This is by far the most heretical post I've made yet when in altered state of consciousness. It was prompted by an imaginary or real(doesn't matter) conversation with an Evil Entity.

He (I) (the entity) proposed that we are living a lie - good is evil and evil is good.

He wanted me to join the "evil" side on body exit (final).

Now who in their right minds would even consider that? - AND THATS THE DUSI. Everyone is so busy warning about hell, but who wants to go there in the first place?

I asked him (the entity, which was real) why he had so much hatred for me and always tried to destroy me. He said, the only way to combat good is to fight it with evil (the opposite of good).

The Earth is in the "Good" sector. It is only  called "Good" because that is what is popular here (goodness).

We could be in a realm with the most terrible disgusting atrocities , but we have been popularized as living in a "Good" realm.

We live in a "good "realm and everything that is not good is evil. That gives evil a pretty bad name, by default. Thats what got me to considering this whole thing. I mean, "murder" is classed as "evil" in most situations. So when you say "Evil" you automatically think Satanism, etc. So an awful amount of things are evil. Why are they evil? Because they don't follow the established order of things (they are not "GOOD").

This might be a simplistic view.

Perhaps "Good" is "God". The angels rebelled in heaven and Lucifer was cast down. Perhaps Lucifer was the only one with enough common sense to see that the "good" way was leading to only torment and suffering.

I mean look at Capitalism. Meant to be good, right? Personally I could not think of a more barbaric system which allows 20% of the 6 billion to live oblivious to the person starving right next to them. So Capatalism is __evil__.

Maybe, going with the flow when you die, going to the between lives area, etc... is the wrong thing to do. Perhaps you should do the opposite, go and hold council with the evil. Look at both sides of the story.

One theory holds that we land up reunifying with God after a long struggle. This is guaranteed loss of consciousness for you forever. Why? Because you weren't conscious BEFORE God split, were you? - So in this case, "EVIL" opposes this - it refuses reintegration with God, leaving God to his natural space.. Refuse to go through endless cycles of Karma only to return to nothing! When you DIE, DEMAND to know the truth!

"Evil"s plan is to have immortal existences for us all. One with dignity and respect. Our spirit world must be really messed up, becuase "AS ABOVE, SO BELOW". If you look at the sad state of this world, it doesn't say much.

So there is a war between good and evil.

BUT the people who are "evil" believe they are the good ones, because they are guaranteeing us immortal life, with self respect.

I say, if you can trap a bird in a house, with no way out, and it is obliged to stay in the house, you can trap him in a much smaller space - a cage - and he cannot ever get out.

So each and every one of us is trapped in a small space (this body of ours, and this planet). WHAT IS STOPPING THEM FROM TRAPPING YOU INTO A 1CM BY 1CM (or atom size) box? For eternity! We could all be turning into atoms!

Personally, I don't recall granting my permission, express or implied, to be born onto this planet. Neither have I been given the courtesy of an explanation from the "elders" or whichever spirits are in charge here, as to why/what/how is going on in this place?? The least they could do is give me an option to stay or leave.

Anyway, I am just considering the other side. This certainly was an eye opener for me to think in this way.

My first thought was : Why would anyone choose to be evil?

Then I thought: Because maybe evil is good and good is evil! Just excellent PR on the part of God and his angels!

(Geez I'd better stand aside for the lightening strike.)

This was written in an altered state (its the only time I seem to write anything of controversial value).

What do you guys think? I don't say I believe it. I'm just saying, have you thought about it this way?

With love, light, hatred, darkness and vengence, :)

Neil




He (I) said they were losing the war, but only marginally, evil just needs more beings on their side.

I've thought about it - I've never myself met an evil person! Everyone I've met was trying to do good (mostly for themselves).

So how do we explain the astral hells? Perhaps it is because our perception is switched around. People in the hells perceive the hell as good, and people in the "good" planes pereive hell as bad.

PERSONALLY - I don't know. What I have presented above is a very sketch outline of a theory that I (or another) thought out, to win souls over to 'Evil'.

Well Neil, I think it's a good post and I had to think about it for a little while to get my words sorted out.

What I'm reading now and dealing with right now is My Big Toe and in that set of books Campbell takes about lowering entropy being the way to increase ones spirituality toward what I guess most people would consider "good"...like service to others but not necessarily that and "Evil" being high entropy such as murder and stuff. I just read The Tibetan Book of the Dead and I'm getting the impression now that all the good and evil is illusory and part of the "Games" we are addicted to because of the duality of our Physical Matter Reality here, C1.

Your post reminds me that I have often felt that perhaps striving for good is no better than being evil, but the result of balance between the two and being unmoved by the illusion of either is the ultimate way of insuring longevity because you are stay on the quest whether being pulled in one direction or the other but not taking action. I don't hold this as a belief but it is something that I have thought about for some years...especially when I see people debating what is good and what is evil and how simple it should be to tell the difference. I once believed that Christianity was created by Lucifer to drive people away from the Christ ideals but that Lucifer was trying to grow our spirit but from the bottom up by making us stronger in the long run... Thanks for reminding me of where I come from. I think we should strive to be above the war and outside of it. Perhaps the war is fought out of fear on either side and if so then it is as pointless as any other war. Being still in the awe of everything may be the best course. If fear drives us to be good then we have missed the point.

Neil-

Your post has quite a few invalid premises.  So before anyone could respond one way or the other to your post, they would first have to challenge the premises.

For example, your premise on capitalism is that "it was meant to be good."

Where did you get that from?  Please give us your source(s). 

And when you say 20% of the world's population (presumably those who benefit from capitalism) are oblivious to starving people next door, that is preposterous. 

Fact is, the starving people are concentrated in countries where capitalism is NOT the economic system.  And countries that embrace capitalism have done more for poor countries and their population than any other system.

So I suspect that your own premises, wrong as they may be, have so affected your thinking that you now think that maybe evil is the way to go.

Frankly I think your post is totally nonsensical.  And, quite frankly should be sent to the Off Topic Forum.

R

That's right, squelch someone for their honesty. Very good. If this forum is about facts instead of feelings then there's very little here that shouldn't be put in the off topic posts.

Squelch someone for their honesty?

How about if they grossly misstate a very major fact?  Should we just ignore it because they misstate it in an honest manner?

Where would you draw the line?  Suppose someone stated in a post that the holocaust never really happened.  But they stated it in an "honest" manner.  Should that post be "squelched"?

Come on Beau.  I know we live in a world where 2+2 is 5 as long as the person truly believes it to be so, but let's not toss integrity out the window for fear we might offend someone.

Off Topic forum doesn't squelch anyone.

It's not a post about capitalism, Rondele. That's all I was saying really. It belongs here as much as many of our discussions belong here. And there are plenty of people starving in capitalistic societies too. I'll be happy to post some pictures of people starving in conservative South Carolina sometime. It is happening and yes, there is more help here than in some third world countries, but I don't think the current state of things here is vote for capitalism on the whole. And now we've made it a thread about capitalism and it probably should be moved. ;)

As soon as a being started talking to me in such a way I'd stop it, and tell it to changes it way.

When a being, either human or non-human is intent on rationalizing things in a dishnonest manner, apparently, it doesn't do a lot of good to talk to them.

I'd like to add that perhaps in some cases unfriendly spirits continue to hang around people, because they believe they can fool such people. If a person gets to the point where he or she can't be fooled, an unfriendly spirit is less likely to hang around.

Perhaps some channelers connect with unfriendly spirits because they allow themselves to be fooled by unfriendly spirits.

How can we become certain we don't become fooled? One way is to accept the fact that we can be fooled if we don't watch it. If we have a tendency to make excuses for the people and spirits who try to fool people, then we basically put a big target on our forehead.

If a source of information is overly quick to justify behavior that otherwise is considered unacceptable, perhaps such a source should be questioned.

If in order to cover itself a source comes up with doubletalk about how it does or doesn't represent divine will, perhaps it should be questioned.

If a source doesn't clearly show that it has reverence towards divine will, perhaps it should be questioned.

If one has to do all kinds of mental gymnastics in order to defend something, perhaps one should wonder if one is defending something that is worth defending.

Perhaps there isn't good or evil. Just ego. By the way, there's plenty of malnutritioned people up here in Canada also. Plenty. Ideological governments believing in capitalism don't guaranty that their peoples wont starve. There are countries in Africa that you can vote in but cant get a decent nutrition for the masses.  Are people starving in Cuba? Not many.
Neil, stay on the good side. There is plenty of time for evil on the next round through. And theres lots of work to do here. 

