Hi, first post, looking forward to reading some of the experiences/informsation here. I have an open mind about the possibility of an afterlife, but have got more skeptical and less hopeful about it as I go through life.
I am sure I am just repeating some questions that have already been asked, but for example:

an afterlife assumes a soul of some kind, however why should we believe in one? even some major religions don't believe in one or downplay it - for example early Christianity focussed far more of the resurrection of the body in a new, immortal form) than a soul going to Heaven, and some mainstream Christians and other groups like JWs still focus on this. Buddhism also does not believe in a soul. Also just because our parents or birth religion says there is a soul doesn;t make it true (the primary reason why most people believe in one - from childhood we have been told dead loved ones are still alive in Heaven..)

There is increasing proof evidence that the way our "minds" work is directly effected by our brain health/activity. Why shouldn't science eventually show that all consciousness is a product of the brain?

we have no memory of a life before birth (except in very rare cases where children seem to have clear memories of past lives), so why should we assume we go on living after death?

if we have a soul what about animals/insects/microorganisms/plants??? ( and early forms of man) if we all survive then the afterlife will be very crowded...

if we don;t need bodies to enjoy full personalities/consciousness etc then why are we here, with all this incredibly complex physical paraphernalia, subject to illness and accidents and ageing etc and not just enjoying being immortal spirits?

if there is a spirit world or worlds where we go after death either permanently or temporarily, where is it? early Christians clearly thought Heaven was simply "up" (see Jesus ascending into a cloud, for example). we know better

why is it that every time someone seems to announce proof for life after death (NDEs etc) it turns out disappointing? Raymond Moody's latest book was a load of waffle about how NDEs aren't proof of life after death, and are best seen as some sort of entertainment. news of exciting medical backing from an English and a Dutch doctor a few years ago has brought no new studies and the website set up by Dr Sam Parnia has been inactive for the last couple of years

My own experiences of automatic writing and apparently voice channelling a spirit at one stage in my life were distressing rather than helpful and , in retrospect, perhaps just connected with psycological stress I was under  at the time (and a great interest in finding proof of life after death - perhaps something my subconscious tried to fulfill for me in some way) . I no longer see them as proof, just a weird experience I used to have.

also why are most sessions at spiritualist churches so embarrassingly hit-and-miss? The typical reading is full of vague rubbish like "can anyone take an anniversary in June" or "I have an elderly man who used to have a condition with his chest". They have been trying to prove life after death of well over a century and nothing solid has come of it, they just preach to the converted. as for physical phenomena, the latest I heard was that mediums are still conducting séances in the dark, with floating trumpets covered in luminous paints and so on, has nothing moved on since the 19th century? how will any of this ever convince anyone of an even moderately skeptical frame of mind? it's a cop out to say this kind of thing can;t be replicated reliably or tested or filmed etc

Hello Orlando123:

I've never been to a spiritualist Church, so I don't know what they are like. Perhaps readings are hit and miss, partly because of the limited ability of some of the readers. Also, if a person doesn't have a natural connection to a spirit, the lines of communication might not be very clear. Some of the readers might be fakes.

I've found that spirit mesages don't always come through real clear.  I'm often shown typed/printed words.  When this occurs sometimes I'll see an entire page of words, and only the words I need to read stand out so I can read them, even if the other words are printed clear. If you think about it, this is how we always read. Why I am often shown a page of words rather than just the words I need to read, I don't know.

If a person receives written words, it would be easy to get names, even though sometimes they get jumbled a bit. It is hard to understand why some mediums say "I get a name that starts with the letter "J," or whatever letter they receive. It might be because their eyes are open. Mine are closed when I receive written messages. And once again, there is a matter of whether a person has a natural energetic connection to the spirit they communicate with. Whatever the case, I've been shown words that I could verify later on.

Regarding Souls, Buddhism and such, I used to read Buddhism quite a bit and ran accross the no Soul viewpoint. Since then I've opened up to communicating to spirits, and have found in various ways that Souls do in fact exist.  I've found that people who don't believe in Souls often view the matter from a particular intellectual perspective, or from a perspective where they had an experience of beingness without the creative aspect of being, and for whatever reason decided to deny the creative aspect of being. Sometimes they do so because the gurus they listen to often deny manifested existence as nothing but a delusion. Gurus do so in a manner which shows that they don't clearly understand that God exists everywhere, even in that which has been created.  That which has been created is a part of the big divine game plan. If this part of the divine plan didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

hello

Thanks for the reply. Did you always have your mediumistic abilities, or did you develop them in some way? I am interested that you say you are often shown written words. That sounds unusual. perhaps it's down to an individual person's affinities for certain senses - like one person might be more verbal, another more visual etc in their aptitudes/sensitivities (although having said that, written words combine the two!) or tactile etc... So have you had information in this way that you knew 100% could not have come from guesswork/prior knowledge/imagination etc? (I don;t mean that you - or a lot of other mediums - are deliberately inventing things, just that I think sometimes imagination might play more of a role than people realise themselves).

You make interesting points about the religious philosophies that stress the alleged non-reality of individual beings and so on in favour of "The One". It seems to me kind of pessimistic to see all the variety of the world as somehow a distraction and a fake compared to real "reality". And surely if none of that existed then it would be boring! If we all just existed in serene ego-lessness and one-ness. However, although it's not new to me, I'm not really quite sure what it means intellectually for "God" to be "in" everything and "everywhere' and at the same time a seperate/distinctive/intelligent being or force from the rest of the "things" in the universe. Also I am not sure what, if it exists, his or her "gameplan" might be. As a person who has suffered a fair amount of pain and setbacks in life I am skeptical about the "everything happens for a reason" claims that are so prevalent. Also how does that balance out with free will for that matter? And are natural disasters also a part of the "plan"?

You're welcome for the reply Orlando. More below within double brackets. I don't know why, but the grey box thing doesn't work out too well for me.


orlando123 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2007 at 1:20pm:

hello Thanks for the reply. Did you always have your mediumistic abilities, or did you develop them in some way? I am interested that you say you are often shown written words. That sounds unusual. perhaps it's down to an individual person's affinities for certain senses - like one person might be more verbal, another more visual etc in their aptitudes/sensitivities (although having said that, written words combine the two!) or tactile etc... So have you had information in this way that you knew 100% could not have come from guesswork/prior knowledge/imagination etc? (I don;t mean that you - or a lot of other mediums - are deliberately inventing things, just that I think sometimes imagination might play more of a role than people realise themselves). ""Even though I communicate to spirits, I don't work as a medium. I didn't always have the ability. Through much energetic work, meditation, and getting rid of limiting psychological issues and belief systems, I developed the ability.  I mainly speak to my spirit guidance. Other spirits also show up at times.  I've received information numerous times that can only be explained by spirit contact. I have no doubt that I communicate with spirits on a regular basis."" You make interesting points about the religious philosophies that stress the alleged non-reality of individual beings and so on in favour of "The One". It seems to me kind of pessimistic to see all the variety of the world as somehow a distraction and a fake compared to real "reality". And surely if none of that existed then it would be boring! If we all just existed in serene ego-lessness and one-ness. However, although it's not new to me, I'm not really quite sure what it means intellectually for "God" to be "in" everything and "everywhere' and at the same time a seperate/distinctive/intelligent being or force from the rest of the "things" in the universe. Also I am not sure what, if it exists, his or her "gameplan" might be. As a person who has suffered a fair amount of pain and setbacks in life I am skeptical about the "everything happens for a reason" claims that are so prevalent. Also how does that balance out with free will for that matter? And are natural disasters also a part of the "plan"?

""When it comes to freewill, I figure just about all of us find out that a path that leads to happiness, peace and love for all, is the best.  This common understanding and purpose eventually directs us in the same direction.

Regarding the hardships we go through, I believe this is clearly known before we incarnate into the physical World. Yet we choose to do so. Must be a pretty good reason. ;)

Regarding individual beings as opposed to One,  I believe oneness can't be judged according to the human everything is separate perspective. The final goal isn't about one being being all alone, nor is it about a bunch of beings being seperate. It is a combination of the two. One and many at the same time. ""

Thanks. Well I guess these things always entail an element of belief. For example, you say you believe we incarnate knowing there will be suffering etc - but what do you base this eblief on? Messages you have recieved?

I think the idea of completely losing ego/individuality is not appealing, especially to the western mind perhaps. So a situation where you are an individual but feel very much "one" with others in terms of mutual love and understanding etc would be what we would would all like - if that's not over-simplifying things.

You say:

""When it comes to freewill, I figure just about all of us find out that a path that leads to happiness, peace and love for all, is the best.  This common understanding and purpose eventually directs us in the same direction.  

You are indeed an optimist! I would like to think everyone is moving in that direction, but i am not 100% sure. I do think that there are some positive things in that respect in the modern world though - better communication and education etc has led to somewhat less hatred and ignorance and somewhat more mutual understanding and harmony perhaps. I hope things continue in that direction, even though there is still very much that is wrong with the world

You said:
""Even though I communicate to spirits, I don't work as a medium. I didn't always have the ability. Through much energetic work, meditation, and getting rid of limiting psychological issues and belief systems, I developed the ability.  I mainly speak to my spirit guidance. Other spirits also show up at times.  I've received information numerous times that can only be explained by spirit contact. I have no doubt that I communicate with spirits on a regular basis.""

I see, thank you, that's intersting. I would say if you feel you have recieved genuinely useful information and that the whole experience is overwhelmingly positive then that is great.

As I said before - taken from a "believers"point of view -  i had the experience of , for want of a better word, being possesssed or overshadowed or something by a spirit who was most unhappy, who I believed I first contacted in a ouijaboard session with friends. I believed I then made contact with him while doodling on a pad and he started moving the pen. After much experimenting with asking questions in my head and getting answers written by my hand moving (which got out of hand, so I could hardly write normally without my hand wanting to go off and do something else)  I later started getting odd muscle movements in my throat and diaphragm and later still found one day when I was relaxed the "spirit" used my voice to say things to me. When I thought things had gone too far (he was getting aggressive and unpleasant) I tried to get him to go by visiting an exorcist (Anglican) and later a couple of spiritualist mediums. By this point I found I could relax and let him take me over completely, although I would still be conscious and observing what he said and did using my body. I also found I could get into a fram of mind where I could listen insiode my head anbd could hear him saying things to me that way - which I quickly stopped experimenting with. He was there, all the time, for several years and I later just aimed to block him out and not experiment.  In retrospect I think it's perhaps more likely he was just a figment of my imagination/subconscious as I learned nothing very evidential from him to prove he was the person he said he was and some of his own concerns/worries in life had been similar to some of my own. Also the fact he was just there all the time, rather than "coming through" occasionally seems odd. He ought to have had better things to do.. i tried occasionally to get into a peaceful frame of mind and see if I could get some message from a spirit who would have something beautiful and instructive to say, but it wasn;t successful. If occasionally I thought it had worked it seemed like it was just the same entity eventually.

Going by how my experiences and communications have gone, it seems clear that things are set up so there is a choice when it comes to incarnating into this World.  There are other ways of growing, and many beings don't incarnate into this World. The sources I have read that seem to make the most sense, support my way of thinking.

On the other hand,  perhaps the physical World provides more difficult incarnations than is desirable,  and the spirit World has no choice but to find volunteers to take on these difficult incarnations. I figure a spirit who knows it is eternal, has a different perspective than a person in the physical World.

I had an experience one night I believe was a memory of what it was like before I incarnated into this lifetime.  Just before I incarnated I said to a spirit I knew, "I'll miss you." The spirit replied: "I know."  I felt very sad and afraid about incarnating again. Nevertheless, if I had it to do over again, I would.



orlando123 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2007 at 2:20pm:

Thanks. Well I guess these things always entail an element of belief. For example, you say you believe we incarnate knowing there will be suffering etc - but what do you base this eblief on? Messages you have recieved? I think the idea of completely losing ego/individuality is not appealing, especially to the western mind perhaps. So a situation where you are an individual but feel very much "one" with others in terms of mutual love and understanding etc would be what we would would all like - if that's not over-simplifying things.

Hi Orlando-
I used to be totally skeptical - well, 80% anyhow. I was trained as a psychoanalyst and after 7 years of internship I set up a private practice in hypnoanalysis (because it's 300X faster) and immediately got a woman who was afraid of water due to a past life in which she had drowned. Scared hell out of me. Then I got into studying how it all works and became a bit more comfortable. Skepticism is appropriate, but when you need the facts they come, like it or not.

The idea of a "soul" carries a vast amount of social freight. For the moment, let's call it the "persona", meaning whatever it is that you are. Then there's no dubt that it exists. But it is not a material or quasi-material thing like your left shoe.

The essence of life is motion. We only perceive that which changes, and if you fixate your vision, your visual field will grey out and you'll start hallucinating by projecting inner noise. This is one approach to meditation, called trataka, usually using a candle as a focal point. So long as there is a means by which the persona interacts with incoming stimulii, then it is "alive" in the simplest manner. The nature of sensations and suchlike probably varies - I once projected (OBE) into a rolled up window shade and felt kinda layered and circular, but was aware and could make decisions.

The nature of the persona is not in the physical animal, because you can cut off or otherwise destroy major chunks of the animal and still have the persona. Transplants don't seem to carry other people's "souls" into their new bodies - some debate on what they actually do, however.

When we include all the details, it appears as if your persona was caused way back at Event One, although the path is to complex to easily decipher. Meanwhile all the world in which you live has been interacting with you, lifetime after lifetime. Those interactions extend the motion and activity of the persona into the outer universe as a dynamic factor that creates changes.

The world in which we live has been redefined by quantum mechanics who point out that most of it is empty space, and the rest looks a lot like patterns of information (eg Archibald Wheeler).  By the time that physicists were done, the world was changed into a collection of variations of process, structure and relationship - usually expressed as momentum, mass and extension. To create a "thing" all we need to do is use the right process on the proper structure so that the resultant has the proper relationships. For example, beat the eggs into a fry pan to make an omelette.

The "place" into which we go seems to not be a place, but simply a less restricted collection of the same structures, the same processes and the same relationships as we see in everyday life. However, as a process (but NOT a thing - Buddhist anatta doctrine) your energy can be superposed on top of any other energy with which it is compatible.  We thus drop a specific body to take on the general embodiment (which is essentially the "body of God" if analyzed to the extreme). The "you" in human terms remains in the activities and energies put into the world - and thus which come back as conditions on your re-entry called karmas.

So actually, where we go is nowhere in particular. I call it the Spirit World for lack of a better term. You arived in the physical because prior events shaped circumstances until you were more or less squeezed out of the Cosmic Toothpaste Tube into a body. After death you go back to the unlimited state and can advance into oneness with God to the degree that your development allows.

And if you don't like the idea of a God, also a term with a lot of freight, you can envision the same concept as what St Thomas Aquinas called the "Uncaused Cause" - same thing. (This sense of a Creator is abstract as opposed to some big guy in the sky, and is essentially in accord with Buddhist anatta doctine. To my mind, the role of Creator is immanent and statistical, being best expressed by thermodynamics. But, as Neitsche said, "If man were triangular, God would be a triangle.")

hope ths clarifies a bit
dave

Thanks for the input recoverer and dave. I am glad everything seems to gel for you recoverer, but, for example, I wonder why the whole thing is necessary in the first place - why did we ever stop being "one with God" and set out on all these struggles? why did we ever need to "grow"? also what do you think we carry from one incarnation to the next? aptitudes/dispositions? most of us certainly have no conscious memories of being in a different body/place etc

Same point to dave really.. if we started One with everything, why is this lengthy learning process required? also if the sould is not material, then surely it must still be "made"of "something"? One guy who posts on the net a lot claims it is made of some as yet undiscovered sub-atmic particles.. I also don;t get the "anatta"idea - you allude to it as just energies and processes caused in the world by our actions, but you also talk about a specific personal energy which "reenters"the physical world. So do we have an individual "soul'or not? However I understand this is something which has caused and continues to cause debate among Buddhsits anyhow. I am not BUddhist, but admire some of their teachings an dattitudes and once saw the dalai lama give a speech in an intimate setting and felt what i would say was a pretty inexplicable sense of warmth and peace emanating from him which made me feel happy and relaxed, as if he really does have some special "spiritual power"thing going on. At any rate he seems a man who puts Buddhist messages of compassion and so forth into action in a genuine way.

As for reincarnation therapy i am in two minds about if it proves real past lifes or if the lives are somehow created by our subconscious. I mean you go to a past life therapist with the hope/expectation of finding a past life and the suggestions given under hypnosis make assumptions that these exist and you can unearth one. i tried it myself and seemed (although it was a little bit vague and lacking in evidential detail) to remember a life in the 16th century as an unhappily married woman.

Orlando:

I'm not able to say for certain what happened below.  Ouija boards have a bad reputation. Hardly seems like a way to make contact with spirits who represent the light.  Perhaps this is one of the things Seth/Jane Roberts (I'm not a fan) accomplished. Gave people the impression it is okay to play around with Ouija boards when it isn't.

