Mindfreak Criss Angel. Has anyone heard about this guy? He is a "mentalist" and does all kinds of stuff on his show on A&E, including communicating with the dead.

Yet - he goes on Larry King and tells a national audience that anyone who talks about the afterlife or claims to be a psychic/medium is bunk. Apparently, he is close to the world's most annoying man - the midget called Amazing Randi who goes around debunking psychics esp. Sylvia Brown / Jon Edwards, etc.

Criss Angel is certainly tapping into some kind of energy. His show with a seance on it, would be affirmation for everyone that there is an afterlife. Yet, he claims that all that can be manufactured, as he does it so masterfully on his show. There is a classic sequence on YouTube where he gets into a shouting match with a guy who demonstrated Automatic Writing on the NBC show "Phenomenon".

He can't rock my belief system about the afterlife, but I am sure millions look at that and think death is just fade to black and we cease to exist. Any thoughts on this character and what seems like an organized attempt at some level to discredit the afterlife??

Perhaps there are unfriendly influences who don't want us to believe in the afterlife because they don't want us to have hope, to know that divine assistance is available, and that life has meaning beyond what we see in the World. Perhaps they also want people to believe that they can do just about anything they want without having to worry about what happens to them after they die.

I know little about Criss Angel. I did catch him on Larry King a bit and decided to not keep watching when I saw how he was trying to negate that people communicate with spirits. I have no doubt that I do so.  If a person such as Criss Angel influences people in a manner that is harmful, I suppose he'll know about it some day.

Criss Angel is a breath of fresh air--a gift to the quest for knowledge of the afterlife.  He rightly debunks channeling by simulating the ESP gleaned by the best of channelers about the dead.  Thus, he draws attention to an uncomfortable truth: so-called verifications secured through channeling should generally be construed as psychically discerned information that, if anything, counts AGAINST the validity of channeling as evidence for ADCs.  Of course, I believe in the afterlife, but for other reasons.

Criss Angel merely confirms what older parapsychologists have discovered about channeling.  Psychologist E. Stanley Hall conjured a fake persona, Bessie Beals, and meditated on "her" en route to a famous British medium.  The medium promptly conjured up Bessie and allowed her to speak as if she were a deceased loved one.  When Hall sprung his trap, the medium nervously rationalized her failure by disengenuously claiming that she had contacted a Jessie Beals and that her error was an honest case of mistaken identity.  In fact, Hall decisively exposed the bogus nature of the medium's channeled contacts.  Sam Soal, a parapsychologist, then replicated this sort of refutation with another famous medium who channeled a fictional character invented by Soal as if she were one of Soal's recently deceased loved ones.  

In the devastating Gordon Davis case, Davis interrupts the medium and "comes through" with spectacular details allegedly confirming his identity and relationship with the sitter.  The sitter later discovers that Davis was alive at the time and knows nothing about the sitting.  Why isn't channeling discredited in this way more often?  Well, the sitter had been wrongly told that his friend Gordon Davis had died and the medium somehow exploited his misconception and recreated Davis's personality via ESP. How often are we misinformed about t he death of a friend?  Attempts to rationalize such failures with other explanations generally merely expose intellectually dishonest seekers who value comfort above truth.  If we sincerely want to identify good evidence for an afterlife, it is essential that we first identify blind allies and bogus sources of information.

Don

Don:

Just because some cases get discredited that doesn't mean all cases get negated. It seems like you're being a bit selective about the evidence you look at.

I don't know what approach Criss Angel takes, but I figure he should consider what I stated above.

I figure the only way a person will know what it is like to communicate with spirits on a regular basis, is to do so. Otherwise he or she is likely to pick and choose according to what benefits his or her argument.

The only reason I've ended up having faith in Christ, is because I've opened up to having experiences and receiving spirit messages that support his existence as a key part of divine reality. I'm not a person who is able to believe because of what a book says.

I'd ask you if you believe it is in any way possible for a person to be a medium in a manner that represents concordance with the light, but your past posts and the above post don't seem to suggest that you don't believe this is possible.

I had never heard of Criss Angel until the show Phenomenon.  A contestant was claiming that a person from the afterlife was helping him do his stunt.  Angel then challenged him to have his dead friend identify what he (Criss) had written on a piece of paper.  The contestant hemmed and hawed and obviously was shown to be a fraud.

Other than the used car market, the afterlife is probably the most fertile environment for fraud of all kinds.  Sylvia Browne has already been shown to be a fake and chances are most of other celebrities who claim they can contact the afterlife are also fakes.

Yes, we should have an open mind about the reality of the afterlife, but that doesn't mean we should suspend good judgment and common sense in the process.

Remember the old adage- "extraordinary claims require extraordinary verification."

A friend does magic as part of a hypnosis presentation. A person is chosen from the audience and asked to write something on a piece of paper, and to conceal it carefully. Another person is chosen and asked to read what the magician is writing on his piece of paper, which is handed top him. Before he actually reads what is on the paper, the magician asks for the first person to show and read what he wrote. Then he turns to person #2 and asks, "Does what I wrote say the same thing?" That person agrees, "Yes. That's precisely what it says."

After all the applause dies down the magician shows what he wrote: "The Same Thing".

I'm inclined to lump them into the same class as lawyers.

dave

Don,

Your fancy wording in what you just posted doesn't mean didly.  Bottom line is, just because some people fake ESP and spirit communication doesn't mean everyone fakes it.  You take one piece of evidence and apply it to everything, how is that a breath of fresh air?  Entertainers like Criss Angel know they are faking it, and so does the audience.  Comparing that to real ESP and afterlife communication is simply comparing apples to oranges.    


Raj, are you saying that Criss Angel doesn't believe in real ESP and spirit communication?  What I know of him is that he is a performer.  All of his tricks are merely tricks and I think you can find stuff on You Tube showing how some of his tricks are done.  Some of his stuff is impressive as entertainment but it is only that, entertainment.  I have no idea what his own personal beliefs in the afterlife and such are.

I think Don must be right. There is no afterlife channeling. No word from God, no knowledge of heaven. Just death and its over. I guess we won't be needing any more churchs or a need for beliefs. We can't get or recieve information, love, knowledge from Heaven or from God. It must be true that the bible is just another crappy story. Right Don? If you can't see it it must not be real. I guess those tablets Moses got were not from info channeled from heaven and God...  Don, prove that there is a God and that the information contained in the Bible is true. You can't do it so as you have no proof, it must be a lie. There is no doupt that there are lots of fakes out there. That does not mean they are all fakes does it? I known of plenty of religious (ha-ha) people out there who molest, lie, cheat, and steal. Many of them are/were preachers or headed/ran their own churchs. Perhaps what should be debunked is religion and Christianity including the story in/of the bible and its messages from the afterlife. There is alwas going to be fakes and charlatans when there is money or power to be had.
Joe
PS Hmm..is that a lightning and thunder storm moving this way? :o

I wonder why chakras and such exist, if it isn't intended for us mere humans to communicate with spirits. For anybody who has experienced chakras and such, they aren't just mere concepts.

Can people make contact with spirits that aren't well meaning? Sure, but this doesn't mean that well meaning spirits aren't "ever" around.  Can't light beings make contact with us, without somebody declaring it is against the law?

Most of you are ducking the crucial point.  Once it is repeatedly demonstrated and replicated that mediums mistake information gleaned via ESP as direct contact with the dead, then the burden of proof rests with those who need to believe that supposedly channeled verifications need not be explained in this way.  Only the rigid dogmatism of New Age fundamentalism would draw a different conclusion.  Of course, I am open to the possibility that, in rare cases, some channeled material might not be satisfactorily explained as ESP from living minds.    
The rampant tendency of New Agers to overlook the relative merits of various forms of afterlife evidence (NDEs, ADCs, OBEs, etc.) undermines the credibility of their witness to their own experiences (e.g. their ability to distinguish lucid dreams from astral experiences and the proneness of some to hallucinations fueled by wishful thinking).  The old cliche, "consider ther source," is essential wisdom for experiential pretensions of esoteric knowledge.  I want this site to advance the case for afterlife survival.  Generally, it effectively makes the opposite case by its naivite and the chronic unwillingness of posters to read literature from other disciplines that challenges their naive consensus.  

Don

Don:

I don't need others to prove to me that their experiences with the afterlife are valid, because I have more than enough of my own.  A person won't truly know, until he or she gives it a go. It is possible for experiences to manifest in a manner so one becomes certain.