My intention with this post was to get people thinking - maybe isn't all as it seems- what if everything is the polar opposite of what we have been led believe?

I realized that I had never really thought properly and intelligently about good/evil. That made me think, how many people do I know who are evil? Zero. Then I thought, well maybe evil is an invention of ours, or we don't understand it.

I could get some quotes on Capitalism but it is off-topic.

I seem to be more aware than the average person as to the suffering going on this planet, in every corner, nook and cranny. So my own personal conclusion is that we are in a realm of pure evil.

Additionally, this makes me skeptical of all afterlife stories and beliefs and "facts" (of which there zero because no-one knows for sure).

I come back down to: I want to know for myself through my own experience why we are here, what happens when we die, etc.

Quote:

Ideological governments believing in capitalism don't guaranty that their peoples wont starve. There are countries in Africa that you can vote in but cant get a decent nutrition for the masses.

It's democracy that lets people vote, not capitalism.


Quote:

I mean look at Capitalism. Meant to be good, right?

I think you're getting the two "goods" mixed up. It's the one that seems to work best, it's not supposed to be morally good.
Communism on the other hand was meant to be morally good and it didn't work, because most people don't care about morals when faced with the chance to have more than everybody else.

cheers,
Vagabound

I'm down with that. If mixing in with the supreme consciousness makes you lose yourself / individuality, I say to hell with that. I am me, myself and I.

Course, I would also suck the life out of other souls if it meant I would not die. So yeah, I guess I am evil. /shrug

But Vagabound, how many communist countries do you know of that use the capitalist system? (And really, is capitalism better than socialism?)Afghanistan is trying democracy, thanks to the USA and NATO. Like there's not starving going on over there. They have had capitalist style markets for hundreds of years yet people still go hungry. Well that is unless your a part of the upper crust or a propped up politician. Sort of like like health care in the USA. If you cant afford it, to bad for you. Die then. Nice country. Canada, Germany, among many others, have it so mush better health wise. In the USA it would seem that capitalism has gone way to far. Making it so that only the rich will be taken care of and the poor to be left behind. Spiritually wise, I find it disheartening that a country like the US would allow its old, week, and poor to die or be sick because they don't have the cash to pay for medical help. And its not only the USA. Many countries are in the same boat. Perhaps unchecked capitalism is the evil on this earth that Neil and the rest of us should be concerned with. If there was a price on PUL, then most likly, most Americans couldn't afford it, and only the rich would find spiritual enlightenment.   

Hi hawkeye,

I didn't go into much detail because I didn't think anyone would want to read that, but I guess cutting it short leaves lots of space for misunderstandings. I'm not saying that capitalism would be better than socialism.

The first point I was trying to make is that capitalism is an economic system, democracy is a political system. In most cases democracies use capitalism, but please do not use these words interchangeably because it might cause confusion.


Quote:

how many communist countries do you know of that use the capitalist system

You probably mean how many former communist countries are using capitalism now (both are economic systems, so you can't have both in one country unless you're mixing them but then you'd be making up a new system and would have to give it a new name; that's how socialism came into existence); I don't have any numbers; my guess would be 95%.
They had to switch because communism wasn't working. I don't think anyone will ever find out what exactly the reason was as there were too many problems all at the same time. (most of those problems didn't have anything to do with the economic system, so communism had never had a fair chance)


Quote:

They have had capitalist style markets for hundreds of years yet people still go hungry.

Right. Like I said, it wasn't supposed to be morally good, but the one that works best. So far we haven't found a system that'll feed everyone without oppressing them.
In theory communism would, but people have abused it.
In a lot of countries millionaires have been abusing capitalism, they've lost touch with reality and all common sense and for a long time the system was still working.
But now, finally, we're going through the effects that this behaviour causes. I do hope something's gonna change now.

I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you're trying to say; are you suggesting a monarchy using communism would be best? If so, well they've tried. I'd really love to see communism in a democracy; may be that'd work, but to be honest, any system would work just fine if we all were mature.

Nastarowje,
Vagabound

Neil Gordon wrote on Oct 28^th, 2009 at 5:30am:

This is by far the most heretical post I've made yet when in altered state of consciousness. It was prompted by an imaginary or real(doesn't matter) conversation with an Evil Entity. He (I) (the entity) proposed that we are living a lie - good is evil and evil is good. He wanted me to join the "evil" side on body exit (final). Now who in their right minds would even consider that? - AND THATS THE DUSI. Everyone is so busy warning about hell, but who wants to go there in the first place? I asked him (the entity, which was real) why he had so much hatred for me and always tried to destroy me. He said, the only way to combat good is to fight it with evil (the opposite of good). The Earth is in the "Good" sector. It is only  called "Good" because that is what is popular here (goodness). We could be in a realm with the most terrible disgusting atrocities , but we have been popularized as living in a "Good" realm. We live in a "good "realm and everything that is not good is evil. That gives evil a pretty bad name, by default. Thats what got me to considering this whole thing. I mean, "murder" is classed as "evil" in most situations. So when you say "Evil" you automatically think Satanism, etc. So an awful amount of things are evil. Why are they evil? Because they don't follow the established order of things (they are not "GOOD"). This might be a simplistic view. Perhaps "Good" is "God". The angels rebelled in heaven and Lucifer was cast down. Perhaps Lucifer was the only one with enough common sense to see that the "good" way was leading to only torment and suffering. I mean look at Capitalism. Meant to be good, right? Personally I could not think of a more barbaric system which allows 20% of the 6 billion to live oblivious to the person starving right next to them. So Capatalism is __evil__. Maybe, going with the flow when you die, going to the between lives area, etc... is the wrong thing to do. Perhaps you should do the opposite, go and hold council with the evil. Look at both sides of the story. One theory holds that we land up reunifying with God after a long struggle. This is guaranteed loss of consciousness for you forever. Why? Because you weren't conscious BEFORE God split, were you? - So in this case, "EVIL" opposes this - it refuses reintegration with God, leaving God to his natural space.. Refuse to go through endless cycles of Karma only to return to nothing! When you DIE, DEMAND to know the truth! "Evil"s plan is to have immortal existences for us all. One with dignity and respect. Our spirit world must be really messed up, becuase "AS ABOVE, SO BELOW". If you look at the sad state of this world, it doesn't say much. So there is a war between good and evil. BUT the people who are "evil" believe they are the good ones, because they are guaranteeing us immortal life, with self respect. I say, if you can trap a bird in a house, with no way out, and it is obliged to stay in the house, you can trap him in a much smaller space - a cage - and he cannot ever get out. So each and every one of us is trapped in a small space (this body of ours, and this planet). WHAT IS STOPPING THEM FROM TRAPPING YOU INTO A 1CM BY 1CM (or atom size) box? For eternity! We could all be turning into atoms! Personally, I don't recall granting my permission, express or implied, to be born onto this planet. Neither have I been given the courtesy of an explanation from the "elders" or whichever spirits are in charge here, as to why/what/how is going on in this place?? The least they could do is give me an option to stay or leave. Anyway, I am just considering the other side. This certainly was an eye opener for me to think in this way. My first thought was : Why would anyone choose to be evil? Then I thought: Because maybe evil is good and good is evil! Just excellent PR on the part of God and his angels! (Geez I'd better stand aside for the lightening strike.) This was written in an altered state (its the only time I seem to write anything of controversial value). What do you guys think? I don't say I believe it. I'm just saying, have you thought about it this way? With love, light, hatred, darkness and vengence, :) Neil He (I) said they were losing the war, but only marginally, evil just needs more beings on their side. I've thought about it - I've never myself met an evil person! Everyone I've met was trying to do good (mostly for themselves). So how do we explain the astral hells? Perhaps it is because our perception is switched around. People in the hells perceive the hell as good, and people in the "good" planes pereive hell as bad. PERSONALLY - I don't know. What I have presented above is a very sketch outline of a theory that I (or another) thought out, to win souls over to 'Evil'.

Hi Neil I have come accross this "entity" as you well know due to our private dialogues.

Newagers will have us believe that there is no such reality as evil and of course this is blatant nonsense.They tell us evil is just a mistake so a beast like Hitler was not evil only mistaken, Oh!! God how stupid is that?

