a parallelism with God and therefore merge and become God itself.
The same God of my yoga and the same God of Shiva, Krishna, Buddha, San Francis and many other.
All of them are now part of the great ocean of consciousness.
Cathleen's Christianity must be a pure Christianity which has very little to do if any with the various Christian religions that in turn have very little to do with Jesus teachings.    

Yeah, that must be it.  It couldn't be that you and she are both in error, could it?  Regardless, your unjustified certainty, the appearance of reincarnation and karma in her NDE, and her unorthodox Christianity still fail to meet the bar for evidence.  Your opinion that Yoga God is the one true God is noted and ignored.  

Already answered above.
In Cathleen NDE God clearly talk about reincarnation and reincarnation without karma in humans is impossible.  

You've yet to establish that there is anything reliable about the perception of reincarnation in her NDE.  As noted already, you've asserted that both accurate and inaccurate perceptions occur in an NDE, and nothing about your answers above give us a clear way of telling which is which.  And you haven't presented any evidence that reincarnation without karma is impossible.  That appears to be more unsupported religious dogma that you believe but cannot demonstrate.

You claimed that wishing to be close to God influences the accuracy of one's perception, but that claim appears to be an unfounded assertion.  If a Jesus God person wishes to be close to their God, and a Yoga God person wishes to be close to their God, and both experience their respective Gods in their NDEs, then on what basis do we determine that one is perceiving their God accurately and the other is not?  Until you answer that question, your babbling about free will is pointless.  By the way, in what units is "wishing to be close to God" measured?

Jorm you have sage like patients with this moron