Albert,

But your astral experiences are achieved through a different vehicle than conventional channeling and are therefore potentially exempt from the tests that challenge the legitimacy of channeling.  Each type of experience must be examined for its own strengths and weaknesses and for its potential for self-authenticating subjective states.  

Don

Don:

I'll agree with you that there are sources that aren't trustworthy. For example, Sylvia Browne. Otherwise, I don't know much about the famous mediums.  It is just that I figure if I can communicate with spirits in a way that is certain, then so can others.

I agree with Recoverer, I don't need someone else to prove their experience to me to validate my own experiences.  And I don't need to prove my experiences to anyone in order to validate them either.  

Don, you cannot ever know what my experience is from MY perspective.  You can only know it from your own perspective.  You can not operate from within my frame of awareness and perception, only from within your own.  

There is no "proof" of anything that stands alone outside of the boundaries of perception and awareness.  Everything exists WITHIN one's own perception and awareness, including proof!  Your proof, Don, will always only reside within your own awareness of perception.  Unless and until you open your perception to a higher level, you will never be more aware of anything than you are now.  

THAT, in a nutshell, is the whole point of this site....in response to your statement "I want this site to advance the case for afterlife survival."  Bruce teaches us about opening perception beyond its normal limits, to raise awareness to a higher level, and through this he teaches individuals how to find their own proof through their own experiences.  

I like this statement: "advance the case for afterlife survival."

Over the years, I've read many books written by spiritualist mediums of the early part of the century. Some, like John Sloan, are reputed wonderfully accurate by serious minded investigators like Arthur Findlay. Findlay, among many, was truly interested in advancing the case for afterlife survival. He started his own institute, much as Robert Monroe would do decades later. That was 100 years ago.

The afterlife and all of us who believe in it and try to penetrate its secrets are still heavily labeled kooks. This stuff was not taken seriously 100 years ago and it's made no headway, in my opinion. I don't like considering myself a kook, yet the label fits me if I can't offer up even a shred of solid proof of something. Sadly, I can't. I can only offer my personal opinions, which advance nothing, and help no one else to be uplifted. Wish I could do better.

Someone once suggested a board be created on this site devoted exclusively to proven facts. In Monroe-speak "unknowns converted into solid knowns." That, I think, was his premise when beginning his institute. He wasn't interested in just accumulating beliefs.

What do we now know that we didn't know last year? Has anyone found the Park? Monroe was told "the park is here, whether you believe in it or not." So.....why can't a half dozen of us meet at the corner of Elm and Chestnut in the Park? That might be a real good beginning to providing fact, and facts advance the case for afterlife survival.

I'd like to see more facts blooming on this board, and far fewer personal beliefs.
-Chuck-

 Even then, even when one presents "facts" or "proofs" to others, people can and will still doubt, people will still disbelieve.  

 There was this guy a long time ago who did all sorts of unusual things like walk on water, completely heal bad cases of sickness and even death on occasion, and all sorts of uncommon in his day, kind of stuff.  

 Yet how many, even some of his friends and followers, doubted him at different points?   And the masses, and the other so called spiritual experts of his day kept saying, "more, more, more, we need more proof before accepting.."    Look how many having after witnessed what they considered "miraculous" occurrences, later on doubted what they saw and experienced?  Talked themselves, or others talked them out of believing it.

 For most, it was never enough.  It's so easy for us to convince ourselves contrary to what is considered by the masses as the norm.  Such is the nature of beliefs and how they influence perception.  

 Thankfully, we're a little more open collectively speaking, nowadays, but only just a little for the most part.  

Hi Raj-

Just a couple of points....first, the contestant on Phenomenon was actually attempting to make the audience think he was receiving communication, via automatic writing, from someone in the afterlife.  Criss Angel (and thank goodness for him!) demonstrated to everyone that the guy was in fact a phony.  

Also, a few months ago you mentioned the death of Sean Taylor and asked if someone could contact him.  I'm wondering- have you been able to contact Sean?  Has anyone contacted Sean that you know of?  I find it interesting that folks who claim they can contact the afterlife always decline when someone, like yourself, asks that they do so.  Instead, they almost always tell you to do it yourself.  That's like asking a plumber to fix a leak in your house and instead he tells you to read a book on soldering copper tubing.

Chuck raises some good questions.  He asks what we know now that we didn't know a year ago.  I would add this to his question- what do we know now that we didn't know 10 years ago, or 100 years ago for that matter?

The most honest answer to these questions is that we really don't know anything.  We have lots of anecdotal information, lots of speculations and theories, but absolutely nothing that can be replicated by a third party.  Until this can be done, we'll have to take claims about the afterlife strictly on faith.

There's nothing wrong with that.  Faith is an important ingredient to our lives, as is trust.  But these should not be conflated with evidence.

:) :) :) Justin.

I figure the way to really know about the fella you're speaking about, is within one's heart. This fella seemed to speak as if signs are secondary to an inner understanding of who he is and what he is about.


wrote on Jan 10^th, 2008 at 11:58pm:

Even then, even when one presents "facts" or "proofs" to others, people can and will still doubt, people will still disbelieve.    There was this guy a long time ago who did all sorts of unusual things like walk on water, completely heal bad cases of sickness and even death on occasion, and all sorts of uncommon in his day, kind of stuff.    Yet how many, even some of his friends and followers, doubted him at different points?   And the masses, and the other so called spiritual experts of his day kept saying, "more, more, more, we need more proof before accepting.."    Look how many having after witnessed what they considered "miraculous" occurrences, later on doubted what they saw and experienced?  Talked themselves, or others talked them out of believing it.  For most, it was never enough.  It's so easy for us to convince ourselves contrary to what is considered by the masses as the norm.  Such is the nature of beliefs and how they influence perception.    Thankfully, we're a little more open collectively speaking, nowadays, but only just a little for the most part.

The truth cannot be found this way, Don.

You know that.

Why would you keep asking people for the impossible?

Why not go directly to the ultimate source?

Who, better than you?

love, blink :)



Berserk2 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2008 at 8:33pm:

Most of you are ducking the crucial point.  Once it is repeatedly demonstrated and replicated that mediums mistake information gleaned via ESP as direct contact with the dead, then the burden of proof rests with those who need to believe that supposedly channeled verifications need not be explained in this way.  Only the rigid dogmatism of New Age fundamentalism would draw a different conclusion.  Of course, I am open to the possibility that, in rare cases, some channeled material might not be satisfactorily explained as ESP from living minds.     The rampant tendency of New Agers to overlook the relative merits of various forms of afterlife evidence (NDEs, ADCs, OBEs, etc.) undermines the credibility of their witness to their own experiences (e.g. their ability to distinguish lucid dreams from astral experiences and the proneness of some to hallucinations fueled by wishful thinking).  The old cliche, "consider ther source," is essential wisdom for experiential pretensions of esoteric knowledge.  I want this site to advance the case for afterlife survival.  Generally, it effectively makes the opposite case by its naivite and the chronic unwillingness of posters to read literature from other disciplines that challenges their naive consensus.   Don

Asethaa, One place you can communicate with others you know(or will know) can be found by doing a course offered at TMI (Monroe) called "Exploration 27. Infoemation can be found on their web site. Although this is far from the only place this is possable , it is one way. I am sure that Bruces books could offer you a way to get there also.  Communication is not only possable with those living and joining you in the "park" but is also avalable with those who are no longer in body. This includes family, friends, helpers, others you may want to help, etc. You may also find some of the posts made in the partnered exploration area of interest.
(this communication should not be confused with channeling, this threads subject)
Joe

Chuck,

What you contribute in your recent post urgently needs to be said on this site.  New Agers here imagine that I am judgmental, unfriendly, or driven by a hidden agenda.  But all I seek is a minimal display of rationality that can potentially advance the case for an afterlife.  Progress is seriously blocked by the inability or unwillingness to sustain an attention span.  The subject of this thread is channeling, and many posters wrongly construe challenges of its merits as an attack agains all forms of afterlife exploration.  Also, it is frankly cultic to hide behind unverifiable personal experiences, as if subjective certainty cannot be rightly challenged.  I have probably had as many paranormal experierces as anyone on this site.  In addition, I have had OBE and retrieval experiences that were subjectively certain at the time.  Only later, when I confronted my need to believe, did it dawn on me that they were merely lucid dreams of OBEs and nothing more.  Subjective experience is worthless for public dialogue if the credibility of the percipient is not confronted.  Some are prone to hallucinations, self-delusions, and wishful thinking and are therefore not insulated from legitimate skepticism.  In an atmosphere of mindless tolerance, the discerning public will rightly dismiss astral claims as the product of cultic kookery.   The courage to doubt is a prerequisite for true knowledge.