Dont worry the "Entity" was using deception on you mixing up truth with lies and make you confused.

I call the "Entity" "Evilian" it is the "Dark Deceiver" call it Satan if you like. God created this universe as a duality. good and evil, death and life, positive and negative, war and peace, love and hate , light and dark. We are given a feewill whereby we can choose which side of the fence we want to sit on.

Like you said the battle is not so one-sided but in the end good will prevail

Its real title is the "Terrible One" another title is "The Librarian"

Alan

I personally wouldn't worry too much about the 'heretical' bit, that seems to be a strictly man made concept. It seems highly unlikely that a thunderbolt will be forthcoming. (at least not unless we consciously or unconsciously create it ourselves)...

Viewed from the framework i'm familiar with this is another of those scenarios where it seems that issues of ego and lack of seeing kick in to lock us into a  catch 22 scenario that leads to suffering.

From the absolute perspective there's nothing that matters even slightly in this ego made reality/world. It manifests as a result of our self centered perceptions and belief in it. Drop the collective beliefs that give rise to this perceived existence, and 'poof', we're out of here - back into the genuine God made reality that is love.

A well known quote:

Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the peace of God.

i.e. Love is of God, is real and cannot be threatened.
      What is of this world does not exist.
      This means we need in the end worry about nothing.

Meanwhile though our belief in individuality, that this reality matters, and our consequent fear that God will treat us as we do others has given rise to fear.

We're caught between fears. On the one hand our need for control leads us to cling to belief in the importance of individuality and in this reality, and our mistaken but deeply held gut belief in a vengeful God drives us deeper into this reality in an attempt to hide.

So while we're here our belief in individuality and in the hostile nature of our external reality leads us to act in unloving ways - to 'sin', and to do wrong: because as we see it there is no other way to survive.

Our belief in this reality, and in its cycle of death and rebirth keeps us locked within it, and believing in the importance of our actions - which because we retain at a deep level our higher knowing/connection with Spirit/higher mind we know are  unloving.

So we believe ourselves deserving of punishment, and given the creative nature of our collective mind we make that a reality (by manifesting karma) and so suffer more.

That's not to say that non-loving behaviours in this life don't matter. They don't in the absolute sense, but within this reality the resulting suffering drives us further into identification with our beliefs in individuality and in the need to take advantage of others to survive - and so we get driven deeper into the delusional beliefs that prevent our returning to God/the absolute.

The critical element is forgiveness, or in less religious language letting go of the past, and consequently no longer forcing negative interpretations on the present to project the negative futures that we're convinced must be responded aggressively to if we are to survive.

To look at every moment with fresh eyes - to see past the negatives our conditioning drives us to perceive in ourselves and others at this level to the loving/lovable perfection we know at the God level to be the reality - to know that we are already forgiven (it never happened, and anyway God is love), that nothing can harm that part of us that matters,   and that consequently we can ignore the perceived 'wrongs' done by others.

What we believe in we make reality for ourselves.

While we believe in the 'reality' of 'evil' and 'sin' (our own and that of others), and fear punishment and the loss of our body and of our existence in an unloving world (death) we make all of these a reality for ourselves.

We don't have to. But it's not easy, in that we're buried under the conscious and unconscious conditioning and beliefs of milennia, reinforced by the teaching of those that use religion to instill fear as a route to power.

But if we can move to believing in the reality of love then we become able to see it...

Vajra...makes sense to me.

Dave

Vajra:

You provided a perfect example of why ACIM is misleading (the origin of the words you quoted).

What takes place in this World does matter, despite what ACIM suggests.

Regarding being heretical, there are people and spirits that have no interest whatsoever in what divine will wants. In fact, they are opposed to divine will. To the extent they are able they cause others to suffer it matters, because others suffer, no matter how many times a person asserts this World is unreal and doesn't exist.

ACIM can lead to indifference just as Advaita Vedanta does.

It isn't just a matter of the suffering that takes place, this World was created so souls can learn some of the things they need to learn. Rather than downloading a program into each of us, God provided us with a way to choose what kind of  soul we want to be. When ACIM suggests that this World has nothing to do with reality because everything God creates is perfect, it completely misses the boat of what life is about.

We can't learn what the properties of existence are if we don't take a look. For example, we can't learn about humility without having some sense of what arrogance is.

People seek to find an escape from their mind and  sense of self when they find it problematic to have such things. The more they learn to live according to love, the more they'll lose the tendency to want to negate themselves.  Because I have a sense of self, I exist substantially enough to share love with another. Because I have a mind, I can decide whether I want to live according to love.

I don't believe a person can love others completely if he denies that some of them suffer. Some people deny the suffering of others because they don't want to feel their pain or deal with the fact of living in a World that is imperfect.  Their misguided stoicism can cause them to be a non-dynamic factor in this World.

I believe it is quite heretical for ACIM to claim as it does, because not only does it state that God has nothing to do with this World, it claims that God  doesn't care about what takes place within it, because as far as he is concerned, it doesn't exist.

I don't believe God judges us, but he certainly cares how we treat each other. To suggest that he doesn't because of what some course says is quite insulting.

Here's a question that people who are into ACIM never seem to want to answer. The course says that noting we see is real, because everything God creates is perfect. If this is the case, then what created this World? Is there something other than God that created it?

If one suggests that one of God's creations created it, how could this creation be imperfect enough to create a World that is imperfect, if God created it?

I believe a day will come when everything will work out for the best, but it is a mistake to act as if everything  is perfect when problems still exist. We don't make things perfect by making a bunch of affirmations. We make them perfect by dealing with the issues that need to be dealt with.

If a war exists do something to end it, rather than denying its existence as lesson 14 of the course instructs.

If an airplane crash takes place people do lose their loved ones, despite what lesson 14 says.

If a disaster takes place people do need help, regardless of how lesson 14 instructs people to assert that disasters doen't exist.

What a disaster it would be if people turned a blind eye to disaster victims who need help, because lesson 14 "misled" them to believe that disaters don't exist.

Hi R. Quite honestly i can't and don't know if the ACIM framework is true, anymore than we can know if any given interpretation of the 'why' of existence is correct.

What is clear though is that it does not teach that God does not care what happens in the world. The opposite in fact - it sets out very explicitly the means by which He acts in the world through Spirit and utilising the Christ ideal to guide us clear of suffering.

The means is exactly as you say - worldly situations (as we perceive them, because a given event can be perceived in many ways) are used as teaching opportunities. We are provided with all possible support to hear and learn the reality based way of being and seeing - although our conditioned tendency to selectively perceive means most of us are pretty profoundly deaf much of the time.

To position ACIM as saying that what we do does not matter is a fundamental misinterpretation. But what it does teach (in keeping with many other traditions) is that the only way free of the belief that we can only survive by taking advantage of others is to raise our perception and hence our state of being - to come to genuinely know that at the highest level what happens here does not matter, because at the highest level it isn't real and consequently never happened.

The core of the teaching is that this higher perception is the only means by which we can hope to get past our earthly dog eat dog conditioning to become able to live through love.

Teachings that position 'wrongdoing' as truly real simply reinforce our belief in the enormity of the task of forgiveness - and provide the ego self with further excuses to stall.

Of course it's possible for somebody to take this as carte blanche to do whatever they want (as has been the case for centuries with the Catholic confession) - it's a high level and very nuanced view (much like the higher Mahayana Buddhist teachings) that leaves plenty to personal responsibility.

But unless we accept predestination as a reality (which eliminates any possibility that our life decisions have any meaning) can there in the end ever be any way out without personal choice?

Buddhism for example is very explicit about this - the introductory body of teaching that is the Hinayana is basically a simpler rule based body of teaching designed for people not yet ready to take on board and realise a more nuanced view - the idea is to at least teach them the why and how of keeping out of trouble.

As regards the creation of this reality it's again a matter of causes within causes. It teaches that none of this is happening against higher will - as creative mind beings of God given free will we have the option to perceive, behave and as a result experience as we decide.

This is precisely why it's necessary that in the end our actions have no effect on the higher reality, while being very real indeed at this level - if we seek to claim that creation is not set up in this way then we arguably seek to place ourselves in control.

As regards it's being 'heretical' i guess as before that that's very much a matter of personal perception.

The problem as ever that leads to this sort of debate is our tendency to dualistically interpret stuff. This reality does not have to be one or the other - the creation of collective ego, or a higher creation.