I had this out of body experience one time. I was near the entrance way of a lower realm.  I felt completely safe because I knew the spirits within it couldn't get out.  Not unless they asked for help. As soon as the experience ended the thought came to me, sometimes they find their way out when people do things such as play around with ouija boards. I've also heard that automatic writing isn't a good thing to play around with. I don't know the details.

I have received lots of useful information and lots of help from the spirit guidance I am in contact with them. My guidance often communicates to me when I am in an expanded state of meditation.  Even though I receive thoughts and hear voices,  I mostly receive messages through symbolic visual images and short waking dreams (also asleep dreams). I have never heard them communicate to me with my voice.

I've had a number of experiences which have told me that Christ is in fact a spiritual reality, and a key part of the spiritual welfare of mankind. These experiences occurred to me after I was closed to the idea, because of how fundamentalism turned me off to Christianity.

Unfriendly spirits also visit me occasionally. They approach me in a very hostile manner. But they have never been able to harm me. I usually tell them to go to the light. If we choose to live according love and light, I don't believe an unfriendly spirit can gain an upper hand.


orlando123 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2007 at 2:40pm:

You say: As I said before - taken from a "believers"point of view -  i had the experience of , for want of a better word, being possesssed or overshadowed or something by a spirit who was most unhappy, who I believed I first contacted in a ouijaboard session with friends. I believed I then made contact with him while doodling on a pad and he started moving the pen. After much experimenting with asking questions in my head and getting answers written by my hand moving (which got out of hand, so I could hardly write normally without my hand wanting to go off and do something else)  I later started getting odd muscle movements in my throat and diaphragm and later still found one day when I was relaxed the "spirit" used my voice to say things to me. When I thought things had gone too far (he was getting aggressive and unpleasant) I tried to get him to go by visiting an exorcist (Anglican) and later a couple of spiritualist mediums. By this point I found I could relax and let him take me over completely, although I would still be conscious and observing what he said and did using my body. I also found I could get into a fram of mind where I could listen insiode my head anbd could hear him saying things to me that way - which I quickly stopped experimenting with. He was there, all the time, for several years and I later just aimed to block him out and not experiment.  In retrospect I think it's perhaps more likely he was just a figment of my imagination/subconscious as I learned nothing very evidential from him to prove he was the person he said he was and some of his own concerns/worries in life had been similar to some of my own. Also the fact he was just there all the time, rather than "coming through" occasionally seems odd. He ought to have had better things to do.. i tried occasionally to get into a peaceful frame of mind and see if I could get some message from a spirit who would have something beautiful and instructive to say, but it wasn;t successful. If occasionally I thought it had worked it seemed like it was just the same entity eventually.

Orlando:

Why is the whole thing necessary? I've thought about this a lot, and have come up with a few possibilities. These possibilities are based on the viewpoint that manifested existence isn't just one big mistake.

1. It is quite natural that if the source of all had the ability to create, it would make use of this ability. Mainly to find out what is possible.
2. So the source being could find out who it is according to conjecture. By this I mean that if it didn't have anything to be aware of, it wouldn't have a way to take a look. Eventually, after it worked its way through the confusion this process leads to, this being had the ability to understand and think, I'm the awareness that is aware of everything, and none other than myself created everything.  Such a way of understanding becomes possible when instead of understanding things according to limited perspectives, one understands according to unlimited, unprejudiced, comprehensive awareness. Becoming emotionally detached from that which was created, provides the energy to obtain comprehensive awareness.
3. To share the gift of life with others. Apparently the prime source had the ability to make use of its awareness/creative self so many selves could be created. Perhaps love and oneness are more enjoyable,  when there seems to be others to experience this love and oneness with it. Even if ultimately everything is just one, what we actually experience has more to do with what our reality is, rather than a hypothetical perspective.
4. The prime source started the process of creation in order to add flavors to its overall being.

It is also important to remember that we are just one small part of the universe. As best as I can figure, there are countless beings who "don't" go through what we go through. We bring something unique to the big party at the end.

Hi - I feel like some of your remarks are a little bit judgmental. I agree now that ouija baords are a bad idea, but I didn't experiment with any bad attitude, I just wanted guidance and evidence about the meaning of life and if there was an afterlife etc. Your words could imply that I lacked an attitude of love and light and almost deliberately allowed an angry and unhappy entity to have an influence over me, which was not the case. However I was not in an espcially happy and stable time in my life at the time, which could also have an effect i guess.

I tried to get this spirit, if that's what it was, to "go into the light" but he wasn't interested.

However, i suppose that, in the long run, he has not "got the upper hand".

Are you opposed per se to the idea of what I suppose you would call trance mediumship (even though I was conscious) where the spirit speaks through you? I am unsure how common a phenonenon it is, especially the kind I experienced, where it is not just "inspired speaking" of some kind but you actualy relax and let the spirit use your body/vocal chords etc and don;t know what you will say.

When you say negative spirits approach you sometimes, do you mean it's a sensation you get, or you see images, or you hear voices? Anyway, thanks for the extra info on your own experiences. What type of meditation methods do you use?

Just to add to what Don is saying, for the Hindu, the purpose of life is to live, It is called lila, Sanskrit for "play". And we're all here because we like to play, and because we are playing in this specific manner together, we have fun in the same universe. Ultimately, no matter whether we view ourselves as spiritual persons or as mechanists, we are what the wavefront of the Big Bang, the Creator's Event One,  looks like, but 14 billion years after the fact.  

welcome to the forum - you ask good questions

d

So you think everything is tending towards some big final goal? Could it not be that everything is cyclical/goes on for ever? If things did come to an end and all was "one"again with no creation, then wouln;t the "one"get bored again!?

I agree that I don;t really like religious systems which suggest all creation is some "mistake""illusion"etc. Equally ones that say don;t enjoy the sensual pleasures of the world etc because it's all a distraction from spiritual truth. i think it can all be good, although positive ways of enjoying the senses etc usually have their negative sides too if over-indlged or perverted in some way.

I was going to ask if you think humans play some special role, but you answered that. So, assuming you believe in evolution etc, do you think it was all part of a plan that we should become unususually sentive and complex etc?/do you think our "souls"and spiritual journey are completely different from other beings? If so at what time in our evolution did this occur? Where do you draw the line between humans and animals - i mean I understand that animal behaviour study now suggests some animals can use tools, some can learn quite complex sign language, they can feel emotions, some (eg elephants) even seem to honour their dead and some display altruism, even to creatures outside their species group (I read an article describing this in relation to chimpanzees acting altruistically towards a human in a study, I believe). Things seem to have got more complicated since Descartes used to claim animals were just like machines and had no soul.



recoverer wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2007 at 3:37pm:

Orlando: Why is the whole thing necessary? I've thought about this a lot, and have come up with a few possibilities. These possibilities are based on the viewpoint that manifested existence isn't just one big mistake. 1. It is quite natural that if the source of all had the ability to create, it would make use of this ability. Mainly to find out what is possible. 2. So the source being could find out who it is according to conjecture. By this I mean that if it didn't have anything to be aware of, it wouldn't have a way to take a look. Eventually, after it worked its way through the confusion this process leads to, this being had the ability to understand and think, I'm the awareness that is aware of everything, and none other than myself created everything.  Such a way of understanding becomes possible when instead of understanding things according to limited perspectives, one understands according to unlimited, unprejudiced, comprehensive awareness. Becoming emotionally detached from that which was created, provides the energy to obtain comprehensive awareness. 3. To share the gift of life with others. Apparently the prime source had the ability to make use of its awareness/creative self so many selves could be created. Perhaps love and oneness are more enjoyable,  when there seems to be others to experience this love and oneness with it. Even if ultimately everything is just one, what we actually experience has more to do with what our reality is, rather than a hypothetical perspective. 4. The prime source started the process of creation in order to add flavors to its overall being. It is also important to remember that we are just one small part of the universe. As best as I can figure, there are countless beings who "don't" go through what we go through. We bring something unique to the big party at the end.

Thaks, that's a good way of looking at it, and might imply we should try to lighten up a bit I guess... I try to but sometimes life experiences I could do without get in the way..

So do you think all our "souls" had their start in the beginning of time? Do you think our "souls" "grew" in some way through being embodied in different kinds of creature? What about before there was even any life? I mean for the firrst billion or so years the earth was barren, as I think current science has it.. and how come some creatures have stayed as "lower'lifeforms and we get to be human?



dave_a_mbs wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2007 at 4:04pm:

Just to add to what Don is saying, for the Hindu, the purpose of life is to live, It is called lila, Sanskrit for "play". And we're all here because we like to play, and because we are playing in this specific manner together, we have fun in the same universe. Ultimately, no matter whether we view ourselves as spiritual persons or as mechanists, we are what the wavefront of the Big Bang, the Creator's Event One,  looks like, but 14 billion years after the fact.   welcome to the forum - you ask good questions d

Orlando:

Comments below.


orlando123 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2007 at 3:54pm:

Hi - I feel like some of your remarks are a little bit judgmental. I agree now that ouija baords are a bad idea, but I didn't experiment with any bad attitude, I just wanted guidance and evidence about the meaning of life and if there was an afterlife etc. Your words could imply that I lacked an attitude of love and light and almost deliberately allowed an angry and unhappy entity to have an influence over me, which was not the case. However I was not in an espcially happy and stable time in my life at the time, which could also have an effect i guess. ""Sorry if you thought I was being judgemental. I was just making a comment about ouija boards in general.  Lots of people have used ouija boards without having anything negative in mind. The question is, who ends up answering the call?"" I tried to get this spirit, if that's what it was, to "go into the light" but he wasn't interested. However, i suppose that, in the long run, he has not "got the upper hand". ""Most certainly not.  I don't believe you'd be here sharing today if he had.  It seems key that you decided to cut off contact."" Are you opposed per se to the idea of what I suppose you would call trance mediumship (even though I was conscious) where the spirit speaks through you? I am unsure how common a phenonenon it is, especially the kind I experienced, where it is not just "inspired speaking" of some kind but you actualy relax and let the spirit use your body/vocal chords etc and don;t know what you will say. ""I can't make a blanket statement for all cases, because I don't know. I have read of channeled cases that weren't right. On the other hand, Rosalind Mcknight allowed a spirit she was associated with to speak through her body when she worked at TMI with Robert Monroe. So much of what this spirit shared was positive and seemed accurate. It seemed like this spirit had no interest of playing the role of guru for personal attention. These dialogues can be found in her book "Cosmic Journeys."" When you say negative spirits approach you sometimes, do you mean it's a sensation you get, or you see images, or you hear voices? Anyway, thanks for the extra info on your own experiences. What type of meditation methods do you use?

""All of the above, I've seen, heard and felt them.  They've tried to scare me, but didn't succeed.  When they say something ridiculous, I tell them so.""

Regarding meditation, I don't use methods such as watching my breath or repeating a mantra. Instead I try to open up to love, or get to know the real me. I found that it isn't necessary to stop my mind when I do this. Thought that appears within my mind just points to the one who is aware of it, "me." :) Sometimes I'll meditate on a specific issue.

I apologize again if it seems as if I was making a judgmental comment towards you. That wasn't my intent at all.""

Dave:

My name is "Albert," not "Don."  Perhaps I should end my posts with Albert.

Albert. :)

No offense taken recoverer. Thanks for the pointers about how you meditate. That sounds perhaps more constructive than a more mechanical method like a focus on each breath or reciting a mantra etc as you say (both of which I've tried before).

I am a bit scared of attempting to inititate some form of spirit communication though, becasue of what's happened before. Anyway, I guess doing some of your type meditation wouldn;t hurt, and if something helpful arouse in terms of messages/images etc that would be fine too

Orlando:

I can see why you would be concerned. I've been very careful about communicating with spirits. I don't want to be led astray. Numerous things have shown me that I'm in contact with spirits who represent the light. I do have to keep an eye out for the pesty spirits.

I figure many people don't need to communicate with spirits. Different paths for different people. The main thing is to grow in love as much as we can.  

 




orlando123 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2007 at 4:35pm:

No offense taken recoverer. Thanks for the pointers about how you meditate. That sounds perhaps more constructive than a more mechanical method like a focus on each breath or reciting a mantra etc as you say (both of which I've tried before). I am a bit scared of attempting to inititate some form of spirit communication though, becasue of what's happened before. Anyway, I guess doing some of your type meditation wouldn;t hurt, and if something helpful arouse in terms of messages/images etc that would be fine too

Quote:

Why shouldn't science eventually show that all consciousness is a product of the brain?

because of those remarkable instances where people obtain information out of body they couldn't have attained any other way.  bruce moen does this some in his books.  

what, will science explain that by saying our brain magically has powers that extend through the whole universe?   ;D  really the more you try to explain such things with conventional science, the more laughable it becomes.  your brain is held within your skull.  your brain cannot go get information outside of the skull, that is obvious.  so something else is at play i.e. the soul or the mind.  

(of course, scientist don't even try to explain such remarkable occurences.  they simply deny that it happened in the first place!  how convenient.  i'm sure psychopathic murderers love that logic. "no i didn't just kill that guy."  just say something didn't happen, and it magically didn't!  haha)

also science may not believe in things like remote viewing, but our government did enough to spend millions on the stargate program.  and scientists are still dumb enough to think people aren't being abducted by aliens.  give me a break.

Thanks Seeker, I dare say you are right. I am reading parapsychologist Dean Radin's The Conscious Universe at the moment, which appears to give strong scientific backing for psi phenomena for example, and Prof Brian Josephson, a nobel physics laureate reccomends it and is also open to such things being real. I am also interested by some of the NDE experiences which appear to have happenned when there was no brain acxtivity, but clinching proof is very elusive. Doctors have treid to set up experiments putting pictures above hospital beds in case someone reports an OBE where they floated up, to see if they saw the design, but so far things like this have always failed.

Western Materialistic Mechanistic Science is just another belief system. It poses as objective, rational, neutral and unemotional but when it deals with laws of non-physical energy and consciousness it makes alot of assumptions and cannot prove its hypothesis simply with referring to laws of the physical world. If we are all one which I believe we are and this is essentially the truth revealed to us at the highest states of consciousness, then it is no wonder that western materialist mechanistic science continues to ignore and fails to investigate spirituality. While of course I am well aware of the alternate scientific paradigms put forward by the likes of Dean Radin and others like Dr Claude Swanson http://www.synchronizeduniverse.com/ , the pervading method of scientific analysis is still based on a mentality of separation which creates a worldview of randomness and meaninglessness. Perhaps meaning even in a spiritual worldview is still essentially one that is created and reality is affected by the observer, like in some quantum physics theories ... but I'd rather see things from that point of view than purely an materialist one.

I am only in the early stages of Bruce's books and tapes. I am far less experienced in spiritual experiences then most of you on this board, yet I seem to have more trouble rationally disbelieving in the afterlife than believing in it. If there's no afterlife then alot of very sensitive, aware and intelligent people are all deluded? I also find that hard to believe.

My latest doubt is a more semantics issue. Is there really an 'afterlife'? because if we are all one and if time doesn't really exist as I keep reading and hearing about, then wouldn't 'afterlife' be a misnomer? It is all these complexities and differences in religious beliefs that I have shifted from one to another over the time that has led to me to a simpler view. We all stem from the 'one' the ever expanding consciousness creatively moving through existence. The 'one' will not reach an ultimate climax, for if there is no time then there cannot be an end or a beginning.

Never say die

About the time issue.

10. TIME AND PROPHECY. One unusual aspect of ESP, Remote Viewing and Psychokinesis is that "time" doesn't seem to matter. One can exert an influence or acquire information in the past and in the future, almost as easily as in the present. In conventional physics, the order of events is very important, but in the realm of psychic phenomena there seems to be a flexibility to move in time that defies current physics.

http://www.synchronizeduniverse.com/

Hi

While "western materialistic science" may sometimes be stuck in its ways an not open enough to new possibilities I disagree with the idea it is just a "belief system" - science is a system of seeking rational proof and repeatable experiements etc so people can agree between themselves that certain things about the world are facts (or the best hypothesis currently available). Science has given us modern medicine so mothers rarely risk dying in childbirth and children rarely die in infancy, both commonplace 100 years ago, and , for example , we have cheap air travel and computers and the internet. If we had continued to base everything just on traditions and dogmas, or just personal beliefs,  instead of studying and seeking factual information we would have none of this. It is understandable if scientists are a bit wary of seeming to accept things that could be seen as cranky or lacking in solid theoretical grounding and evidence, as they don;t want to damage their careers and lose funding etc, which is a shame, however at least science does eventually move on in the face of enough evidence - 21st century science is a very different thing from 17th century science, for example - which you can;t say for many belief-based systems.


Also it is understandable that science tends to examine things in a compartmentalised way rather than always thinking of "the one" and interconnectedness. Again , it would not have got far if scientists had done otherwise. Not to say that your approach is not useful and complementary , but then those scientsist who are seeking a "theory of everything"combining quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity etc are working in a "holistic"way, you could say, also you can;t say that astrophysisists do not look at "the big picture"! Subjective experiences are valuable too, but they only have meaning to the person experiencing them, so science has to try and find out what mechanisms are going on, what particles and waves and forces etc exist so as to explain things in language that many people can agree on and understand.