The quest for proof seems unrealistic.  But the quest for "persuasive" anecdotal and research evidence remains promising.  The myopic focus of the New Age ghetto prevents many from reading scholarly books in fields like parapsychology that challenge their preconceptions.  As a result, they lazily restrict their research to idiosyncratic blogs that do not reflect the intelligent research of mainstream investigators.  Not surprisingly, then, we get posters who imagine themselves to be the reincarnation of St. Peter, posters who are so ill-informed about European history that they believe Hitler was controlled by nameless Puppet Masters, and posters who think we should welcome any experiences without critique, sing Kum Bah Yah, and thus bog down this site in ever increasingly cultic conformity. So, Chuck, we need your voice to enhance the sanity of this site.

Don  

Don said,
"The courage to doubt is a prerequisite for true knowledge."

Excellent point.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be satisfied."

Someone very important is waiting for you. Right? Why are you waiting? Why the delay?


love, blink :)

blink,

Many on this site would like to believe that my experience of the paranormal is severely limited.  In fact, as I've repeatedly reminded people, my paranormal experiences are awesome and continuous.  I lead a small group in my church that shares and analyzes some of these experiences.  Our group members have an honest and open spiritual quest that makes them open to and eager for the requisite interdisciplinary approach.  

For example, Leah's car slipped into a remote ditch in a blizzard in NE Washington state.  Suddenly a tow truck pulled up and towed her out of the  ditch.  The driver drove off without asking payment.  More signficantly, the driver's towtruck left no tracks in the heavy snow!  Leah's experience is a textbook example of miraculous angelic intervention, no matter how "angelic" is understood.

Dpn

That's an amazing story about Leah, Don. I would say that is astounding.

So, your group members have an honest and open spiritual quest. They study hard. That's great!

I wonder what they have that we don't have here? I'm so completely puzzled....

love, blink :)

So Don,

Why are you here on this site, hanging around for as long as you have?  Is your goal in life to change the world one website at a time?  I'm very curious to know what other websites you infiltrate with your viewpoints and goals of saving everyone's sanity!

There's a group of us who feel at home here because we come here together to share and learn and support.  We don't, however, go knock on your front door and hold meetings in your living room.  You probably wouldn't like that.  

I'm just wondering why your continuing mission here on this site is to change our minds, beliefs, and viewpoints.  Your word choice continues to remain belittling and obviously trying to demonstrate your superiority of the rest of us.  

Surely what you seek, "a minimal display of rationality that can potentially advance the case for an afterlife" can be found in any number of other websites.  Other places might make you more happy than what we are able to provide.  So why stick around here?  Just curious, honestly.  

I just had an idea, Don.

Why don't you ask your group to pray for us? Ask them to pray that the angels, Jesus, God, however it fits in with their belief system, will allow us to deliver irrefutable proof of an afterlife for the world, right here on this website.

These people are obviously talented, or in touch with spirit in some wonderful way. I have no reason to doubt it.

I respect them, and I respect you. I have no reason whatsoever to think that we all can't make this happen. Why shouldn't we?

love, blink :)

In response to what Vicky wrote, since this forum is called "Afterlife Knowledge," as opposed to being named after a particular way of looking at things, I believe it is okay that Don is here. Sometimes I don't agree with him, but that's okay.

Regarding what members have or haven't experienced, it is up to each person to decide for  his or herself if his or her experiences are valid.  

Don... Ya know how I hate that"my church" stuff... It's not God's church I guess? You didn't happin to have some sort of a clairvoyant message telling you that the masses should be following your beliefs in "your" church did ya? I do love the story though...I had a similar thing happin to me when I was young and living on the streets as a hippy. I was hitchin through the center of BC in the mountains during the winter time. I had been stuck on the side of the road all night and haden't had a meal in a few days. I was desperate. I was outside of this diner and in the morning a man came in and opened up the place. I got up the courage to go inside and ask him if he would sell me a coffee for the 11 cents I had to my name. He looked at me and laughed as he kicked my cold and hungry butt out the door. As I left the place I demanded that God prove himself to me and made the threat to give my soul to the devil. As I left the parking lot kicking and brushing the dust from my shoes I expearenced hate like I have never had before. As I got to the highway a car approached and stopped to pick me up. In the drivers seat was a man dressed as a priest. He let me in and let me warm up for a few minutes before driving down the road. He asked why I seamed so upset and I explained my anger though not the part about demanding proof from God. Over the next hill was a all night gas and grub place. He took me in and sat me down. Told me I could have what ever I wanted. I asked him who he was and he told me that he was the one who worked in this area. That was all and off he went. After I finished my meal and went up to the counter to ask who this man was. They told me that they had never seen him before but that for some reason felt obligated to feed me and allow me to stay as long as I needed to warm up. He didn't pay them and nor would I need to pay. They just sort of smiled and sent me on my way. I new at that moment the reality of God and of the Holy Spirit. Never have I doupted the existence from that second on. My understanding is that God dosen't need nor want anyone, you or I, to go down to the corner or to a building to offer a sacrifice unto him. That you only will find God within your own heart and that the best place to offer your love unto him is from within. Ideas like "your church" scare the pants off me and remind me of the worship of false idols and misdirected beliefs.    I did like the story.
I don't want to see Don go anywhere. As much as I disagree with you(him) and what you believe sometimes, you do belong here just as any one else.
Joe

I for one hope Don stays.  He challenges us to think and to be rigorous in our own beliefs.  Nothing wrong with that.  

I suppose Don and a few others like him could go to other websites.  But then this one would be pretty monolithic and predictable.  

I do know that Bruce encourages folks to think for themselves and not to be influenced by him or his writings.  That, I think, is a far more mature approach than to encourage Don to leave.

R

Joe-

Great story.  It seems as tho guardian angels (call them what you will) have a knack of showing up just at the right time.  My own life as a child was saved by one, and fortunately I had a witness to the whole event.  I will go to my grave convinced that had she not shown up when she did, I would not be alive today.  Btw, she disappeared just as quickly as she appeared, driving up from out of nowhere alongside the road where a friend and I were attacked.  She and her car disappeared after she ran the attacker away.

You might enjoy this story.  I heard Telly tell it on a radio show many years ago.  He was totally sincere in telling the story, and while he might have been making the whole thing up, I doubt it.  In those days, any aspiring actor who came up with such a story would probably have been labeled a kook and no doubt would have had lots of trouble getting work.

http://www.underworldtales.com/telly.htm

R

I personally find a lot value in most of Don's posts.  I have learned a lot from him and appreciate him taking the time to post here.  

In fact I appreciate everyone here. I am always learning something new and wonderful from each of you.

Love, Kathy

Don:

The below is a nice story, and so is Hawkeye's.  If you shared such a story with a person like Criss Angel or James Randi, chances are they wouldn't believe you, because your story would be just heresay, rather than verifiable evidence. Yet, it still probably means something to you and Leah.



Berserk2 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2008 at 6:00pm:

blink, Many on this site would like to believe that my experience of the paranormal is severely limited.  In fact, as I've repeatedly reminded people, my paranormal experiences are awesome and continuous.  I lead a small group in my church that shares and analyzes some of these experiences.  Our group members have an honest and open spiritual quest that makes them open to and eager for the requisite interdisciplinary approach.   For example, Leah's car slipped into a remote ditch in a blizzard in NE Washington state.  Suddenly a tow truck pulled up and towed her out of the  ditch.  The driver drove off without asking payment.  More signficantly, the driver's towtruck left no tracks in the heavy snow!  Leah's experience is a textbook example of miraculous angelic intervention, no matter how "angelic" is understood. Dpn

Thanks Rondele. Spirt works in wondrous ways.
Joe

Hey, I wasn't suggesting for Don to leave.  That wasn't my point.  My questions to Don in my post were genuine.  All I want is for him to play nice.  He knows his word choices are condescending and it's just not necessary.

Vicky:

I agree that sometimes Don speaks in a manner that isn't nice, but at least ways people get to see how he feels about things, rather than him presenting himself in a manner that doesn't accurately depict how he feels. I mean, if a guy accuses somebody of being a part of the new age ghetto, you right away know how he feels.

Speaking of the new age ghetto, perhaps a name other than ghetto should be picked, because certainly some of the new age leaders that live today, are hardly living in a ghetto. ;D Especially somebody like Sylvia Browne who charges $700.00 for a 20 minute phone reading and sells tons of books. I know there's a technical difference between a ghetto and a slum, but dadburn that Don writes ghetto rather than slum.