The likelihood is that in reality is is simultaneously both, plus any other number of possibilities all at once. What we perceive out of this depends wholly on what we believe - on what we want to see....

Thank you Vajra for reminding me that ACIM is good source to work from. It takes a pounding in here, but if it weren't for that book I would have never gotten to this board for sure. Nothing quite fits my model perfectly but I do get a sense that that book came out at the perfect time. Thank you for posting that.

Vajra:

I read all of what you wrote, but responded to only some of the things you said.

Vajra: Hi R. Quite honestly i can't and don't know if the ACIM framework is true, anymore than we can know if any given interpretation of the 'why' of existence is correct.

Recoverer: Oh but you can, if you allow yourself to do so.

Vajra: What is clear though is that it does not teach that God does not care what happens in the world. The opposite in fact - it sets out very explicitly the means by which He acts in the world through Spirit and utilising the Christ ideal to guide us clear of suffering.

Recoverer: If a being wants to be successful at misleading a lot of people, it will need to find a way to trick people into believing it is offering something  positive. If you consider the lesson I referred to (14) plus some of the other lessons, the course has the intent of conditioning people to be indifferent.

Regarding the Christ ideal, I don't believe a source that pretends to be Christ is capable of representing such an ideal. The manner in which I've received spirit guidance has been quite different than the course. A bunch of affirmations has not been a part of the process. Asserting that this World doesn't exist isn't a part of the process.

One evening I was shown an image of Jesus on the cross. I saw the actual man, rather than a statue. He was positioned on the cross so his pain could be seen. His pain wasn't due to his wounds, it was due to how he feels about what goes on this World. This message didn't serve the point of telling me that I don't have to be concerned about what takes place because this World doesn't exist. It served the point of telling me that Christ is very aware of what takes place, he doesn't deny it, and some of us need to change things for the better.

If we assert to ourselves that what we see isn't real, we'll strip away some of our motivation to change things for the better. I'm not making an unsupported statement. I've known a number of people who weren't concerned about what takes place in this World because their belief in non-dual teachings such as Advaita Vedanta caused them to believe that there isn't a World to be concerned about. ACIM has a lot in common with Advaita Vedanta and can have the same effect.

Sometimes non-dualists have the mindset that there is nothing you can do to change this World for the better, so the only solution is to get people to follow their guru and become enlightened (supposedly) so they can escape it. There are many verses within ACIM that show the same all or nothing approach.

I don't believe an approach that causes us to give on this World is a good approach.

Vajra: To position ACIM as saying that what we do does not matter is a fundamental misinterpretation. But what it does teach (in keeping with many other traditions) is that the only way free of the belief that we can only survive by taking advantage of others is to raise our perception and hence our state of being - to come to genuinely know that at the highest level what happens here does not matter, because at the highest level it isn't real and consequently never happened.

Recoverer: The fact of the matter is that "at this time" we are in this World, and we need to deal with what currently exists, rather than projecting ourselves into a future that doesn't exist.

People who have NDEs often state that it is important to love each other, and to be a positive influence. They don't say "nothing you see is real, so don't worry  about it.""

People aren't going to get this World to stop existing as it does by programming themselves to believe that it doesn't exist. It is going to improve when peopleacknowledge the many problems that exist and seek to improve them, partly by growing in love.

When we are in this World it is our responsibility to make things better, rather than acting as if we are in our goal state.  During my night in heaven experience I understood that things eventually work out wonderfully, but I'm here in the World now, and have to deal with what exists now.

Vajra: The core of the teaching is that this higher perception is the only means by which we can hope to get past our earthly dog eat dog conditioning to become able to live through love.

Recoverer:  One  way to love people is to see them as they are. If they are in fact sufffering, then we need to help them, rather than pretending that they  don't exist.

Vajra: Teachings that position 'wrongdoing' as truly real simply reinforce our belief in the enormity of the task of forgiveness - and provide the ego self with further excuses to stall.

Recoverer: Consider the life reviews people experiene during  NDEs. If a person did something to harm others, then he (or she) has to become accutely aware of how others suffered. It isn't a matter of asserting that the suffering of others isn't real. It is a matter of learning why it is important to care about what others experience.  This World isn't the final goal, but it exists substantially enough so souls can learn the lessons they need,  such as caring about the welfare of others.

Vajra: Of course it's possible for somebody to take this as carte blanche to do whatever they want (as has been the case for centuries with the Catholic confession) - it's a high level and very nuanced view (much like the higher Mahayana Buddhist teachings) that leaves plenty to personal responsibility.

Recoverer: Not everybody will respond to ACIM in the same way. Consider Dannion Brinkley. Because he quoted the course in his third book I suppose he believes in it, yet his book shows that he isn't indifferent to what takes place in this World. Nevertheless, the course can cause people to be indifferent and simply dismiss what takes place as unreal.

Vajra: But unless we accept predestination as a reality (which eliminates any possibility that our life decisions have any meaning) can there in the end ever be any way out without personal choice?

Recoverer: I'm not certain what you mean. Nevertheless,  I'll say this: the more our souls gain wisdom, the more we are able to make wise choices. Eventually we'll be wise enough to realize that what divine will has in store for us is the best option available by a long shot.

Vajra-

I have just one question for you- have you ever read any of the Gospels?

If so, you've read the teachings of the Biblical Jesus.

Do you seriously believe that the same person who lived 2,000 years ago and said what he said, is the same person who dictated ACIM?

Because the teachings are diametrically opposed to each other.  Either the biblical Jesus is a fraud, or the Jesus who authored ACIM is a fraud.

After all, eternal truths do not change.  Or do they?

Maybe Jesus changed his mind.

What do you think?

R
ps oh by the way, one of the exercises dictated by the ACIM Jesus refers to Jesus in the third person!  A little slip-up, wouldn't you say?

I agree with the last bit you wrote there Albert, but people who are looking for a reason to be indifferent to the plight of others will find it in most anything. That is where they are. I don't think ACIM should be discounted because how someone might or might not use the information. When I see someone suffering I have to use a little wisdom to figure out if what I offer can be of help to them. I want to help where that help is wanted and needed, but a slit throat for my trouble is not what I am after either.

Rondelle:

I agree with you that the being from ACIM doesn't sound like Jesus in the gospels.

I usually speak of my spirit guidance in a generic sense, but I believe it is worthwhile to state that before I make contact I pray a bit and always say the name of Christ, and the only guide who has identified himself (or herself) is Christ.  Most of the time my guide doesn't identify himself. Perhaps it is a matter of faith, since I have made contact with Christ, and because of who I reach out to.

Whatever the case, as I said before, the guidance I have received has been quite different than ACIM. In fact, my guidance might have a hard time communicating to me if I expected it to follow the parameters set by ACIM.

The only thing that kept Jesus on the cross was his love for humanity

Alan

I must say that views I have seen posted on this board of a binary nature - a source is 100 % accurate or is 100% fraudulent does'nt square with my experience at all of the world. In my experience sources may be (to me) mostly inaccuarate, half/half and mostly accurate with a couple of doubts and all shades in between.It seems to be that if a skeptic is able to identify a flaw ( or a moral transgression of the author for that matter ) they think it invalidates the whole canon of work.

For example in the New Testament - Mathew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38 both give contradictory genealogies for Joseph Jesus's father. Also According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). However, Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

Do these contradictions invalidate the whole bible? I don't think so. It only prohibits a literal interpretation of it - it still may 'have value'. The difference being that one now has to be discriminating and show judgement. The same applies to non-scriptural text. With everything we read or hear we have to make a value judgement. No one else can do this for us.

Heisenberg 69:

When it comes to the gospels you're speaking about it could be a matter of human beings recording what took place with Jesus in an inconsistent manner. This doesn't negate the reality of Jesus.

When somebody fraudulently claims to have channeled a spirit being that represents the light it is quite a different manner. It isn't a matter of actual occurences being recorded in an inaccurate manner. It is a matter of a fraud sometimes saying things that are accurate, and sometimes saying things that are false.





heisenberg69 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2009 at 1:52pm:

I must say that views I have seen posted on this board of a binary nature - a source is 100 % accurate or is 100% fraudulent does'nt square with my experience at all of the world. In my experience sources may be (to me) mostly inaccuarate, half/half and mostly accurate with a couple of doubts and all shades in between.It seems to be that if a skeptic is able to identify a flaw ( or a moral transgression of the author for that matter ) they think it invalidates the whole canon of work. For example in the New Testament - Mathew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38 both give contradictory genealogies for Joseph Jesus's father. Also According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). However, Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death. Do these contradictions invalidate the whole bible? I don't think so. It only prohibits a literal interpretation of it - it still may 'have value'. The difference being that one now has to be discriminating and show judgement. The same applies to non-scriptural text. With everything we read or hear we have to make a value judgement. No one else can do this for us.

