All the afterlife experiences seem to be verified by people who have lived decent or fairly good lives. Is there any evidence that 'bad' people 'or 'evil' people have had after life experiences and what are they described as???

martybera wrote on Jan 24^th, 2010 at 10:35pm:

All the afterlife experiences seem to be verified by people who have lived decent or fairly good lives. Is there any evidence that 'bad' people 'or 'evil' people have had after life experiences and what are they described as???

In the afterlife it is much of "Birds of a Feather Flock together, Hitler to his dismay is now surrounded by entities so evil it is beyond comprehension, good eternal bad luck to that evil monster!!

Martybera,

It is my belief that there are no 'evil' people in the world, and there never have been 'evil' people in the world.

Perhaps there are people who don't yet understand what love really is. That is all.

Love is not something that exists just for one who is 'special' or 'better' than another.

People can believe what they like.

In my afterlife, love is the attracting force which exists in all quarters. It covers all 'mistakes' and creates wholeness wherever it finds us.

wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 6:36am:

Martybera, It is my belief that there are no 'evil' people in the world, and there never have been 'evil' people in the world. Perhaps there are people who don't yet understand what love really is. That is all. Love is not something that exists just for one who is 'special' or 'better' than another. People can believe what they like. In my afterlife, love is the attracting force which exists in all quarters. It covers all 'mistakes' and creates wholeness wherever it finds us.

Tell that to one of the victims of the Holocaust, what silliness is this? Would you let Jeffry Dahmer, or Ted Bundy baby sit your children

There is Evil and there are dark realms in the afterlife that would make a christian hell look like a kiddies picnic

Burning people, woman, children is NOT A MISTAKE IT IS "EVIL"

Alan, I'm not interested in arguing with you about this. I have stated my belief, and that is all there is to it, for me. It's really not any more complicated than what I said, for me. It's all I need, for my afterlife to work the way it needs to work. My afterlife is about freeing everyone from their prisons, wherever they may be. You don't have to believe in my afterlife. That's the beauty of it. The fact of the matter is, without the need for me to impose my will on you, it doesn't matter whether you are a saint or a tyrant. I am just the 'hello' and 'goodbye' person, the keeper of the door. That's all I need to be, unless I'm having my 'time off' in my especially nice places.

I dont believe that Hitler nessassarly has to continue to be in some sort of hell. Surly there must be a "back door" even for him. Because if he is still in a hell as some think, then there must be no possibility of there being a forgiving Christian God. You just cant have it both ways. Of course there is another possibility. That Hitler continues to induce others into a hell like belief. An example is people so filled with hate they cant see beyond it.

"Cold" does not exist.  It is merely the absence of "Heat".

"Dark" does not exist.  It is merely the absence of "Light"

"Evil" does not exist.  It is merely the absence of "Love".

Quaero wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 3:14pm:

"Cold" does not exist.  It is merely the absence of "Heat". "Dark" does not exist.  It is merely the absence of "Light" "Evil" does not exist.  It is merely the absence of "Love".

The logic of using opposites to "prove" that something doesn't exist is flawed.  For example:

Pain does not exist, it is merely the absence of pleasure.  Or

Hunger doesn't exist, it is merely the absence of a full stomach

It's about balance, not opposites.

R

hi  hitlers name says it all

h  is  for  hatred

i  is  for  inhuman

t  is  for torturer

l  is  for  lifetaker

e  is  for  evil

r  is  for  rotten

need i say anymore ,only that i hope he rots in hell for all eternity,best place for him.

love and god bless    love juditha

Quaero wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 3:14pm:

"Cold" does not exist.  It is merely the absence of "Heat". "Dark" does not exist.  It is merely the absence of "Light" "Evil" does not exist.  It is merely the absence of "Love".

Heat does not exist. It is merely the absence of cold

Light does not exist it is merely the absence of dark

Love does not exist it is merely the absence evil

rondele wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 3:55pm:

Quaero wrote on Jan 25th, 2010 at 3:14pm: "Cold" does not exist.  It is merely the absence of "Heat". "Dark" does not exist.  It is merely the absence of "Light" "Evil" does not exist.  It is merely the absence of "Love". The logic of using opposites to "prove" that something doesn't exist is flawed.  For example: Pain does not exist, it is merely the absence of pleasure.  Or Hunger doesn't exist, it is merely the absence of a full stomach It's about balance, not opposites. R

I don't completely agree with your statements.  It cannot be applied to everything, but it applies to those situations I mentioned. 

This is more a problem with our semantics than anything else.

Besides, Hunger is just the label we apply to the absense of a full stomach

Pain and pleasure can exist together in various degrees.

Again, mostly semantics.

The degree of heat in a substance is a measure of the intensity of the molecular vibration in that substance.  Then, what is "Cold".  That's mostly our label for when we don't feel warm enough.  How do you produce "Cold"?  Answer, you remove heat.  So, which is "real"?

There can be degrees of cold -- but it does not really exist.  It is a label as to how much heat is present.  The degree of cold is inversely proportional to the presence of heat -- which is the degree of molecular vibration.  Absolute cold is Absolute Zero:  - 459.67 degrees below zero, Fahrenheit.  That is the condition of "no heat" (no molecular vibration) in a substance. Radiant "heat energy" can, of course, excite molecular vibrations in materials.

Similarly, there can be degrees of what we call "evil".  Few are totally evil.  Again, evil seems to be inversely proportional to the degree of Love present.  Absolute evil is no Love present.

Admittedly, simplification of complex things can lead to misunderstanding.  But, I was trying to make a simple point, and most know what that point is.

I believe the 'punishment' for being evil is............ well being evil. Its a bit like the tale of a 'Christmas Carol' where the materially wealthy  Scrooge sits at home in the dark/cold sipping gruel while his nephew parties. Every year he is invited but chooses not to, until....

As for Hitler, if there is a creator/source I imagine that He/She celebrates especially when such a character comes to the party....

D

heisenberg69 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 6:34am:

I believe the 'punishment' for being evil is............ well being evil. Its a bit like the tale of a 'Christmas Carol' where the materially wealthy  Scrooge sits at home in the dark/cold sipping gruel while his nephew parties. Every year he is invited but chooses not to, until.... As for Hitler, if there is a creator/source I imagine that He/She celebrates especially when such a character comes to the party.... D

What what what do you mean????????????????

Which would you rather be in Alan, a state of fear and hate or one of love and compassion ? Which is the more desirable/pleasurable state of mind ?  :)

D

heisenberg69 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 7:30am:

Which would you rather be in Alan, a state of fear and hate or one of love and compassion ? Which is the more desirable/pleasurable state of mind ?  :) D

Of cause like anyone I would like to live in peace and Harmony, at the same time I must acknowledge the really that countless evil corrupt people have driven the human race almost to extinction (The atomic bomb)

Would that make the makers of the atomic bomb just as evil as Hitler? Or perhaps the men who dropped it? Or was it really the person who said to drop it? Are the men who killed those Jews as evil as Hitler? How about the ones who drove the trains to take them to their deaths? Or the brothers and sisters, cousins and uncles and aunts who turned in their family members in order to save themselves? How about the Pope? He has to be just as guilty as Hitler. Or is God evil for letting it all happen?

The problem I have with the whole 'evil' thing is that its always the 'other' thats evil. Jews justify killing Arabs because they plant car bombs and kill their children, Palestestians kill Jews since they are evil by launching missiles into Gaza and killing their women and children, Al-Quaida justify blowing up Americans because they are the 'Great Satan', the American military justify torturing suspects at Guantamano bay because of the 'war on terror', the Irish Catholics.....well you get the picture.It goes on and on like a dog chasing its tail. They all think God's on their side.

Did'nt Jesus say 'and why behold you the mote that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye' (Mathew 7:3).

D

Amen Heisenberg.

Or the Church's all calling one anouther evil. Their religion being the only true source to finding the truth and God. Its all just such cr@p.

Hawkeye,

No it's not all just crap.  You just have a simple-minded caricature of these denominations.  Most of these traditions respect truth in other traditions.  For example, I'm a United Methodist and our church has no problem accepting invitations to interdenominational functions at our local Catholic church and vice versa.  Both traditions have a profound respect for the truth displayed in our differences.

Don 

I have been reading the Gospels recently, and have been in awe of their beauty and basic truths as told by Jesus.  What I have noticed is that the Gospels seem to show the message, but to be open to all who want to learn.

The pomp, circumstance and ceremony that many churches have espoused seems, in my non-christian eye to be different thant the simple loving message of the Gospels. 

Unlike other religious texts, I find the New Testament to be relatively free of specific rituals.  Thus, when I hear of strife or disagreement from one faction or another on who or what is the "right way" to God, I wonder, if they can fail to realize that they share the same basic New Testament with a teacher who appeared to loathe the false rituals and pomp of the pharises and saducees of his time. 

Ah well.

To take this further, there is more that Jews and Christians share in common, and Don's talk of interdenominational meetings and interfaith events are a hopeful sign of people who see beyond our differences.
Matthew

Enigma of the existence of evil and the Garden of Eden and “GOD” the Benevolent

I know the story of the Garden and Eden and the fall of man is most likely a mythical account of a people long past in the mists of time

I will try in my own  way to answer this most difficult question.

How can we ever reconcile the fact of evil, suffering and pain, existing side by side with a benevolent holy “GOD” of light?

Let us go back to the story of the Garden of Eden “GOD” says to Adam in Gen,Chap 2 Verse 17 that he may eat of any tree except the “TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL”

Note; The tree of knowledge of Good and evil, so Evil existed before Adam. “Adam” representing an entire people and how they related to “GOD”

However, “GOD” being all-knowing knows before hand that Adam is going to fail the test so why did he give it in the first place? I hear a loud reply from the forum, “because he wanted us to have a free will and not be robots”.

I don’t buy this, completely, as “GOD” could easily have given Adam absolute free and said to him “Adam your can do anything you want without any reservations”

Surely, the above would still have been free will without the “necessity of any test”.

Nevertheless, “GOD” in his infinite wisdom goes ahead and gives Adam (and Eve) a test he “knows they are going to fail, Why? Was this fair seeing the awful consequences for humanity down through the age?

Yes absolutely as I will describe later in this essay

Let us go back to the origin of evil, where did it come from.

Isaiah Chapt. 45 Verse 7 “GOD” says “I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create “evil” I “GOD” do all these things. “GOD” made everything so he must have made evil but why?

Let us go back to Adam and the pampered environment of the Garden of Eden. If Adam and Eve had remained and by obeying God ( as God knew the would not) they would have existed in forever a paradise setting of beauty warmth, comfort, never ever have to toil work just reach out and eat do any thing they want .

This would be wonderful for say a hundred years or a thousand years, but having never ever experienced cold they could not appreciate warmth, never being hungry never appreciate food never being thirsty they would not appreciate the taste and satisfaction of sparking water , never knowing hate the would not know what love was.

They would have existed in a one-sided reality never knowing the opposite. But “GOD” knew that they must know evil, pain and sorrow to become fully functional free thinking beings similar to him in consciousness and indeed co- creators of their own domain and reality

Therefore, after countless years what is paradise to us would become a boring hell to them. Therefore, “GOD” simply had to banish them into the world or toil sorrow and hardship.

So “GOD” being fair and just gave them the test, which they failed and drove them out into the present reality world of thorns, cold, dark, pain, evil etc, etc. This reality is based on a duality we know evil so we know the beauty of goodness; we know truth so we can hate the lie, and we experience the light so that we know dark.

Humanity can look back on a “paradise lost with a longing to for the eternal wonder and beauty of the original Eden, which they would love and rejoice as paradise regained

I do not for one moment believe the nonsense that there is an eternal battle between “GOD” and the Satan and that this being is almost Almighty “GOD”s equal. Satan can only do what God permits him to do as we read in the book of Job.

Good and evil
Light and dark
Truth and lie
Deception and honesty
Love and hate
War and Peace
Positive and negative
Faith and despair
Holiness and depravity
Warm and hot
Life and death

And so on and so on……………………

“GOD” bless

Alan
McDougall

b2, my beliefs parallel yours...it is all about love and learning to live in and with love.  It is easy to get distracted in this 3d environment and myriad differing influences may divert us away from our spiritual path and into circumstances from which we cannot extricate ourselves.  The opportunity to learn is found in every experience and some are tremendously more trying than others.