As for many senstive people believing in life after death etc that is not a good reason to assume it is right on its own, that is a logical fallacy. in the past many sensitve people thought the earth was the centre of the universe and the stars and sun revolved around it, but it wasn't right then and it's still not right now. Many intelligent people (including women) thought it was wrong for women to work or vote. ditto for the keeping of slaves. A billion or two people believe in one form or another of Christainity, which I think is largely nonsense when studied logically and thoroughly. Quite a lot of presumably otherwise intelligent and likeable people eblief in even crankier religions like Mormonism or Scientology (which says human life on earth started when an alien brought a lot of alien souls here in spaceships shaped like airplanes and then dumped them into a volcano).

There are many reasons why people might believe in life after death without it being factually true, such as the fact none of us like to think we and our loved ones might one day not exist. However although belief in some kind of survival is very common around the world the details of it vary greatly. I would also like to think this common belief does point to a factual truth, but just becasue lots of nice people think it does that is not evidence.


Never say die wrote on Aug 4^th, 2007 at 11:16am:

Western Materialistic Mechanistic Science is just another belief system. It poses as objective, rational, neutral and unemotional but its set of assumptions are based on alot of pre-conceptions and assumptions. If we are all one which I believe we are and this is essentially the truth revealed to us at the highest states of consciousness, then it is no wonder that western materialist mechanistic science continues to ignore and fails to investigate spirituality. While of course I am well aware of the alternate scientific paradigms put forward by the likes of Dean Radin and others like Dr Claude Swanson http://www.synchronizeduniverse.com/, the pervading method of scientific analysis is still based on a mentality of separation. I am only in the early stages of Bruce's books and tapes. I am far less experienced in spiritual experiences then most of you on this board, yet I seem to have more trouble rationally disbelieving in the afterlife than believing in it. If there's no afterlife then alot of very sensitive, aware and intelligent people are all deluded? I also find that hard to believe. My latest doubt is a more semantics issue. Is there really an 'afterlife'? because if we are all one and if time doesn't really exist as I keep reading and hearing about, then wouldn't 'afterlife' be a misnomer? Never say die

Quote:

Doctors have treid to set up experiments putting pictures above hospital beds in case someone reports an OBE where they floated up, to see if they saw the design, but so far things like this have always failed.

yes and that's disappointing.  but i do believe people such as bruce moen (he's hardly alone) are very trustworthy in describing their OOB experiences.  

and the book the afterlife experiments does seem to "prove" that (some) psychics are the real deal.

I've not read any of Bruce's books or this one you mention (am pretty new around here) . However does Bruce definitely say he experiences going out of his body in a literal way, in this world? MY problem with OOB accounts is they often seem to involve alleged other worlds and so on, which can;t be verified and might just exist inside the experiencer's head. I suppose even if they have the impression of being in "this world"it could still be vivid imagination/memory unless they go and bring back some information they couldn;t have known about otherwise etc and I can;t understand why this is not easy to test for if some people say they can do it at will

Hey there!


Quote:

There are many reasons why people might believe in life after death without it being factually true, such as the fact none of us like to think we and our loved ones might one day not exist. However although belief in some kind of survival is very common around the world the details of it vary greatly. I would also like to think this common belief does point to a factual truth, but just becasue lots of nice people think it does that is not evidence.

Its the same thing with atheism, atheist also claim they have disproven a god, some see this disprove in scientific facts. Or even worse, like what we call "theodizee problem", if there is suffering in the world, and a god, but no divine intervention, could be also seen as if there is none, if there were, he would use divine intervention, and so on....a never solved philosophycally problem). But if you let's say can explain that thunder and lightning (pagan religions named their thundergod Donar, Thor or whatsoever), that does not automatically mean that the idea of divinity is disproven. Moslems do believe e.g., that science is a way to explain how gods world runs, why is it so hard to accept it like this? It is that ridiculous discussion, science contra religion (have you ever thought about that both of them try to answer the same questions, so the gap between cannot be that big).
Nowadays, scientists found, that there could have been a big bang that caused our universe (strange, where shall this molecules come from, if before the big bang was nothingness. Right, you could say "but who made the creator, who is worshipped by so many people?".
Many forget, that believing means having faith in something, if you don't have faith, you cannot provide it by so called proofs for the big question of our lives "What does it mean to be dead?". "Is there a god?" "Is there none?" There is NO relevance for any proofs, if you do not believe in it, you could leave it up to this (but since you are here on this board, you might not being anymore much into such easy giving up ;) ) , I mean, it is kind of ridiculous, do you really think, that a god, that has an afterlife for us, would reveal everything about it? For what should we live here, if everyone would know everything about this, that, what Bruce calls the C1 reality, would be a pre-heaven. But a human is able to decide which path he wants to go, wether to be moral, couragous, open minded, or a liar, traitor, murderer, what ever, so if we are capable to think about this, why should god mind to take this decision away. The same with the afterlife, some say, it is just a nice idea, to nice to be true, only for the grieving and mourning, to please themselves with something like that. If that is a fact, and what religion with afterlife-ideas is about, than there would be no use to it.
The believers find their evidence in the bible, but if you look at the older parts, there is nothing like an idea of an afterlife, they focus on a life regarding to gods word, and that was all man could do.

If I get you right, you say, that if you believe in an afterlife, and there is none, you would be screwed, it is not really like this, if just the idea can help anyone to lead a better life, you would not life forever, but a better life in C1. Look at humanism, also some humanists were atheists, they believed in morality, and a life according to morals, rational decisions, to make things work during your time, to be helpful for others.
You see, it is also something to believe in, it is not religion, but agrees with the fact, that humanbeings need something to believe in, or to life for. So if you take the god away, there will be another god instead, maybe science, but that does not make the scientist godlike.
Science is the proof of what we see and think because of the ability of seing, measuring and touching it as reality, but no scientist could ever proof if everything here and now really happens, how can we know that this is our reality? Because of senses? Brainfunction? Consciousness, brainactivity in science can be shown through an eeg, brainwaves, but no thoughts were ever found in a brain (discussed it witch alysia and spooky), also read about some strange NDE's, with flatlined brain, and a status of the body, that makes no vital function work to keep the body going on (yes, they were after all, reanimated after this state), so where do we take that wisdom, that the brain contains our consciousness (it is only, that we are told so), if the brain is dead, there must be none of thinking or remembering any more, but how if is possible, that some nde-experiencers, had this kind of status (yes, nde might be not the right proof for afterlife existences, and not everyone during clinical death had this impressions) even without a brain, that could recipe dmt to hallucinate? Or how comes that, that some people during surgeries were able to retell details without being conscious.
That could make one think about if the brain is really the center of our life, it is more like our human cpu, it receives and makes conclusions, links new structures to make the new born thoughts for us available, if we want to re-think them. I see it as receptor, for me the consciousness seems to be the lifeforce, but at this point, I don't know it better, even if it is like I think, as body and brainfunktion work as a sort of dualism, the consciousness could also be hidden in some part (I only said it is not the brain, the brain provides the outcome of conscious decisions).

If you want your (literally) consciousness to survive, your thoughts, and work, it is after all possible (yes, even this way you won't be anymore in the sense of the afterlife we talk about on this board), maybe you write a book, make an invention, do something for charity, so you won't be forgotten, because only the one, who is forgotten, is really dead (last part stolen from Kant :) ).

And now I think we are in the right area, the brain has something called "subconsciousness".
Dreaming was found (as sort of brain activity) there, and most of our vivid imaginations also happen there, at least the brain functions tell us so. It is well observed by science, but no evidence, that we fool ourselves with this kind of overromaticizing our surroundings, or if it comes from elsewhere. So science brings details, but has not yet found the world formula. Physicists, like you mentioned, look on the big picture, the universe, that is why I am personally interested in physics (also want to become an engineer), especially the astrophysical theories about our universe, also the delivered results, by measuring, etc. Call me dumb, but I like physics, because there is space for someone like a god (physicists see god at least as a possibility..)
But I really think, that with research on this scientific boundaries such as death, there could be also brought up more details, maybe their method is also wrong. So to your question, why it is so hard to prove, it is maybe that this subject was not taken serious, and the scientists, who dare to do research on this levels, are just at the beginning of discovery. There could be progress, but I claim, that we never come to a level of fact , that allows us more than visions to speculate, than we would have that sort of pre-heaven on earth, like I said before, and that is probably not, what a god would have had as an aim for humankind.

So it is up to you, whether it is science, that is right, or religion, or spiritualists, alternative thinking.

OOB, other world. And that is a big problem, since it would be senseless to travel to another world, an afterlife, would mean, that there is no other world, no one behind, it is a fluent thing, we may change at transition (death), leaving the physical thing behind, but go to another level, that includes our state of consciousness, that is I think the most possible kind of afterlife, I am not familiar with the idea of astral worlds, maybe we stuck in something like a big package of knowledge, and who knows, maybe the afterlife does take also place on this earth, or you are thrown out somewhere in space, being the little bit of stardust forming new planets.

Yes, you are right, experiences are bound to personality, but that must not mean, that a scientist has more right to see his theory more reasonable as your experience (a masters or doctors degree just means that he is specialized not allknowing) , because it is until today not proven, if this existence is really reality. So it is like a 50/50 chance for survival or not surving physical death, that does not shed to much hope to no matter whom of the two parties (to make it scientific...,just kidding..:) ).
But why bothering with an afterlife? You could also look for maybe a life before birth (I don't think of the growth of the baby inside the womb) , if this is possible, the afterlife would be no question.

Bruce said, everyone should try to get access on his own, maybe you are not ready yet, but I do understand your point, or problem because I have the same. I see a possibility, but not a proof, even if I critizised since so much in my article, I am bound to this searching for fact thinking, I am not into creationism, god cannot be outstanding, or a creature somewhere around nothing, I think more that it is like a universal reality, in each and everything, otherwise I would have a problem with the picture of god.
Or else what to do with entities, that revealed, if they were real or a trick, I don't know anymore.

Do not only rely on what you get told, that is only the door, but you must open it by yourself.

http://skepdic.com/essays/schwartz.html

Sry for posting so much, hope you enjoy it a little bit,

Love,

pulsar

Something I've noticed that to me is pragmatic evidence of our spiritual experiences
(spirit being eternal and our connection to the afterlife):

Similiar experiences activate energies in very particular parts of our physical system. For example,

   positive thoughts of a spiritual master like JC can be felt above one's temple;
   positive thoughts of a Highest Power/Authority/God can be felt at the very top center of the skull;
   when being guided by a Helper while OB, they always put their hand on your *left*  shoulder or side;
   matters of love are felt near or in the heart
   PUL is such an immensely powerful sensation that it involves one's total being.

These examples are incomplete.

Try to force and trick sensations to change, but once the subject and attitude toward it is set, they cannot move. However, if I switch my  attitude from positivie to negative, the energy field drops lower for whatever subject i'm on.
Certain areas of our physical bodies seem most sensitive to certain energies. It's  just like when ywe're hungry, or horney.   :)   Ancient cultures have made maps of these areas. Like accupuncture charts, they do not vary.

People can argue all they want, but once you have become aware of these connections between physical and spiritual, alot of words don't mean much. Experience it for yourself.

Love, Bets

Good grief Pulsar, that was a long post and I don;t have time to answer all you points right now. Thanks anyway. The problem with having beliefs is that if you are a bit of a skeptic, by which I just mean you like to study things and look at whether they make rational sense, not that I enjoy being contradictory for the sake of it, it is hard to know if beliefs are just wishful thinking or not, and I certainly don;t see why, of there is an afterlife an agnostic or Humanist who was a decent human being should have to suffer in some way. I have regularly read comments by atheists and agnostics saying they would like the comfort of a belief in a benevolent god or an afterlife but they just can't convince themselves it is true. I guess it is a matter of temperament rather than any especial virtue.

I also can;t really see why God could not provide a bit more to go on in terms of proof of his/her existance and of a soul and afterlife and so on. I don't see what harm it would do. Maintream Christianity for centuries (and still in some churches) tried to scare people into belief and religious observance by saying it si a fact you will go to Hell if you don;t follow the rules. Even when that was widely belived it didn;t stop people misbehaving (although the Protestant doctrine of salvation by belief alone, not acts and the Catholic sacrement of confession and absolution might have helped - ie you can behave badly and still have a get-out clause). If it was know to be the case we all survived death and there was no eternal Hell but that God wanted us to grow in love and compassion and our afterlife (and this life hopefully) would generally be better if we did this, I don;t see this would take away any free will or anything. Also it would make everyone more relaxed and less materialistic if we knew we had more than or 3 score and 10 to look forward to and didn;t have to try and grab as much pleasure and possessions and experiences etc as soon as possible/or on the other hand fear losing chances of security and prosperity and love by doing something a bit unconventional or risky. As it is we have very little to go on, and in fact seem almost set up to become agnostic if we are of a questioning frame of mind, because our biggest western religion, in its classic versions, includes many logical problems once you start to study it and its texts, so you end up a bit anoyed and wary about any religious claims. He could have done better than provide us with the BIble... (not that I think he did) which kicks off with a plethora of dubious myths, bloody battles and stupid rules etc just for a start.

As for the method Bruce Moens puts forward - saying he has thoroughly explored the afterlife already and so on, well that's great for him, but I am not aware of what proof he offers for saying this is reality and not his imagination. i guess I need to read his books or do one of the courses he has done..

Bets, I will have to take your word for these things you say.But how would I go about experiencing it for myself, as you suggest?

[quote author=orlando123 link=1186155634/15#24 date=1186241947]Hi

While "western materialistic science" may sometimes be stuck in its ways an not open enough to new possibilities I disagree with the idea it is just a "belief system" - science is a system of seeking rational proof and repeatable experiements etc so people can agree between themselves that certain things about the world are facts (or the best hypothesis currently available). Science has given us modern medicine so mothers rarely risk dying in childbirth and children rarely die in infancy, both commonplace 100 years ago, and , for example , we have cheap air travel and computers and the internet. If we had continued to base everything just on traditions and dogmas, or just personal beliefs,  instead of studying and seeking factual information we would have none of this.

I agree with all of that  8-) and no doubt science and technology have enriched our material lives but at the same time, the search for spiritual understanding in the greater part of the world has become more marginalised.

But my main point was that it is a system just like religions that likes to present itself as an absolute authority on truth, neglecting counter acting arguments. So in that way it is a belief system because so many scientists 'believe' that scientific explanations are the only valid ones. The fundamental argument in any of this all comes back to an understanding of 'consciousness' the western materialist mind does not know much about this and the general public knows so little about all the research in psi and all the evidence of psychics and remote viewing projects which seem to suggest that consciousness is more than just a brain phenomena.

I am neither religious nor materialist. I do not believe that science and spirituality are so divided. When I read about things like sub-atomic phenomena and quantum physics I am seeing more and more links. I agree that if a phenomena exists it should have some 'rational' way of being understood. That's why I dedicated much of my spiritual exploration to following the work of 'spiritual scientists' for lack of a better term.

On science. The problem is not that it's not true in it's own limited context. But it's not the reality, it's just a mind made conceptual shorthand description of a much more complex reality. Which like most shorthand descriptions misses things.

One basic reason for this is that it's got hung up on reductionism  - on seeking to break things down into constituent parts to understand them. Many truths require an integrative approach if they are to be seen - the linking of ideas across disciplines and domains.

Another problem is that most so called scientists out of conditioning and/or fear and self interest deny the possibility that there are wider contexts in which so called Newtonian or relativistic science does not hold true.

Particle physics has for example long since demonstrated the limits of this model. (Heisenberg and Co.) Other work has long since demonstrated for example the impact of mind/observation on experimental outcomes, the reality of psychic phenomenon and the questionability of treating time as a separate dimension.

Writers like Gary Zukav, Frijtof Capra and Ken Wilber (who are respectable academics as well as integrative thinkers) have written at length about this situation and the broader more integrated view of reality it points to. Not to mention how this science is now proving in quantitative and experimental terms what the high spiritual traditions have long known intuitively.

The problem as ever is not the science, not what the thinkers are finding. It's rather a reflection of the fact that the respectable scientific culture/concensus/public stance will not even allow discussion of what conflicts with its prejudices. There are large areas where respectable academics dare not go for fear of having their reputations destroyed by their colleagues.

What's happening in undercover programmes targeted towards military use may be another matter, although the above factor may fortuntately be limiting this......