I would only say, "consider the conductivity of the circuit". I have yet to encounter a perfectly pure channel. Certain Jesus may well be pure, but the perceptions of this entity though well meaning don't always fly with me. Why would I use the Bible to refute someone, when it is certainly flawed as well? Okay, not "Certainly" but probably as Pointed out above by Heisenberg. People of the time (2000 years ago) were no more trusting of the "new ideas" than people are today of new ideas. For some reason the older it is the more it resonates with some. Not a problem for me. Old things resonate with me too sometimes, but I know times have changed since Shakespeare, but I still like the way the texts are written but when someone tries to emulate it it usually falls flat because it was born out of a different time with a different understanding of ...well...everything.

The decision space of those 2000 years ago was smaller, but perhaps Jesus was the exception, but he still had to convey to that smaller decision space and the Bible is the result of that smaller decision space trying to make sense out of something that may well be likened to me making sense out of quantum entanglements.

So on Good and Evil I have to say that I still stand where I stood before I came to this board over a year ago. It is just another aspect of a binary existence and the terms are metaphors. The golden rule governs. It does not judge for you but lets you be the judge based on what you get for your actions.

Recoverer:

I am quite prepared to accept that Jesus was/is an exceptional being but what we know of Him comes largely through the four Gospels written by people (who may or may not have met Him - I don't know I was'nt there) and then translated a number of times to their present form. Plenty of opportunity for distortion to enter the equation. Subjective personal experiences of Jesus are just that - subjective and personal.

Dave

Dave:

When I read the gospels I consider whether the words attributed to Jesus actually came from him. Certainly it is possible that some people have misquoted him.



heisenberg69 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2009 at 3:13pm:

Recoverer: I am quite prepared to accept that Jesus was/is an exceptional being but what we know of Him comes largely through the four Gospels written by people (who may or may not have met Him - I don't know I was'nt there) and then translated a number of times to their present form. Plenty of opportunity for distortion to enter the equation. Subjective personal experiences of Jesus are just that - subjective and personal. Dave

Fair enough.

The problem with ACIM is not just that it provably does not stem from the historical Jesus, but that the impersonating spirit caused Helen Schucman to become psychotic and blaspheme ACIM.  Her funeral eulogizer, a respected psychologist, deems it likely that she was demon-possesssed.  As Jesus said, "By their fruits you will know them."

[heisenberg:] "For example in the New Testament - Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38 both give contradictory genealogies for Joseph Jesus's father."

Two solutions to this problem have been proposed: (1) It is at least possible that Luke's genealogy traces Jesus' ancestry through Mary's lineage since Joseph was not Jesus' biological father.
(2) Luke's genealogy is not a literally exhaustive genealogy, but a theological genealogy that groups Jesus' ancestors in 3 groups of 14 and therefore omits many names. 

One tradition traceable to first-century Palestine claims that Jesus' brothers used His genealogy in their missionary travels in an effort to persuade skeptical Jews that Jesus satisfies the Jewish credential that the Messiah should descend from King David.  If so, Jesus' brothers probably used Matthew's genealogy.

[heisenberg:] "Also According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). However, Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death."

Jesus was born in 7 BC. From Egyptian records we know that the Romans conducted a census every 14 years in their empire. This insight suggests an earlier census in 7 BC.  Remarkably, the best candidate for the "Star of Bethlehem" is the triple conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars in December of 7 BC.  In Near Eastern astrology, this conjunction meant that a great  world ruler has been born in Palestine.  When a similar conjection occurred 1,500 years later, Jewish astrologers excitedly expected the arrival of their Messiah.  Whether Quirinius could have conducted the earlier census is a difficult question because we know he was a high Roman official in Syria at an earlier time.  In any case, this issue is a mystery, not a contradiction.

Berserk2-

thanks for your theological input. The two issues which I chose at random ( I could have used others) were examples used to query the notion that the bible is something we can pick up and take at face value without interpretation/discrimination. If it was such a source we would not need armies of theologians and biblical scholors to pore over the text and tell us what they think it really means. In short there is a real debate.

With regards to ACIM in a previous post you identify the respected psychologist eulogizer as Dr. Benedict Groeschel - am I right in thinking that he is also a Franciscan Friar ? - hardly impartial in his views on demonic possession !

Dave

Yes, but Dr. Groeschel, a psychologist,  is famous for debunking alleged demonic possession.  His good friend, Helen Schucman, was the exception.  The impersonating spirit that channeled Jesus to her quickly turned her into a depression psychotic who often used unspeakable profanity to blaspheme her own work--ACIM!  One cannot separate the merits of a literary work from the quality of its source!  To protest, "But I found it helpful!" is epistemologically irrelevant and meaningless.

Don 

Going by what Mark Cuneo said about Benedict Groeschel in his book Exorcism in America, he wasn't overly quick to state that somebody is possessed.

Regardless of the possession factor, Helen Schuchman was in a dark depressive state at the end of her life, which is hard to figure if she supposedly channeled Jesus for about 7 years. She referred to the course as that G.. Damn book. She said it was the worse thing that ever happened to her.



heisenberg69 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2009 at 5:23pm:

Berserk2- thanks for your theological input. The two issues which I chose at random ( I could have used others) were examples used to query the notion that the bible is something we can pick up and take at face value without interpretation/discrimination. If it was such a source we would not need armies of theologians and biblical scholors to pore over the text and tell us what they think it really means. In short there is a real debate. With regards to ACIM in a previous post you identify the respected psychologist eulogizer as Dr. Benedict Groeschel - am I right in thinking that he is also a Franciscan Friar ? - hardly impartial in his views on demonic possession ! Dave

Maybe she did channel a higher entity, and afterwards remained open and receptive to other entities, which is when the neg came in.  Is there any evidence that the same entity remained with her after the book was channelled?  Or could it have been another one?

It's perhaps worth repeating that what i posted is just a personal view guys.

It really isn't an epistemological issue, or argument to be 'won', or about bringing a set of beliefs to prominence Don, in that the question of whether or not a particular body of teaching comes across as credible to a person is in the end not really about intellectual thought - it's rather far more a matter of intuition and  personal experience.

The interpretation of the Bible and of the various Christian traditions is equally a matter of personal choice, and can (even bearing in mind that it's a heavily manipulated document) be pitched in many different lights.

We are however all heavily  conditioned in this regard, so it's rarely a matter that's agenda free.

The human person and personality that was the 'Christ' and lived 2,000 years ago has little to do with this either.

As a physical person or self He's long dead and gone, and what we're inclined to accept about Him comes mostly from the same heavily reworked accounts and interpretations.

Given this and the wildly varying and often pretty sketchy grasp we have of truth (ego is to varying degrees inevitably mixed with bits of higher insight), it's surely no surprise that so many interpretations arise across all traditions.

Quite why Helen Schuman's worldly suffering should constitute a negation of ACIM isn't clear to me at all - viewed from the ego perspective that's the nature of life. Since when has any spiritual teaching delivered instant joy?

What has everything to do with it is the Christ principle, truth or grasp of absolute reality that He so completely manifested, that we all will eventually manifest, and which through Grace/Spirit/insight/assistance of higher mind manifests right now at so many differing levels and in many differing ways.

Form has little to do with essence, it's at best a pointer towards what's pretty much inexpressible - one  which reflects pretty heavily our cultural conditioning.

The question we each have to decide in respect of any body of teaching is surely whether or not it points to this principle, and that's always going to be hit and miss until we get to the point where we can consider it free of personal agenda....

Recoverer-

you say that Helen was in a dark depressive state at the end of her life. Wiki states that one year before her death she was diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer. My beloved aunt died of pancreatic cancer (its a horrible disease you literally waste away as your body can no longer assimilate food) she was pretty depressed at the end as well. Perhaps she profaned the material because it was kept being brought up when she was feeling rotten and knew she was dying. I'm not seeing this is the definitive reason only an alternative 'naturalistic' explanation.