From my standpoint, Hitler did not act alone.  Rather he and a misguided group of power hungry people took advantage of the circumstances available at the time and it got really bad and out of hand.  Add to that, nobody raised their hand and said "Stop"...at least not with any apparent effect.  Surprisingly and at the same time, Stalin actually better controlled a greater killing machine which to this day does not arouse the same level of disgust and furor that Hitler incites. 

The actions of those people were absolutely heinous and inhuman, and what has become of them I do not know...though I do not see the Creator and his boundless love creating a hell, save whatever we create on earth.   

Come on Don. Most religions are based on fear. Fear that if you dont follow their specific rules, your going to hell. I see it as unfortunate that some people who profess themselves as being religious or following the word of Jesus dont have an ability to forgive. Even someone like Hitler. Have you? Has your church? You speak of the acceptance of other religions traditions. What like lighting candles, splashing water of the faces of babies?  But what of their beliefs? What of a church say of Scientology? Or Wicca? Or the belief of Voodoo? Are they as equal in your church? 

Alan,

I like your post, mostly your reminder that God, the all-knowing, of course must have known everything beforehand. (By the way, this sheds some light as well on the so-called "free will" of humans)

There's just one thing, you say the paradise had been a one-sided world, only the pleasant and comfort side of life. This may be so in this myth. There is another way to imagine a paradise. Not only warm, but as well cold and so on, but the people not judging/labeling everything as good or bad, but take everything equally just as it is and comes. This would be, well, an a bit more Nirvana-style paradise, if you don't mind the gross contrast.

Spooky

...sounds like how the earth life system could be....' this could be heaven for everyone ' (Queen).

In musical terms certainly more that Queen song than a Nirvana song  :D .

What a topic and one guaranteed to raise emotions/values. I have been a "seeker" for many, many years as the dogma in religious institutions left me feeling empty. For example, I could never understand how only Baptists could go to heaven, or only Mormons or etc.

As regards the Bible, Torah and the Koran...what is written by man is corrupted by man. My opinion. We see how the churches vie for power in our current time with all the media and other methods of checking on them, How much easier was it to corrupt prophets' messages when only the wealthy and clerics were permitted to learn to read/write?

I believe we all go to God (by whatever name you chose to call him/her/it) regardless of the vehicle we use to get there. Life for each and every person on this planet (disregard other universes etc for now) is a contract made prior to our entry into this plane of existence. Each and everything on this planet is like a cell in the immense body of God.

Now, this brings us to evil. Evil is relative. I think most of us can recognize what we view as evil but I suspect it is more culturally based then we think. I also believe that great evil, which almost no one fails to recognize is an opportunity for humanity to raise its collective consciousness and say "Never again! This will happen never again!" As in Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Kamiruge (not sure the spelling). Dropping an atom bomb. There are so many things we can point to as a people that are no longer acceptable and that we guard against or try to.

The opportunity to raise our collective consciousness is not limited to only man-made atrocities...consider the most recent natural disaster, Haiti. Millions homeless, over 100,000 dead or missing. So much of this misery could have been prevented had it not been for years of corrupt governments raping the country of its assets and leaving the people with absolutely no infrastructure.

I know many people with disagree with me on my opinion regarding "evil" but I believe we all have contracts (and few are major ones, most are small, just to be a comforting shoulder at the right time or mail that 100 to the red cross for Haiti victims, etc) I see every act of hate/chaos as an opportunity to learn to forgive and love more. I am not saying it is easy or comes quickly, but it does come.

I read somewhere long ago.....if there were a heaven, Hitler would be there. His work was as great for humanity as was Jesus, he presented his message differently is all...." quote not verbatim.

The greatest equalizer and the one most difficult to cultivate is love. May humanity one day truly learn that what we do to one, we do to our self also. Bless us all.

Sethlenara...+1

Hmm... the more (considered as) evil, the more raising of consciousness?

Spooky

spooky2 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 10:57pm:

Hmm... the more (considered as) evil, the more raising of consciousness? Spooky

I guess in a way that would be true...all those who participated in the holocaust received an incredible view of genocidal mania, or man's absolute destruction of his own kind in the most brutal ways possible...that would be a lesson never needed again, I would like to assume.

hi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hqUvBbGBeo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-aTx2UjH8U&feature=related




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI-3-irOxOw&feature=related



love and god bless  love juditha

Thank you Juditha...I was thinking in terms of just those souls involved and the massive scale of the holocaust.  But you are right...as it continues even today.  And well within some of our lives, the estimated slaughter of over 22 million people during the reign of Stalin in various creative and wholesale ways.

If the very source of all consciousness is loving by nature, then it is impossible for a being to be truly/naturally evil. 

usetawuz, that doesn't make sense to me. Experiencing destruction of that kind might result in just having extreme experiences, but what it contributes to the evolution of a soul is a mystery to me. Maybe more "Loosh" is then produced, an energetical substance Monroe heard of in his explorations, but in this case it's not produced because of highly evoluted individuals, but because of plain damned suffering. People who survived kept on suffering from that, having feelings of guilt of why they survived, and the other's didn't. I just can't see any meaningful, good evolution here.

Spooky

yes Dude, it is just as it is, right? When we look closer at evil people, we have to label them maybe "insane", as an expression that we just don't know why they did what they did, and because that is so foreign to us. And still, we live in the same world. We breath the same air. We are of the same stuff.

Spooky

What we class as Evil, is merely a learning experince.

We need all levels of soul development this enables us to be challenged, if it wasn't this way we wouldn't grow.

So yes there are so called Evil souls, but they are still the light, they just haven't remembered who they are yet.

spooky2 wrote on Feb 8^th, 2010 at 10:10pm:

usetawuz, that doesn't make sense to me. Experiencing destruction of that kind might result in just having extreme experiences, but what it contributes to the evolution of a soul is a mystery to me. Maybe more "Loosh" is then produced, an energetical substance Monroe heard of in his explorations, but in this case it's not produced because of highly evoluted individuals, but because of plain damned suffering. People who survived kept on suffering from that, having feelings of guilt of why they survived, and the other's didn't. I just can't see any meaningful, good evolution here. Spooky

My sense is that suffering, any suffering, is an opportunity to develop as a soul.  Kind of a microcosm of life as a whole.  What if you were stuck in an elevator in the first instance, or you were undergoing an extremely horrifying experience in the second...the questions are the same.  How did you manage to deal with it up to the point you were either rescued in the former or died in the latter?  Did you do your best to assist the others you were suffering with? Or did you cast blame and lash out at the others with you at your mutual misfortune?  Did you realize that the situation was out of your control and with the calm and understanding of that fact, did you do what you could to help others come to the same conclusion, with the resultant ease of mind?  Bottom line:  did you increase the fear/negativity or did you attempt to calm the situation and assist those with you to diminish that fear/negativity. 

The intensity of the lessons/opportunities will vary, however the lessons are all the same...to deal with all life throws at you with love and fearlessness...to help others see it when they can't, whether by your actions or examples. 

The way I see it we achieve growth through experiences, good and bad, and how we deal with them, either with love or with fear, determines how much we have learned/grown, or not learned and fallen back to go through it again.

I haven't read enough of Monroe's books to understand loosh and the continued effects of bad experiences.  I feel, however,  that part of our progression includes developing the ability to cast off the negativity we have collected during our sojourns in the third dimensional lives we live.  Some come to it sooner and others later, but from my experience, the ability to consciously release past negativity from previous lives has changed my life in the present. 

spooky2 wrote on Feb 8^th, 2010 at 10:15pm:

yes Dude, it is just as it is, right? When we look closer at evil people, we have to label them maybe "insane", as an expression that we just don't know why they did what they did, and because that is so foreign to us. And still, we live in the same world. We breath the same air. We are of the same stuff. Spooky

I agree, Spooky.  I have read in Newton's books about poor matches between a soul and a human brain that can cause "insanity" or other faulty effects in the resultant being's actions.  Also, there are those who end up in environments or situations in which they cannot see a way out, or to do the "right" thing would result in their injury or death and they sought self-preservation. 

Some other negativity is caused by very young (experientially) souls, or those with the greatest share of their experience from other dimensional worlds who have not properly adjusted to the density and intensity of our third dimensional world, and they, too, have had lives in which their actions and reactions caused themselves and others negative situations.

I am reminded that none of us are evil souls/beings, simply playing the parts we chose in this world...and some of us are ad libbing, or leaving the script at a greater rate than others! 

   

balance wrote on Feb 8^th, 2010 at 11:33pm:

What we class as Evil, is merely a learning experience. We need all levels of soul development this enables us to be challenged, if it wasn't this way we wouldn't grow. So yes there are so called Evil souls, but they are still the light, they just haven't remembered who they are yet.

So the poor Jews in the Holocaust wre just undergoing a learning experience Pleeeaaassssee!! Wake up to reality. My mother who was Jewish would have been exterminated in the most hideous way so that the NAZIS could give them the ultimate learning experience   :'(

I propose that the 'proper' question is not 'are' there evil people and are they a 'lesson' for anyone to learn, but: What is, and what can be healed at this time?

I'm not a fan of the "evil is necessary for spiritual growth" argument.  Evil simply is acting in opposition to God and love.  Our choice to choose, but consequences follow.  Might we learn via the consequences?  Sure.  But they are not necessary.

The same tired argument about the need for evil is often included in the need for poverty and suffering.  It goes something like this; that in order to transcend our human situation we must suffer and overcome, and then we will be wise.  Hogwash.  Although I have no doubt that there are many instances of people who overcame horror or suffering, it is by no means our birthright.  Likewise, poverty is not morally superior to wealth unless the person is "unloving" as a result of the material wealth.

When one applies intent, and creates in the physical world, it is amazing to see what happens.  The law of attraction has been verified by people of many different beliefs/If a person in doing so pursues wealth and riches, they may acquire it.  In fact many teachers of mind and mind theories argue that due to our natural ability to co-create with intent, that riches and wealth are our birthright, not suffering.  That we attract suffering through misunderstanding that it is in some way necessary, when in fact it is not.

An evil person pursues actions and encourages thoughts which are in the opposite direction to God and love.  They act unlovingly and consequences follow.  How silly it is to assume that their victims all needed to experience the horrors that were inflicted in order to grow in spirit. 

We grow spiritually when we love and express love in a selfless, non egotistical manner.  We grow in spirit as our thoughts and actions turn toward God and love of others, and less toward selfish needs.  Tragedy or horror may push us toward growth as well, but it just as easily may terrify a person enough that they are killed and catapaulted into a hell or hollow heaven, or are earthbound, not having felt ready yet to leave the earth plane.

So, evil is a choice, made by those who choose a certain way, and nourish the seeds of ill thought which flower into evil actions and events.  It is not, however, a prerequisite for the victims to grow in spirit.


Matthew

Alan McDougall wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 3:04am:

balance wrote on Feb 8th, 2010 at 11:33pm: What we class as Evil, is merely a learning experience. We need all levels of soul development this enables us to be challenged, if it wasn't this way we wouldn't grow. So yes there are so called Evil souls, but they are still the light, they just haven't remembered who they are yet. So the poor Jews in the Holocaust wre just undergoing a learning experience Pleeeaaassssee!! Wake up to reality. My mother who was Jewish would have been exterminated in the most hideous way so that the NAZIS could give them the ultimate learning experience   :'(

Depends on which reality you choose to discuss...this third dimensional, experiential reality or the energetic, multi-dimensional reality which this board is attempting to assist us in understanding.

Our three dimensional conscience recoils at the disregard for life exhibited by the holocaust and any other horrible event that causes a dramatic change in dimensional state.  The effects on those remaining here are devastating and have a permanent effect on our souls...but, upon our earthly death we gain the perpsective of countless previous deaths and the surrounding feelings that attached to each one of those, and the lessons learned regarding those events.   