Good points, Vajra and Never Say Die. I am glad neither of you are the sort of people who insist of science as some sort of enemy to "real truth" anyway. yes, it is a shame if some scientists fear they cxan;t investigate certain areas without fear of ridicule and yes, I am sure "reductionistic"thinking can;t produce all the answers. But at the same time it is laudable to seek verifiable informatin about the universe and how it works. The problem with subjective experiences is just that - that they are subjective and can;t easily be repeated/copied/understood/verified by anyone else. That's not to say they don;t have validity and might not sometimes point to genuine "factual"truths, but they are hard to pin down. I don;t hold to the "science sand spirituality are two different kinds of truth"argument. Either something exists and is true or it doesn;t and isn;t. Or some things might only be true in as much as they give the experiencer entertainment or pleasure or affect his outlook in some way without them having any factual bearing on common experience or the world "out there". I think it's important then to try and find factual evidence for something like life after death and/or the possibility of existence outside the body which would be so tranformative for everyone if it was forthcoming, rather than hopes and anecdotes or even strongly held "beliefs" or assertions. I don;t need to "believe" that the sun will rise tomorrow, I can be very sure it will. It would be nice to have that sort of knowledge about surviving death. Most scientists are very skeptical about a soul becasue they have no hard evidence for one. If anyone could come forward and prove factually that they can go out of their body and bring back some information they could not have known or, for example, consistently and accurately communicate with the dead with no hit and misses and waffle and "cold reading" then honourable scientsits would have to say "OK here is something we don;t understand and that we have to investigate and take seriously". once the possibility that consciousness is seperate from flesh and blood is taken seriously then the rest should fall into place (ie considering the factual reality of other worlds and God and other intangible concepts). But if someone just says "I had this great vision where I went to the other world and did this and that" then scientists will not be very interested.

I mean (assuming such a person could exist, which would seem fairly unlikely) a scientist who thought only things already understood and explained by current theories could possibly exist would be just as unhelfpful as a spiritual person who said anything he could possibly imagine, dream or believe is just as real as the fact if you drop something it falls down or if you shoot someone they get injured or die etc. There are no doubt many more things in Heaven and earth than dreampt of in our philosophies so far, but just imagining something or beliving it is somewhat less helpful to the world at large than proving some thing exists in a factual "scientific" way that most thinking people can agree on. And dull prosaic things like setting up an experiment where people can show repeatably that they went out of their body and saw a certain symbol written on a board etc would do this better than, eg telling people they can also have interesting spiritual experienes if they eat the right cactus or do the right series of meditations and visualisations etc.

Welcome to the boards, Orlando. I can't help you much with anything, as I'm new here myself, and a skeptic to boot. Actually, these past couple of days I've been wondering about two things:

1. Considering that infants die all the time around the world, what can reincarnated "spirits" possibly gain from such an experience?

2. Since some people experience a whole heap is crazyness, and others experience nothing when it comes to the supernatural, could it be that not everyone are immortal?

3. If we live on after death, and it's true that we're here to develop ourselves in the physical world...why do we seek spirituality at all? One would think it might detract from what we're supposed to do?

Yeah, my mind is troubled as usual. So feel free to put me to re...er..I mean, put my mind at ease!

Quote
1. Considering that infants die all the time around the world, what can reincarnated "spirits" possibly gain from such an experience?

For the greater part these infants that past ,very early are trying to teach, these are agreements made from the higher realms. Another reason maybe its new soul who hasn't incarnated before and because of this is just having a taste of the density they are about to enter, its a gift from the parent. there are many many reasons for these things.

Quote,
2. Since some people experience a whole heap is craziness, and others experience nothing when it comes to the supernatural, could it be that not everyone are immortal?

No, we are all immortal beings, its just about your personal progression, when your soul is ready it will have more physical experiences of the hole. In fact you and every soul here are experiencing all the time. Its just not as yet in your conscious mind , thats all.

Quote,
3. If we live on after death, and it's true that we're here to develop ourselves in the physical world...why do we seek spirituality at all? One would think it might detract from what we're supposed to do?

How could seeking to know yourself distract you from your purpose?

"Actually, these past couple of days I've been wondering about two things:"

"1. Considering that infants die all the time around the world, what can reincarnated "spirits" possibly gain from such an experience?"
_____________________________________

One of the many factors that expose the implausibility of the reincarnation doctrine.  Other factors include the spurious nature of past life regression and the flaws in appeals the alleged past life recall of young children (Dr. Ian Stevenson's flawed research, etc.).  It is for good reason that the professional societies of hypnotism disdain the legitimacy of past life regression.  A couple of Stevenson's cases later proved to be cases in which the alleged past life was still alive AFTER the birth of the presumed "next life!"

2. "Since some people experience a whole heap is crazyness, and others experience nothing when it comes to the supernatural, could it be that not everyone are immortal?"
____________________________________________________________________

The Bible, atheist Howard Storm's NDE, and Bruce Moen's astral explorations all independently confirm that insight that soul annihilation can be the ultimate fate of some, who persistently spurn the spiritual path, and yet, cannot tolerate postmortem hellish planes.  Where these sources differ is in their preconceptions about how many choose the annihilation option.

3. "If we live on after death, and it's true that we're here to develop ourselves in the physical world...why do we seek spirituality at all? One would think it might detract from what we're supposed to do?"
___________________

But "what we're supposed to do" to seek intimate communion with God and then channel the love that flows from that communion towards others who may or may not God.  All other goals are ego-driven and contrary to our ultimate purpose.

Don

Hi Orlando123,

Re: how to notice these slight physical actions in the face of spiritual experiences:

If you meditate or just sit quiet and relaxed, you can learn to watch for your body's subtle responses to stray thoughts that come when you're trying to think of nothing. Gradually you'd develope a collection of them wherein you would find patterns that lead you to these possibilities. Then when you went OB or phasing or whatever you call it to get to the afterlife, you'd be ready to add those more important sensations to your collection.
Perhaps I'm too introspective regarding those 'sensitivities'. Anyone with much of an outer life wouldn't have time to do this 'collecting.' The Myers-Briggs Personality Profile (free on some websites) is a good way to find out one's inclination to learn from inner or outer experience. I'm way over in the inner side, whereas they recommend more of a balance.

Anyway, I just wanted you to know that for some the spiritual is proven, although I agree with Bruce that each person has to prove it to believe it.--and that leads us back to the exercises he's designed in his Afterlife Knowledge Guidebook.  They are the quickest way.

Bets

Hi orlando, I'm just curious as to how you came about this site. I recall recommending this site to someone called orlando098 at youtube.com

Thanks for answering my questions. I must come back some other time to possibly ask more, though, I don't have the time right now.

Never say die wrote on Aug 6^th, 2007 at 11:44pm:

Hi orlando, I'm just curious as to how you came about this site. I recall recommending this site to someone called orlando098 at youtube.com

Yes, that was me . Hi!

balance wrote on Aug 6^th, 2007 at 7:39pm:

Quote 1. Considering that infants die all the time around the world, what can reincarnated "spirits" possibly gain from such an experience? For the greater part these infants that past ,very early are trying to teach, these are agreements made from the higher realms.

I would feel more comfortable if you prefaced things like this with something like I think that... or In my opinion ... how do you claim to know this is how it works?

On this topic though, what about unborn children who are aborted? Or do you have a theory about what precise moment the soul joins the body (ie maybe in most of these cases they don;t have one yet?). If it's a late stage abortion and the child was well developed and had a soul then that would seem an especially pointless exercise..

Just theorising but it seems to me that in order to understand the possible point of very short stays in this life that you have to look at the situation from the total or integrated perspective as well as that of the new arrival.

Quite apart from the fact that there may be a lesson for the arrival to learn even in that short stay, the point of the arrival may also be to teach something to the others concerned like the Mother, the family, and maybe even the broader society.

I suspect that short duration doesn't necessarily mean much - think of cause and consequence effects where tiny factors can trigger enormous consequences. The butterfly effect....

Berserk2-
FYI - professional hypnosis circles do NOT disdain past life material and past life regression as unworthy of their consideration. In fact, what they disdain is "arm chair theorists" who get a wild hair up their RAS and spew out a bunch of metaphysical mumbo jumbo that is neither based on observation, nor predictive of outcomes. (RAS = Reticular Activating System - brainstem) Their counterparts are those with a mind closed to any but their own previous beliefs.

As a good place to enlighten yourself in this area, look up www.iarrt.org the International Association for Regression Research and Therapy. These are people who practice non-leading hypnotic methodology by which reports remain relatively pure. The problem is that it is terribly hard to do science in such a setting because of the difficulty of establishing experimental controls. They offer training - their convention is coming up soon, you might enjoy it.

Another interesting place to look might be Dr Shelley Stockwell-Nicholas' International Hypnosis Federation, from whom you can get a pretty fast overview of competent hypnotic methodology, as well as the basics of past life work. www.hypnosisfederation.com

Dr Edith Fiori was a pioneer in this area of therapy, but those who DO DISDAIN past life work and suchlike turned out to be the California Board of Behavioral Sciences who acted to sanction her for doing psychotherapeutic work outside of known approved styles and methodologies. So its the orthodoxies who are afraid of ghosts. For the rest of us, it just means adopting a suitable clinical style and proceeding as before.

dave

Hi orlando123 I know a lot about the spirit world from my dad through mediums,he said that he was sitting on this lovely hillside with a friend he had at school when he was a little boy and that they had just been riding there bikes and were just sitting on the hillside and he also said just before he left the medium,that he was just going on a motorbike with my uncle bill ,who had died as well and he said that he could see our planet earth from where he was and hes told me of the parties they have in spirit,hes also mentioned having a garden and that he was amazed that he could communicate through the medium as he was not sure that the spirit world existed but now he knows it does.

Love and God bless     Love juditha

dave_a_mbs wrote on Aug 7^th, 2007 at 4:42pm:

Berserk2- FYI - professional hypnosis circles do NOT disdain past life material and past life regression as unworthy of their consideration. In fact, what they disdain is "arm chair theorists" who get a wild hair up their RAS and spew out a bunch of metaphysical mumbo jumbo that is neither based on observation, nor predictive of outcomes.

How wild would the interpretation have to be to qualifyas this?

I suppose some hypnotists would say, for example, that regression experiences may have some value/insights into the person's problems and psyche, but that, for example, it is saying too much to claim them as proof of past lives. But I think you are suggesting (from your own point of view) it takes more wacky theories than just believing in the lives as factural to be "metaphysical mumbo jumbo?"

I see you mention how for the best result the hypnotist should avoid leading the person too much - for example in my own experience of going to a hypnotist he basically made the suggestion that I WOULD now (at a certain point in his guided visualisations) find myself in a (significant) past life and asked me to start telling him where I found myself. I guess the problem with that is the subconscious mind MIGHT take that as a cue to make something up to meet the expectation.

wrote on Aug 7^th, 2007 at 5:07pm:

Hi orlando123 I know a lot about the spirit world from my dad through mediums,................he was amazed that he could communicate through the medium as he was not sure that the spirit world existed but now he knows it does. Love and God bless     Love juditha

Thanks Juditha, that must be nice to know. It seems that you must have had enough evidential proof from these mediums for you to be satisfied in your own mind about the proof of the afterlife. I am glad for you and that you have had these happy messages from your dad.

Hi Orlando -
About the idea of harebrained ideas and theories. If I simply decide that after drinking a half liter of cough syrup my mind will be attuned to the Big Green Cheese, I'll definitely get information. (I've actually seen this done!) If I happen to want to believe something, I'll get verification that it's true, for me, and maybe for me alone. That much is OK. To then decree that everyone else must live in the same world in inappropriate. To extrapolate on that world and decree that my visions are The One and Only True Visions, is highly inappropriate.

The problem is that in the spirit world you are totally creative, a fragment of God. You can create. validly, anything you desire. But there is no reason that anyone else needs to encounter it. As an example, in my clinic I often tell people , "Go to the place in which all knowledge and information is kept." Then I ask what it looks like - some people mention a library, some envision a coluseum of learners watching a host of teachers lecture, others have other images.  In absolute fact, this is a projection - simply a direction to the "knower" to focus on information in a way that makes it somehow available.  Then we can "Go find your Book of Life" - which is another projection to look at certain data. Recently, I've added a "warehouse" in which bad habits can be traded in for needed spiritual supplies, and a "magic shop" in which need transformative spells can be purchased for the prices of a few bad habits.  These are just ways of viewing things.

Bruce mentions a lot of structural details in his image of the spirit world which are all valid for him, and which can be approximated by others if they like. Michael Newton uses other metaphors to guide people, and has worked out his own territorial landscape. These also can be approximated by others. Non-directive work simply gives the same directions for focus and insight, but usually does it without building a specific structure. The other structures are real in only a limited manner, depending on viewpoint, and situations.

The science underlying these concepts is that they all represent a single process, which can be found in every well defined encounter. This does not negate their existence, but generalizes by looking to the core of the interaction. Thus a "Reception Hall" is a place where the befuddled get straightened out and start to orient to the next step. The core of this process is valid, even if the specific terms are not. Swedenborg phrases the same thing in somewhat different manner, but the core idea is still visible.

Anyhow, this is the serious level at which I object to mumbo jumbo being inflicted on me. If you want to add that you had a vision in which Mullah Nasrudin appeared in the flesh and told you to stop eating Limburger cheese because in the afterlife your breath would petrify the cherubs and virgins, I'd put you also in the trivial category of mumbo jumbo. (I actually like Limburger.  ::) The virgins are not my department.)

The goal of this kind of inquiry, at least for scientists, is to be able to predict certain things about the spirit world and our passage into and out of it. Science requires that these ideas make sense in terms of subjective experiences, and also in terms of physics. There are a few ideas rooted in math that attempt to explain this two-faced reality, and a few others. We are still looking for a way to make a prediction that can be tested. It's a non-trivial problem. ;-)

Your questions show insight and thought and I sincerely hope that you'll stick around and keep plugging away at this. If nothing else, I personally learn something every time I read your, and of course other people's, opinions. I never viewed this Forum as a growth experience, but it seems to be a good one!
dave  :)

One thing to consider in what Dave just wrote, is one exploring by one's self, or has one made contact with a spirit guide who shows one how things are.  If the later is true, as long as the guide is trustworthy and clear minded, one is liable to see things as they are to a certain extent, or at least ways according to consensus reality.

I say a certain extent,  because perhaps something such as an information center doesn't look like anything in particular. It is simply a place where thought energy is stored, and people can perceive it in different ways.

Even when we look at something in the physical World the interpretation thing goes on.  For example,  I can look at a woman and think, "Wow, she's really beautiful!" However, the image I see in my mind has little to do with what the energy field of her body is all about. Her body is a dance of energy that forms, atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, organ systems, and eventually a body.  The standard by which I judge beauty is arbitrary for the benefit of my sex drive. Who she really is has little to do with her body. She isn't even a she.

Dave,

To me, your response neatly illustrates the Ghetto mentality of New Agers who cite their New Age chronies in support of self-serving doctrines that are best assessed by more skilled and respected mainstream academic researchers.  The research of R. A. Baker (“The Effect of Suggestion on Past-Life Regression,”  American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, vol. 25) and Nicholas Spanos (“Secondary Identity Enactments during Hypnotic Past-Life Regression: A Socio-Cognitive Perspective,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,” vol. 61, pp. 308-320) has demonstrated how easily the alleged “prior personality” can be brought into conformity with the hypnotherapist’s suggestions.  The scholarly consensus among experts in hypnosis now dismisses the Freudian notion that hypnosis can retrieve sexual feelings from one’s early years (For the evidence see Malcolm MacMillan, “Freud Reevaluated: The Completed Arc.” More significantly, Yale psychology professor, John Kihlstrom,  documents the scholarly consensus that hypnotic regression is not even a reliable tool to retrieve any memories from the first 5years.  See his survey of the relevant experimental literature in Wegner and Pennebaker’s “Handbook of Mental Control.”  If even these memories cannot confidently be retrieved through hypnosis, it seems absrud to claim that genuine past life memories can be retrieved through this means.  

There are many claims from New Age hypnotherapists and their credulous patients that past life regression has dramatic therapeutic effects.  But there is no reason to take such self-serving claims seriously.  As Dr. Kihlstrom points out, “There is not a single clinical study with an acceptable design showing that past life regression has positive therapeutic effects.  In any case, such therapeutic benefits do not directly bear on the genuineness of hypnotically induced past life recall.  

The research of University of Virginia professor, Dr. Ian Stevenson, is often cited by New Agers as evidence for past life recall in young children.  This research is flawed in many ways, most notably by the fact that in two of his childhood cases the “prior personality” was still alive AFTER the birth of his supposed reincarnation!  In any case, even Dr. Stevenson disparages hypnotic regression as evidence for past life recall.  Quoting Stevenson:  “Nearly all such hypnotically evoked `previous personalities’ are entirely imaginary, though they may include some accurate historical information acquired through other natural means.”  See his article “A Case of the Psychotherapeutic Fallacy: Hypnotic Regression to Previous Lives,” American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis,” vol. 36 (1994), pp. 188-93.