Vicky wrote on Jan 11^th, 2008 at 7:40pm:

Hey, I wasn't suggesting for Don to leave.  That wasn't my point.  My questions to Don in my post were genuine.  All I want is for him to play nice.  He knows his word choices are condescending and it's just not necessary.

Hey, anyone listening? If Don's group would be willing to pray for this group to succeed in delivering irrefutable proof, we might respond in kind by agreeing, as a group, to receive this blessing. We must be open to guidance, open to assistance by anyone who wishes to be part of what must come.

I suggest that this be done in a coordinated way. I suggest that we approach this in a similar way to the "partnered" exploration which is done in small groups here. Perhaps pick a period of time, a particular day or week in which to bring this into focus, and then see what results we have.

I believe that spirit is very very accomodating, but that we must be specific about our intentions. If our intentions are right, we cannot fail.

love, blink :)

[Jpe:] "Don... Ya know how I hate that"my church" stuff... You didn't happin to have some sort of a clairvoyant message telling you that the masses should be following your beliefs in "your" church did ya? I do love the story though."
_______________________________________________
Actually, we teach what Jesus taught--that spirituality is better caught than taught.  For example, that is why Jesus never explained His parables to the masses.  He wanted them to meditate on His words and discern their own application.  We try to create an atmosphere in which guests can have their own self-authenticating experiences of grace and divine guidance.  Bibilcal principles are always presented as a means of enhancing direct experience in order to eliminate the problem of 2nd-hand or vicarious spirituality.  Doctrine is only valuable if it is used as a tool to create a higher quality of consciousness.  

[Joe:] "In the drivers seat was a man dressed as a priest. He let me in and let me warm up for a few minutes before driving down the road. He asked why I seamed so upset and I explained my anger though no the part about demanding proof from God. Over the next hill was a all night gas and grub place. He took me in and sat me down. Told me I could have what ever I wanted. I asked him who he was and he told me that he was the one who worked in this area. That was all and off he went. After I finished my meal and went up to the counter to ask who this man was. They told me that they had never seen him before but thay for some reason felt obligated to feed me and allow me to stay as long as I needed to warm up. He didn't pay then and nor would I need to pay. They just sort of smiled and sent me on my way. I knew at that moment the reality of God and of the Holy Spirit. Never have I doupted the existence from that second on. My understanding is that God dosen't need nor want anyone to go down to the corner or to a building to offer a sacrifice unto him. That you only will find God within your own heart and that the best place to offer your love unto him is from within. Ideas like "your church" scare the pants off me and remind me of the worship of false idols and misdirected beliefs."
_____________________________________________

What a strange reaction to an obvious act of kindness from a discerning priest or lay person.  
It would have been more natural to react in the opposite manner--to ask yourself where you might find a community of similar people devoted to random acts of kindness to strangers.  That's precisely what our church and other lccal churches do.  Every year, we give thousands of dollars away to homeless people and strangers for gas and food vouchers, overnight motel fees, and bill and rental payments to prevent evictions.  After reaping the benefits of selfless love, why would you then conclude that you should avoid organizations that mobilize their time and resources to offer such practical services with no expectation of anything in return?  Do you really prefer this site's self-indulgent cosmic soup that passes for retrieval PUL and has little to do with daily acts of self-sacrificial service?  That seems neither consistent nor rational.  

So why do I post here?  As you may recall, I left the site for several months and only returned when a gal asked me to do so.  I have long ago abandoned my hope that this site would provide valuable insights into afterlife research.  When I can motivate myself to continue and complete my Heaven thread, I will again abandon the site to its cultic uniformity.

Don

Perhaps Don can tell us why he thinks we are and what we think or believe in is in the ghetto? And he is where.(?)

Do you think that Jesus guy would have rather have been with those in the ghetto or those who perhaps thought themselfs above them?

Joe  

Regarding what Blink wrote, I wonder who precisely we are proving things to. I'm kind of busy when it comes to spirit work, and don't imagine myself changing my schedule so I can prove things to "who??"

Plus, sometimes people don't want to listen to the evidence. I've shared verifications that are hard to doubt to a couple of people I know in person, and they still won't believe what I say.  Either they figured I was lying about the evidence I presented, I'm completely deluded about what I experienced, or they just simply were so unopen to evidence, their minds went into some sort of denial default circuit when I provided verifiable evidence. The later seems to be the reason.

When it comes to a person like James Randi,  if he'd be willing to see positive evidence, he'd find that it exists. Instead, he'll look at ten examples, find several that are bogus, and use the bogus examples as a justification to deny the positive examples.  Examples that go beyond mere coincidence.







wrote on Jan 11^th, 2008 at 7:59pm:

Hey, anyone listening? If Don's group would be willing to pray for this group to succeed in delivering irrefutable proof, we might respond in kind by agreeing, as a group, to receive this blessing. We must be open to guidance, open to assistance by anyone who wishes to be part of what must come. I suggest that this be done in a coordinated way. I suggest that we approach this in a similar way to the "partnered" exploration which is done in small groups here. Perhaps pick a period of time, a particular day or week in which to bring this into focus, and then see what results we have. I believe that spirit is very very accomodating, but that we must be specific about our intentions. If our intentions are right, we cannot fail. love, blink :)

Oh, okay, Recoverer is too busy, Don....oh, well.

Hey, I was just thinking, what will we do when we find this irrefutable proof? Don't we need to plan the party first? It's gonna come up so fast, you know. People expect cake and everything.

Sometimes these things can take a little planning. What the heck? All of the sudden I'm thinking we gonna have to have a commitee on this. You know how long that can take. At least 5 or 10 meetings or so.

Oh yeah, and there are the flowers for Bruce....a really REALLY big bouquet.

Don't forget the photos. Who's going to take the picture?


Hmmmmnnnn.

I guess I better start praying.

love, blink :)

Blink:

I'd see about changing my schedule if I understood who we are proving things to. Is there somebody other than Don who is asking? Plus, what kind of evidence will do the trick? For example, if I retrieve a person named A, and find an obituary with collaborating info on the internet, what's to stop a sceptic from believing that I found an obituary on the internet, and made up a retrievel story. Or perhaps they might claim that I was misled by a demon, rather than having a genuine retrievel experience.

That's the thing, Recoverer, we don't get to predict the result. We get to witness the result.

That's it.

Either we really want it or we don't, we believe it is possible or we don't, and we let it go to a higher power to produce the result, whatever it may be, and I think the energy of this forum has to be in a certain place for this to occur. It is possible.

love, blink :)

Joe:

The Bible encourages the radical openness of the scientific method: e. g. 'Intelligent people are always open to new ideas. In fact, they look for them (Proverbs 18:15)."  God's secrets are concealed in the hope that they will be discovered: e. g. "It is God's privilege to conceal things and the king's privilege to discover them (Proverbs 25:2)."  The Bible alerts us to the hidden laws of nature, but warns us that their discovery will take hard work: "Do you know the laws of the universe and how God rules the earth (Job 38:33)?"  "No one can discover everything God has created in the world, no matter how hard they work at it.  Not even the wisest people know everything, even if they say they do (Ecclesiastes 8:17)."  "Wisdom is always very distant and very difficult to find.  I searched everywhere, determined to find wisdom and to understand the reasons for things (Ecclesiastes 7:24-25a)."  

Jesus expects us to expand our research horizons, by implication, to actually read books and not just blogs, and to read books in related fields that challenge our smug orthodoxy.  Most posters here fail to do this and thus betray their status as card-carrying members of the intellectually insulated New Age Ghetto.  "Only simpletons believe everything they are told.  The prudent carefully consider their steps (Proverbs 14;15)."  "Steps" refers to the process of verification that is essential to critical research.  Such steps are tellingly ignored by the protoculs and practices used by modern astral adepts to explore the afterlife.  Skeptics will be convinced if astral exploration has as its loving focus the legitimate doubts of honest seekers.  Instead, the New Age Ghetto prefers to shun the hard and threatening work of verification and falsification to provide comfort at the expense of contagious truth.  

The Bible champions the hard-headed thinking and research that leads to scientific breakthroughs.  For example, the father of modern oceanography received his breakthrough insight while his wife was reading Psalm 8 to him.  Matthew Maury was struck by the psalmist's odd phrase "paths through the sea," a phrase reinforced by an allusion to "springs of the sea" (Job 38:16).  This insight allowed Maury to discover the warm and cold continental currents that serve as a foundation for the new science of oceanography.  The Bible is not a scientific book, but its advocacy of rigorous research has inspired hard-headed research, despite the Catholic church's appalling persecution of Galileo and Copernicus. Pope Pius XII even claimed that EVP research might be the key to assuring the masses about the reality of the afterlife!