The idea is that all the events that have occurred in one's life were all possibilities contemplated in pre-birth planning prior to choosing the body.  Each soul sees various potential experiences and chooses the body/family/life that includes the opportunities they favor.  I will try to find the cite that discussed the holocaust and the pre-birth planning that included participation therein.

So, technically, your mother would have had to choose a body/family/life that would have put her into the experience with the nazis...it apparently was not an experience she chose.

Usetawuz said:

"So, technically, your mother would have had to choose a body/family/life that would have put her into the experience with the nazis...it apparently was not an experience she chose."

This line of thought comes from reincarnational dogma, and Michael Newton's Journey of Souls.  However, if reincarnation is not as commonplace as some think - if spiritual mergings of souls in afterlife explorations (or alternatively experiencing the life of a "disc member" as if it were our own past life) debunk the reincarnationists theories, then you are left without any logic or evidence for your quotation.

Again, as I said in my post, one can argue that our ability to create with belief makes abundance and joy our true birthright, not poverty, misery and grief.  As such, the idea that a spirit would have to choose to be in fear and horror in a gas chamber and perish that way so that they may improve in spirit seems to me both incorrect and outrageous.

Matthew

DocM wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 11:26am:

Usetawuz said: "So, technically, your mother would have had to choose a body/family/life that would have put her into the experience with the nazis...it apparently was not an experience she chose." This line of thought comes from reincarnational dogma, and Michael Newton's Journey of Souls.  However, if reincarnation is not as commonplace as some think - if spiritual mergings of souls in afterlife explorations (or alternatively experiencing the life of a "disc member" as if it were our own past life) debunk the reincarnationists theories, then you are left without any logic or evidence for your quotation. Again, as I said in my post, one can argue that our ability to create with belief makes abundance and joy our true birthright, not poverty, misery and grief.  As such, the idea that a spirit would have to choose to be in fear and horror in a gas chamber and perish that way so that they may improve in spirit seems to me both incorrect and outrageous. Matthew

I am new to this and reincarnational "dogma" as written in Newton's books resonated with me.  I am not aware of spiritual mergings of souls and would like to be directed to a cite which could enlighten me.

I do believe that creation of joy and abundance is the ultimate goal and we are here to learn how to do that.  Until that time arises, are we not living in this third dimension being presented with opportunities to create and make each life a joy?  It is not a societal priority and seems to be the goal of some but certainly not all.  Could it be that we are all so retarded in our development that all the "evil" in our world is simply the result of our inability to create our own joy and abundance? 

I have no answers, but I would rather think that we are all learning to create our own joy and abundance and that when we fall short either as individuals or a society and allow horrendous events to occur that there is some positive to come from such an experience...and I would also rather think that I had a choice through free will to select which immutable events in which to participate...if there are indeed any immutable events.   

The new me weighs in…

Disclaimer: I am going to use words like advanced, truth which have a connotation many of you may take as elitist. Before you dress me done on it consider what I mean by it… there is a hierarchy of consciousness. The Newtonian paradigm is a world of cause and effect, good and bad… when you rise spiritually above the cause and effect paradigm… and enter the realm of Pure Unconditional Love… cause and effect no longer exists… there is no good and bad… there is no evil… those are illusions.

Until recently I was deeply in the good/bad world… then I discovered the truth… and everything changed… this is an advanced concept… but it is encompassed in Robert Monroes key idea: ’The greatest illusion of all is that man has limitations.’

The limitations are your beliefs and those beliefs are a barrier to… the Truth… the Light… the world of cause and effect will always be there… Yogi’s call it Maya… as a spiritual being you come into it randomly… you have the ability to let go of it at any time… until you do… you will spin in a dwindling spiral… which leads no where…

Think about this.

There is no Evil.

S.

Debate about whether good and evil exist is meaningless apart from philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein's basic insight that the real meaning of words is their use in our language games.  Thus, "evil" by definition exists in language games in which we need to express fear and outrage beyond belief for the unnecessary pain and debilitation caused by someone who meant harm to another.  The real issue is what harm is and is not possible in this life and especially in the next (e.g. the shredding of atheist Howard Storm's spirit body by denizens of a hellish plane prior to his NDE rescue by Jesus).

Robert Bruce was trying to exorcise a possessed toddler whose entity was ruining his life.  In an act of love RB challenged the entity to enter him instead.  RB imagined that he could rid himself of the entity through various means (sending it PUL, etc.) at his own convenience.  Instead, the entity took control of RB and, more than once, he found himself baside the crib with a sharp knife poised to stab his young son.  RB felt almost powerless to resist this urge. Finally, out of desperation, he went out into the wllderness, thinking he might be killed, but not wanting to be present to his child to do it harm.  Eventually, he broke free of this possession. 

I would call this entity by definition "evil," and would argue that RB's reckless disregard for the power of evil almost cost him and his son their lives.  It strikes me as meaningless and just plain silly to allege a "higher purpose" for such malevolence.  Such examples could of course be multiplied.

Don   

Seraphis1 wrote on Feb 11^th, 2010 at 7:37pm:

The new me weighs in… Disclaimer: I am going to use words like advanced, truth which have a connotation many of you may take as elitist. Before you dress me done on it consider what I mean by it… there is a hierarchy of consciousness. The Newtonian paradigm is a world of cause and effect, good and bad… when you rise spiritually above the cause and effect paradigm… and enter the realm of Pure Unconditional Love… cause and effect no longer exists… there is no good and bad… there is no evil… those are illusions. Until recently I was deeply in the good/bad world… then I discovered the truth… and everything changed… this is an advanced concept… but it is encompassed in Robert Monroes key idea: ’The greatest illusion of all is that man has limitations.’ The limitations are your beliefs and those beliefs are a barrier to… the Truth… the Light… the world of cause and effect will always be there… Yogi’s call it Maya… as a spiritual being you come into it randomly… you have the ability to let go of it at any time… until you do… you will spin in a dwindling spiral… which leads no where… Think about this. There is no evil S.

So the twin towers bombers were just good loving guys going about their daily learning experience and the victims deserved what they got due to the law of karma

Who would you choose as a vehicle of divine truth, Jesus Christ? or Robert Monroe,? obviously you think Monroe is the guy to follow, maybe all the way into a hell you do not believe in!!

This debate's one where experince tells the soul the truth. You can't know what you haven't experienced, and in truth its most often a souls ego which speaks loudest, for its screaming because its life depends on it.


There is evil, this you can be assured, its your ego which tells you its not so, not the other way around. Are there souls more advanced than others on the earth plain you bet there are, and when you want to think other wise, its your ego telling you this isn't true.

Alan, is just trying to save you time and effort. He's doing nothing more than relaying what he knows to be true. Its really something that seems beyond your ability to comprehend at present. You seem to want to beleive your ego and live within the illusion. Live there, who cares in the end you will know the truth, for one day you will have to face and overcome such evil. For this is the only way forward.

Evil's there to challenge the soul, to test its resolve,


Enjoy the ride, it long, difficult and God dam hard when your coming to the end. If you haven't struggled, been challenged to the point where it seems nearly impossible to see the light through all the darkness, then you have no idea yet what evolution really takes

What shall we 'call' it when someone insists to another that they 'will' experience evil, and that something must be wrong with them if they don't 'see' it the same way as another. What shall we 'call' it when people are accused of listening to 'ego' and warned that they are 'inferior' because they don't 'believe' the same things. What shall we call it when 'evolution' is equated to 'suffering' and held up in such a way as to demean another person?

So the twin towers bombers were just good loving guys going about their daily learning experience and the victims deserved what they got due to the law of karma

Who would you choose as a vehicle of divine truth, Jesus Christ? or Robert Monroe,? obviously you think Monroe is the guy to follow, maybe all the way into a hell you do not believe in!![/quote]

I don't think anyone is describing terrorists as "good loving guys", nor that those victimized by their actions were getting their karmic due.  All anyone has attempted to do is to voice their opinions, their truths about the topic of "evil people".  To put words in their mouths, or to minimize their points of view with ridicule and hyperbole reduces the level of the conversation.

balance wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 5:48am:

Alan, is just trying to save you time and effort. He's doing nothing more than relaying what he knows to be true. Its really something that seems beyond your ability to comprehend at present.

That certainly appears to be his truth and my comprehension of his version of it is resounding in its clarity.  It isn't my truth, and I appreciate others having differing views and hearing about them.  However, it seems detrimental to the conversation to determine that someone is wrong in a forum discussing opinions...I would rather hear more about other's truths than the invalidity of my own from someone with another viewpoint.

Alan McDougall wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 3:28am:

[quote author=192F382B3A2223397B4A0 link=1264386912/45#45 date=1265931464] Who would you choose as a vehicle of divine truth, Jesus Christ? or Robert Monroe,? obviously you think Monroe is the guy to follow, maybe all the way into a hell you do not believe in!!

I choose Robert Monroe, I know for sure he existed.

S.

[quote author=595E584B444D4F474F2A0 link=1264386912/47#47 date=1265959704][quote author=192F382B3A2223397B4A0 link=1264386912/45#45 date=1265931464]

So the twin towers bombers were just good loving guys going about their daily learning experience and the victims deserved what they got due to the law of karma

quote]

The twin tower bombers were simple part of the Maya of cause and effect that the MIND creates as part of the linear sequence aparency... evolving out of the illusion of karma.

S.

For me, the word is 'false'.

Fear: false evidence appearing as real.


wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 9:24am:

What shall we 'call' it when someone insists to another that they 'will' experience evil, and that something must be wrong with them if they don't 'see' it the same way as another. What shall we 'call' it when people are accused of listening to 'ego' and warned that they are 'inferior' because they don't 'believe' the same things. What shall we call it when 'evolution' is equated to 'suffering' and held up in such a way as to demean another person?

I wonder if there is such a thing as being so religiously unbalanced that you become evil? Like the tower bombers... I would think that they believe that they are about as close to their God as they could be. Now being close to God like them,...is that evil? Or how about the Crusades? There was a bunch of good time religious, God fearing boys. Evil or not? What about the witch burners?    

"I wonder if there is such a thing as being so religiously unbalanced that you become evil? L"
_____________________________________

Yes, and I would take that one step further: unbalanced religious devotion is a major source of evil.  Spiritual growth is almost always dogged by severe tests which determine whether the transformation is real and permanent or illusory.  That was true of Jesus and it is certainly true of the Christians I've encountered.  In fact, I have recently observed that Christians who get into several moral or legal trouble often fall prey to this precisely when they are making quantum leaps forward in the unselfishness of their journey.  For example, I am now regularly visiting a Christian school psychologist in jail, charged with child molestation.  The outcome is uncertain, but this charge came right after a time when he was offering his services for a wide variety of altruistic services.  Apart from this charge, everyone recognizes this man as one of the most warm, loving, and useful people in town.  Christians often fail their tests and regress.  This failure can make them worse human beings than they were prior to their conversion.

Also, I have observed that every life-changing powerful spiritual gift has its odious counterfeit.  For example, speaking in tongues can unleash more ecstasy and spiritual power than any other human experience.  But if counterfeit, it can increase religious bigotry and can even be vehicle for dangerous possession or oppression by evil spirits.  I am appalled by how little attention is devoted to spiritual discernment in such matters, though the exercise of such discernment is threatening and uncomfortably ego-dewflating.

These two principles give religion a bad name.  For these reasons, Hawkeye, I sympathize with your loathing of religious fundamentalism.

Don

Don, your posts are interesting.  How do we reconcile the complexities of a man or woman who can perform hundred of kind or loving acts and then scores of depraved ones at the same time?

I have been thinking about starting a thread about spiritual learning, because it is a subject on my mind.  In short, I would say that there is a difference between understanding a spiritual concept and incorporating it into your consciousness.  The psychologist you mentioned may have been acting out pf charitable intentions, but was it for show?  Was it the exterior skin that he was wearing that was for show when he donated his time and sympathy, hoping to score brownie points of piousness, or was it sincere?  If sincere, and if he did molest a child, how are we to reconcile the loving and unloving natures of the man?  People truly are complex or multilayered.