Don

dave_a_mbs wrote on Aug 7^th, 2007 at 7:13pm:

Your questions show insight and thought and I sincerely hope that you'll stick around and keep plugging away at this. If nothing else, I personally learn something every time I read your, and of course other people's, opinions. I never viewed this Forum as a growth experience, but it seems to be a good one! dave  :)

Most kind Dave  :) I also find your posts to be interesting and helpful. I might not be sure I agree with or am convinced by everything you say but you have obviously given all this a great deal of thought. Sorry to you and anyone else if I don;t always respond in much depth. I have been feeling a bit tired and stressed lately and spend most of my working day reading and writing on a computer and don't necessarily have the energy to say anything in-depth when I'm on here. I am sure I am learning from the posts here anyway; at very least reading about some new theories which may help things to gel for me more at some point. Also congratulations to people here for it being, as far as I can see, a patient and friendly place where people don;t take offence at honest doubts, for example and are keen to explain their ideas. The only anger I saw seemed to be when a Christian took offence at some barbed remarks about his religion. I guess you have to be sensitive to people's beliefs and avoid gartuitous abuse, but i have also been known to make pretty strong remarks about some common aspects of Christian belief. However I even dabble in trying to be a very liberal Christian myself at times, as it is my background/heritage after all. Sometimes though I wonder if it is worthy the bother of trying to cherry pick what seems to make sense from all the rest of the baggage surrounding it

Quote:

I also can;t really see why God could not provide a bit more to go on in terms of proof of his/her existance and of a soul and afterlife and so on. I don't see what harm it would do.

well "they" (the new age authors) say it's because if we knew too much about our real souls and the afterlife, life wouldn't seem "real" to us, or we might not try as much or be as immersed in the "reality" of earthly life, or too caught up on what we did in a past life.  you make a very good point, however.....................  there IS a lot of evidence of the afterlife.  it's just that most of those "skeptics" don't WANT to read the books, they don't WANT to open their mind to the possibility.  they say they would like to believe... what would make them believe??  if God came down and said "yo i'm here, i'm real" ?  that's not going to happen.  sure, i would like it if i could truly 100% believe in the afterlife, but i have to take what i can get, which is other people's accounts and stories.  i haven't been as lucky as many people have, to have out of body experiences etc., but that doesn't mean they didn't really have them.

there is a TON of evidence for reincarnation out there, open to anyone who wants to read it and let the evidence speak for itself.

it's like racism - a racist can see lots of nice, wonderful black people, but they'll still think black people are bad because their bias colors everything they see.  similarly, these "skeptics" miss every piece of evidence for an afterlife because they're so fixated on their bias, they think all of it is false no matter what.

in fact bruce moen was so skeptical himself, that even after a ton of amazing experiences that proved what was happening to him was real, he still took a long time to believe he wasn't making it up in his own mind.

Berserk-
I take it that you are scolding me for being a New Age idiot who should leave matters to the better trained academc colleagues.  And heaven forbid that I should take it seriously when somebody with whom I've had an exhausting session tells me that they feel better, because, after all, that's just a self-serving statement they make to justfy the cost of the sessions. (I an't cheap.)

You might have a point. However, among my other university teaching positions I taught Graduate Research Methadology, Statistics, and related courses for a while at National University, and I was not especially impressed by the willingness of my colleagues to design and implement meaningful researches in the "airey fairey" areas of past life, or hypnotic regression, or even intrapsychic theory (I also taught Psychopathology from an intrapsychic perspective).

Maybe I should read more of those negative papers that are so easily written because they require neither an intimate knowledge of the topic, nor pragmatic research into its potentialities. These are usually called "armchair psychology", which is how Freud and Jung et allia conjured up their own versions of early analytical psychology. These are often statements by the orthodoxy of what is permitted and what is tobe regarded as junk. And they are written by the highest acedemic ranking and socially popular gurus of each area of science, psychology included. I guess that means that they must be valid to someone. Regrettably, such papers neither predict experimental results, nor explain them in competition with other approaches, nor do they suggest new areas of research or therapeutic modalities. But they must be good for something ... ?

As for me, I'm just a therapist who spent 7 years in orthodox intership, suffered under a "trainig therapist" for about 200 hours, and then gave the shaft to the HMO insurance plans as I set up my own clinic and began work in analytic hypnotherapy on a cash basis. After 20 years shrinking heads, somehow people keep on with that inane claim that they actually feel better after we work. How gullible we therapists must be! :-[

I admit that I tend to believe them when I actually listen to the nonsensical statements of my patients telling me that they feel better, that their lives are running better, and that they now feel grounded and confident as a result of therapy, I admit that I all too often forget that this is merely "self serving" blather. In fact, by following the leads of what works in one case and generalizing it to other cases, I've discovered that I get even more self-serving remarks. I suppose that I should keep in mind that all I'm doing is to increase the amount of positive reinforcers I'm getting, and that the putative fact that these poor souls are actually shrivelling up and dying is being hidden from me. Worse yet, I have several hundred hours of videotaped sessions in which everybody seems to be putting on the same act of pretending that they are being benefitted. Wow! The whole world's involved!  ;D

Perhaps I ought to also be careful of the fact that I have been using field research to support my claims.  (Armentrout, D (1987). An Attributive Systems Model of the Generation of Knowledge. Ann Arbor: UNiversity Microfilms, Access # LD01227) I presented this study at the Univ of Pittsburgh. The simple fact that I am evidently the only researcher in this specific field could have stood out as a total negation of its value, except that it is predictive, useful in therapy, especially with respect to drug and criminal recidivism, and also useful in past life and related areas. How strange. Perhaps I have fallen into a pit of disinformation. ;-?

Or could it be that there are those who fail to see that there is more than meets the casual eye, and who must protect a prior idea about life because they don't know how to live with ideas like total personal responsibility. So they object to whatever they fail to initially understand, and they write polemics against new insights because they are fearful of their own awareness. After all, when faced with a problem, denial is the first choice of weapons to combat it.

Whatever the case, some of those academic, better qualified, more understanding people who are out there doing their research on the material world and writing about it were my students, and they're doing it well because I taught them well. Ye Gods! A Paradox - how to resolve it all? ;-)

I admit to being arrogant, opinionated, pretty much full of myself, socially alienated, abstract by nature, obscure in interests and expression, and totally fascinated with the whole afterlife field of inquiry and its therapeutic potentialities, which often leads me to change my very vocal and opinionated statements as I learn a little more about this and that fact. Plus, I'm only marginally literate without a keyboard.  So on that basis, mea culpa.

It's a darn good thing that Bruce is here to rescue me after I die and maybe get stuck in a BST.

dave  

Dave,
Like most New Agers, you will do practically anything to avoid the hard work of critical engagement with the prevailing academic consensus.  Similarly, posters here are far too lazy or close-minded to engage me on the positions I take. Yet that does not stop them from continuing their mindless pontifications about the Bible.  Their penchant for seeking reassurance through mindless consensus only underlines the low level of consciousness that dominates the site.

Your ego eruption merely masks your unwillingness to engage mainsteam books and articles on hypnotic regression.  It plays well here because many posters treasure dangerously simple answers to bafflingly complex questions.  By analogy, the academic experts on the Bible tend to be ideologically neutral and therefore pose a challenge to my own faith posture.  Nevertheless, unlike New Agers, these scholars really know their stuff.  I need to learn from their skeptical approaches and to formulate my own positions through critical engagement with them.  You bear the same responsibility with respect to the acknowledged academic experts on hypnotism.  So swallow your ego and--at last--respond the mainstream research I cite.  Or do you not consider schools like Yale and the journals I cite mainstream?

Don

Donald,

With a stroke of your pen (keyboard), you tell us what the prevailing academic consensus is, as if it were so very obvious and certain.  However, the entire field of the study of consciousness before and after death is so short of carefully researched controlled studies, that you can not hope to prove, through the anti-hypnotherpy-past life publications that ALL regressions are hogwash.  Dave freely admits the problems in the field, cites his own significant academic publications, ideas and references, and states over and over a point that you would not address; that patients seem to improve with performing the regression and going through the process.

How would you feel, Don if upon your demise you learned that reincarnation were real and that many chose it - that you had chosen it many times before?  Would these prevailing naysayers you cited mean a rat's *?$$ at that point?  This is not to say that past life regression is proven, but what would your answer be?

I myself am uncertain as to the truth behind pure reincarnation.  The idea that the "me" part of my ego will keep coming back intact, with memory wiped out again and again, has me a bit baffled.  I've said on this board many times that the "Matthew" I am now, simply would not be me without my memories, my experiences, my learning.  If my spirit somehow is separate from my cognitive self, and if spirit is full of feeling and emotion and tendencies to act in a certain way or "potential states" of being, perhaps this amorphous spirit could reincarnate, but I don't think it as simple as those who imagine dying, waking up in heaven and then saying, "that was fun, now let's go back for a new ride in a new body!"

We can all agree that, as in many areas of afterlife research, not enough controlled studies have been done to prove the validity of hypnoregression.  Until these studies are done, one can however admit the fact that no matter the arguments pro and con, hypnoregression either does or does not show evidence of prior lives.  Well designed studies are needed.

There was a thread that I would have hoped you would respond to, about Christianity possibly being composed in part, of myth and fable.  The linked article (www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/NewTestament.html) is heavily referenced and presents a cogent if flawed argument that Constantine merged many different religions together to create modern day christianity for political reasons.  Several assertions did not stand up to my review, but others did.  As a biblical scholar, you could (and may) take this article on should you choose.  However, it is a lesson in academic blubbering.  Although the article was well referenced and fairly well written, that does not make it correct.  Just so with sources on either side of the hypnoregression discussion.  Until one performs the definitive studies, it is just speculation on either side.

Matthew

Matt,

Personally I don't think Dave's past life regressions have anything to teach us about reincarnation or the afterlife.  For this reason, out of politeness, I rarely respond to his posts.  But I want him to at least engage the mainstream consensus on the limits of hypnotic potential.  This consensus certainly repudiates the legitimacy of past life recall.  It is amusing how threatened New Agers use terms like "cramming your ideas down people's throats" when outsiders like me simply beckon them to consider new ideas outside the New Age ghetto mentality.  It is even more amusing that New Agers like Moen can use inflamatory terms like "psychotic" to caricature Christian positions and Ghetto members can't even detect the implicit hate speech in such rhetoric.  

The article you cite is flawed in many ways, but that is beside the point.  Darth's application of the anti-papal article to the trustworthiness of the Bible is ludicrous because (1) the concept of "pope" [Latin: "papa"] is not even applied to Roman bishops until the 5th century and (2) the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession of bishops back to St. Peter, the presumed first pope, is universally dismissed by Bible scholars, including the Catholic doctoral students, with whom I studied at Harvard.  Bible stories must be assessed on their own merits and in terms of the evidence for their connection with eyewitness testimony.  I have often posted the case for this on this site and I guess I need to repost that material again.

If reincarnation proved to be true after all, I would be delighted to expand my horizons  with an exciting new idea, but then maybe they also faked the Apollo moon landing in a New Mexico hangar.  If that were true, I'd love to discover that too.

I always win with the audience that concerns me when light-weight posters reply to my reasoned arguments with typical New Age ad hominems.  In fact, I thrive on exposing this bigotry.  That is precisely why I employ my most direct and honest no-nonsense style.  Thinking visitors to this site are often appalled by this expose.  

Don

don't know what you're talking about berserk, but you sure sound like you're full of it    ;D  dave said he's arrogant, but in reality i don't think he is.  you on the other hand...

i don't go around trying to convince christians their faith is wrong, though i think it's nonsense.  so what do you get out of attacking people for their beliefs?

Seeker,

Don is like a person from the television commercial from the 1970s where these little old ladies would look at tiny fast food burgers and say "where's the beef?"  The expression became big in politics after these somewhat humorous commercials.

The idea in this case is "if hypnoregrssion is real, prove it to me."  The beef.  Show me names, dates to verify the past life.  The problem is that spirituality rarely follows the rules for frequent absolute verifications.  To hear Don tell it, if someone could conclusively prove anything with evidence, even should it shake the foundations of his belief system, he would admit the truth of the matter as a true seeker.  However, as Dave, Bruce, and others point out, when dealing with evidence and experiments, the belief system of the investigator may actually change or effect objective results (Bruce has an article on this site about it - many quantum physics experiments also show this).

Thus, these issues tend to get bandied about, and belief systems divide us into polarized camps (belief in past life regression vs. disbelief) and in the end, little is proven.  

There is a certain mean-spiritedness when a person asks you to discredit your own profession and work in the name of truthfullness - when you believe in what you are doing (aka David).  The prevailing scientific notions (about hypnoregression, past lives, or any other scientific question) change with the wind.  The earth was thought to be flat once by the prevailing experts, after all.

This whole exchange could have taken place, without the mean-spiritedness of terms like "new age ghetto," and the one upmanship.  If Don, or anyone had simply pointed out the shortcomings of published information regarding past life regression, Dave would have responded to it and that would have been it.  Information would have been vetted on the forum, and we'd be puzzling it out on our own.

Instead, we are left with this exchange.  Notice how, unlike what Don has implied, I and others do not support, without question the idea of hypnoregression as a proven factual technique.  However we are open minded in most will be up for hearing both sides of the discussion.  This is exactly why, in my opinion this forum is not a "new age ghetto," (how I loathe that term!)

To be fair I must say that I think some on this board are too quick to throw out generalized anti-christian or anti-bible rhetoric.  It offends people of that faith whether you see it or not.  

Matthew

Matthew,

As already noted, Dr. Ian Stevenson's research on children's alleged past life recall is one of the primary pieces of evidence cited by New Agers in support of reincarnation.  Yet Stevenson repudiates hypnotic regression as a tool for past life recall, despite the fact that the claims of these hypnotherapists are compatible with his research.  Similarly, I have a vested interest in the genuineness of soul retrievals because this possibility is taught by the Bible and the early church and I once believed I had performed a couple of such retrievals.  So it saddens me to acknowledge that both my own retrievals on those reported on this this site now seem bogus.  I strive to discover valid evidence for the truth, not excuses to rationalize my own belief system.  So you are wrong: there is nothing "mean-spirited" about asking someone to assess evidence that might invaldate a lifetime of regression work.  I regularly seek to do the same when I probe for weaknesses in biblical tradition.  If I expect integrity of others, I must insist on it in myself.  Sadly, posters on this site lack the spirit of honest and open inquiry that might lend their astral experiences a modicum of credibiility and distinguish them from states of consciousness akin to mere lucid dreams.  Recently, a graduate of Bruce's workshop told me he was now disillusioned with this site's retrieval claims.  But he added that if someone like me ever claimed to have performed a retrieval, he would consider that claim in a unique category worth taking seriously.  This issue is far too important  to be suillied by the wishful thinking of the gullible herd whose obsession with comfort trumps any willingness to experience the pain and uncertainty of a truly honest quest.

Don

Don, It concerns me that you seem to be filled with such anger, hate, and you own ego. Why are you being like this towards the people here who are expressing their personal beliefs here. Who gives you this right to judge us so harshly? Very few here deny the existence of "God", yet you attack them like they are some how less than you. You insult our intelligence at every opportunity in order to make your beliefs look correct. Please look inside of yourself and consider the damage you are doing to not only your own soul, but also to what you say you believe in. Your turning me off religion more than I have ever been before.
Joe  

I can see the first point here - too much focus on the afterlife could prevent us getting the most out of this life experience. This is a possible explanation.

However I'm not so sure about the tons of evidence. Also your point about skeptics ignoring evidence and only focussing on the negative can very easily be turned around and said about believers, who could be said to ignore all the evidence against survival and exaggerate the amount of evidence for it, becasue they want to believe it. You can see this in psychic readings, for example, where people often forget all the wrong statements and focus on the few bits that impressed them. I saw a u-tube clip about this, where a skeptic spoke to a guy who had been impressed with a psychic reading and said the psychic correctly guessed the name of someone important to him, but the skeptic had recorded the session and showed the pyschic mentioned, in the course of the reading, about 20 names that the sitter couldn't identify with.



the_seeker wrote on Aug 8^th, 2007 at 10:13pm:

Quote: I also can;t really see why God could not provide a bit more to go on in terms of proof of his/her existance and of a soul and afterlife and so on. I don't see what harm it would do. well "they" (the new age authors) say it's because if we knew too much about our real souls and the afterlife, life wouldn't seem "real" to us, or we might not try as much or be as immersed in the "reality" of earthly life, or too caught up on what we did in a past life.  you make a very good point, however.....................  there IS a lot of evidence of the afterlife.  it's just that most of those "skeptics" don't WANT to read the books, they don't WANT to open their mind to the possibility.  they say they would like to believe... what would make them believe??  if God came down and said "yo i'm here, i'm real" ?  that's not going to happen.  sure, i would like it if i could truly 100% believe in the afterlife, but i have to take what i can get, which is other people's accounts and stories.  i haven't been as lucky as many people have, to have out of body experiences etc., but that doesn't mean they didn't really have them. there is a TON of evidence for reincarnation out there, open to anyone who wants to read it and let the evidence speak for itself. it's like racism - a racist can see lots of nice, wonderful black people, but they'll still think black people are bad because their bias colors everything they see.  similarly, these "skeptics" miss every piece of evidence for an afterlife because they're so fixated on their bias, they think all of it is false no matter what. in fact bruce moen was so skeptical himself, that even after a ton of amazing experiences that proved what was happening to him was real, he still took a long time to believe he wasn't making it up in his own mind.