Don

HI,

Cris Angel taps into the supernatural mystical realms, but denies doing so as he would then be considered a freak. The majority do not believe in the supernatural and his main audience is aimed at them. We who are better informed know that what he does cannot be explained rationally and the use of quantum magic is his forte.

alan

As for 'Proof' I always think of what Christ said to Peter.
I will paraphrase since I don't have the King Jimmy version in front of me at this time...

When Christ was walking on water didn't he say to peter: Believe and it will happen.
I always hear from people 'Seeing IS Believing'.
However, isn't it 'Believing Is Seeing'?

That is how I 'see it' anyways. :)

EDIT: Ghetto.
Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto

Dictionary: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ghetto

It is not necessarily a 'Bad Thing' either.
If I am in a ghetto...then so be it. I am PROUD of it!

Re the term ghetto, what Don is talking about is a mindset, not a literal place as is usually thought when hearing the word ghetto.

For instance, when he says "new age ghetto", he is referring to a mindset that accepts almost anything and everything that is stated.  

Or to put it another way, he is just asking us to use discernment when we hear or read about various accounts or claims about the afterlife.  

Seems reasonable to me.

R

Ah, I see Roger,

By using perjorative terms such as "ghetto," or calling some people "ignorant," Don is merely doling out tough love in order to get us " immature children" to think.  The hurt feelings and bad karma generated are only an unfortunately necessary byproduct of the awakening process that Don uses.  Rubbish!  There are many ways an eloquent and erudite man like Don can express his ideas that do not belittle others or cause harm.  I have said before on this forum that at some point, Don will have to reconcile the hurt feelings and be forgiven/forgive, as it is the law of karma (not to mention most major religions).  There are easier ways to communicate without disparaging others - and still make your point.

That being said, I am a big fan of Don's insight, intelligence, and passion.  I usually eagerly look forward to his posts, controversial though they may be.


Matthew

Hi Don, first of all, i really like hearing about the good works that you and your group has done and continues to do.  I really wish there was more emphasis on more material oriented service in the world (and speaking for myself as well), though at the same time i recognize the real work and lasting affects are on the belief system level.   Kind of like, it's better to teach a person to fish than to just keep giving them fish of your own.

 But, "preaching" to people rarely helps i've noticed.  I've done that too often, and people tend to turn a deaf ear i've noticed.  But there are other occasions wherein i just try to be an example, and this affects more positive change than anything else.  

A quick example, i practice vegetarianism and for various reasons, ethically, environmentally, personal health, etc.   But in my daily life, i pretty much and usually keep this to myself, unless it get's brought up somehow. (except for here a couple of times).   At work, it did get brought up and not by my conscious choosing, and a woman i work with seemed curious about the whole thing.   I just mentioned some brief stuff about why i do it, that i feel better on various levels after having done it for awhile, etc.    I never once told her that she herself should do it, nor did i speak negatively about people who do eat meat, (something i've should have refrained from doing here) etc.   I mostly only spoke for the positives, and mostly in relation to myself, though i did mention some larger environmental/health issues as well.

 So, once in awhile she would bring it up, and i would tell her in a down to earth, and non preachy way, some of the things about it.   I wasn't expecting, nor wanting her to follow this herself, so i was a bit surprised when i found out later that she decided that she too would practice it.  It wasn't so much what i told her via words, but i believe she was more touched by the compassion that i had for animals, for the environment (and thus for other people as well), and since she liked and respected my overall vibe, she probably thought to herself, "maybe there is something to this.  He seems pretty happy and whole."  

 So, positive change was affected more by presence and by example than anything.   On the other hand, sometimes its good to be more controversial and firm or "fiery", but only when the situation calls for it and not as a motto and typical way of interacting.  Too much fire and burning smoke, people tend to associate smoke with fire and stay away.  I like Jesus and his example, because therein is the best, consistent example one could look at.   Some times he was a gentle as a nursing mother, other times fiery and no nonsense, and oft exhibited a balance or was more moderate.  


Berserk2 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2008 at 9:04pm:

Most posters here fail to do this and thus betray their status as card-carrying members of the intellectually insulated New Age Ghetto.  "Only simpletons believe everything they are told.  The prudent carefully consider their steps (Proverbs 14;15)."  "Steps" refers to the process of verification that is essential to critical research.  Such steps are tellingly ignored by the protoculs and practices used by modern astral adepts to explore the afterlife.  Skeptics will be convinced if astral exploration has as its loving focus the legitimate doubts of honest seekers.  Instead, the New Age Ghetto prefers to shun the hard and threatening work of verification and falsification to provide comfort at the expense of contagious truth.

 Skeptics, on a whole, will not be convinced by other people's data and experiences, until they themselves have an experience which strongly and obviously contradicts their preconceived beliefs and perceptions.   Now, when it comes to people seeking for themselves, yes i do believe they should look for some verifications and not believe what ever comes their way.  

  Exploring the "afterlife", psychism, spirituality, etc, is not the same thing as a scientific discovery of some kind of material based or oriented phenomena, we're dealing with the intangible here.    In any event, even in those materially oriented cases, how many pioneer and "out of the box" type people who either stumbled or intuited their way onto a new discovery, was deemed by their peers as unstable, a kook, deluded, or what not?  How much was their beliefs scoffed at and for how long?   It's happened so many times, and that with stuff more easy to demonstrate to others.  

 At the same time, i'm not saying that science shouldn't investigate this, or for skeptics to try to investigate those like Syliva Browne or what not.   There is a balance, but with the important tipping to people having their own experiences which convince themselves first--along with verifications.

 As far as skepticism and hard core skeptics go, its extremely hard to change such beliefs and ways of perceiving.   I have a good friend is very skeptical of anything "psychic, spiritual," and the like.  Not only is he "skeptical" he just downright really dislikes hearing anything about that kind of stuff.   Yet, i've had numerous psychical experiences with him.    But when i point out the deeper meaning or larger context of a such an occurrence, he just shrugs and ignores it.    It doesn't fit into his box, and therefore he doesn't see it.   He won't begin to see it, until he desires to and has some kind of openness to begin with.  

Many people in the Earth, have to be brought to their knees in the deepest dregs of self suffering, before they cry aloud to God/Spirit to be shown a different way, before they admit they don't know it all and are open to a different interpretation.   Look at Robert A. Monroe and his earlier rather materialistic nature and close mindedness.   He had to come to a point where he thought he was losing his mind, going to die, or what not.   Those very difficult and suffering filled experiences, acted as a powerful catalyst towards seeking outside of Mammon's ways.   The Bible is replete with such a pattern and trend in relation to individuals.

It's somewhat rare for a person to come into this life, and to retain past their childhood, a strong belief and perception of the nonphysical and of Spirit, of just being open, receptive, and filled with wonder like a little child.  In some ways, this is challenging (because one is looked at as strange by their peers, and perhaps put down and degraded), but in other ways it's an easier experience than becoming a more hard core materialist and skeptic.  


Quote:

Jesus expects us to expand our research horizons, by implication, to actually read books and not just blogs, and to read books in related fields that challenge our smug orthodoxy.

 My sense is that Jesus wants us to do what he did, and that wasn't sitting around reading books and intellectually masturbating a lot.  It was going out and losing self in service, along with prayer and mediation, that brought him that attunement to God.   He didn't tell us to keep it an intellectual or mind level, he said to make it a whole system thing.   He said, "If you seek first the Kingdom of Heaven, which is within, and then all else will be added unto you."

 Again, i'm not saying we shouldn't read any books, talk to others about beliefs or our expeirences, or anything like that, it's another issue of balance--the Mind or Head needs to come into balance with the Heart.   Sometimes a book, a teacher, or something outside of us will act as an important catalyst, but once we have the right ideals (love, Oneness, service, belief in some kind of Source consciousness, etc), it's a matter of practicing those and opening ourselves up to the Divine's Will, and not pontificating and mentally masturbating over ideas, beliefs, in our own minds or with others.   It then becomes a matter of doing/practicing, of being, and of becoming receptive.  

 There is something that Jesus once said, and i would like to loosely paraphrase him.  Blessed are those who do not need to constantly seek outer verifications, nor to prove to others their internal experiences and knowings, blessed are those who believe and have faith because they know or sense in their Hearts the truths of the Father.  