I believe his true spiritual self is the soul who acts a certain way when no one is watching.  Integrity means doing the right thing without recognition, simply because it is the loving/right thing to do.

This is part of the complexity of spiritual learning in this earth plane; that we can learn in our exteriors, using our intellect and know what it is to be good, or we can incorporate goodness into our interiors, where it binds with our own convictions and beliefs.  The exteriors fall off when we die, as Swedenborg expounded on, so the secret to spiritual learning is to cultivate one's interior self.  This concept deserves its own thread, and I will start it shortly.

Matthew

Alan,

"Who would you choose as a vehicle of divine truth, Jesus Christ? or Robert Monroe,? obviously you think Monroe is the guy to follow, maybe all the way into a hell you do not believe in!!"

Scare tactics, suggesting good ol' hell awaits the wanderer. A dark manoeuvre; evil, if you like. So, you want to follow jesus, right?, but you don't seem too happy about the prospect of others dancing to another tune?

Balance,

"[...]You can't know what you haven't experienced[...]
"[...]Alan, is just trying to save you time and effort.[...]"

Notice the contradiction?

"[...]He's doing nothing more than relaying what he knows to be true. Its really something that seems beyond your ability to comprehend at present.[...]"

That could be an excuse for just about anything, with the added arrogance, which rhymes with balance, but not at all with ego, which you also wrote about. While I jump on the discussion bandwagon, I also notice that egos like to join groups, as the egos merge and thus apparently become bigger and more powerful.

Volu wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 8:43pm:

Alan, "Who would you choose as a vehicle of divine truth, Jesus Christ? or Robert Monroe,? obviously you think Monroe is the guy to follow, maybe all the way into a hell you do not believe in!!" Scare tactics, suggesting good ol' hell awaits the wanderer. A dark manoeuvre; evil, if you like. So, you want to follow jesus, right?, but you don't seem too happy about the prospect of others dancing to another tune?

Hi Volu: The problem with using Jesus as a model is Jesus is a myth modeled on some very ancient sources... i.e... the whole of the Jesus myth is almost verbatim modeled on the Isis/Osiris myth and goes back to the Mithra myth... but, if you know how to read the symbols (as I discuss in my thread "Important discovery"... the crucifixion is simply the destruction of the Ego in order to liberate the consciousness from the objective world into the subjective world of the non-physical world... which is what Robert Monroe strives to do with Hemi-sync forgoing the necessity for the crucifixion scenario for spiritual asperants... the Ego died hard prior to Hemi-sync.


S.

Seraphis,

Your denial of the existence of Jesus is not based on historical fact, written records, eye witness testimonies, etc.  As such, unfortunately it is Kool-Aid New Age drivel.  While it is not wrong to question the evidence behind anything (i.e. did Jesus of Nazareth exist?), you would have to have gone through the ancient writings, records, etc. to have any way to meaningfully answer this question.

The similarities of JC to Egyptian Gods, writings of the Essenes, etc. in no way shows that he did or did not exist and walk the earth.  Ridiculous.  Now, if you use afterlife exploration techniques, and astral exploration, along with NDEs, you find overwhelming evidence that Jesus did/does exist and manifests himself to others.  Monroe wrote of an episode where JC passed by on a chariot and all exposed their abdomens to him - and at that point, Monroe mentioned that the son of God was flying through the heavens.

The anti-biblical New Age conspiracy theories that fly around the Web/internet have major holes - we've been through this before on this forum before you joined. 

All that being said, I do think the story of JC is a perfect story for others to follow to find God and ascend in the afterlife.  To act lovingly, to rid oneself of ego.  In some ways, JC is a perfect model of one who was incarnate in flesh, making a seamless transition into heaven and showing the way to other people.  So the symbolism you mention is accurate.

But please, if you insist on trying to argue that JC is only a myth, you are doing so on no factual data, and in the process are offending a great many people.


Matthew

DocM wrote on Feb 13^th, 2010 at 12:35am:

Seraphis, Your denial of the existence of Jesus is not based on historical fact, written records, eye witness testimonies, etc.  As such, unfortunately it is Kool-Aid New Age drivel.  While it is not wrong to question the evidence behind anything (i.e. did Jesus of Nazareth exist?), you would have to have gone through the ancient writings, records, etc. to have any way to meaningfully answer this question. The similarities of JC to Egyptian Gods, writings of the Essenes, etc. in no way shows that he did or did not exist and walk the earth.  Ridiculous.  Now, if you use afterlife exploration techniques, and astral exploration, along with NDEs, you find overwhelming evidence that Jesus did/does exist and manifests himself to others.  Monroe wrote of an episode where JC passed by on a chariot and all exposed their abdomens to him - and at that point, Monroe mentioned that the son of God was flying through the heavens. The anti-biblical New Age conspiracy theories that fly around the Web/internet have major holes - we've been through this before on this forum before you joined.  All that being said, I do think the story of JC is a perfect story for others to follow to find God and ascend in the afterlife.  To act lovingly, to rid oneself of ego.  In some ways, JC is a perfect model of one who was incarnate in flesh, making a seamless transition into heaven and showing the way to other people.  So the symbolism you mention is accurate. But please, if you insist on trying to argue that JC is only a myth, you are doing so on no factual data, and in the process are offending a great many people. Matthew

Hi Doc: Unfortunately the documentation you suggest exists as research by mainstream scholars has been shown to be forgeries. Especially, the Josephus reference which is the only Roman reference that was suppose to have existed...

But, if one understands the symbolism of the Old and New Testament then certainly one will gain thereby because the symbolism is profoundly accurate in the path it lays down for "enlightenment".

I remember the Chariot incident in Monroe's work only vaguely, but, what I do recall is that he did not identify the Being as Jesus... it could have been any symbol of the Divine...

In the Astral, symbolism is even more pronounced, I have seen Tabernacles and the Eucharest in my "samadhi" experience, and I was profoundly affected by the experience, but, when I read the Monroe account of The Emitter and the Aperture.... I realized what I saw was symbolized to protect me from radiation I could not have withstood had I seen it as it really was as Monroe did... Pure Divine Energy... if you will recall Monroe almost dropped his body in that incident. And he says it took a long time to recover physically.

S.

Seraphis, for me your willingness to pontificate about a subject about which you know nothing discredits the credibility of your astral experiences as well.  There is no evidence that the Serapis/Isis myth was even known in the Palestine of Jesus' day, let alone be taken seriously by Jewish Christians.  The cult of Mithra first arrived at Rome in the 2nd century AD, and so, is irrelevant to your claims about Jesus.  Josephus (born c. 37 AD) makes not 1, but 2 allusions to Jesus, the 2nd of which is universally accepted as authentic.  The reference to which you allude has also been demonstrated as authentic.  A couple of words have been added by a later Christian hand, but the rest, including Josephus' allusion to Jesus' crucifixion, is authentic and perfectly manifests Josephus's writing style.  Paul was Jesus' contemporary and he verified his reports of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection appearances in 2 visits to Jerusalem 14 years apart, in which he verified his Gospel through extensive discussions with the eyewitnesses.  The Gospels can be connected with eyewitness testimony in a variety of ways, too complex to  be documented here, as I have often done before. 

Tiberius was the emperor in Jesus' day and Claudius shortly thereafter.  There is even a Roman inscription from Nazareth dating to either Tiberius or Claudius that threatens Jewish Christians with execution if they rob more graves.  This inscription concedes that the Romans have no idea what happened to Jesus' crucified body; so they assume that his disciples must have stolen it from the tomb and then lied about Jesus' resurrection.   

Only New Age kooks like Achary S. espouse your drivel and she is universally dismissed by mainstream biblical scholars, even by those who don't believe in Jesus' miracles or, for that matter, life after death.

Don

There are heavenly realms so beautiful that they defy adequate description, likewise there are hells that make the Christian hell look like a kiddies Sunday afternoon picnic

I saw what I detailed above during a profound near death experience. Due to my curiosity about evil, good, heaven hell and the devil I posed these questions to the being who accompanied me during this event.

God does not put anyone in heaven or anyone in hell, we put ourselves where we deserve to go, Hitler with his own kind and ultimately the beautiful people on this forum in a heavenly realm they deserve. "In the afterlife it is birds of a feather", remember in the afterlife communications is from mind to mind a sort of telepathy, if we all ended up in the same place after we die, then we would have minds like Hitler, Jeffry Dahma, and Ted Bundy in the mix, can you image the horror of sharing they crazed evil of these people

Berserk2 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2010 at 1:40am:

Seraphis, for me your willingness to pontificate about a subject about which you know nothing discredits the credibility of your astral experiences as well.  There is no evidence that the Serapis/Isis myth was even known in the Palestine of Jesus' day, let alone be taken seriously by Jewish Christians.  The cult of Mithra first arrived at Rome in the 2nd century AD, and so, is irrelevant to your claims about Jesus.  Josephus (born c. 37 AD) makes not 1, but 2 allusions to Jesus, the 2nd of which is universally accepted as authentic.  The reference to which you allude has also been demonstrated as authentic.  A couple of words have been added by a later Christian hand, but the rest, including Josephus' allusion to Jesus' crucifixion, is authentic and perfectly manifests Josephus's writing style.  Paul was Jesus' contemporary and he verified his reports of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection appearances in 2 visits to Jerusalem 14 years apart, in which he verified his Gospel through extensive discussions with the eyewitnesses.  The Gospels can be connected with eyewitness testimony in a variety of ways, too complex to  be documented here, as I have often done before.  Tiberius was the emperor in Jesus' day and Claudius shortly thereafter.  There is even a Roman inscription from Nazareth dating to either Tiberius or Claudius that threatens Jewish Christians with execution if they rob more graves.  This inscription concedes that the Romans have no idea what happened to Jesus' crucified body; so they assume that his disciples must have stolen it from the tomb and then lied about Jesus' resurrection.    Only New Age kooks like Achary S. espouse your drivel and she is universally dismissed by mainstream biblical scholars, even by those who don't believe in Jesus' miracles or, for that matter, life after death. Don

Hi Berserk: Thanks for letting me know I've had no spiritual experiences. I'm glad someone on the board knows the truth about other peoples realities.

The truth is yes I am speculating about history and until someone can get into the Hall of Records and check this material out... we won't know the truth. I'm a little surprise know one has yet got into the Hall on the board...

Please tell me how I can be as wonderful and enlightened as your good self.

S.

Greetings,

It's hard to see two people we all care about fighting with each other. Please don't fight.    :P

Bets

Seraphis1 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2010 at 10:16am:

Berserk2 wrote on Feb 13th, 2010 at 1:40am: Seraphis, for me your willingness to pontificate about a subject about which you know nothing discredits the credibility of your astral experiences as well.  There is no evidence that the Serapis/Isis myth was even known in the Palestine of Jesus' day, let alone be taken seriously by Jewish Christians.  The cult of Mithra first arrived at Rome in the 2nd century AD, and so, is irrelevant to your claims about Jesus.  Josephus (born c. 37 AD) makes not 1, but 2 allusions to Jesus, the 2nd of which is universally accepted as authentic.  The reference to which you allude has also been demonstrated as authentic.  A couple of words have been added by a later Christian hand, but the rest, including Josephus' allusion to Jesus' crucifixion, is authentic and perfectly manifests Josephus's writing style.  Paul was Jesus' contemporary and he verified his reports of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection appearances in 2 visits to Jerusalem 14 years apart, in which he verified his Gospel through extensive discussions with the eyewitnesses.  The Gospels can be connected with eyewitness testimony in a variety of ways, too complex to  be documented here, as I have often done before.  Tiberius was the emperor in Jesus' day and Claudius shortly thereafter.  There is even a Roman inscription from Nazareth dating to either Tiberius or Claudius that threatens Jewish Christians with execution if they rob more graves.  This inscription concedes that the Romans have no idea what happened to Jesus' crucified body; so they assume that his disciples must have stolen it from the tomb and then lied about Jesus' resurrection.    Only New Age kooks like Achary S. espouse your drivel and she is universally dismissed by mainstream biblical scholars, even by those who don't believe in Jesus' miracles or, for that matter, life after death. Don Hi Berserk: Thanks for letting me know I've had no spiritual experiences. I'm glad someone on the board knows the truth about other peoples realities. The truth is yes I am speculating about history and until someone can get into the Hall of Records and check this material out... we won't know the truth. I'm a little surprise know one has yet got into the Hall on the board... Please tell me how I can be as wonderful and enlightened as your good self. S.