Well thanks for them kind words, Berserk.

After you're through dissing me for being intellectually impotent, you might want to pick up my text in hypnotic regression and its companion in psychopathology - published by Amazon - But don't tell Mainstream Academia - they might think it's an effort to become critically engaged in the mental health industry and its methodology.

Oh yes - if you want the metaphysical part, try a copy of this: Armentrout, D (1987) "An Attributive Systems Model of the Generation of Knowledge". Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, Access: LD 01227 - Assuming that you have enough math to read it. :-)  Notice especially the section on entropy accretion in a closed active system.

In point of fact, this forum has more heavyweight academics, healers, technicians, engineers and field workers than any other of this sort that I've discovered. The depth at which a lot of these discussions occur is, frankly, better than most of my discussions with academic colleagues in the Faculty Lounge. And of course there are always a few odd balls and kids who still have foot-in-mouth trouble. But we tolerate them gladly, both here and in everyday encounters, because it is through criticism and discussion that these will become the thinkers of tomorrow. And some of them will make it.

Hope to see you amongst the successes.  ;D

dave

Dave, I do have abackground in academic statistical applications to research.  When are going to shift from self-serving posturing about credentials and actually address the mainstream issues raised?  And Hawkeye, I apply my in-your-face approach precisely because it works.  Close-minded types like you are a lost cause.  Or are you actually willing to engage me at a critical level and explore new ideas and paranormal experiences--you know, actual arguments and experiences that shed light on crucial distinctions that need to be made?  Naw, I knew you weren't.  The Ghetto is just too damn comfortable, isn't it?

Don

As someone who tried past life regression once and finds the idea of past lives interesting, I must admit I do see problems with them as proof. The person I went to didn;t even, for example, go back to early childhood first, just relaxed me with visualisations and then told me to go back to a past life with some significance to my current one and start describing my surroundings and what I was wearing. The problem I see with that is that hyponsis is known to release inhibitions, stimulate the imagination and spontaneous creativity etc - as you can see when stage hypnotists get people to act in amusing ways, so I'm not sure one can be sure that any images that come up are definitely a factual past life or not.

I don;t want to take sides on this, but I imagine (not based on much knowdledge of the area, admittedly) that mainstream scientists dealing with the study of consciousness etc probably on the whole take a skeptical view of claims that regression proves real past lives whereas the view they DO is probably quite common among those therapists that make use of it in practice, probably becasue it seems to help many people, as dave says. It seems fair that if a number of people say the experience helped them and they feel more in control of their lives etc then that is a positive result. On the other hand it still doesn;t necessarily mean the experience relates to a factual past life for it to have had a therapeutic effect IMO

I must say though, in view of the hard-nosed stance Don takes on this - insisting on siding with the most skeptical, materialistic, fact-driven view - I can;t quite see how this gels with his defence of Christianity, which try as I did, did not seem to make any hard-nosed logical sense at all (or even fluffy, touchy-feely sense either) . I was going to say that in a sense it can be best seen as like a fantasy book which makes sense within its own world and rules, but not when compared to the actual world of facts, history, logic, experience and laws of physics we live in, but even that is not true as it is full of internal inconsistencies that any top-notch fantasy writer - say Tolkein - would have spotted and ironed out.

I see a few possible approaches to believing it - 1. the naive, unquestioning approach - the person who doesn't seek to ask questions and probably doesn't want to hear about theories that would make them doubt (or maybe thinks such things are from the Devil), similar to the obedient/passive approach - like the Roman Catholic who accepts the Pope is always right and the Cathechism can explain everything once and for all 2. the highly academic and theoretical approach whereby a certain type of clever person may be able to convince himself it makes sense, despite the common sense evidence to the contrary, by complicated intellectual contorsions 3. the mystical aproach - going on feelings and not spending too much time reading the Bible and creeds etc 4. the liberal approach, agreeing that traditional explanations are largely a product of their time, and not to be believed too rigidly, but that somehow there is a "core" of values, experiences, traditions and even aesthetics that are valuable. There is also probably the most common approach of those who call themsleves Christian (in the Uk anyway, where I am from originally) , in that it is mostly a matter of tradition and emotion and they have not bothered to examinine it much and see either what the religion precisely teaches or if and why they should believe in it.

If someone wants to believe in it, that's OK, it would take far too long to rehash all the reasons against it, and if anyone wants to find out about them they only have to read sites about atheism, biblical errors, the historical Jesus, comparative religion, church history and so on. However a "true believer"probably won't. i do find it odd though that Don inissts on his credentials as a fiercely logical and intellectually honest person. i mean it has been shown again and again that we know incredibly little about the historical Jesus, for a start, and that credible cases can be put forward for the possibility he did not even exist. Even if that is an extreme viewpoint, a much more common one, for which there is a great deal of evidence, is that he was a very minor figure in his time who was built up into a figire of mythic proprtions after his death. So how you can base a whole belief system of eternal salvation and damnation around the obligation to hold certain improbable beliefs about this character, when you have access to such information as now exists, instead of being forced by lack of information and social and legal pressures, to conform (as in the past), I'm not sure. Christianity is also internally inconsistent with Judaism, the faith it sprung from - which, for example , has no concept of original sin and a concept of the Messiah quite at odds with the one Jesus is purported to have provided.

On the other hand, it could also be argued that "New Age" type beliefs, while more immediately appealing and somewhat more consistent and more easily believable, are only so because they are a reaction (and human construct, based partly on a pick'n'mix of western and eastern ideas)  against the problems with the traditional western default religion, substituting the confusingly inconsistent God of the Testaments with one who is PUL, substituting eternal black and white judgment with eternal "spiritual evolution" and learning and so on. Also, for example, ditching the wildly improbable Christian notion of the resurrection of the body and final judgment (itself - the judgment - hugely pointless as most christian denominations say you are immediately assigned Heaven or Hell after death anyway, or Purgatory, which is an antechamber of Heaven) in favour of a mix of otherworlds and reincarnations for endless experiences and learnings, which appeals to the modern, educated, liberal mind.

Just playing Devil's Advocate (for both sides  ::)

Don, have you lost your mind?  :)

Me too.

What do you hope to accomplish here?

Have you questioned your own belief that this "method" of inquiry of yours is actually working?

How can it be that your questions are more valid than my questions or anyone else's?

Have you ever asked yourself why you are so disappointed with your own experiences?

What do you think is the next level up from where you are at?

How would you get there?

How have your explorations been going?

Are you willing to share any of your recent experiences?

love, blink :)

Don,
My love to you.
Joe

However, even if the "New Age"version turns out not to be factually right either, I must admit I prefer it, as it is not dogmatic and encourages people to be loving. Christainity also, theoretically, encourages people to be loving, but in most versions is very dogmatic, which I find sadly divisive and also intellectually insulting. The RCC version where the church claims to have got everything mapped out in a book of Cathechism, and whose leader claims to be God's representative on earth, able to speak infallibly about matters of faith and doctrine - and whose books have to be vetted and stamped as having correct doctrine in them - is one good example of a kind of rigidity which seems incompatible with my (fluffy, new-agey) version of what spirituality means (if anything) which is about seeking, being open-minded and compassionate and learning and so on. My version may not be too far from one possible interpretation of the historical Jesus (focussing on alleged teachings about humility and love and forgiveness etc) but the CHurch gave up on that version of things from the world go in favour of a system of beliefs about him.

Orlando,

In my view, allmost everything you say about Jesus is a mischaracterization fueled by online New Age and anti-Christan sites sponsored by people who lack the requisite training to offer informed insights.  I don't expect you to take my word for this.  I am setting up future threads on the issues recently addressed and you can post your reactions there.  I don't assume that the modern mainstream consensus is always correct--only that those like Dave who differ from it should engage it critically and post their justifications on this site.  At the risk of repeating certain themes, I hope to find the time to offer a comprehensive assessment of various types of evidence for an afterlife to accomodate the newbies who have not been exposed to this discussion before.  

It is striking how offended some are by a frank and honest reaction to a site's tone and bias.  I probably been exposed to more relevant paranormal experiences than almost everyone here.  I view reasoned alternative perspectives as the most helpful way to energize the spiritual quest of others.  

Don

Quote:

Yet Stevenson repudiates hypnotic regression as a tool for past life recall, despite the fact that the claims of these hypnotherapists are compatible with his research.

so?  it's because stevenson is a rigorous scientist.  you can't scientifically prove that i love my family either.  does that make it any less true that i do??

Berserk2 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2007 at 8:09pm:

Orlando, In my view, allmost everything you say about Jesus is a mischaracterization fueled by online New Age and anti-Christan sites Don

No, I don;t think so. It's based on a  lifetime of interest in religion and wide reading around the topic. I find the lack of solid information about Jesus disappointing but I know there is, for example, no writing from his century that documents him apart from Josephus, whose main mention of him is certainly altered and IMO probably inserted altogether after the 2nd Century, and who possibly, but not certainly, refers to him in passing when mentioning his brother James (some suggest the "called Christ"bit was inserted later and that this originally referred to another jesus - a very common name at the time). In comparision, for example, he writes at some length and without sensationalism, about John the Baptist, who is more credible as a historical figure of some importance in the period. It is not as though no other major  historians were writing at the time - for example Philo the Jew, writing about Jewish history in the 1st century (when he lived) omits mention of Jesus. Otherwise we just have the letters of Paul, which may or may not also have been tampered with, but which are notable for the surprising lack of information and interest in the historical Jesus as opposed to the Christ of faith.

Oh, apart from the gospels, of course - but they are contradictory , include obvious propaganda to try and link their Jesus character with expactations of the messiah from the OT and were written decades after Jesus'supposed death by people who most likely never met him and were trying to promote their new religion. I know tradition claims John and Matthew as disciples, but modern scolars mostly discount this - for example  the consensus is John is the latest gospel, possibly written around the 90s, so he would have had to be extraordinarily old. Matthew is also one of the least credible gospels (IMO) becasu eof its style, for example, in his deperation to make implausible links between the OT and Jesus to impress his fellow Jews as to Jesus being the Messiah.

I have studied the evidence and no doubt so have you and I guess we just have different standards of what proof we need or come to different conclusions. but don't just assume I've only read a new "new Age websites". I came to studying Christianity and its historical basis with an open mind, initially trying to bolster a shaky and ill-informed Christian faith.

Berserk2 wrote on Aug 8^th, 2007 at 11:28pm:

Dave, Like most New Agers, the low level of consciousness that dominates the site. Don

;D Low level of consciousness? term sounds pretty new agey to me, shame on you Berserk  :o  :D

orlando123 wrote on Aug 7^th, 2007 at 12:52pm:

Never say die wrote on Aug 6th, 2007 at 11:44pm: Hi orlando, I'm just curious as to how you came about this site. I recall recommending this site to someone called orlando098 at youtube.com Yes, that was me . Hi!

I remember somewhat fondly our dialogue in the video threads about the Secular Case for Survival. I'm glad you have decided to join, while you are skeptical about some of my beliefs (as even I am sometimes about my own) you are open and honest with your inquiry.

I think a difference between me and those who consider themselves 'skeptics' is that I choose to take a little more on the 'balance of probabilities'. I'm in my late 20's but already I'm intellectually comfortable with my 'beliefs', spiritually and experientially I'm becoming more and more convinced. I'm also even heading towards being 'convinced' scientifically.

I haven't had alot of direct experience yet, that's why I've got Bruce's book and cd's. Then I got a nasty fright, they seem great and all but personally I find it hard to relax, I need to learn to really meditate first before I can do any astral travelling or anything of that kind. That's what I'm learning now and I wouldn't have really bothered if I'd never found this site.

Enjoy your debate with the re-incarnation of Berserk. Oops!  :o

Orlando:

I'd recommend that you consider the posts Don states he is going to post. You can't find out what is true by considering just half of the argument. I ventured on the trek of reading sources that deny the existence of Jesus for a while, but something inside told me this isn't a valid approach. Certainly some of the authors who deny the life of Jesus are biased for whatever reasons. So instead of limiting my search to an academic study, I opened my heart and mind and tried to find out spiritually, and had a number of experiences and received a number of messages which have told me that Christ is a major part of the spiritual reality of mankind, he did in fact exist as the man Jesus, and he was in fact crucified. I don't believe a person can honestly dismiss these facts, until they try to find out spiritually if they are true.

Regarding contradictions in scriptures, don't forget that mass media didn't exist during the time period in which Jesus preached. His teachings were passed on by word of mouth.  Some weren't recorded until generations after he was crucified.  Then the process of numerous translations took place. When you consider this, it would be quite surprising if some misunderstandings didn't take place.


orlando123 wrote on Aug 10^th, 2007 at 3:01am:

Berserk2 wrote on Aug 9th, 2007 at 8:09pm: Orlando, In my view, allmost everything you say about Jesus is a mischaracterization fueled by online New Age and anti-Christan sites Don No, I don;t think so. It's based on a  lifetime of interest in religion and wide reading around the topic. I find the lack of solid information about Jesus disappointing but I know there is, for example, no writing from his century that documents him apart from Josephus, whose main mention of him is certainly altered and IMO probably inserted altogether after the 2nd Century, and who possibly, but not certainly, refers to him in passing when mentioning his brother James (some suggest the "called Christ"bit was inserted later and that this originally referred to another jesus - a very common name at the time). In comparision, for example, he writes at some length and without sensationalism, about John the Baptist, who is more credible as a historical figure of some importance in the period. It is not as though no other major  historians were writing at the time - for example Philo the Jew, writing about Jewish history in the 1st century (when he lived) omits mention of Jesus. Otherwise we just have the letters of Paul, which may or may not also have been tampered with, but which are notable for the surprising lack of information and interest in the historical Jesus as opposed to the Christ of faith. Oh, apart from the gospels, of course - but they are contradictory , include obvious propaganda to try and link their Jesus character with expactations of the messiah from the OT and were written decades after Jesus'supposed death by people who most likely never met him and were trying to promote their new religion. I know tradition claims John and Matthew as disciples, but modern scolars mostly discount this - for example  the consensus is John is the latest gospel, possibly written around the 90s, so he would have had to be extraordinarily old. Matthew is also one of the least credible gospels (IMO) becasu eof its style, for example, in his deperation to make implausible links between the OT and Jesus to impress his fellow Jews as to Jesus being the Messiah. I have studied the evidence and no doubt so have you and I guess we just have different standards of what proof we need or come to different conclusions. but don't just assume I've only read a new "new Age websites". I came to studying Christianity and its historical basis with an open mind, initially trying to bolster a shaky and ill-informed Christian faith.

Hello NSD

Nice of you to say you enjoyed our chat before, and thank you for the welcome. What do you mean when you say you are heading towards being convinced "scientifically" Do you agree with Michael Roll's theories, or do you have another version of how spirituality fits in with the physical world as science knows it at present?

I would like to see science going further in investigating all this, but I guess science is always going to be a slower process than imagining, experiencing or believing - like, for example, the way science fiction has sometimes preceded real scientific technologies (Jules Verne wrote a story about a rocket journey to the moon in 1865). That's because it needs to proceed with caution and establish credible theories and experiments etc, and because investigating every out-there theory would be very expensive and would be bad for people's credibility. It's much cheaper and quicker to believe in something but not be able to prove it! To some extent you could say this lag will always be there - for example, we all experience consciousness but science can;t say exactly how it works yet, neither can it say exactly what gravity is, for example. However we know from universal experience that these things do definitely exist as phenomena. Claims about physchic/metaphysical matters are a bit trickier as some people have strong experiences that are convincing to them, but many people don;t, and those that do experience them have quite varied accounts and explanations.

Good luck with the investigations and learning to meditate etc. I find that whole area a bit confusing because meditating means such different people to different people - it could perhaps almost be described as any technique designed to deliberately create an altered (or controlled) mental state, from emptying the mind, to focusing intently on one image or idea, to letting the thoughts meander  around a particular topic, or creating a visualised journey, or just watching the breath, or mentally saying a mantra or focussing on certain emotions, or just letting the mind relax and drift off to whatever images it comes up with to..... you get my point!

One thing I used to have a problem with was visualising, but I think I'm better at that now, since I stopped thinking you must see a crystal-clear image like a TV screen in your head, and, for example,  allowed the impression of whatever it is to be fuzzier round the edges and concerned with the other senses as well as the visual (perhaps "sensualisation"would be a better word?). Not that I specifically do any visualisations at the moment as such.