 I am reminded of the disciple Thomas, as compared to those who accepted Jesus's words because they rang of truth within their hearts, and did not need "proofs".  

 This may be hard to achieve and find in this world, but it is possible and it can be found.  

Let me address the New Age ghetto question in terms of an analogy.  Most fundamentalist evangelical Chrstians dismiss evolution.  They bring in science professors who share their dismissal and ridicule the theory.  But they forget one essential principle: to win a debate you must learn to express the opposing perspective more succinctly and articulately than the other guy is capable of doing himself.  When you do that, you have often disarmed your adversary and opened him up to a serious consideration of your point of view.  I know this by frequent direct experiences.

We create crude caricatures of opposing perspectives, so we can shoot down straw men.  We treat our adversaries like simpletons to reinforce our feeling of being right.  Thus, we reveal our priority--our preference of comfort to truth.  I don't care if Christians believe in evolution or not.  But if they're going to attack it, I insist that they attack an expression of it that its advocates would applaud.  To do this, evangelicals must escape their fundamentalist Ghetto and read books (not kookey online blogs) that seriously challenge their perspectives.  Otherwise, some of their youth will attend college and experience disillusionment when they finally encounter professors who know what they're talking about.  The same is true of myopic New Agers who glean most of their information online and seldom explore relevant afterlife books outside the New Age or Occult section of bookstores.

Recently, two evolutionary specialists have attended my Bible study.  I have convinced them that the Bible is campatible with both the scientific method and evolutionary theory--at least up to a point.  This demonstration has whet their appetite for spiritual experiences and Christian truth presented in a way that makes sense and answers their challenging questions.

Only a few posters here actually seem to read relevant books other than New Age books (Bruce Moen, Robert Moen) that support their uncritical preconceptions.  Books on parapyschology, psychology, neurology, and religion often pose serious challenges to simple-minded New Age perspectives.  I am merely a gadly trying to annoy the intransigent into embarking on an honest and balanced spiritual quest--one that transcends the intellectually stifling New Age ghetto.  The ghetto mentality tries to justify itself through paranoia: e. g.  "The bigoted and narrow-minded world out there is against us!"  Similarly, the Fundamentalist ghetto views evolutionists as an atheistic movement bent on destroying Christianity.  They overlook contrary evidence such as a recent survey in the scientific periodical "Nature:"  40% of scientists believe in a personal God!  Many intelligent and normal skeptics would be convinced if astral explorers provided decent verification.  The failure of astral explorers to do so reflects on their deficient methods and critical skills, not on their honest critics.  A humble admission of  this truth is the foundation for developing an honest and productive discipline.

New Age meanspiritedness is bad; unconscious New Age bigotry is worse.  Over the years, I have often expressed friendly interdisciplinary perspectives on afterlife issues both from personal experiences and academic analysis.  Invariably, I encounter anti-Christian bigotry that is generally ignored and tacitly approved by most (not all) posters here.  You teach people how to treat you. I make no apology for my confrontational approach.  At least I always stick to the issues.  I am holding up a mirror to those trapped in a double standard of which they are oblivious.  

Matthew can whine about the bad karma I'm accumulating.  Of course, he operates from
a Ghetto mentality that begs the question of the validity of karma. Even worse, he constantly presumes to impute unworthy motives to me.  His quest is bogged down in a dead end monism because, on so many levels, he doesn't know what he doesn't know.

Don

Karma is what it is.  It is not a new age concept, nor is it part of any one religion.  For every action, there are consequences (or an equal and opposite reaction in physics).  At a more fundamental level, for every thought that is made with conviction, there are manifestations in our lives in terms of variables.  This universal principle is, quite obvious with the least bit of introspection - however, should anyone wish to debate on the existence of karma, I'd love to participate in a thread on it.

To get back to my comments.  I see that Don responded in typical fashion to me - sorry Don, I know the truth can hurt sometimes.  It is not enough to say that I will act lovingly in Temple or Church, yet on a website I may call people ignorant or "my whipping boys," to quote a friend we all know.  Whatever you project out in this reality comes back at you in one way, shape or form.  Is this a new age thought?  Certainly not - I can quote sources from most major religions in support of this premise.  The golden rule certainly has been around for thousands of years.

Don says that I impute unworthy motives to his negative remarks.  Hmmm....I reread my post, and I must be missing something.  Couched between my compliments toward Don's insight and passion, was a simple statement that I thought the insults were the wrong path and not justified as a teaching tool.  Were they not insults?  Were the people who took offense somehow misguided?  Do tell.

I have studied in an Ivy league institution and after four years of college, four years of medical school three years of residency and two years of fellowship, I'd say I've read more than a number of texts on human biology, psychology and neurology.  I have studied various theories of mind, separate from the pure biochemistry and physiology.  I have even published scientific reports in the peer reviewed medical literature in my specialty, using the scientific method we all refer to in terms of investigations.  As such, I do not appreciate being lectured to on my need to read more on these topics.

Those who talk of the ghetto mentality make the fatal mistake of lumping us all together in a great "unwashed herd."  I do not take Monroe and Moen's books to be the defacto afterlife manual or "authority;" perhaps others do (that is their choice).  Most of the new age explorers on this board don't say "this is the way it is..." They say  - "find out for yourself by exploring."  

My "dead end monism," dear Don is by no means an absolute philosophy in my mind.  It is an evolving process, and thus quite vibrant.  One is by definition either or a monist or a dualist.  You may fancy yourself a believer in dualism - you haven't said.  From my readings, one of your personal inspiratory figures, Swedenborg was ultimately a monist at heart.  I have written of my belief in the unity of all things, on the board, yes this is true.  Yet you feel you have me pigeon-holed and impute a mindset to me without really knowing me of speaking about it with me over coffee.  This I find to be sad - I'd rather flesh out ideas in a discussion than trade barbs here.

You once posted a challenge to obtain information about the figure of light in NDEs.  In that thread, in response on this message board, I brought in responses directly from an expert -  PMH Atwater, along with detailed research on NDEs in regarding other cultures.  True, we had even more questions than answers at the end of the thread, but the contribution of myself and others in terms of backing up our posts with facts has been there all along.  

The scientific method has evolved over time to be a formidable technique to describe our physical world and verify or refute many ideas or concepts.  It is always good to try to obtain verification in your explorations, so as not to simply indulge one's own fantasies.  Sometimes, in dealing with spiritual we may not get all the verifications that we'd like.  I agree that more effort is needed to verify.  Lets just stop with the ghetto talk.

Matthew

DocM/Matthew,
I would really enjoy having a cup of coffee with you some day.
It is refreshing to hear about a Doctor taking this stuff seriously.
My own Family Physician actually 'believes' in this stuff.
Better put, he does not discount it and knows there is more to life then what we are taught from birth.
We are more then a sum of all our parts.

We have had some good chats...
I even printed out some things I found on the internet and shared with him.
He and his wife lost their infant daughter to Crib Death and I know he blames himself since he is a Doctor.
I think some of the information I shared with him helped somewhat to alleviate the guilt.

I don’t like the use of the ghetto analogy any more than anyone else. It simply degrades people and is not in my opinion displaying the fruits of the Spirit, which include patience, kindness, endurance and so forth.

Now having said that, in all fairness I must say that sometimes posters here have attacked Don before he has come back with the G analogy. It seems that grudges continue to be held and people take things personally. Creating resistance to something someone else says gets in the way of honest, open dialog because hurt feelings become involved. Grudges are held because we hold on to the hurt by covering it up with anger. Creating resistance is always my first clue that I need to look at myself. Not other people because I have no control over what someone else chooses to think, say or do. To try to control someone else is only to give away our own personal power and thereby creating chaos not only within our self, but in the collective and the world itself. The only person we truly have control of is our self.  

Every single person has value. What they have to say is an expression of their soul. If each of us truly is a spark of God, why do we not realize that the way we treat others is in all respects doing unto God?

To get back on topic:

Programs such as Criss Angel are not my cup of tea. I watched about 5 minutes of one and changed the channel. I wouldn’t be able to say what his or the program’s intentions are, however I do agree that probably some who claim to channel an entity are probably fake or gleaning some sort of information via ESP/intuition or their messages are from their own imagination/fantasies. Even so, can they be helpful to one who is in need of comfort. Of course. Why else would they be so popular and able to empty the pockets of their followers?

We all have the same basic needs. We all have the same basic fears. We all try to look outside of ourselves more often than not to find answers to our discomforts. Those of us who know that peace and feeling safe can only be found from the divine within have the responsibility to teach this to others and to do so according to the laws of God, which are the same as those of love… the golden rule.