Hi Berserk: I want to apologize to you and the board for my flip, sarcasm.. in the world I came out of when one is reduced to using character assassination and name calling you demonstrate that you have exhausted sound argument.

First I try to use reason and logic as well as common sense when I look at the bible... and recently on the History channel an experiment was done using a man roughly the size and build of the historical Jesus... they built a crucifix according to what they thought would be the specifications of the Biblical crucifix... guess what this man was not tortured, whipped or physically abused in any way and he could not carry the cross more than a few feet much less the several miles the historical Jesus would have had to have done it plus UP a hill.

S.

betson wrote on Feb 13^th, 2010 at 10:48am:

Greetings, It's hard to see two people we all care about fighting with each other. Please don't fight.    :P Bets

Hi Bets: You are way too sensitive .. don't take everything so seriously... hell, even I felt your pain... 8-). Sorry if I upset you. Hope to do better next time.  ;D

S.

Seraphis: "Please tell me how I can be as wonderful and enlightened as your good self."
_________________________________

Well, I'm hardly wonderful.  In fact, right now many of suspicious of me for defending the character of a school psychologist charged with child molestation.  People tend to define character by one's worst act and not see the big picture.  As for your term "enlightened," In grad school, I spent 13 years at Princeton and Harvard reading,studying, and teaching the primary texts of which you speak, often in the original languages.  As a  Theology professor, I attended the most learned annual academic conference on the Bible and religion in the world (the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature). So I am "enlightened"enough to report the current scholarly consensus on such matters.  People will inevitably express opinions based on casual reading rather than on the experts who shape the scholarly consensus.  You are entitled to your opinion, whether well informed or not.  But I will always expose dogmatic pontifications based in inadequate raeding of the primary texts and the commentary of top academic experts.

Don   

Berserk2 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2010 at 1:40am:

Seraphis, for me your willingness to pontificate about a subject about which you know nothing discredits the credibility of your astral experiences as well.  There is no evidence that the Serapis/Isis myth was even known in the Palestine of Jesus' day, let alone be taken seriously by Jewish Christians.  The cult of Mithra first arrived at Rome in the 2nd century AD, and so, is irrelevant to your claims about Jesus.  Josephus (born c. 37 AD) makes not 1, but 2 allusions to Jesus, the 2nd of which is universally accepted as authentic.  The reference to which you allude has also been demonstrated as authentic.  A couple of words have been added by a later Christian hand, but the rest, including Josephus' allusion to Jesus' crucifixion, is authentic and perfectly manifests Josephus's writing style.  Paul was Jesus' contemporary and he verified his reports of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection appearances in 2 visits to Jerusalem 14 years apart, in which he verified his Gospel through extensive discussions with the eyewitnesses.  The Gospels can be connected with eyewitness testimony in a variety of ways, too complex to  be documented here, as I have often done before.  Tiberius was the emperor in Jesus' day and Claudius shortly thereafter.  There is even a Roman inscription from Nazareth dating to either Tiberius or Claudius that threatens Jewish Christians with execution if they rob more graves.  This inscription concedes that the Romans have no idea what happened to Jesus' crucified body; so they assume that his disciples must have stolen it from the tomb and then lied about Jesus' resurrection.    Only New Age kooks like Achary S. espouse your drivel and she is universally dismissed by mainstream biblical scholars, even by those who don't believe in Jesus' miracles or, for that matter, life after death. Don

Hi Berserk: Since you seem so wedded to your convictions and your level of certainty is so intense, you are willing to engage in character assassination and personal attack I decided to really think about your assertions.

Here is what I came up with:

1. This is like a court case in which each side presents an expert witness. It is still opinion and not demonstrable irrefutable fact. How can it be and that you would be apoplectic about someone’s opinion and I emphasize opinion… because it is only my opinion that the Jesus story is a myth not a fact… is a bit puzzling.

2. The fact that you think somehow the Isis/Osiris story was not known in Palestine is only partly true since the masses probably didn’t know the story… but any scholar at the time would have had access to the myth, that you would believe or try to use dates in which information of ancient religions and myth were known or not known at the time is ludicrous because since the time of Solon (The Greek) 638 BC–558 BC and Herodotus (Greek) 484 BC 425 BC had access to all the legends of Egypt and brought those back to the Mediterraen area so who knows what was floating around especially among the educated classes..

3. Let me tell you about “eye-witness” reports which you seem not to realize are still hearsay and are double hearsay because you are repeating hearsay.

Lionel Richie the musician, a black man in the ‘70’s when blacks in white establishments were rare… was suppose to have his dog in an elevator… as white’s got on they were supposed to be apprehensive because of the reputation of blacks as thieves and robbers… his dog got excited and he yelled, “Sit!” and all the whites in the elevator immediate sat down waiting to be robbed.

Well, Lionel Richie on a talk show told this story and said: It wasn’t true!!!

In the discussion it came out that everyone who told this story claimed they were on that elevator… even a very prominent celebrity.

So much for someone saying they were eye witnesses especially a written statement… hundreds of years after the fact.

So my friend you can chose to believe anything you chose to believe… let us agree to disagree.

S.

"The fact that you think somehow the Isis/Osiris story was not known in Palestine is only partly true since the masses probably didn’t know the story… but any scholar at the time would have had access to the myth"
__________________________________

Seraphis, you know nothing about the Palestinian educational system of Jesus' day.  You naively and anachronistically assume that they share the modern interest in comparative religion.  Jewish scholars back then studied sacred Jewish texts and Jewish oral tradition.   

that you would believe or try to use dates in which information of ancient religions and myth were known or not known at the time is ludicrous because since the time of Solon (The Greek) 638 BC–558 BC and Herodotus (Greek) 484 BC 425 BC had access to all the legends of Egypt and brought those back to the Mediterraen area."

Yes, but not to Palestine.  To establish a  foreign idea as the background for a Palestinian Jewish or Christian idea, scholars insist that evidence of that idea be found in the foreign region with a different culture and mythology.  You must also establish when a particular cult (in this case Mithraism) first surfaced in that region.  Obviously you have not even done rudimentary research on this question.  More importantly, Greek mythology was odious to Palestinian Jewry; early Christians considered Greek gods demons in disguise and would have not interest in incorporating your myths into their faith.

Your point about Jesus' crucifixion is plain silly.  Jews, Romans, and Jewish Christians all agreed that Jesus was crucified; only Christians believed in Jesus' resurrection.  The claim that Jesus was never crucified is a mid-second century Gnostic claim motivated by the Middle Platonic idea that God is impersonal, and without emotion, and cannot suffer. This claim comes far too late to reflect valid oral tradition; so modern scholarship does not take their claim seriously as a historical possibility.  Besides, you are being more than speculative; you are pontificating about matters in which you lack academic grounding.  In short, you seem incapable of critical thinking.

Don
 

Why are people willing to believe that Robert Monroe met an alien in an astral travel who looked like WC Fields and was visiting him to learn about the concept of humor found on earth, but these same people discount the thousands of astral encounters or NDEs with Jesus Christ as either a myth or being symbolic?


Doc

Don do you believe in the reality evil??

Alan

Seraphis1,

"The problem with using Jesus as a model is Jesus is a myth modeled on some very ancient sources... i.e... the whole of the Jesus myth is almost verbatim modeled on the Isis/Osiris myth and goes back to the Mithra myth."

I don't cater to myth, so no problem. But I don't see a belief in jesus as a problem neither. A different choice. Regarding Monroe, what may be irritating to some is that he didn't describe the different heavens as the omega, but told about a ladder with more steps on it - focus 27/the park and beyond.

DocM,
"[...]As such, unfortunately it is Kool-Aid New Age drivel[...] But please, if you insist on trying to argue that JC is only a myth, you are doing so on no factual data, and in the process are offending a great many people."

Unfortunately, dubbing something as offensive has become a poor-me way to zip mouths/thoughts and to pass on the status quo. The word wank may still cause controversy, more so when the friction was said to cause illnesses. Combine the hands-on approach, the powerful sexual urges in a body, and the notion that sex is only for the married. As deceptive as making somebody think about a religious figure everytime they fling a sneeze. Another example of being offended, different names for the colour of the skin. Very body oriented, and says much about who somebody really think they are. Or gender - I'm a man, not at all more than the physical body. Not forgetting political correctness. Can't say this, can't think that, as somebody might not like it. Religious correctness, non-religious must be respectful (silent) towards beliefs, and the religious must be free to spout their drivel on the non-religious.

I'd like to end with a joke. The difference between jesus and a christian woman? He's a bleedin' myth allright, but as the story goes, he sure as hell ain't something made from adam's rib bone.

Berserk2,

"Only New Age kooks like Achary S. espouse your drivel and she is universally dismissed by mainstream biblical scholars, even by those who don't believe in Jesus' miracles or, for that matter, life after death."

Boiled down: somebody thinks somebody is wrong - and the gasp turns into a yawn.

Volu wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 8:56am:

Seraphis1, "The problem with using Jesus as a model is Jesus is a myth modeled on some very ancient sources... i.e... the whole of the Jesus myth is almost verbatim modeled on the Isis/Osiris myth and goes back to the Mithra myth." I don't cater to myth, so no problem. But I don't see a belief in Jesus as a problem neither. A different choice. Regarding Monroe, what may be irritating to some is that he didn't describe the different heavens as the omega, but told about a ladder with more steps on it - focus 27/the park and beyond.

Tone down your loveless rhetoric

Alan,

"Tone down your loveless rhetoric"

It'd be easy if your order was my command, but that's not the way it works. Loveless rhetoric? Your opinion and something you do get to control.

The Fourth Man:

I am posting this because most of you who have done BM’s AKG, Robert Bruce’s – energy work, or TMI work will have experienced The Crown of Thorns and didn’t make the association… I made the association but until recently did not put it all together.

I first encountered The Crown of Thorns when I did RB’s energy work… when I was doing one of the exercises, I felt this intense pressure in my cranial area, that began to differentiate into a series of gripping sensations around my forehead and I remember thinking… wow!! This is The Crown of Thorns… but, until I stumbled upon some material on the unfoldment of the Crown Chakra I didn’t put it all together… therefore, this posting is a meeting of the minds of several other researchers and writers.

Why is this relevant to this particular thread? Well, Berserk has made an issue of my assertion that the Biblical Jesus is not a real person but an allegory with far deeper meaning than just a roll model for Christianity.

So it would be disingenuous of me not to clarify my position as not just some arbitrary, contrarian exercise, to upset true believers.

But this goes further than just the Jesus myth… I content the whole of the Bible is an allegory and when you figure it out you have the whole path to Self-Realization.

Take the Book of Daniel for example:

Daniel 3:25
25 He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."

Read the story to find out why this was said. Essentially meshac, Shedrach and Abedigo are condemned by Nebuchadnezzar to a fiery death… but in the furnace a Fourth Man appears and

Daniel 3:28
28 Then Nebuchadnezzar said, "Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants! They trusted in him and defied the king's command and were willing to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God.

Well this fourth man is the Spiritual Body that we are all trying to develop in our practices, because what happens is this…
When through our work of experiencing the non-physical we have the grace of a spiritual transformation… The Crown Chakra creates a vortex that descends into the pineal gland and fills your brain with Spiritual Light and if it is successful in creating the Spiritual Light Body… the Chakra turns inside out and one becomes a radiating Spiritual Entity… and a new being… The Fourth Man.

The Crucifixion is an updated version of the Book of Daniel’s story.