Dave

I've thought of this...

Maybe she did channel a higher entity, and afterwards remained open and receptive to other entities, which is when the neg came in.  Is there any evidence that the same entity remained with her after the book was channelled?  Or could it have been another one?

alone, or in combination with her illness, certainly are possibilities worth looking into.  I never read ACIM, being somewhat given to DIY projects, but from what I'm picking up here and there, one or the other or a combination of both make sense as to the author and her apparent change of heart.

If Helen Schuchman was invaded by some other being later on, that would imply that she didn't benefit by being in touch with the being who gave her the words for ACIM.



I Am Dude wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2009 at 6:18pm:

Maybe she did channel a higher entity, and afterwards remained open and receptive to other entities, which is when the neg came in.  Is there any evidence that the same entity remained with her after the book was channelled?  Or could it have been another one?

How so?

Helen could have been given the wisest advice and knowledge that the human mind is capable of receiving from the highest entity capable of giving it to a human mind... in the end, it is up to her and her alone to make use of it.

So even if she didn't benefit from being in touch with the spirit who channelled ACIM... this in no way proves that the channelled being was a negative entity with bad intentions.  It only proves that Helen was unable to put the knowledge to use in her own life.

If Helen Schuchman was invaded by some other being later on, that would imply that she didn't benefit by being in touch with the being who gave her the words for ACIM.

Not necessarily - if I eat right and lift weights, I will become stronger than I was before.  Just because I can't lift a truck that drives over me, doesn't mean I didn't benefit from my time with the weight machine.  If I'm sick (say from pancreatic cancer), I won't even be able to lift the weights I could before.

Anyone who's been that sick knows that it has a draining effect on everything - including mental and spiritual resources.  She could have benefited hugely from the contact (and as I said, I know nothing about the book - I'm only arguing the value of the argument), and still, being in a weakened state and/or being hit by a metaphorical (and possibly metaphysical) truck, she could still have been flattened.

Nothing in this life works in a vacuum, and everything is relative.  Very very few of us, as advanced as we might get, will be able to shuck off the designation "mere mortal" while we're encumbered with our physical bodies and our "real life" and upbringing.  Doesn't mean we haven't benefited from something and improved our lot - just that it isn't necessarily enough.

If Helen was truly touched by the spirit of Christ, she wouldn't become prey to an agressive spirit. Her inner changes would supersede her physical condition.

Basically what you're saying is that when one is touched by the spirit of Christ, they become spiritually invincible.  Do you have proof for this or are you just making it up because it sounds nice and fits nicely with your beliefs?

I must admit, I doubt it was Jesus being channelled.  But I just don't see the evidence of the entity being malicious.

This thread provides striking evidence of the dangers of New Age fundamentalism.  Some posters are so blind that it matters little if Donald Walsch has been caught plagiarizing; some posters are so gullible that they are willing to accept someone's claim to speak for God, regardless of contrary evidence.  Also, recent posters overlook the importance of two key facts about ACIM:

(1) The entity Helen channeled is provably not the historical Jesus.  In fact, much of what she puts into Jesus' mouth is frankly evil from the perspective of the historical Jesus: e.g. the denial of the reality of sin and evil; the trivialization of Jesus' suffering and death on the cross, the denial of Jesus' unique status as the Son of God.

(2) If Helen claimed to channel an entity like Seth, ACIM would be misguided, but would not be so sinister.  Posters must ask, "Why is the entity lying about its true identity and why does this lie lead to Helen's psychotic depression and her bitter repudiation of ACIM?  Why would one of her best friends and colleagues consider her possessed?

Some protest, "But I derive value from ACIM!"
Translation: "I'm gullible enough to equate truth with what makes me feel good, regardless of the source."
And don't overlook a key psychodynamic of evil demonstrated by psychiatrist Scott Peck: Evil seduces the gullible and vulnerable by cleverly blending truth with error.

Don

From wiki again (sorry !) in connection to Mother Theresa at the end of her life:

'The Archbishop of Calcutta, Henry Sebastian D'Souza, said he ordered a priest to perform an exorcism on Mother Teresa with her permission when she was first hospitalized with cardiac problems because he thought she may be under attack by the devil.[51]'

I go by my own experience with divine guidance, and without conceit intended, I don't see myself becoming corrupted. Our spiritual growth can reach a point where corruption is highly unlikely. Inward changes take place that aren't about to be undone.

When it comes to Mother Theresa, I don't know what happened with her.

Nevertheless, I believe you are really grasping at straws when you try to compare the life of Mother Theresa with what Helen Schuchman did. Mother Theresa tried to serve Christ, while Helen Schuchman acted as if she channeled Christ without taking the time to find out what precisely she was channeling.

Why would an unfriendly spirit try to mislead people through a vehicle such as ACIM? Because it is so easy to do so. People will do backflips to defend something when they don't want to question it.



heisenberg69 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2009 at 2:18pm:

From wiki again (sorry !) in connection to Mother Theresa at the end of her life: 'The Archbishop of Calcutta, Henry Sebastian D'Souza, said he ordered a priest to perform an exorcism on Mother Teresa with her permission when she was first hospitalized with cardiac problems because he thought she may be under attack by the devil.[51]'

Recoverer-

I don't know about clutching at straws  :) but I used the Mother Theresa example because you said :

'If Helen was truly touched by the spirit of Christ, she wouldn't become prey to an agressive spirit. Her inner changes would supersede her physical condition.'

Many people would regard Mother Theresa as someone touched by the spirit of Christ.

Dave

Mother Teresa initially had visions of Jesus that inspired her to take on the umimaginably heroic task of feeding and caring for the poorest of the poor in Calcutta and then in many other places.  When her work was soon blessed, Jesus denied her the luxury of new visions and the absence of this ongoing guidance depressed her.  Jesus expected her to deepen her own faith walk in the dark night of the soul and bear her own cross of suffering just like every other Christian.  Just imagine how depressing it would be to encounter daily the slow starvation and death by disease of so many innocent children.  Teresa's depression was always paradoxically seasoned with a profound joy.  To compare a psychotic like Helen Schucman with one of the greatest humanitarians of the past two centuries is ludicrous.  Unlike Helen, Teresa never blasphemed against her work in the foulest of language!  The suggestion that Teresa's occasional bouts with depression made her possessed is disgraceful. 

Besides, Teresa confessed her battle with depression in a confidential confessional.  It am outraged that the privacy of this confession was violated! 

Don

The only way that I am comparing Mother Theresa with Helen Schucman is by stating that they were both alleged to be under spiritual attack at the end of their lives when physically ill. I remember it being quite widely reported at the time.

Dave

The truth remains the truth no matter what we believe, only one person claimed to be the embodiment of truth

"I am the truth the live and the way"

Jesus

How do we know what Jesus wanted for Mother Teresa. I find it incredible that anyone would even begin to approach such a subject. You talk about Jesus' 'expectation' of her to do certain things like walk through the 'dark night of the soul' in some equally heroic fashion as her initial entry into the world of trying to save 'everyone' from suffering.

How on earth does anyone on this planet think they know what 'Jesus' or 'God' or any other being or deity might want for another human being? I just find it mind-boggling that anyone really wants to speak for other people in that way.

I'm sure, from your perspective, that it seems natural. I would never fault someone for trying to understand another, but to speak for what God or Jesus 'wants' from someone else.

Hmmmn.

Of course, we must teach our children something. But what are we teaching them when we believe we can speak about other people's souls in such a way?



Berserk2 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2009 at 2:47pm:

Mother Teresa initially had visions of Jesus that inspired her to take on the umimaginably heroic task of feeding and caring for the poorest of the poor in Calcutta and then in many other places.  When her work was soon blessed, Jesus denied her the luxury of new visions and the absence of this ongoing guidance depressed her.  Jesus expected her to deepen her own faith walk in the dark night of the soul and bear her own cross of suffering just like every other Christian.  Just imagine how depressing it would be to encounter daily the slow starvation and death by disease of so many innocent children.  Teresa's depression was always paradoxically seasoned with a profound joy.  To compare a psychotic like Helen Schucman with one of the greatest humanitarians of the past two centuries is ludicrous.  Unlike Helen, Teresa never blasphemed against her work in the foulest of language!  The suggestion that Teresa's occasional bouts with depression made her possessed is disgraceful.  Besides, Teresa confessed her battle with depression in a confidential confessional.  It am outraged that the privacy of this confession was violated!  Don

I think there is a comma missing from what Jesus said. And how would we know different since there was no punctuation back then.

