Children

[BruceAdama]

So, quick question for clarification…

It’s been said here that for probably obvious reasons, you can’t have children in the afterlife… at least not in the human sense. But it’s also been said here, I think by Roberta, that “child” souls - souls of children who have passed from Earth, are regarded as a type of “royalty”, or the closest thing to it, in the afterlife.

But if there’s no such thing as children in that realm, then why would a soul be child-aged there? I thought it was generally accepted that souls of people there appear as they did in the prime of their lives? Why would the soul of a child on Earth maintain that appearance? Why wouldn’t it just appear as it would otherwise? After all, I thought that people who experience NDE’s somehow “know” or recognize who a given soul/person is, regardless of features?

 

[bluebird]

I personally do not agree with Roberta on much of anything, and I do not believe that she knows how children are viewed in the afterlife, if they do continue there as children at all. I'm just guessing here, but to me it makes sense that anyone can appear however s/he likes in the afterlife, if our appearance, like anything else, is decided upon and created by us. I think we will recognize each other's souls, not so much "bodies" (or facsimiles of bodies).

 

[mac]

So, quick question for clarification…

quick question maybe..... Unlikely to generate a quick answer though, at least an answer worth reading.....

It’s been said here that for probably obvious reasons, you can’t have children in the afterlife… at least not in the human sense. But it’s also been said here, I think by Roberta, that “child” souls - souls of children who have passed from Earth, are regarded as a type of “royalty”, or the closest thing to it, in the afterlife.

On the very first point, bang on. Children are the consequence of human-body fertilisation. When we live 'over there' our bodies ain't the same as the ones we live in here and don't function the same. Kids don't happen in the etheric - the only youngsters are the ones who passed over before they'd grown to adulthood.

I think the notion they're seen as royalty is a crock BUT people generally love babies and youngsters here and I'd bet diamonds they'll still want to fuss over babies 'over there'. I reckon I WILL anyway....

But if there’s no such thing as children in that realm, then why would a soul be child-aged there?

That's wrong - there ARE babies and children and I've ALWAYS told you that. What appears to happen, based on personal guidance, is that when a spirit commits to life incarnate with the development from baby to adult that we are familiar with, that spirit may still want to complete the cycle in the etheric or as closely as it can. The reasons may be as numerous as the individuals involved BUT equally a child lost before or during birth, or one who died before adulthood MAY NOT want to - and may CHOOSE NOT TO - continue from that level of development. Unless I've got everything wrong the etheric is an enabling environment.

I thought it was generally accepted that souls of people there appear as they did in the prime of their lives? Why would the soul of a child on Earth maintain that appearance? Why wouldn’t it just appear as it would otherwise?

I've covered that above.....

After all, I thought that people who experience NDE’s somehow “know” or recognize who a given soul/person is, regardless of features?

That had better be the situation else how will my wife and I recognise the son we lost? Bluebird mentions that in her reply - in whatever way it happens, we recognize their SOUL when there's no physical appearance to remember or recognise.

 

[BruceAdama]

But why complete the cycle in the etheric? Why not just reincarnate and complete it on the Earth realm? I mean, isn’t the whole point to learn and experience stuff that you CAN’T in the afterlife?

 

[mac]

But why complete the cycle in the etheric? Why not just reincarnate and complete it on the Earth realm? I mean, isn’t the whole point to learn and experience stuff that you CAN’T in the afterlife?

As I've remarked in the past you try to deal with issues in isolation, without an overall context and without even knowing if you believe in the principle of survival.

 

[mac]

When you respond to the points I'm making then I'll go further if you show interest. If not I'm leaving things as they stand.....

 

[bluebird]

Bruce,

Just in the way that you want to live a physical sort of life after you die, whereas some other people would prefer to live without the physical once they die, some other people may want to complete their life-cycle in the afterlife rather than reincarnating and completing it on earth. Just as I want to exist in the afterlife with my husband in the sort of house we wanted here on earth, with our cats and so forth. Not everyone will choose the same path -- certainly not here on earth, and likely not in the afterlife either.

 

[BruceAdama]

That’s true, but like I said, if we’re to accept that we’re here on earth to learn a lesson or fulfill a role that we can’t otherwise experience in the other realm, then wouldn’t you have to incarnate again? Like, for the sake of argument, say a soul wanted to learn inner strength, like eventually living with and overcoming a physical handicap. But for whatever reason, their life here is cut short. COULD they experience the same handicap, trials, and challenges in the afterlife realm?

 

[bluebird]

Well first, not everyone believes that we are here on earth to learn a lesson or fulfill a role we can't experience in the afterlife, although personally I do think it's a likely possibility (though perhaps only one possibility -- maybe some are here to learn, some are here just for fun or a different experience, etc., who knows).

But assuming that we are here to learn, etc., maybe some people want or need a break between lives, time to recuperate and/or spend with loved ones, etc. And maybe some people came to earth to learn a lesson or fulfill a role, but then after living here a while and then dying, they decided that they had been wrong, and that they no longer wanted to learn that lesson or pursue that role or whatever (I am sort of in that situation -- I don't necessarily believe that we choose all aspects of our lives before we come here, but if we do then I made a mistake in thinking that I could handle this life).

Now, whether a person whose life was cut short here on earth could experience the same challenges, etc., in the afterlife, I can't possibly know -- hell, I don't even know if there is an afterlife at all. But in my opinion -- if we can create houses and mountains and snowboards in the afterlife, I don't see why we couldn't create whatever situation we want (providing it doesn't hurt anyone else), even to the point of choosing not to remember, for the duration of the experience, that in fact we had created that experience in the afterlife and were not actually living through it on earth.

But again, this is all supposition/opinion on my part.

 

[mac]

Anyone who hasn't lost a child or baby can't have even the slightest grasp what it's like.

I'm the father of a child who passed at birth and someone who has been looking into this subject since the time it happened. Even after nearly 40 years at this stuff I still know nothing about what happens to miscarried children or after neo-natal loss or the death of older babies and children. For anyone who hasn't experienced such loss discussions are academic.

None of us in this world know anything much - if anything at all - about any prior intentions for our chosen incarnate lives. Trying to link such a lack of understanding to the very-special situation of babies and children is purely academic. It's doubly so when you're not even sure about survival anyway.