Christ is crucified on a cross with Two Other Men… The Thief repents and Christ tells him the three of them will be ascended into Heaven… then on the morning after the crucifixion, the body of Jesus is missing…

Mary Magdalene comes upon The Fourth Man… the Spiritual Light Body… 

S.

p.s.: It is not an accident that Mary Magdalene is the one who encounters The Fourth Man... but, I will let you figure that out for yourselves.  8-)

World class thread, Martybera! I hope I left enough breadcrumbs along my path so I can find the way home...

Whether one's belief is based on Christ/biblical views or new age tenets, how is it that the enlightened people on this board have so little tolerance for opposing opinions?  It is one thing to discuss one's point of view, but quite another to let the conversation degenerate to name calling because of a difference of opinion.  How is this justifiable within either line of thought?  Especially since it is unlikely that any of us will have definitive answers while incarnate...jeez...

Oooops, I thought it was getting pretty hilarious at this point.

So many opinions, so many 'deep thoughts', and so little time!!!! :)

Usetawuz-

I agree. We are all entitled to believe what we want to believe and should be able to express those beliefs without fear of denigration. If those beliefs/views resonate with others thats great, if they don't that's fine as well - we all come from different places and have different values. A conversation board is a bit like a marketplace of ideas; the choice to 'buy into' those ideas are up to the individual 'consumer'.

An aggressive 'scorched earth' policy to differing views is usually counterproductive as the 'attacked' is forced into an extreme defensive position they may not actually hold and opinion becomes artificially polarised.

Dave

heisenberg69 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 1:08pm:

Usetawuz- I agree. We are all entitled to believe what we want to believe and should be able to express those beliefs without fear of denigration. If those beliefs/views resonate with others thats great, if they don't that's fine as well - we all come from different places and have different values. A conversation board is a bit like a marketplace of ideas; the choice to 'buy into' those ideas are up to the individual 'consumer'. An aggressive 'scorched earth' policy to differing views is usually counterproductive as the 'attacked' is forced into an extreme defensive position they may not actually hold and opinion becomes artificially polarised. Dave

Thanks, Dave.  I had hoped to learn something from the dialog.

Express away....

:)

Seraphis is as entitled to believe that Jesus never existed as Flat Earth simpletions are entitled to argue that the Apollo moon landings were faked in a New Mexico hanger.  He labels the Bible as one big allegory with no criteria and without even giving it a close reading.  Are all the tedious genealogies and travel itineraries allegories then?  Hah!  Seraphis illustrates why astral research will continue to be dismissed as New Age  wackadoodle by the big bad world of academic research.   

New Age pontifications are getting more and more insulated from the best and brightest acedemic researchers who learn the original languages and read all the relevant ancient material.  Afterlife research can lead to widely respected knowledge only if it is scrutinized from related interdisciplinary perspectives.  As long as naive seekers like Seraphis don't know what they don't know and lack the humility to check this out by consulting experts in the fields of their  pontifications, their astral reports will be rightly dismissed with giggles as the pathological ravings of uncritical hallucinators.

Oh, and Seraphis, "the fourth man in the fire" in Daniel has nothing to do with Jesus.  Actually read any scholarly commentary on Daniel and you will see.

Don   

Berserk2 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 11:37pm:

Seraphis is as entitled to believe that Jesus never existed as Flat Earth simpletions are entitled to argue that the Apollo moon landings were faked in a New Mexico hanger.  He labels the Bible as one big allegory with no criteria and without even giving it a close reading.  Are all the tedious genealogies and travel itineraries allegories then?  Hah!  Seraphis illustrates why astral research will continue tobe dismissed as New Age  wackadoodle by the big bad world of academic research.    New Age pontifications are getting more and more insulated from the best and brightest acedemic researchers who learn the original languages and read all the relevant ancient material.  Afterlife research can lead to widely respected knowledge only if it is scrutinized from related interdisciplinary perspectives.  As long as naive seekers like Seraphis don't know what they don't know and lack the humility to check this out by consulting experts in the fields of their  pontifications, their astral reports will be rightly dismissed with giggles as the pathological ravings of uncritical hallucinators. Oh, and Seraphis, "the fourth man in the fire" in Daniel has nothing to do with Jesus.  Actually read any scholarly commentary on Daniel and you will see. Don

Don, I understand you have put your academic efforts into discussing the known and proveable aspects of religious and divinical topics.  The structure involved with advanced academia does provide a framework within which to categorize and evaluate any form of theory or postulate.  However, ancient religious history is based on data that are so steeped in attempts at control and power, to say nothing of the bloody enforcement of beliefs, that it carries no credibility with many of us.  And while you may catalog and ascertain the finer aspects of the written record, it is still reliant on interpretation...from that time and this.  Further, if current written and spoken historical accuracy is any indication, we can be assured that the ancient historical records on which religious research is based, will be just as flawed.   

As for the "whackadoodle" references to those who find formal religion doesn't do it for them...do not be surprised if your harvard education and academically accurate research means nothing more than whackadoodle to them.  And the  approval of the "big bad world of academic research" means nothing to alot of us...they may know their topic, but they don't know me, or what resonates with me, and from such resonance, my thoughts, feelings and beliefs.  There is no doubt you know your topic extremely well, but as you denigrate those with differing beliefs, you abrogate the possibility someone can see things differently...is it possible that others can know what they know with equal certainty?  Where is the love?  The acceptance?  The allowance for another opinion, even if it disagrees with yours?  Wasn't that the Christ's true message?  I am sure you are a believer, as your passion is evident. 

Seraphis and his uncritical hallucinations have yet to tell me I am wrong and ignorant, while you imply it with every response.  I have no problem learning and obtaining insight from other sources and beliefs that differ from mine...I have a problem with characterizing other's points as whackadoodle and couching spiritual/theoretical matters in quantitative and measureable form on the basis of historical interpretation as truth when the truth cannot be found from last year, much less two thousand years ago and beyond.

With love...
Scott    

I would just like to say that I am no authority on biblical history but if its anything like investigating English history (which I am interested in e.g. the question of Richard III culpability about 500 years ago) it requires painstaking detective work which yields probabilities possibly ( or best guesses ) but not certainties. I imagine when one's faith is dependent on the answers the truth may be even more problemmatical.

Dave

For some people religion comes from a book and/or from texts...not from their heart and from love, or for that matter.. from God.
I personally dont need a cookbook in order to make dinner. In fact, even when using a book, some continue to put out the same old slop that has been going on the table for thousands of years. I have no intention of eating from that trough. Still others stand down on the street corners, tring to sell theirs to unsuspecting passer-buys. I will stick to making my own meals. At least that way, I know what I am eating.   

If the wisdom was flowing 6000 years ago and 2000 years ago within the hearts and minds of the peoples then why wouldn't it be flowing now? Our ability to comprehend and conceive ideas is far greater than it was before now. Of course there are those who would prefer to look at the texts that were highly controlled by those seeking power over of the people, but that doesn't mean it's THE Way, it just got the best press and we know how reliable that is.

heisenberg69 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 11:14am:

I would just like to say that I am no authority on biblical history but if its anything like investigating English history (which I am interested in e.g. the question of Richard III culpability about 500 years ago) it requires painstaking detective work which yields probabilities possibly ( or best guesses ) but not certainties. I imagine when one's faith is dependent on the answers the truth may be even more problemmatical. Dave

Which mirrors my own interest and research in the supposed paternity of Thomas Jefferson to the children of Sally Hemings...two hundred years and change and the closest anyone can get is that one child of Hemings had a male Jefferson haplotype...and there were in excess of a dozen male Jeffersons who were sexually active and in the area...especially when TJ was there.  Despite the assertions of both sides of the issue, there is no certainty either side can rely on to definitively establish TJ's paternity or non-paternity.  We really cannot establish certainties...and I think we were not meant to, as they really do not matter in the long run.   

Now, take either your interest or mine, and give it  thousands of years of discussion and add the spiciness and prickly heat generated by religious conviction and you have an even muddier cocktail to use as a basis for belief.  I am not saying that belief cannot be based on just that level of certainty, after all, faith is simply about believing what we think is right and what works for each of us...but rather that the ground on which we walk, on which all of us walk, is not as secure as any level of academic expertise, ancient dogma, and even experiential certainty appears to make it.  You like strawberry...I like vanilla...and as a wise man once told me..."you pays your money and you takes your chance."

hawkeye wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 2:38pm:

For some people religion comes from a book and/or from texts...not from their heart and from love, or for that matter.. from God. I personally dont need a cookbook in order to make dinner.

I can appreciate your point.  During my formative years those in my protestant church were certain anyone who didn't believe our particular sect of christianity was going to hell.  I quickly began to spend my Sunday mornings surfing to be with God and learned a great deal more about love, acceptance and appreciation than anyone standing in a pulpit ever taught me. 

I don't need that cookbook either, although I don't mind hearing about other recipes.

Frankly, I expect to reach the very end of my life completely and totally freaking wrong about everything. I hope they greet me with a big surprise parteeee. I want to hear them say, "You are sooooo totally freaking wrong, but we loved the show! Good one!"

The topic of this thread was originally about "Evil People."  It was thrown off and became embroiled in battle when the existence of Jesus on earth was brought into question.  I take it as a given that one can argue anything - much like Holocaust deniers have conspiracy theories to deny that genocide, despite the fact that the Nazis were profilfic photographers, film makers, and meticulous record keepers (with millions of documents about the gas chambers, photographs, mass graves, all there for anyone to see). 

If the Holocaust, a recent historical event could be brought into question, so can anything.  To debate the conspiracy theories never resolves the issue, and in some ways, gives more credence to the wackadoodle conspiracy folk, because even arguing with them, makes them say "well, at least there are two sides to everything and we have the right to agree or disagree."   In my own opinion, I would say: Bull.

This is a side product of our PC (politically correct) environment in the USA and other parts of the world.  There is a sort of moral relativism, that says in a PC world that "everyone's ideas are equal, no matter what they are, and nothing is really good or bad, nothing really right or wrong."  Again, to this my own opinion is Bull.  If we all agree that love is the foundation of human consciousness, this sets up the idea that love and acting lovingly is "good," and that hate or acting unlovingly is "bad."  With this commonly agreed on axiom, we can now extrapolate to discussions and ideas.  So that if, for example, a satanist says "I should be able to desecrate sacred symbols and perform human sacrifice (using the argument that all beliefs are true and one is not better than another.........ie. moral relativism), we would all say "no, you may not - this is wrong."  We would all be referring to our idea that love is "good" and to act otherwise is "bad" or wrong action.  Eventhough we live in a PC world, it is clear that it is not correct to say that every belief is ok and equal and every action correct.

With that preamble, let us examine the discussion here about the earthly existence of Jesus.  While we are not going to find unassailable proof that Jesus existed, To bring up a completely unsubstantiated theory that he did not does not in any way add to the discussion about Evil People.  In truth it serves no purpose because its sole purpose is to create doubt without proving anything.  To then claim protection for this theory under the PC excuse that "all discussion and ideas are equal, and you are entitled to yours, and I mine," is a moral relativism that we have already debunked (see the above paragraph).

While I have great respect for the ideas of others, and I am not christian, I also feel that it is wrong to drop unsubstantiated criticisms on the faithful of major religions.  Did Buddha exist?  Did Moses?  Did Mohammed get divine revelation?  These sorts of discussions won't get us anywhere on an afterlife thread, and may intentionally or not create more ill will than anything else.

Matthew

wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 4:57pm:

Frankly, I expect to reach the very end of my life completely and totally freaking wrong about everything. I hope they greet me with a big surprise parteeee. I want to hear them say, "You are sooooo totally freaking wrong, but we loved the show! Good one!"

Absolutely!  Shakespeare, or Marlowe...dependent on your belief (!)...in my mind, was absolutely correct that "all the world's a stage...".  During a particularly fruitful interaction with my spirit guide, two references were made that "that was the part you played then...". 

If our souls are eternal and we come here to learn and experience, aren't we just playing a particular role as a particular character for the entertainment and edification of everyone watching...even those participating with us.  So at some point we all play the father, husband, son, the mother, wife, daughter, all to enhance our understanding of what it takes to be a human being enhanced by an eternal soul. 

What fun, and it seems the mere idea should release the fear and hatred so inherent in our world.

I second the desire for a party!   