"I Am, the truth the way and the light." That's what I think. I don't think Jesus was conceited enough to claim he was god, if we were to understand that we weren't god. It's just how I see it. Please don't feel the need to see it this way or to lambast me to hell.

[Beau:] "I think there is a comma missing from what Jesus said. And how would we know different since there was no punctuation back then. "I Am, the truth the way and the light." That's what I think.
__________________________________

Beau, you obviously don't know Greek.  Your punctuation would be universally rejected for two reasons:

(1) First, note that you messed up the order: The Greek reads: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life (14:6).  Secondly, Your punctuation leaves the three predicates with no grammatical function; they are predicate nominatives and this fact excludes your punctuation. 

(2) In every one of Jesus' many "I am" sayings, the that ensues always defines what Jesus is claiming to be.  This pattern in itself rules out your punctuation.
Here are just a few of the examples that prove my point:

"I am the bread of life (John 6:48)."
"I am the Light of the world (John 8:12)."
"I am the good Shepherd (John John 10:11, 14)."
"I am the Vine; you are the branches (John 15:5).

[Beau:] "Please don't feel the need to see it this way or to lambast me to hell."
___________________________
No, you won't go to hell for ignorance of grammar and Greek.  But you will go back to the New Age Ghetto, whose denizens don't recognize that the grammatical issue you raise must be determined by linguistic experts outside the Ghetto.

[Beasu:] "I don't think Jesus was conceited enough to claim he was god, if we were to understand that we weren't god."
___________

Jesus emptied Himself of all His divine prerogatives to take on all our human limitations (Philippians 2:6-7) and be tested in every way that we are (Hebrews 4:15). During His earthly ministry, Jesus claimed "I and the Father are one (John 10:30), but added, "The Father is greater than I (14:28)."  He distinguishes between Himself and God in the sense that Jesus is not the heavenly Father: "Why do you call me good?  No one is good but God alone (Mark 10:18)?" But after His resurrection, He is restored to His divine prerogatives as God and gladly accepts doubting Thomas's acclamation, "My Lord and my God (John 20:28)!"

Don

I'm with you on that b2.

I guess the problem for me and you too, is that we weren't there and didn't hear what Jesus spoke nor did the writer. And it has always bothered me that none of the biblical accounts are from contemporaries of Jesus, so logically I must discount the bible as any more reliable than any other book of wisdom. And since I believe all energy evolves toward a higher consciousness I must believe that even Jesus has done so and is not the same diety has was 2000 years ago.

In a side note, I have prayed and meditated on this idea and asked for something I could use to find my way. I have been given many books, but the bible has never been included among them though I read it much as a child in church. I guess it's just not my cup of tea.

It is not yours to name a ghetto for you have never been there. And I speak of mine.

[b2:] "How on earth does anyone on this planet think they know what 'Jesus' or 'God' or any other being or deity might want for another human being?"
_________________________________
Well, at the outset Mother Teresa had visions in which Jesus told her what to do.  And as a Catholic nun, she was familiar with the biblical teaching about the need to take up the cross of self-denial and come, follow Jesus.  Empathy with the suffering of others induces generally induces suffering in the loving helper.  Teresa was familiar with the teaching of the Psalms, reinforced by Catholic mystics like John of the Cross, about"the Dark Night of the Soul."  For most Christians, this is an inevitable stage of the path to true spiritual growth and has a powerful purifying effect on faith that detaches it from enslavement to life's emotional roller coaster.  The "Dark Night" stage create a deeper connection with God that the pilgrim (including Mother Teresa) senses profoundly, a connection that generates spiritual power through total dependence on God's guiding and strengthening hand.

Don

[Beau:] "And it has always bothered me that none of the biblical accounts are from contemporaries of Jesus, so logically I must discount the bible as any more reliable than any other book of wisdom."
_________________________________

Again, you pontificate from the biased ignorance of the New Age Ghetto.  You are not even open to hearing the case outside the Ghetto that connects most of the New Testament with Jesus' contempories and connects the Gospels with eyewitness testimony.  Or are you? 

Don

Don,

Why not ask Beau if he would like to hear the argument for first-hand (contemporary) verification about Jesus without mentioning that he is pontificating from the ghetto?  Some are intimidated by such a remark?  Others are offended.  For myself, I find the term derogatory, ghettos I associate with places of poverty in the US and places of sheer misery in Europe during WWII.  (i.e. the Warsaw ghetto).

I believe your goal has been to wake people up and see from another perspective, but if the query is directed in a somewhat derogatory or mean-spirited manner, the natural response is not to open up to learning (clearly you have much to share), but to bristle and throw something back at you.

You remind me of the professor from that old TV show/movie the Paper Chase, who taught law students, who were for the most part terrified of his class.  In the end, if they could prove themselves to him, they would have to be outstanding lawyers.  But at what cost?


M

Don,

I know you are not ignorant. But we are very different personas. I am aware of the 'evidence' you speak of. I find it highly suspect. I am not in the business of disproving Jesus, but I don't like to see people bully their beliefs around citing the very suspect evidence that is in question. To fall for such an argument would be ignorant.

[Beau:] "I am aware of the 'evidence' you speak of. I find it highly suspect."
______________________

I think you're posturing; so I'll call your bluff.  What is the evidence? 

Matthew, I think my Ghetto rhetoric has proven its purpose: to make people defensive about their unwillingness to engage the big bad world of honest and open inquiry in a way that transcends the narrow pontifications of New Agers. 

Besides, I'm thinking of starting a thread based on the NY Times bestseller, "The Hidden Messages in Water," by Japanese scientist, Masaru Emoto.  That book takes the subject of mind-matter penetration to a whole new level and is therefore relevant to afterlife research.  But I don't want to waste my time posting for an audience that revels in expressing opinions with no need for rational justification.  So I'm trying to flush out just how mindless and close-minded this New Age Ghetto really is.  My anticipated thread may be a waste of critical energy.

Don

I think you misjudge some readers on the board, as many are open to your posts and ideas without the ghetto stuff.  You see it works both ways.  If a "new ager" is open to ideas without critically reviewing them (such as the "everyone is right" attitude), then your words may find an audience.  I doubt you are going to get many people to make judgements solely based on a thorough review of the available literature on a subject.  There just aren't many people that want to engage like that. 

I also think that Emoto's book/thesis is a great idea for a thread, Don.  I posted about it a few years ago (the book has been out for a while) but it didn't get much attention at the time.  I think I know where you would go with it (presumptuous of me, yes), but ame very interested anyway, because it brings up topics near and dear to my heart such as human intent/belief changing/creating reality in the physical world. 

Matthew

That's my point, Don. There is no evidence outside of those who have a vested interest in proving that contemporaries of Jesus could have written the Bible. The best evidence I have read...and remember that's my impression of what evidence should be and it is obviously  vastly different from yours, is that John-- If he lived 80 years might have written his book. The same has been said of Mark, but again it would require moving heaven and earth to believe it since the dating  does not support it. I'm not a scientist, nor do I pretend to know things I don't KNOW because of what someone else has written. But my question is why isn't there a book about Jesus written from the time he alive. There is nothing except a letter from Pilot to Seneca in which he mentions Jesus for a brief moment and that is considered by most to be a forgery...though everything from that period is technically a forgery because the parchment that they wrote on couldn't survive the years and the Monks would copy it over to preserve it. Perhaps you have some evidence that is not tainted by theology. I would be very interested to see it and I mean that.

I find it irrational to use the mind given me not to think things through. I don't remember everything I read as my motive in life is not to debate people but to grow my Self. I may find my way to the christian view of Jesus someday in spite how immature I think it is, but it won't be because something claiming to be evidence but is really more speculation is shoved down my throat. Still I would like to see what you're findings are on Emoto, because I will read anything I can get my hands on... But I am skeptical of anyone who thinks they know something... I don't really see how that fits into your New Age insult at all.

Yours,
Beau

Speaking of Emoto. I only know what I saw in What the Bleep Do I know?  I think that's the guy anyway and I thought it was interesting, especially the chi water, but I haven't read anything about how the experiment was carried out.