I love you guys. Whether we like it or not, we are all brothers and sisters. And I guess we squabble like brothers and sisters as well, but it would be nice if we could throw in some love and understanding, too.

Kathy

[Matt:] "Karma is what it is.  It is not a new age concept, nor is it part of any one religion."
_________________________________________________________________________  
In standard discourse, karma is a associated with the nature of reincarnation.  It is not a term used in western religions.  On the Moen-Monroe model, karma does not seem to be a significant force in determining future births.  In any case, you ignore that question of motive and your apparent need to impute judgmental motives for which you have no justification.  

[Matt:] "Don says that I impute unworthy motives to his negative remarks.  Hmmm....I reread my post, and I must be missing something. "
_____________________________________________
Yes, you are once again making assumptions when you ought to be posing questions.  Of course, I wasn't just talking about your last post, but your ongoing vicious carping that relentlessly directs attention away from the substative issue under discussion.  

[Matt:] "I have studied in an Ivy league institution and after four years of college, four years of medical school three years of residency and two years of fellowship, I'd say I've read more than a number of texts on human biology, psychology and neurology.  I have studied various theories of mind, separate from the pure biochemistry and physiology.  I have even published scientific reports in the peer reviewed medical literature in my specialty, using the scientific method we all refer to in terms of investigations.  As such, I do not appreciate being lectured to on my need to read more on these topics.
__________________________________________________

I view this as pompous grandstanding that masks an unwililngness to address the key issues under discussion.  Your handle DocM already trumpets your medical background.  I have read your posts for years, and, to my knowledge, you have never demonstrated how any of your academic studies have shed light on either afterlife evidence or your allegedly evolving  monism.  I have taught at Harvard at both the graduate and undergraduate level.  So what?  The only thing that matters is how discerningly one addresses the complexities of the issue under discussion.  If someone tries to hide behind credentials, they are probably just masking their failure to think through the issue in question in any meaningful depth.

[Matt:] "Those who talk of the ghetto mentality make the fatal mistake of lumping us all together in a great "unwashed herd."  
__________________________________
Another silly assumption that betrays your unwillingness to read.  I always admit there are exceptions and address those who fail to read books from outside "the Ghetto."  I have not lumped you together with anyone.  That is your unthinking projection.  

[Matt:] "My "dead end monism," dear Don is by no means an absolute philosophy in my mind.  It is an evolving process, and thus quite vibrant. "
__________________________________________________
If so, why do your never actively explore the case for dualism in your posts?  More importantly, why don't you ever create posts on how you have changed your mind in the past couple of years.  From my reading, your posts strike me as stagnant and static, not "vibrant" and "evolving."  Why don't you read scholarly books on parapsychology or even a popular survey like David Fontana's "Is There an Afterlife?  A Comprehensive Overview of the Evidence?"  In other words, explain to me why I am wrong in assuming that you are rather poorly read in the subjects that concern us.  So you read Swedenborg's "Heaven and Hell?"  Great!  In the interests of balance, did you also read Enst Benz's book or a simliar book that is highly critical of Swedenborg?  I no longer recommend Swedenborg to posters.  That is one of the several ways I have evolved, since I began posting here.   Specifically, how have you evolved in the last two years?  

[Matt:] "You once posted a challenge to obtain information about the figure of light in NDEs.  In that thread, in response on this message board, I brought in responses directly from an expert -  PMH Atwater, along with detailed research on NDEs in regarding other cultures.  True, we had even more questions than answers at the end of the thread, but the contribution of myself and others in terms of backing up our posts with facts has been there all along."
___________

As you know, I routinely offer summaries and interactions with in depth research I have gleaned from various books.  You did it once, and act as if I'm denying or forgetting this.  Again, a false assumption!  If you engaged in such research more often, I would be more inclined to engage your posts.  I no longer reply to your threads because I have concluded that you have no desire to evolve and grow, contrary to your protestations.  

For example, I could have responded to your posts on the Genesis imagery by demonstrating why the doctrine of original sin is non-biblical and instead a later patristic invention.  I could have explained why the Adam story is not about the fall, but rather about the birth of conscience.  I could have discussed how Jung's discovery of this insight confirmed insights from his mystical experiences and prepared the way for his unique spirituality, a spirituality that informed his contribution to the fledgling field of psychiatry.  I would not have berated you with any negative comments about that thread; I just planned to ignore it because I perceive your quest as stagnant.  Remember, it was YOU who jumped into the Criss Angel thread with your insults; I had made no reference to you.  And notice, people, that Matthew contributed nothing to the point at issue--how Criss Angel and other researchers have   developed methods of challenging and (I think) discrediting channeling.  You need to notice how often you avoid the point at issue on the thread. I at least try to make my comments germane to the topic in question.  

When I return to my Heaven thread, I will explain how modern NDEs both independently confirm overlooked descriptions of the afterlife territories in the Book of Revelation.  Then I will discuss how NDEs shed light on what it's like to live in a plane without time.  Then I will finish the thread and allow posters to reinforce their unverifiable New Age perspectives, unchallenged.  After all, this is not my site!  But I do like to finish what I start.

Don

Don,

With regard to Karma:

While the particular word can be traced back to India and defined a s a "cause and effect," relationship regarding actions and deeds, it is commonly generalized in modern discourse to include a universal law of cause and effect that transcends Indian concepts of reincarnation.  

In any event, other than my one comment regarding my dislike of derogatory comments such as ghetto or calling posters ignorant, I have not struck at you personally.  I do not know you and have not had in depth conversations with you in person.  As such, I would not pretend to say what you have learned over the past two years or make a value judgement.  Your assumption about my level of reading and my personal quest aside from being wrong is quite hurtful.  To say that you had comments to make on my Tree of LIfe thread, but witheld them because you perceived that my quest was unworthy - appears quite mean-spirited.  We are colleagues on a public forum - if you had something interesting to say, why not print it to stimulate the discussion?

I have never deliberately tried to hurt your feelings, and have in fact engaged you in several threads here.  The feedback that I've received has been overwhelmingly positive.  If you review my previous threads, and in general when I do comment, my points on average are usually quite germane to the topic of conversation.  I will chime in when I see deragatory terms being bandied about - it is my nature to defend against those (call me sanctimonious, as you've done) - so I do apologize for temporarily taking this conversation off track.  

Your last comments to me were geared toward maligning the validity of my spiritual quest.  How awful.  I have not and would not do the same to you.  I could respond and tell you about the insights I've made over the past two years which have had a profound impact in my life and how I approach others.  I have said in many threads how I have incorporated spiritual healing in my medical practice; how I disucss studies on the placebo effect and the power of intent.  How I mention studies on prayer groups and effects on patients who may be unaware they are being prayed for.  How I have directed numerous patients toward a meditative and prayer based approach to heal.  Surely, I have seen and experienced these and other changes.  However, since this is a personal quest for me, I would prefer to do it in detail in a private message to you.  If you are not truly interested in my quest or in hearing about it in that way, let me know.  Otherwise, please do not call my search and associated life's work unworthy.  It is hurtful.

My work schedule does not allow me to back up all of my posts with researched readings.  However, I have done so on many occasions on this forum.  Twice, in older threads, I described detailed studies which I thoroughly examined based on Princeton's now defunct P.E.A.R. laboratory, which demonstrated the power of human intent to influence seemingly random number generating machines.  The implications of this work toward understanding human consciousness and spirit are truly staggering.  These posts also were quite well researched and I have references available (in fact several forum members were given reading references on this topic by me at their request).

My purpose in mentioning these issues is not to appear grandiose, merely to directly refute your reports.  Are you certain I have not read Fontana?  Perhaps I have read more of these writings then you give me credit for; I should be clear though, I do not need the Brownie points from you.  I'd rather simply discuss the issues without someone saying that my opinions or those of others are from a ghetto or herd mentality, and not based on a true spiritual quest.

Don, I have always liked you, and defended your posts with the exception of the use of derogatory terms.  I assumed that there was a mutual respect between the two of us, and thought that a lot of good material came from our discussions.  Perhaps I was mistaken.  I wish you had or would have responded with any interesting ideas to my Tree of Life thread - I am certainly disappointed that you decided not to enter the discussion based on personal feelings against me.