DocM wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 5:06pm:

While I have great respect for the ideas of others, ..., I also feel that it is wrong to drop unsubstantiated criticisms on the faithful of major religions.... These sorts of discussions won't get us anywhere on an afterlife thread, and may intentionally or not create more ill will than anything else. Matthew

As will denouncing other non-major religious opinion holders and marginalizing their viewpoints with name-calling and other minimizing or negative aspersions.

I did not denounce non-major religious opinion holders, and I agree with your point.....up until it gets to having no idea of right/wrong or good action/wrong action at all.  As I said, I take the start of my sequence as PUL, and the idea that the foundation of our consciousness comes from it (whether we realize it or not).  Next, if we define "good," it must necessarily go in line with love and "bad" must necessarily follow the path in opposition to love. 

I agree that marginalizing a person or contributor and denigrating him/her personally is wrong.  I do not agree that all opinions are all correct and all equally worthy (see my argument about the satanist and human sacrifice above). 

If all opinions are equally valid, then you logically reach a state where there is no point to anything.  Not even loving actions or any action for that matter, for if all beliefs are equal, then nothing matters.

So you and I agree about the individual name calling or negative aspersions.  But I stand by the "meat" of my argument against moral relativism.

Matthew

By the way, Hawkeye,

I love your analogy of belief to cooking.  I think I would very much like the freedom to cook instead of having to eat from a prefab menu every day.  I bet you are a good chef.


Matthew

Alan McDougall wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 6:48am:

wrote on Jan 25th, 2010 at 6:36am: Martybera, It is my belief that there are no 'evil' people in the world, and there never have been 'evil' people in the world. Perhaps there are people who don't yet understand what love really is. That is all. Love is not something that exists just for one who is 'special' or 'better' than another. People can believe what they like. In my afterlife, love is the attracting force which exists in all quarters. It covers all 'mistakes' and creates wholeness wherever it finds us. Tell that to one of the victims of the Holocaust, what silliness is this? Would you let Jeffry Dahmer, or Ted Bundy baby sit your children There is Evil and there are dark realms in the afterlife that would make a christian hell look like a kiddies picnic Burning people, woman, children is NOT A MISTAKE IT IS "EVIL"

Well, There are a lot of priests I wouldn't let babysit my children either.

You know Matthew, I love to cook. (Almost as much as I love the Creator.)

My own viewpoint is a simple one - present your case/experience to the best of your ability without rancour (that's important) and trust people to make their own minds up. No need for histrionics.What exactly are we afraid of here ?

For the record I believe the case for the existence of the historical figure of Jesus is overwhelming, but people are free to declare otherwise without incurring my wrath.

D

I just dont see that how being connected to a belief, church, religion, or being a theologists make you a good person. There are those who are the strongest of believers who have committed the most evil of evils.
Don, I dont want to poke at you but... you have let us know of your support for yet anouther one of the many pervert priests. Your strong religious beliefs move you to do that. And that s just fine. I would expect nothing less than that from someone in your line of work. In fact I have come to expect it from the church and its leaders. Is this child molestation evil? Just why does the church and many of its clerics support child molesters? They seem to have for years now. Hiding them out. Moving them from church to church in order for them to what? Find new recruits? To show that they are in support of it? Forgivness? Because when it come to good and evil, I seem to be getting this holy work confused with evil deeds. Please enlighten me as to a religious, church running mans mans views on if child molestation is good or evil and how the church deals with it, and has dealt with it in the past also...good/evil?   

Matthew,

My thoughts are not so much seeing no difference between good/bad, but rather love/fear...love and its actions and  creations and fear causing irrational behavior and acts. 

Nor do I believe each opinion has equal validity...rather that each opinion is valid to it's holder.  If I tell someone their perspective is wrong I will not get to hear the justifications for their perpsectives.  That does not mean I, too, hold those perspectives, nor do I necessarily grant them equal validity to my own.   There is alot of room to point out the shortcomings of one's thoughts without burning the bridge. 

This isn't PC or an effort at moral equivalence, but rather my desire to obtain greater perspective and understanding of what we each will face at the conclusion of this life, and couched in a manner  in which I would like to be asked.

At some point I would like to know more about your understanding of  "spiritual merging of souls" as that is completely foreign to me.   

Mathew wrote:

'There is a sort of moral relativism, that says in a PC world that "everyone's ideas are equal, no matter what they are, and nothing is really good or bad, nothing really right or wrong."  Again, to this my own opinion is Bull. '

But to some extent morality is relative i.e dependent on time and place. A look in any history book shows how morality i.e. the norm changes. I have just come back from a holiday in Gambia where the norm was slave trading in the 18thC ( I visited James island a slave holding station) and currently a Muslim man in Gambia may have up to 4 wives. A hundred or so years ago the norm was to send small boys up chimneys to clean them. History shows us that morality changes with time and geography shows us it varies with place (Saudi Arabia anyone ?). Also I don't think we are in a privilaged 'enlightened' position at this point in time- I've no doubt that in a few generations people will tut at our current inhumanity to animals, environment or whatever. Throughout history its been that way and don't see it changing.

I don't find this upsetting at all, it just means we are growing (i.e expanding our vision). We are always changing our minds and we will keep on doing it. That's as it should be. That does'nt mean that we can't make desisions or have preferences based on our current worldview - just don't expect that worldview to remain static !

D

Hawkeye, I don't think it's fair to single out Don in this way, for visiting a man in jail, accused of a crime. I think it's easy to label a person as 'whatever' he/she is, but it is more admirable to see who he/she is, to have compassion, to give merit to the individual, to recognize hope and love as the better values, no matter what the situation. As Don pointed out, most people cannot see the bigger picture. That is precisely why I think these people, any people who have made mistakes which have repercussions such as this in the community, be recognized as individuals, and they did not get where they are alone. We must all take responsibility for our own, no matter who they are or what they have done.


hawkeye wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 6:49pm:

I just dont see that how being connected to a belief, church, religion, or being a theologists make you a good person. There are those who are the strongest of believers who have committed the most evil of evils. Don, I dont want to poke at you but... you have let us know of your support for yet anouther one of the many pervert priests. Your strong religious beliefs move you to do that. And that s just fine. I would expect nothing less than that from someone in your line of work. In fact I have come to expect it from the church and its leaders. Is this child molestation evil? Just why does the church and many of its clerics support child molesters? They seem to have for years now. Hiding them out. Moving them from church to church in order for them to what? Find new recruits? To show that they are in support of it? Forgivness? Because when it come to good and evil, I seem to be getting this holy work confused with evil deeds. Please enlighten me as to a religious, church running mans mans views on if child molestation is good or evil and how the church deals with it, and has dealt with it in the past also...good/evil?

In respect of the great posts here, I have a question to Don, and to others who would say of themselves they are followers, or members, of a religious community. The question is:

   How important is it for you, if the founder of your religion is a real historical person, or if it is an ideal with no historical counterpart?

If we could slowly move, as a world-society, in the direction that the ideal is the important thing, we would have done a step forwards I think; as it is then not about worshipping a person/entitiy/god, but to put this ideal into practice.

It then would as well become more obvious that our basic beliefs about what is evil are society/historical dependant, but as well that there's still a core of moral beliefs which we all share, which only needs to be put properly in words as an axiom (which meant to the old Greeks something that is obvious, which can't be denialed and doesn't need to be constituted) as Doc did nicely; or maybe there is no need for this, when we already know this :-) .

Spooky

Excerpt:

Most people’s spiritual and religious beliefs are determined by ‘accident’ of birth and cultural identification. The ego adopts the belief systems as ‘mine’ and then proceeds to defend them. Whether the beliefs have any validity cannot be ascertained by the mind and therefore have to be overly defended, and often to a fanatical degree, primarily because they are vulnerable to attack.

Truth that is experiential does not have to be defended.

Dr. David Hawkins.

Essentially the work of Afterlife-knowledge and TMI are experiential and lead to personal knowns. Sometimes these personal knowns find resonance in the ego field of others... therefore a meeting of the minds occurs. Other than that there is no truth other than what we each can personally experience.

S.

DocM,

"If the Holocaust, a recent historical event could be brought into question, so can anything.  To debate the conspiracy theories never resolves the issue, and in some ways, gives more credence to the wackadoodle conspiracy folk, because even arguing with them, makes them say "well, at least there are two sides to everything and we have the right to agree or disagree."   In my own opinion, I would say: Bull."

Also worth noting is how the holocaust is used to justify goals by individuals, groups and governments, and how parallels can be drawn from the holocaust to something (then maybe to another something) not liked.

"This is a side product of our PC (politically correct) environment in the USA and other parts of the world.  There is a sort of moral relativism, that says in a PC world that "everyone's ideas are equal, no matter what they are, and nothing is really good or bad, nothing really right or wrong."" 

Turning the other cheek is then in the realm of moral relativism, as wrong is practically taken out of the equation.

"[..]for example, a satanist says "I should be able to desecrate sacred symbols and perform human sacrifice (using the argument that all beliefs are true and one is not better than another.........ie. moral relativism), we would all say "no, you may not - this is wrong."  We would all be referring to our idea that love is "good" and to act otherwise is "bad" or wrong action.  Eventhough we live in a PC world, it is clear that it is not correct to say that every belief is ok and equal and every action correct."

One example is human sacrifice, but if all or many is the keeper of truth, what's right and what's wrong, an afterlife board doesn't hold as much popularity as other experiental areas.

heisenberg69,

"My own viewpoint is a simple one - present your case/experience to the best of your ability without rancour (that's important) and trust people to make their own minds up. No need for histrionics. What exactly are we afraid of here?"

A fear of being challenged if not the language is sugar-coated perhaps? Setting up too many parameters may keep the fear at bay and hide it, but it's not dealt with.

Volu wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 10:41am:

heisenberg69, "My own viewpoint is a simple one - present your case/experience to the best of your ability without rancour (that's important) and trust people to make their own minds up. No need for histrionics. What exactly are we afraid of here?" A fear of being challenged if not the language is sugar-coated perhaps? Setting up too many parameters may keep the fear at bay and hide it, but it's not dealt with.

Volu,

It may be fear, but in my case I usually do not have the whole picture and I am trying to flesh it out with input from other sources.  I am not afraid of my ignorance or another's perception of it as I am here to learn.

This board has been quite enlightening and informative and it has a tremendously varied spectrum of viewpoints, all of which bear reviewing.  To one and all, I thank you for sharing your comments and thoughts. 

Hi Volu,

'Setting up too many parameters may keep the fear at bay and hide it, but it's not dealt with'

To which fear are you referring ?

D

[Hawkeye:} "For some people religion comes from a book and/or from texts...not from their heart and from love, or for that matter.. from God. I personally dont need a cookbook in order to make dinner...I will stick to making my own meals. At least that way, I know what I am eating."

You have just expressed Paul's approach to unbelievers attending the church.  He warns that the cookbook approach forces seekers to be content with a second-hand spirituality.  Instead, "each person should be fully persuaded in his own mind (Romans 14:5)."  And so, "accept believers who are weak in faith and don't argue with them about what they think is right or wrong (14:1)."  "They are responsible to the Lord; sp let Him tell them whether they are right or wrong" 14:4)."  In other words, let them cook their own meals and learn by trial and error.  Of course, Paul would apply the cooking analogy differently than Hawkeye.  Paul's goal is to create an atmosphere in which seekers can mystically bond with Christ in a self-authenticating way that allows them to discover spiritual truths by direct experience.

Of course, Paul and Jesus also develop criteria for the exercise of tough love to open closed minds and wake people up to their addictive behaviors and thought patterns.  But their goal is to encourage a journey towards a truly unique and self-authenticating faith that immerses seekers in PUL.

Don

Excerpt:

It is pride beyond all else. Pride in the form of the vanity of thought, mentation, concepts, and opinions are all the basis of ignorance. The antidote is radical humility, which undoes the domination of perception. Ask for truth to be revealed instead of assuming that you already know it. The mind is not capable of actually knowing anything at all! It can only presume to know ‘about’. The mind lacks the proper credentials to comprehend nonduality (the non-physical) by virtue of its own structure.Dr. David Hawkins.