Beau,

OK, you don't know the evidence that connects Jesus with eyewitness testimony.  You are of course entitled to ignore the real evidence.  I am neither trying to single you out or embarrass you.  Posters on this site constantly dismiss the Bible with virtually no knowledge of the relevant issues.  My goal is this: to get New Agers angry enough to be defensive in a healthy way.  That is, I want them to communicate  in such a way that makes it clear that they don't know what they don't know.  That way, they might be able to ask discerning questions which they passionately and genuinely want answered. 

Emoto is not a New Ager; yet his research dovetails neatly with the questions New Agers constantly ask.  In my several years on this board, I have rarely found New Agers willing to read solid books on the research of parapsychologists. 

My Ghetto perspective is reinforced by my experimental reactivation of my old thread on "The OBE and Phasing Evidence for an Afterlife." As I expected, none of the newbies from the past two years have responded to its case studies and the surrounding debate.  Yet that thread summarizes the best evidence pro and con the validity of such evidence for survival beyond the body.  I am trying to prod new posters into using their minds to engage relevant experiences and research critically, so that this site might actually expand perspectives in a measurably helpful way.

Don

Well Don, That is a very admirable idea. I think it's great to know what we are talking about. It's true, I don't remember things that aren't what I'm looking for. I read something and if it peaks my interest I file it away, but if it's something that screams of "establishment" bias I just move on. I'm not a researcher, but I do a lot of research. It's just that I don't do it to make points to someone else so it's difficult to really engage myself in a hot debate without sounding like I'm saying, "I know what I know, so get f- yourself". I'm not interested in swaying someone else's opinion, but I am very interested in being swayed because I AM discerning. But still I like to mull it over for awhile.

I have to tell your though that your tone can really drive me up the wall sometimes and I know that is your intent and good for you.

I will read any book by any one but if it doesn't hold up for me as truth but more a manipulation of the masses what am I to do?

I often wondered as a child, "how will I ever exist in the heaven my grandmother is going to"?

Any way I will read it just because you suggested it.

Point me in the direction of eye witness testimony because I would like to see the evidence even if I don't agree with it after checking it out.

I too would like to know what the eye witness testimony evidence is. But I would also like to point out that even if eye witness testimony could be established there are other issues. Psychologists know that different people can have different recall from the same observed event ( a robbery for instance ). Also we know from our experience of politics ( at least in the UK ) that 'spin' can be put onto events so that they are seen in the light that the correspondent wants them seen in. For example it was important to the Jews that the Messiah was a direct descendent of David to fulfil prophesy; it is alleged that Jesus's lineage was manipulated by Mathew and Luke to make Him a direct descendant. This is without including translational issues.

For me, at least, there is enough doubt here to refrain from drawing definitive answers. I have no problem with people taking a 'leap of faith' as long as I'm not expected to take the leap with them.

Dave

I went back and looked at the OBE & Phasing Evidence thread.

Good stuff!

To repeat a point made on that thread, why do you suppose no one has come forward to volunteer for an experiment that would demonstrate the reality of OBEs?

I'm not referring to OBEs that occur concurrently with a NDE, but to those that allegedly occur via the intent of the individual, such as Wm Buhlman.

He has written several books, proclaiming his ability to leave his body.  I'm sure there are many others who proclaim the same ability.

So why not put to rest this whole issue of OBEs?  The new age world certainly must have at least a few serious researchers who should jump at the chance of demonstrating the OBE ability.  Why hasn't it happened?

As the old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary verification.  We seem to have plenty of claims, but precious little in the way of verification.

The common denominator among most new age adherents is their singular unwillingness to engage in critical self-examination of their own beliefs.  They have no problem in accepting any number of bizarre conspiracy theories, no matter how far fetched.

New agers will accept on face value all sorts of totally undocumented claims made by others (such as the contention that 9/11 was the result of an ingenious plan by the evil George Bush) but who get their undies in a knot as soon as someone challenges their assumptions.

Maybe we could have some solid reasons why it's impossible to show that OBEs really do occur instead of the same old worn out attacks against anyone who desires verification regarding their reality.

R

I'm enjoying that thread as well, but I think the reasons why people don't take up with an evidential study on OBEs is pretty obvious. How do you study objectively a subjective experience? Go find out for yourself if you want to and if not that's fine too. I neither accept or refute the OBEs into this physical realm where testing would actually make good sense. I've never done it and I don't take it on face value from anyone else that they have. I believe it is a shift in perception to what most would consider a dream realm. I don't believe the brain houses one's consciousness. I base that on a lot of study but I have only studied it for myself. There is a lot of info out there and yes, some of it would probably be considered New Age Ghetto Trash on this board by some, but the scientific studies that I have seen so far all point to a place in the brain where there is activity during a certain event and somehow that is evidence that deeper in the brain somewhere is the seat of consciousness. It seems to me it is the same mysticism in a different wrapper. It is very easy to disprove something that can't be proven ...yet.

I believe we have to be careful here. The 'extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence' argument has never really impressed me. For example what constitutes 'extradordinary' ? It is usually anything which the Skeptic arbitrarily labels thus. For example many skeptics think psi is extraordinary but there's lots of data supporting it.

Also we need to be careful about lumping very different issues in together. For example holocaust denial in with pk research. They are totally different things. I am not happy with lumping such disparate things under the 'new age' label so that the thing under investigation is is discredited by association. Perhaps there are legitimate scientific reasons why obes are difficult verify objectively (but they still may be real ). Only open-minded research will tell. In the meantime perhaps its sensible to suspend judgment (and ridicule).

Dave

<<I'm enjoying that thread as well, but I think the reasons why people don't take up with an evidential study on OBEs is pretty obvious. How do you study objectively a subjective experience?>>

Hi Beau-

Well, many of these experiences are not subjective.  For example, a patient who, while undergoing surgery or whose heartbeat has momentarily stopped, can recite, word for word, what the nurses and doctors were saying to each other while he or she was clinically dead.

What's subjective about that, especially when the medical staff corroborates what the patient heard?

So no, at least many OBEs are not subjective.

In fact, a hospital is now doing OBE research, by doing what seems logical....placing placards with numbers or symbols on them in places where a patient could not see them unless they were to leave their body.

It's just intriguing (and a bit suspicious) as to why folks like Buhlman don't volunteer as a subject in similar experiments.  Heck, if I had the abilities Buhlman claims, I would be first in line to offer myself up to a researcher.  I would want to spread the word from the rooftops, so to speak.

R

Rondele aka Ronald McDonald

The cases in which NDErs witness the happenings in the hospital room in which they have died are extremely rare.  How many can you actually name?  There aren't many.  Of course, these are the most important ones, for they verify the validity of the out of body experience and the continuation of consciousness after death.

However, if you take a look at my journals, and those of other avid OBErs on other forums, you will see that projections into the Astral Realms are just as common, probably even more so, than projections into the Real Time Zone (the dimension closest to the physical in which it is possible to witness realtime happenings on Earth). 

And even when one projects to the RTZ and believes they are observing the physical world, the thoughts of the projector heavily color the experience, and so if one tries a card reading experiment and has even the slightest expectation of what the card is, reality will be altered to meet the expectation and the card will change.  So even the projections closest to the physical world are subjective to an extent.

I am rather uninterested in setting up an experiment as you have suggested.  I have already proven the validity of my experiences to myself, and I really don't care to prove them to others- if they believe me then thats great, and if they don't, then I doubt telling them that I accurately read a card while out of body will change their minds.

Ah well, If we're talking about NDE out of body then I have read countless accounts of just what you describe, and no I'm not saying those are completely subjective. I thought we were talking about Astral OBEs which don't really have any relevance in the objective world.

I don't know much about Buhlman except what I get from his newsletter once in a blue moon. Does he claim to go walking through the physical world in an OBE?

As for Sam Parnia's study I feel like perhaps the psi uncertainty principle (Campbell) might play a factor in that. Not everyone who has an NDE will end up in the physical will they? And it seems like the more we try to measure it the more evading it is, but then so it was with measuring light particles. Observation seems to have a profound effect on energy.

Also with Parnia's study and the writing above the walls it seems that so much is dependent on getting it right. It's not so simple as have an NDE and then "now where are those dang words Sam wanted me to read?"

I think it will be an arduous task to get verifiable info from that study too because most NDErs aren't practiced at manipulating themselves in OBE, but it would be nice to have something solid to look at, no pun intended.