Matthew

Matthew,

I am offering you an honest explanation of why I haven't been replying to your threads.  I am certainly not trying to be right here.  I really want to know if you have changed your perspectives on anything related to the afterlife in the past two years.  I wasn't necessarily trying to elicit private or personal anecdotes.  Mine is an honest question: does your claim to have recently evolved in your spiritual understanding include major changes in perspective about the afterlife?  A simple yes or no would suffice to make me reassess my honest perception and reason for disengagement.

In a couple of hours, I will be meeting with a group of yuppies who are honest seekers.  I provide them with concise hand-outs about issues like science and the Bible, evidence for the afterlife, retrievals, and postmortem chances for redemption, biblical perspectives on opportunities for salvation for people of non-Christian traditions, etc..  I let them set the agenda and go with the flow of their comments.  What makes it work is that they truly are evolving spiritually and open. I try to discourage church members who are not open t osuch questions from attending and encourage them to attend more conventional discussion groups.

People are brutally frank with me; so I respond to them in kind.  At the first blush at a minimal effort to be courteous, I would modify my tone completely.  Remember, I reply as I do for a principled educational reason.  I have come and gone from this site for several years and see no let up to the anti-Christian bigotry.  I let them set the tone and go with the flow.  They can create me any way they wish.  

By the way, is it really OK with you that posters here (e. g. Old Dood and others) believe that Hitler was merely the Puppet of other Masters (his financial backers).  It strikes me that the Holocaust is disrespected if those guilty are not held responible.  Your failure to inject your comments suggests that you have no vested interest in setting the record straight on Hitler's role.  Or did you simply not notice the debate on this question?

Don

Don, Thank for the clarification. The church that you belong to, and many other are doing fantasticly good things. Foe myself and as agnostic in belief, I know of no church that meets my beliefs. Perhaps at some time I will find one. As for good deeds, it dosen't take a church to do them. Its all about the people involved. Although I do not belong to an organized religious identity, I still pray, give of myself, love God, etc. I find no need for thr group setting. In fact I look at is as groups of people really not being sure about God and therefor needing others to reaffirm a group belief or doctrine. Sort of like an "Am I getting it right?" sort of thing. I have no need for such affirmation. I allready believe without doupt. I am also deeply concerned with the "organization" its self. Has it not been found to harbour a rather large number of homosexual child molesters? Some church administrators going out of their way to hide the offenders and move them around. What was that all about? Now here in the West of Canada, our First Nations peoples are claiming that a number co churchs had systematically committed genocide up untill the late 50's at their residential schools. Nothing new for organised religions which have also been at the head of many similar actions. If Jesus had have been re-born a few hundred years later he most likely been burned at the stake. On another thread talk was about the Catholic church and their indifference to the Nazi's and their death camps. I wonder if you can buy a spot into heaven? Unless your a JW. Then there probably are not any spots open. Or then there are some of the Mormans...any body got a 12 year old that isn't married off yet?  And , and, and. Churchs and organized religions, no thanks, you can have them. I think I will stick to the Getto. There is just to much more to really believe in here.
Joe  

Berserk2 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2008 at 6:00pm:

blink, Many on this site would like to believe that my experience of the paranormal is severely limited.  In fact, as I've repeatedly reminded people, my paranormal experiences are awesome and continuous.  I lead a small group in my church that shares and analyzes some of these experiences.  Our group members have an honest and open spiritual quest that makes them open to and eager for the requisite interdisciplinary approach.   For example, Leah's car slipped into a remote ditch in a blizzard in NE Washington state.  Suddenly a tow truck pulled up and towed her out of the  ditch.  The driver drove off without asking payment.  More signficantly, the driver's towtruck left no tracks in the heavy snow!  Leah's experience is a textbook example of miraculous angelic intervention, no matter how "angelic" is understood. Dpn

Hmmm. Does not snowfall in a heavy blizzard cover up tire tracks in seconds?

If the road covered with snow is flattened by heavy use of traffic, the snow melts
almost immediately leaving watery mush on the road surface leaving no tire tracks?

Some roads are salted by authorities causing snow to melt almost immediately?

For a car to travel, it must have traction on the road surface. If the tow truck pulled
her out from the ditch it must also have traction on the road surface. Therefore, it would
not leave any tire tracks if the first three of the above applies?

Theres no way she could have driven into a ditch if she was not driving on a road surface
in the first place?

On a less used roads, cars or trucks drive over each others tire tracks?

Can't think of any more.

Ooops. One more. She lied, like nearly all of those 'New Age Ghetto' practitioners.

Ooops. Another one. Must be true, because it was born of the Christian tradition.

Oops. One more. She was drunk, high on drugs, or hallucinating due to listening to
a Barry Manilow or Wayne Newton CD.

Lars.

Lars,

The context of Leah's disclosure of her "angelic" rescue was similar to that reported by Rondele [Roger] from this site.  I actually spent the day with Roger and his wife at their summer cottage.  Roger has done Bruce's workshop, but remains a skeptic and his skepticism is well thought out.  But his spiritual quest is fueled somewhat by the memory of a childhood experience which seems best interpreted as an angelic rescue from a potentially fatal attack.  [The question of whether an "angel" or "a discarnate human" is involved can be left open.]  Leah and her husband attended our group after being alienated from church by anti-scientific dogmatism.  I asked both she and Shane if they had ever experienced anything that might be construed as divine intervention.  Both shared a truly spectacular experience that has kept their spiritual quest alive.  I have not shared Shane's experience here.

Leah is a well educated and very bright speech therapist. She is an excellent young mother of two and she doesn't do drugs.  It was not snowing heavily at the time of her car mishap.  I will ask her again to confirm this detail.  

Your suggestion that New Agers might be lying can be an excuse to dismiss their valid experiences.  Perhaps, you resort to such a simple-minded ploy, but I always try to give posters the benefit of the doubt about their sincerity.  The issue is generally whether they are mistaken or deluded.  I can't recall an instance in which I thought a New Age poster on this site was simply lying about an experience.

Don

I'm with Lars on this one. Not that I deliberately try to be a bonehead, but I'm a big fan of critical thinking. I shave often with Occam's razor.

I guess I'm part skeptic and part a hopeful optimist. If you can verify more of the woman's story, Don, I believe it would be helpful to everyone. As any stage magician already knows, we humans have an absolutely astounding ability for self deception. Ever watched the Amazing Randi on TV? Or Copperfield or many others? They can make complete nutsos out of audience volunteers who good naturedly agree to participate. And, even without the magicians, we do a good job on ourselves.

I've always seen this as a good thing. As some poltician once said, "Anytime any two people agree on anything, it shows that only one of them is doing any thinking."

I'm a big fan of verification. The more solid facts, the better. In doing so, many of history's miracles are known to every school child today as elementary science. Such critical thinking will someday take us to the stars and beyond, if we survive.

Let's us demand the bar be set higher. Those of us in this community can bow to superstition, or we can move into the 21st century and elevate the standards.

-Chuck-

My take on the situation:

I, for one, know that channeling is a possibility. My sister and I use to play with the ouija board when we were younger. She was even younger - probably about 9, more vulnerable, and yet more curious than I was. When I asked the ouija what I got for Christmas, it replied, "screwdriver." It was actually a tool set which included a screwdriver, but close enough.

However, if we were to try this in a public area I don't think it would work. I really believe that these spirits have other purposes other than to convince the world that they, or the afterlife exists. That's why I don't see how someone can perform any kind of psychic experience on live television. I think that these celebrity psychics are just under a lot of pressure to perform due to their reputations being on the line and therefore turn to some kind of trickery.

BTW, I'm a skeptic myself but I'll never play with the ouija board again.

On that note of skepticism, there's one thing that boggles my mind the most about astral project and it's relation to the afterlife.

I would think that if astral projection was really possible to venture off in to the afterlife, then I would think this discussion board would be crawling with enthusiasm and stories of new experiences and plenty of encouragement to newcomers.

All I see most of the time are responses based on personal beliefs and what people think instead of actual experiences provided by explorations into the afterlife that supposedly could offer the truth.

I'm not trying to knock down the fact that astral projection exists, I'm just not sure that it is what it's cracked up to be. I've been tracking this for a long time and in conclusion, feel that it is just another form of dreaming.

<Anti said: I'm not trying to knock down the fact that astral projection exists, I'm just not sure that it is what it's cracked up to be. I've been tracking this for a long time and in conclusion, feel that it is just another form of dreaming. >

What is interesting to me is how "real" the dream seems. There are clues everywhere that there is much more to what what we experience than we often notice. Therefore, I find it impossible to actually find a permanent resting place in my thoughts....a definite conclusion of any kind. I think it is limiting to do so, at least from my perspective.

love, blink :)