All the best  :)


Never say die wrote on Aug 10^th, 2007 at 10:59am:

I remember somewhat fondly our dialogue in the video threads about the Secular Case for Survival. I'm glad you have decided to join, while you are skeptical about some of my beliefs (as even I am sometimes about my own) you are open and honest with your inquiry. I think a difference between me and those who consider themselves 'skeptics' is that I choose to take a little more on the 'balance of probabilities'. I'm in my late 20's but already I'm intellectually comfortable with my 'beliefs', spiritually and experientially I'm becoming more and more convinced. I'm also even heading towards being 'convinced' scientifically. I haven't had alot of direct experience yet, that's why I've got Bruce's book and cd's. Then I got a nasty fright, they seem great and all but personally I find it hard to relax, I need to learn to really meditate first before I can do any astral travelling or anything of that kind. That's what I'm learning now and I wouldn't have really bothered if I'd never found this site. Enjoy your debate with the re-incarnation of Berserk. Oops!  :o

Hi

Well I have in fact looked from it at all sides. I have read Christian books, including most of the BIble, and attenbded churches and prayed to jesus etc. But I am no longer convinced. I think that looked at objectively, the creeds of standard Christianity are indeniabtly odd and a strange way for an omnipotent ruler of this awesome universe to have organised things. we tend to often not see this becasue we have grown up with its ideas as part of our culture. But if someone had just come along and started preaching it recently it would be considered a wacky cult.

It is also undeniable from an objective POV that there is very scanty evidence about the historical Jesus. my pesonal view is he probably did exist but made no big impact in his time, which may not be surprising given that going by the activities and annual Jewish festivals mentioned in the first three gospels (sen by the majority of scholars as being earlier than John) it is calculated he may only have taught for a year. This is disappointing, but it is IMO a fact, and you can only deny it by over-exaggerating the few scraps of evidence there are about him. As for contradicitons, the gospels and Acts disagree on the names of the 12 disciples, Jesus' grandfather's name, what he said on the cross before dying, who he appeared to after death, whether he gave his most important sermon on a mountain or in a plain, and so on. There is a well-worn saying that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof and the gospels don;t give it, let alone provide a solid reason for holding beliefs that are supposed to decide the fate of your immortal soul.

It is fair to say that if you pick and choose you can find plenty of verses that are admirable in things attributed to Jesus, although it has often be pointed out that they were not uniquely original to him (the idea of doing to others what you would like them to do for you, for example, which I believe is found in the Old Testament as well as in other religions and philosophies), but I find some other things he is meant to have said or done less admirable and don;t think even from the Christian gospels there is any reason to claim he was "perfect"and "without sin".

So, for what'it's worth, my opinion is he probably did exist and had some good ideas - focus on trying to be compassionate and unjudgmental etc also he at times seemed to downplay the importance of sticking rigidly to some of the more pointless Jewish laws. However I don;t think certain beliefs about him (or even having heard of him) are necessary. I also strongly doubt he gathered crowds of thousands or performed most of the miracles attributed to him. In those days it was common for biographies of notable people to be embellished with claims to make them sound more godly and impressive, and the early Christains had a strong motive as they were trying to convince other Jews of the improbable idea that this crucified troublemaker was in fact the Messiah they were waiting for to usher in a golden age for the Jewish people (buy hey, they said, that'll happen when he comes BACK a second time, any time now --- which we are still waiting for).

As for your spiritual experiments telling you certain things about Jesus, I am not you and don;t know what this was like, but most skeptical people would not be particularly impressed by facts ascertained in that kind of way, even if it was meaningful for you.

However what you say - that JC existed as a man and was significant in world spirituality and was crucified is a far cry from full-on mainstream Christianity, with notions of original sin, hell, atonement, bodily resurrection and final judgment etc

Here's what St paul expected to happen (in his lifetime): 1 Thess : [13] But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep [dead], that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
[14] For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
[15] For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
[16] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
[17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air:

I fear I am more like the "scoffers"mentioned in 2 Peter : "saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."



recoverer wrote on Aug 10^th, 2007 at 12:45pm:

Orlando: I'd recommend that you consider the posts Don states he is going to post. You can't find out what is true by considering just half of the argument. I ventured on the trek of reading sources that deny the existence of Jesus for a while, but something inside told me this isn't a valid approach. Certainly some of the authors who deny the life of Jesus are biased for whatever reasons. So instead of limiting my search to an academic study, I opened my heart and mind and tried to find out spiritually, and had a number of experiences and received a number of messages which have told me that Christ is a major part of the spiritual reality of mankind, he did in fact exist as the man Jesus, and he was in fact crucified. I don't believe a person can honestly dismiss these facts, until they try to find out spiritually if they are true. Regarding contradictions in scriptures, don't forget that mass media didn't exist during the time period in which Jesus preached. His teachings were passed on by word of mouth.  Some weren't recorded until generations after he was crucified.  Then the process of numerous translations took place. When you consider this, it would be quite surprising if some misunderstandings didn't take place.

Orlando:

I believe our ability to experience increases as we grow spiritually.  I found that as I've let go of limiting thought patterns and received energetic work from spirit guidance, my vibrational rate has increased. This has enabled me to make more complete contact with spirit guidance. Initially my energetic work mostly involved my awakened kundalini. After I opened myself to the presence of Christ, I started to receive energetic work and guidance from his presence. This energetic work goes beyond what kundalini ever provided.  When I receive energetic work from Christ my awareness expands and I experience feelings of peace and love. I can tell that this energy is guided by an intelligence that knows precisely what it is doing.

Regarding your comment that Jesus didn't do much to help anybody,  have you looked at his effect honestly enough to know this?  Various sources of information have found that there is a such thing as lower realms.  My guess is that billions of people have avoided such realms because of their Christian faith.   Sure there are some Christians who are unloving, but why not consider the situation from Christians who "have" been influenced in a positive way? I know a lot of Christians who are good people partly because of their faith. Would you prefer that they live their life in just any way, and end up in a hell like realm?

Perhaps you would recommend they follow new age teachings.  There are two problems with this approach. One, many people don't have the temperment for such teachings. Two,  there are "many" new age teachings that "don't" represent the truth.  If people would be just as willing to question new age teachings as they are to question Christianity, they would find that lots of inconsistencies and false premisses can be found in new age teachings, even though they have been written TODAY, in a World that is very media oriented, rather than  two thousand years ago.

There is also the factor of how much Christ helps at the spirit level. This can't determined by reading books written by naysayers.

I'm not alone when it comes to experiencing Christ as a valid reality. For example, there are people who have experienced him during near death experiences,  that had too much depth for these people to be experiencing simply according to what their belief system construct was at the time.

If a person really wants to find out what Christ is all about, he or she has to be wiling to be stripped of all that separates his or herself from his presence. Any takers?

I don;t think I said he never helped anybody, just that I believe, historically, he was probably a pretty minor figure, who has been built up into the central aspect of a religion (I don;t think he ever intended to start a new religion seperate from Judaism, centring on him rather than the Father).

I accept that Christian faith has helped to inspire good works, but it has also inspired evil and there are also people who do good things out of other faiths or just from ordinary human empathy. It's hard to balance out the role Christianity has played as such.

One of my other points was that you do not sound like a Christian in the usual sense, which I think Don is, from the tone of his posts. I don;t think the view the two of you have of Jesus would have much in common. You have a New Age type view of him as a loving presenece who enables you to grow spiritually, which is fine, but it's much less rigid and dogma-orientated than what usually goes under the name of Christiainity as developed from the Bible, creeds etc. If you see him as a kind of high-level spirit guide, and that seems to help you, I have no problem with that.

For that matter, in the last 2,000 years he's probably  had plenty of opportunity to grow spiritually too ..

On the other hand maybe what you call Christ is just a partcular kind of energy or state of awareness that would go by other names in other traditions, as in when some people talk about "Christ-consciousness" as opposed to focussiung on the person/being Jesus, adn the name resonates with you becasue of where you were born/live

Orlando:

Comments below within double quotation marks:


orlando123 wrote on Aug 10^th, 2007 at 2:15pm:

I don;t think I said he never helped anybody, just that I believe, historically, he was probably a pretty minor figure, who has been built up into the central aspect of a religion (I don;t think he ever intended to start a new religion seperate from Judaism, centring on him rather than the Father). ""Obviously we disagree about the above.  Helping billions of people avoid lower realms and playing a key role in the spirit World hardly equate to "pretty minor figure." Plus, when it comes to how he has helped the physical World, I believe you would find he has done more to help the World than hurt it. Sometimes people have such a strong mindset against Christianity that they focus their attention on the negativity people have done in the name of Christ rather than the positives. I know, because I've been there. One night, before I accepted the role of Christ, I was shown a crucifix. I asked why. I was shown an armless, legless, and headless manekin on a stand placed in the middle of a department store floor.  The manekin had a white (as in white light) fur coat with black polka dots on it. This image came with the mental message,  "they killed him (Jesus), they put him on display, they spotted his reputation." I next experienced myself pressing the high "C" note of my piano (not physically). I knew this to mean, "Christ represents the highest consciousness there is."" I accept that Christian faith has helped to inspire good works, but it has also inspired evil and there are also people who do good things out of other faiths or just from ordinary human empathy. It's hard to balance out the role Christianity has played as such. ""Covered above."" One of my other points was that you do not sound like a Christian in the usual sense, which I think Don is, from the tone of his posts. I don;t think the view the two of you have of Jesus would have much in common. You have a New Age type view of him as a loving presenece who enables you to grow spiritually, which is fine, but it's much less rigid and dogma-orientated than what usually goes under the name of Christiainity as developed from the Bible, creeds etc. If you see him as a kind of high-level spirit guide, and that seems to help you, I have no problem with that. ""I have a lot of respect for Don. He knows the Bible and its history much better than I. Even though he can be a bit harsh at times, I believe he has a lot of reverence and love for God and Christ. This means a lot to me.  When it comes to his Biblical interpretations, he does so at a level that is clearly above the level of many fundamentalists. For example, he has shown that God and Christ don't sentence people to hell. Rather people live their lives in a manner that causes them to end up in such a realm.  If they try to grow beyond such a realm, God and Christ will insure they receive help.   You're right that Don and I don't see eye to eye on some things. I believe this is fine. It is hard for people to believe exactly the same while in the physical, and it is probably preferable that they don't. In the end, when it is time for us to move on, I believe Don and I will move on to a nice place.  When I first joined this forum I was one of the people who would get upset with Don.  As is obviously clear, my feelings about Christ, and hence Don,  due to various experiences and life changes, are different now. I can understand why people get upset with Don when he speaks is a demeaning way. But I can also see why he gets upset when people repeatedly speak against Jesus and the Bible as they do on this forum.  They tread on ground that is sacred to Don. The thing that is probably really annoying is that people don't seem to consider his contrary arguments. Why present a viewpoint, when one isn't willing to consider the alternative? Regarding who Christ is, as far as I can tell the Gospel of John has the best description.  Christ is the principle through which God created the universe, and Jesus came to this World to represent this principle. This principle existed long before the birth of Jesus took place. Going by what I've found out about the World of spirit, they have a pretty good idea of how things are going to turn out down here. Therefore, they probably understood well ahead of time that some of Jesus' teachings would be misrepresented.  Yet, they went ahead and sent him. Something to think about. ;)"" For that matter, in the last 2,000 years he's probably  had plenty of opportunity to grow spiritually too .. On the other hand maybe what you call Christ is just a partcular kind of energy or state of awareness that would go by other names in other traditions, as in when some people talk about "Christ-consciousness" as opposed to focussiung on the person/being Jesus, adn the name resonates with you becasue of where you were born/live

""Spoken about above.""

Hi there,

Mhhh, is Christian religion based on Jesus as a godfigure...don't think so. It is more the way to reach his father, not having anymore the image of an angry god, who wipes you right of the spot if you dare to think about sin. It is just that he made love and faith (maybe he was kind of the first new age "prophet") the center of the relationship between human and divinity.

What you say about creeds and dogma, yes, I think it much washes away the spirituality, or a relationship with god, that could be spiritual. Don't know why it is like this, but religious systems of the eastern countries are much more spiritual bound to their e.g. gods (yes of course Buddhism itself is not the normal religious type of thing, because there is no creator).

2000 years, yet a lot of time, but I doesn't matter in how far he has grown spiritually, that is nothing to worry about. But it is also interesting in how far human was able to manipulate over and over again using religious motivations (some of the leaders that did so were just into religion to state their power), so it is more a question of "what can we really learn from the bible", than saying "omg, look at what was done in the name of god, believing is crue"l (seriously, is god to blame for idiots only acting for their own sake?). The last one (nonbelieving because of brutality in religions name, the two tolitarian systems of the 20th century would be the best example that nonbelieving also causes slaughter in stating they do it for humanity's sake) is the most stupid quote I have ever heard of in the discussion of wether religion or not, or which one is the true religion.

Of course, the christian point of view is just one key to the divine, look at the three big religions (they nearly have the same words written), the ideas you have in christianity, you could also find in others ones, also the beliefs held in the east of our globe (if I got it right, there were similarities between Krishna and Jesus of being born as the one gods (or the highest gods) children).
But thats lack of tolerance, if we try just to verify our own religion as the only one, the plenty of spirituality, and serving the god you chose (it is not really chosing another god, just another name and different words, actually belonging to the same thing) will be always in the background, and the useless dogma-fights will on and on. That was my problem with religion, I always asked myself how low minded can one be to just searching facts to reveal their belief as THE ONE, and not seeing that all religions just want the divine, and it is the same thing they are all praying to, just with other names, scriptures, symbols, not seeing they key ideas are not that different. So you could say there is god, or the divine principle, but no right religion ??.

Love,

pulsar

Recoverer

You don;t seem to be reading what I say very carefully, not that you have to. but we seem to keep misunderstanding each other. I just meant I believe from my historical study of the evidence that in his time on Earth he was not a major personality then. I don;t claim to know anything about whether or not he has since saved billions of souls from lower realms.

As for God and Christ not sentencing people to Hell, or about people growing beyond such mind-sets and being helped to move on, this is New Age teaching and nothing to do with what Christians have taught for hundreds of years. The Christian church has always taught you are sentenced to eternal Heaven or Hell on death and that's it. Also the Christian church has always taught we are born sinful and derserving of Hell and hence go there whatever we do unless we have accepted, through belief, the sacrfice that Christ is supposed to have made on my behalf. I don;t think you believe that and neither do I. Neither do lots of modern liberal Christrians. I have no problem with liberal Christians, although I think being one can be tricky because you have to ignore a lot of stuff the reigion has taught in the past including stuff that's in black and white in the Bible. I am not sure that, reading between the lines in the synoptics, Jesus intended to leave behind a doctrime where people went to Hell if they didn;t hold certain beliefs in him though. I think he wanted to reform Judaism so people were less hung up on the letter of the law and more loving instead. However one thing I am not so keen on is that he is portrayed as believing in eternal damnation for a good number of humanity, which seems excessive, based on just one life, even if someone has behaved badly and unlovingly.

But if communing with what you see as Christ helps you personnally, go for it. Perhaps you have a better understanding of him that the church has historically done.

PS I try to avoid just "trashing"Christian beliefs, I try to give reasonaed opinions. However I don;t see why I should not get irritated with a belief system which consigns me to an eternity of pain becasue I remain unconvinced by its teachings. At the end of the day that describes traditional Christianity. Not your version, but the one taught for past centuries by the Catholic Church and major Protestant denominations. Even within the churches they have traditionally excluded each other from Heaven, and the Roman Catholic Church still does not accept Protestant priests as valid priests or their communion services as a valid mass etc. presumably they actually think Protestants probably go to hell, thought they would be too PC to say so these days. Equally many Protestants probably think the RCs are going to hell. At the Council of Trent in the 19th Century the RCC pronounced an anathema (formal relgious curse) on protestants, which has never been revoked.

Oh and I personally find the gospel of John the least useful and convincing. Most Bible scholars consider it the latest gospel and the one most reflective of devoloping church doctrine about Jesus rather than the historical Jesus. I see him as having , as I say, focussed on getting people to be loving and forgiving, also unmaterialistic etc as, it would seen likely from the gospels, he expected the end of the world, and God's judgment, to arrive at any time, at which point material things would be no use to anyone, rather the state of their souls. You are very welcome to disagree and prefer the grandiose doctrines in John about Christ being there are the beginning of time and God creating the world "through him"(whatever THAT means) and no one getting to the Father except through him (same comment) being one with the father etc, if that floats your boat.

pulsar wrote on Aug 10^th, 2007 at 3:16pm:

Hi  it is the same thing they are all praying to, just with other names, scriptures, symbols, not seeing they key ideas are not that different. So you could say there is god, or the divine principle, but no right religion ??.

Well this is a common opinion and I think it depends what you mean. Christianity is similar in some ways to Judaism becasue Jesus was a Jew and islam is similar in some ways because Mohammed was obvisously influenced by the Bible stories and by Christian and Jewish monotheism (as opposed to the polytheism in Arabia before him). However they have pretty big differences when you get down to the nitty gritty and the differences with Buddhism and hindism etc are even more. But I guess you can say that the human impulse towards wanting a bigger meaning/context  for life other than the purely physical and day to day is what links them all.

PS I'm not sure if I misunderstood your comment about godless totalitarians, but did you know HItler was a lifelong Catholic who often mentioned God in Mein Kampf, and who had God With Us as one of his slogans, which was inscribed on nazi uniform belts? I don;t think religion or no religion makes for a good person, it is how they act to others that counts, which is also pretty much what most religious liberals think these days anyway

Orlando:

Once again, my responses within the double quotation marks.


orlando123 wrote on Aug 10^th, 2007 at 5:52pm:

Recoverer You don;t seem to be reading what I say very carefully, not that you have to. but we seem to keep misunderstanding each other. I just meant I believe from my historical study of the evidence that in his time on Earth he was not a major personality then. I don;t claim to know anything about whether or not he has since saved billions of souls from lower realms. ""Considering what has followed through out the years, he has been a major influence."" As for God and Christ not sentencing people to Hell, or about people growing beyond such mind-sets and being helped to move on, this is New Age teaching and nothing to do with what Christians have taught for hundreds of years. The Christian church has always taught you are sentenced to eternal Heaven or Hell on death and that's it. Also the Christian church has always taught we are born sinful and derserving of Hell and hence go there whatever we do unless we have accepted, through belief, the sacrfice that Christ is supposed to have made on my behalf. I don;t think you believe that and neither do I. Neither do lots of modern liberal Christrians. I have no problem with liberal Christians, although I think being one can be tricky because you have to ignore a lot of stuff the reigion has taught in the past including stuff that's in black and white in the Bible. I am not sure that, reading between the lines in the synoptics, Jesus intended to leave behind a doctrime where people went to Hell if they didn;t hold certain beliefs in him though. I think he wanted to reform Judaism so people were less hung up on the letter of the law and more loving instead. However one thing I am not so keen on is that he is portrayed as believing in eternal damnation for a good number of humanity, which seems excessive, based on just one life, even if someone has behaved badly and unlovingly. ""I don't believe that concepts such as eternal darnation (I actually typed darnation with an "n" in the midde this time :)) are a good deal. I believe it is better to inspire with love than fear. Only love will change the World for the better. The eternal darnation concept is one of the key things that turned me off to Christianity when I was in Jr. high school. I believe this is partly what the spotted manekin I was shown was about. People spotted Jesus' reputation by saying he talked about eternal darnation. I once read that the original gospels didn't say eternal darnation, this was added by a counsel commisioned by emporer Constantine. Perhaps there are people who need such a message, because they won't respond to a message of live according to love. Some people have different requirements.  I used to take offense if a Christian would tell me I'm going to hell, but not anymore. Some people would say that I'm going to hell, because I don't believe in fundamentalist ideas.  Some day they'll find out how things really work."" But if communing with what you see as Christ helps you personnally, go for it. Perhaps you have a better understanding of him that the church has historically done. PS I try to avoid just "trashing"Christian beliefs, I try to give reasonaed opinions. However I don;t see why I should not get irritated with a belief system which consigns me to an eternity of pain becasue I remain unconvinced by its teachings. At the end of the day that describes traditional Christianity. Not your version, but the one taught for past centuries by the Catholic Church and major Protestant denominations. Even within the churches they have traditionally excluded each other from Heaven, and the Roman Catholic Church still does not accept Protestant priests as valid priests or their communion services as a valid mass etc. presumably they actually think Protestants probably go to hell, thought they would be too PC to say so these days. Equally many Protestants probably think the RCs are going to hell. At the Council of Trent in the 19th Century the RCC pronounced an anathema (formal relgious curse) on protestants, which has never been revoked. Oh and I personally find the gospel of John the least useful and convincing. Most Bible scholars consider it the latest gospel and the one most reflective of devoloping church doctrine about Jesus rather than the historical Jesus. I see him as having , as I say, focussed on getting people to be loving and forgiving, also unmaterialistic etc as, it would seen likely from the gospels, he expected the end of the world, and God's judgment, to arrive at any time, at which point material things would be no use to anyone, rather the state of their souls. You are very welcome to disagree and prefer the grandiose doctrines in John about Christ being there are the beginning of time and God creating the world "through him"(whatever THAT means) and no one getting to the Father except through him (same comment) being one with the father etc, if that floats your boat.

""Going by what I've read, people contend that the gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew were written 55-65 years a.d., while the Gospel of John was written 100 years afterwards.  Don says he has evidence that the Gospel of John was written by a person who actually lived during the time of Christ.

Bruce Moen writes about how he met the planning intelligence. This presence was the creator of and aware of several universes. This being told Bruce we all exist on its lent awareness. Bruce asked this being if it was God, and the being answered no. It told Bruce that if he would've traveled one disc layer higher (during a prior experience), he would've found God.  Perhaps Bruce was in contact with what I refer to as Christ.  The first time Christ's presence visited me in a very noticeable way, I had the impression that this presence could be anywhere it wants to be and in as many places it wants. Perhaps because it is everywhere.  When I communicate with it I feel like I'm in contact with a presence similar to the presence Bruce described when he wrote about making contact with the planning intelligence.  This presence often responds to my questions or provides input while I meditate, by providing me with different kinds of experiences.   Here's one example. I'm meditating one day, I'm in an expansive state and feeling love, and suddenly I find myself at the back of a cargo plane with the back hatch open. The plane is flying upward and is trying to gain enough velocity to do so. I'm at the back of the airplane because I'm trying to detach a piece of cargo from the floor, which I could tell symbolized sexual attachment.  This attachment is bogging down my energy so I can't ascend completely.""

I'm glad at least we agree hell (especially teaching children to fear it) is a bad idea  >:(

The issue of which bits of the gospels Jesus said and which he didn;t is one that will keep scholars arguing for a long time yet - the Jesus Seminar was founded to try and do it but between them they only agree on a small number of what they consider "definite" quotes. BTW I am pretty sure the emperor Constantine had nothing to do with it, he seems to get blamed for everything at the moment (maybe Dan Brown's influence?) I don;t think he had anything to do with selecting the Bible books or editing them (or having other people do so).  What he did do was call the Council of Nicea, which decided on what was going to be key Christain doctrine and what was going to be - henceforth - heresy and also made Christianity a trendy religion that could help your career, instead of a widely disliked, and at times persecuted, minority

You misinterpreted me again about the historcial Jesus. I was referring to him as a figure in his time period. I know that since then he (or at least the Church's version of him) has been "influential" . It would be hard to deny that!

Thanks for the explainations of the kinds of insights you get.

Orlando:

Whoever/whatever Christ is, my guess is that he isn't uptight about the different ways people think of him, eventhough he probably doesn't approve of when people use his name for hate based agendas, such as how the kkk does so.

The main thing I try to stress is that Christ is able to help people if they seek such help.

Regarding people not wanting to give Jesus credit for what he accomplished, I doubt he takes it personally. I speak up for him out of love and respect, and because of what my experience has told me.

Orlando,

I'm heading towards being convinced scientifically due to the increasingly widespread development of rational and objective explanations that support the paranormal rather than debunk it. This alternative scientific paradigm (I'm not sure if I showed you this link before) will not easily convince the western mind that has learnt the mechanistic materialist model.

http://www.synchronizeduniverse.com/

I mentioned the above site. On first glance to the skeptical mind you probably find its presentation too simplistic and an advertorial for a book. Dark matter, the law of gravity they are topics worth debating, they beg further investigation.

What is most convincing to me is that I have read the same theories in many other places. The consistency of the research and the fact it personally makes sense to my world view, that is why I personally am heading towards being convinced. We all have a different set of life experiences and have been exposed to different discourses of information, basically I'm saying is I see a definite pattern emerging for me to atleast personally be convinced that not only do these phenomena exist but they can also be supported with science.

orlando123 wrote on Aug 10^th, 2007 at 7:01pm:

I'm glad at least we agree hell (especially teaching children to fear it) is a bad idea  >:( .

I agree. I've read that the doctrine of eternal damnation is a mistranslation of the Bible. I read they mistranslated the Hebrew? word for aeon to the Hebrew? word for eternal. Aeon only means 'a period of time'. There was nothing to suggest that hell was meant to be eternal. It just seems scarier and a better way to force people to get into line.  

Orlando,

You've written enough posts now that provide me a better sense of who you are.  True, I've elsewhere noted obvious basic errors in your historical inferences, but these are hardly your fault.  I am now convinced that you do have an honest and somewhat open-ended spiritual quest.  I ask you only to make one concession: I will soon create a thread directed to several of the serious points you have made and I ask you to try to consider my case from a perspective unfiltered by your previous research.  Of course, this request is ultimately impossible to fuflil, but at least please try to make the effort.

The greatest enemy of church growth is some of the Christians who attend church and the narrow-minded pastors who lead them.  A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and so many pastors and Christians have one fundamental spiritual flaw that sabotages their growth potential and their efforts at outreach: they don't know what they don't know.  Consequently, they don't persevere in asking themselves questions like these: "Where is the line between ultimate mystery and questions that have satisfactory answers?  Precisely why can't we answer certain questions?  How close can we come to answering them?   Are there more constructive related questions that we can answer?  And to what extent can we verify our answers by direct experience and observaton?"  These questions of course are seldom adequately addressed on this site.  I don't object to the frequent criticisms of Christianity here, but the dogmatism with which they are expressed is often easily dispatched.  Posters need to couch their objections with phrase like "IMO," or "my impression is," "I suspect that," "in my experience,"  "from my limited research," etc.

For example, Bruce Moen's grotesque mischaracterization of Christian belief is reprehensible not for its content, but for its ignorant dogmatism.  He is rightly obsessed with the glorious potential of performing soul retrievals but his anti-Christian bias blinds him to the fact that early Christianity has the potential to serve as his most effective ally in promoting this quest.  As I've often documented here,  the New Testament and the early church provide the earliest LITERARY documentation for the practice of soul retrievals and this documentation debunks the myth that early Christians were hellbent on promoting the doctrine of eternal damnation with no postmortem oppportunity for spiritual growth.  Bruce's diatribes would be quite acceptable if he made it clear that he is only speaking from the perspective of his earlier life as a Missouri Synod Lutheran.  But his tone generalizes to the Bible and Christianity in general and this error taints his otherwise commendable quest with a tinge of mindless bigotry.  I have addresses these issues before and, I guess, I need to repackage past threads in a new format for the benefit of newbies.  Too bad I threw away all my earlier threads!  So stay tuned, Orlando.  I'm very busy in my new pastoral role, but eventually I will meet all of your objections head on.  New paranormal experiences abound in my church.

Don

Hi guys. My intention is not by coming in here to suggest that I know better, but to float the suggestion that maybe it's not so good to get caught up in what is essentially an academic style winners and losers debate.

Progress along the path we all profess to follow is surely not determined by academic or conceptual knowledge or expertise - it's about becoming something else. Namely a person (eventually much more than an a simple person) who as a result of what they are (have become) is increasingly able to live as an expression of love - love for the self, and love for all other sentinent beings. There's  lots of ways this can be expressed depending on your tradition and preferred use of language.

There's many that are highly  realised  who struggle to rub words together intelligibly, and who from a certain perspective are incredibly rough diamonds who can be and often are quite forceful and direct - but who by simply being communicate more truth and influence more powerfully for the good than words ever can. Who no matter how they speak exude an amazing gentleness and sense of soft groundedness. Who can only be assessed by what they are, and what happens around them. They may not even be conceptually aware of what they are.

Put it another way. As we progress the territory shifts from the conventional to include other subjective realities (which are the topic of much of what gets posted here), and ultimately our relationship with the absolute. Once the first is transcended language becomes at best highly limited as a means of expression.

Even setting this aside I don't have the skills to access the language to accurately communicate what I truly feel in a forum like this. I'll repeatedly as a result of this or of older habitual word use make inferences that I don't really mean. I'll sometimes read stuff I posted afterwards and think 'oops, I didn't really mean that'. Or over time my position on topics will evolve. Maybe as a result of my changing, but maybe also simply because my thoughts on the issue have clarified. Some of what I post is probably way off to others further down the road, or to those using differing terminologies. But what the hell - that's life.

I've had a good number of years around academia, and have to say that my observation is that as the space became more intellectual the heart was squeezed out of it - and was replaced by self interested competing egos who cared little about the harm they  did to others.

It's very possible for an environment to arise that amounts to a babble of competing egos, one where the game has little to do with helping anybody,  and where the noise or tone negates any shreds of truth that may be around. There's maybe even a law that says that the spiritual value of what's said is inversely proportional to the sum of its intellectual superiority and the pernickity-edness and earnestness with which it is spoken.

Despite an ability to pontificate with the best I quickly lost any residual tendency to attribute unconditional respect to heavy duty learned debate. I realised that so far as transmission of truths is concerned there's a point fairly quickly arrived at beyond which language and the discursive intellect stop contributing.

Language or conceptual thought can't adequately express what is ultimately ineffable anyway. You can only circle around the space, and almost by saying what it is not imply what it is. The rest is down to tone and some sort of unconscious mind to mind connection.

The one really solid use for intellectual insight such as this forum provides is that properly used it helps us along the path - it provides some insight into what we could be doing, what's possible and what we can expect so that fear or ignorance don't cause us to veer off course or stop.

A final thought. It's presumably the case that we all participate in this forum in the hope of helping others along their way. That surely means the creation of a friendly space where we can express our views in a spirit of friendly discussion and exchange.

Where while differing views may be tabled there is room for all. Where by our attitude and gentleness we leave the space needed so that all can table their views, hear what others have to say and as a result reposition their own views without having been forced into a corner that causes them to close, or to feel the need to defend.

We all have to come to our own truths, and we all seem to profess to support this principle. (which is the one reason most here seem to object to dogmatic religion)

So why not trust in others basic sanity and process??

Pardon the length.

Hello Don

Thanks for the recognition of my sincerity etc.

I would be interested to know more about why you believe there is evidence the early church practiced soul retievals and did not believe in eternal damnation. My own research suggests the early Christians were interested above all in Chrit's imminent return when they thought the Christian dead would be raised again and the living and dead would live immortally in a new kingdom he  would establish on Earth. Although damnation for nonbelievers was also an issue I think it's debateable (from what I remember) as to whether this was originally mostly thought of as just them being destroyed or even just staying dead as opposed to eternal punishment, although there is certainly evidence to suggest the latter too. I'm not aware though of evidence suggesting a beilef in post-mortem "retievals"or chances to spiritually evolve and so on, which seems a more New Age kind of idea, with influences from Eastern religions and shamanism (IMO!). Oh, one reference to the kind of practices descibed on this board does come to mind though where paul refers to someone being "caught up into a third heaven (whether on the body or out of it I don;t know)", but that doesn;t refer to retreivals. Or are you referring to Christ's "harrowing of Hell'?

But then again I don;t think religious ideas seemed to be or should be fixed once and for all. Maybe you have insights they lacked.

Good luck with the new church.

Vajra

You make a sensible point, that it would seem likely spiritual growth is not much furthered by lots of intellectual argument. Also I am well aware these kinds of arguments (about the historical Jesus or about religious doctrines etc) just go on and on anyway and there are many different points of view that can be taken and rarely can one be proved right.

In any case Don does not see a very dogmatic kind of Christian from what he says anyway. He appears to be more interested in experiences than doctrine, and seems to want to help people.

:) I guess knowledge has its (absolutely essential) place Orlando - both in 'normal' life, and as a helper in our progress on the path.

As potentially does good humoured, mutually supportive and constructive debate (not the winners/losers blood sport that some sections of our society have managed to make of it), and the respectful exchange of views.

Because learning (related to from the correct viewpoint) is one (arguably the second) major pillar of the spiritual progress.

Where debate, focus on knowledge, academic undertakings and the like get off the rails is when the ego gets involved - for example when people debate to put down others, become so focused on the intellectual side  (which is only a tiny part of our total knowing/intelligence) that it blocks our connection to our true selves, to others and to the love and wisdom that come from God; or seek knowledge for its own sake (as an obsession) or for self aggrandisment.

Put another way. Knowledge is power, and with power comes responsibility. With increased power comes increased responsibility, and more difficult problems. We're already seeing the consequences  of the irresponsible and egotistical use of technological and scientific knowledge on our climate, food chain, biosphere and in the perilous state of international relations.

Back here at the ranch it's a bit easier. We probably just need to take care that the debate is not getting too competitive. Because if it did the end result for others would be an uncomfortable and edgy forum environment.

One which some might be inclined to step away from, or not feel comfortable to come into. Or one  which might attract those looking to for entertainment, or for a forum in which to dominate or to assert themselves  - which of course would be just another example of the way this delusional mind made stuff propogates....

varja & blink,

Thanks for stepping up to the plate, my hat's off to you both on this round of the dance for bringing in the voice of reason in the midst of a lovely thread turned ugly.

Love, Jean :-* :-*

yes I agree, I appreciate voices of reason, and Vajra and Blink are fine examples. thanks  I don't like to think people would not come here because its negative.
love, alysia

I think every living thing has a spiritual body. Maybe even every physical object.

If this isn't the case, then I think whatever can dream has a spirit.