Bruce Moen discovers Dichotomyland by ‘not thinking too much about it’ as Rebecca tells him.

In Voyage Beyond Doubt Rebecca play a game of ‘hide and seek’ with Bruce.. he found her when he hadn’t before when he was trying to use his mind rather than the non-physical senses…

I discovered the meaning of the Crucifixion not by reason but by a unique experience and then the Interpreter gave a rational and then the mind worked out the detail.

That’s how it works... this ‘thing of ours’ navigating the non-physical… the spiritual world…

Early on I encountered Out-of-body-Dude and he not very subtly pointed most of this out to me… my pride at the time was wounded… but, OBD was right… erudition, scholarship, etc…  is of no value in the non-physical… experiential awakening is what counts…

So I apologize to OBD for being an idiot… I get it now.

S.

heisenberg69,

>>Setting up too many parameters may keep the fear at bay and hide it, but it's not dealt with

>To which fear are you referring ?

I was referring to the fear connected to language.

If light/good is on the very left of a long bar, and dark/evil on the very right, with a huge gap of gradation in between, I'd imagine hitler would be on the very dark side for many. What I've noticed is what seems to be different bars for different aspects of a character. Whereas a neo-nazi might be somewhere on the darker side of the bar regarding jews, he or she might be somewhere on the lighter side regarding their family. Different bars for different family members. And so on for different areas. The total of all the bars for a character might around the center, close to the extreme either side, and so forth, but there are nuances, and there are different views about it.

Also what seems to be left out when saying something is pure evil, is the pyramid structures the likes of hitler and many organisations operate with. One supreme leader, buffer, different sub-leaders with different branches, buffer, and downwards it goes, all the way to the to the foot-soldiers that are the foundation of the pyramid. It'd fall to pieces without the foundation. From what I know, hitler's planning and orders certainly are very dark, but also the whole machinery that made his visions possible. A holocaust experiencer might have had a very hard time with the actions of the wardens, and not with hitler's morbid thoughts. Connected for sure, but there are nuances here too.

Going back to the language bar, I've found those on the lighter side on this bar tend to want more limiting in the use of language. Say what you will of the spirits operating somewhere on the opposite side of the mentioned bar, at least I admire the honesty that can be found there. - Don't like it, think's it's terrible, think it's bullshit, whackadoodle and so on is basically the same statement with more power allotted in terms of language and wording. One option for experiencing opposing views is to learn that it's ok that your opinions aren't always liked, and vice versa. More gradated colours on the palette.

Using cooking mentioned earlier as a metaphor - different chefs working on the same meal. Some are suggesting the meal will taste awful if you aren't careful with the spices. Others want it to stop, disregarding both the other chefs and watchers/observers. Some are suggesting that the kitchen is on fire and the waffle iron has run amok. I do see that the friggen spaghetti is boiling, but I do also see dishes being prepared that need low heat for quite some time before it's done. And so on. Easier to prepare a meal by yourself, for yourself. But as far as working together, there are as many opinions on how to do that right as there are chefs.

Volu-

I like your use of metaphors, helps me visualise what you're talking about !

I wrote : "My own viewpoint is a simple one - present your case/experience to the best of your ability without rancour (that's important) and trust people to make their own minds up. No need for histrionics. What exactly are we afraid of here?"

I was trying to get across a few points with the above statement.

'present your case/experience to the best of your ability'. By that I mean you can only do what is within your capabilities i.e don't worry that you're not 'good' enough.

without rancour (that's important) I find two reasons for this. The first  is that it makes people feel that they are being 'attacked' and so they adopt a caricature of their real position (which I mentioned before) and secondly just because someone has a different viewpoint why can we not show respect for them ?

'trust people to make their own minds up' That's just an acknowledgement that everyone has responsibility for their own thoughts/beliefs, other people can't do that for them. Like a member of a jury a person can rationally weigh up the evidence and reach their own verdict.

'No need for histrionics' Histrionics, I think distract from  the massage you're trying put across.

'What exactly are we afraid of here?' This suggests that we fear that without our guidance people will not think/believe the 'right' things.

The above points are hardly original rocket science but they tend to overlooked in the heat of battle.

Notice I am not saying we are anything but honest with ourselves and other people but I would rather use communication with the precision of a surgeon's scalpel than a blacksmith's hammer !

D

heisenberg69,

"without rancour (that's important) I find two reasons for this. The first  is that it makes people feel that they are being 'attacked' and so they adopt a caricature of their real position (which I mentioned before) and secondly just because someone has a different viewpoint why can we not show respect for them ?"

If there's no respect, there's no respect. Among other ways, change can be forced, and change can come from within. The caricature may contain more honesty about a topic than putting make-up on (part/parts) of what actually is. It looks better, but still there.

"'What exactly are we afraid of here?' This suggests that we fear that without our guidance people will not think/believe the 'right' things."

Yes, got that and agree with you, but wanted to add another perspective. Anyways, it's a good observation and made bold to show respect for it. One ingredient in what can become a dark/evil soup, regardless of polarity.

"Notice I am not saying we are anything but honest with ourselves and other people but I would rather use communication with the precision of a surgeon's scalpel than a blacksmith's hammer !"

So close, but then you just had to slam the blacksmith's hammer. A new battlefield opens. Which is better, apples or oranges. ;) Different tools for different replies.

Volu wrote on Feb 18^th, 2010 at 11:27am:

heisenberg69, "without rancour (that's important) I find two reasons for this. The first  is that it makes people feel that they are being 'attacked' and so they adopt a caricature of their real position (which I mentioned before) and secondly just because someone has a different viewpoint why can we not show respect for them ?" If there's no respect, there's no respect. Among other ways, change can be forced, and change can come from within. The caricature may contain more honesty about a topic than putting make-up on (part/parts) of what actually is. It looks better, but still there.

A lack of respect is no reason to be rude or abusive, especially in a discourse on a topic of interest to all contributing. 

And while I can appreciate your sliding scale analogy, I tend to think discussion is enhanced by a limitation on hyperbole or caustic, though "honest" comments.  Honesty can just as easily be found in considered discussion and thoughtful and reasonable observation without burdening the thread with negative emotion.

B2, I was asking Don a question about his beliefs and his actions. We have covered a number of different items on this thread. Whether Hitler should be forgiven as an example. Don's work with this man, anouther.  Some could say both are evil. Hitler and the child molester. What Don is doing is the right thing. To extend a helping hand. To offer love and forgiveness from himself. To give compassion. All good things. (If he was to say that God forgives this man might be going over the line as I am not so sure that Don has a direct line to God.) I was asking how Don himself thought. Is this man evil? Is what he did evil? By being a priest, being a representative of God on earth,  and molesting little children, is that evil? (I highly doubt that it was only one child.) Perhaps its time to think about this child, and if he believes this man, the priest, to be evil. Who do you think is more evil to the child, Hitler or the priest? Its about perspective. Don can do all the forgiving he wants, but it may make no difference the long run. The only possable hope I see can be is if by offering PUL he will help in changing the man and he will be able to escape, possibly through the back door of this living hell he must be in, within this phyical life expearence, to allow him to move on to a better lifestyle and change of core belief. As for the church allowing these people to molest and rape children over and over again, well to me it shows an inherent evil to me. Again, I was wondering how Don felt, as he is an minister. He has a perspective that I can not relate to as I am not involved in "organised" religion. I know no people in the religion business.      

Volu,

'So close, but then you just had to slam the blacksmith's hammer'

OK, I'll concede that the blacksmith's hammer is useful.... for making horse shoes ! 

:D

Hawkeye,

The man charged with child molestation was a school child psychologist, not a priest or minister.  His life apart from this charge was morally impeccable and included innumerable volunteer services that benefited the community and the church.  At the time of the alleged incident, he had been increasing his altruistic service.  My point is this: his loving conduct was not an act to mask a perverted compulsion; it was a genuine manifestation of spiritual growth.  But the greatest spiritual tests come precisely during moments of great spiritual development.  One explanation of this is that dark spiritual forces view scuh progress as a threat to the cause of evil and ramp up their temptations and testing.  But other explanations are possible.  I merely note this this phenomenon is commonplace--spiritual growth = testing = [for many] a fall from a lofty perch.  So we must not define character solely by its weakest element; we must seek to reinforce the positive and encourage repentance and remorse as part of growth.

The Oklahoma City bomber, Tim McVeigh was an altar boy in the nearest Catholic church to my home in Buffalo, NY where I used to live.  On the one hand, he was the worst mass murderer in US history.  On the other hand, prior to Desert Storm, he was known to be a very normal and sensitive guy who was a delight to be around.  I talked to his classmates and  women he dated who had nothing but positive comments about him.  The news media look for signs of future evil in the criminal's past.  TV and movies have misled us into an overly black and white view of good and evil.   

So what happened to Tim?  No one knows.  It seems clear that Tim was traumatized by war and made some bad decisions that transformed his character for the worse. It seems that a couple of bad decisions can trigger self-justifying rationalizations that dump us on the path to an evil character. 

Perhaps this insight is a key to retrievals from the lower astral planes.  Perhaps the "trick" is to induce a couple of "holy decisions" that transform the psyche's longings in a more positive direction.  We must not underestimate the possibility of sudden spiritual transformation.

Don

Thank you Don. I am not sure where I got that he had been a priest or a minister. My confusion. I hope that you can help him to recognise and alleviate his problems. To me him being a school child psychologist  make little difference than him being a minister or priest. To me it seems like a crime of opportunity. Can you shair if it was a religious school? I am still picking up on this connection for some reason. I dont have a problem with him getting all the help he needs. I hope his victims get any help they need also. Many times, those with this sort of tendency put themselves in places where the opportunity comes up so that they can offend. Schools, Church's, sports mentors. They look like they are helping while in fact they are stocking for potential victims. I am not sure how his personal repentance or remorse will help this child in any way. It might make him feel better about himself. (remembering the child is the victim of the evil here.) Good on you to help him Don. I dont wish the man harm. Nore do I wish any of those priests or nuns harm for what they have done in that matter. I am not their judge.
I do take it from your response that you do not feel that child molestation by this man, or those acts by members of the clergy and then covered up by the church, is evil. Just a test of sorts.   

I entered this thread suggesting that evil does not exist. It is an illusion of the "ego mind" which needs duality for orientation. I suggest the what we might describe as evil is varying degrees of absense of 'love'.

One of the great discoveries of Monroe is that Hate is not the opposite of Love. Love has no opposite.

S.

I agree that love has no opposite but can it really ever be absent ? Would it be more accurate to say that its not perceived i.e blocked in some way ?

Perhaps 'love' is better represented by the phrase, "First, do no harm."

I am of the mind that the opposite of love is fear as love creates positive, while fear creates negative. 

A side note about experience with evi,l I had an interesting conversation with a wonderfully psychic woman and we were talking about a particularly awful crime in an area we were both familiar with.  I voiced concern over the same kind of thing occuring to one of us in that area and she said it would never happen.  I asked why and she said that it was not anything we planned to be part of our lives.  I mentioned that we might just be in the wrong place at the right time and she again said it would not happen because we are attentive enough to our guidance to be somewhere else when such a thing would be going on in that location. 

Of course, we have free will and can override the "gut instinct" or the "little voice in our heads" but so far we have successfully followed the direction of our guidance and are now even paying more attention to just such synchronicities that our planned path will take precedence over any effort to ignore the plan, or to "go where angels fear to tread...".  As a famous man once said..."Take life by the smooth handle...", which for me has meant to follow the small prods and suggestions I receive from my guidance.  When I haven't is when I have met with difficulty...and in retrospect, it has been extremely clear what I ignored. 

My psychic also said my guidance told her that most of the time they sit around watching and laughing at me because I act like I talk...too much detail, and while my wife kicks me under the table and guests are yawning, I eventually get to the point.  I'm not sure how I feel about that.   

heisenberg69 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2010 at 5:25pm:

I agree that love has no opposite but can it really ever be absent ? Would it be more accurate to say that its not perceived i.e blocked in some way ?

That's a good way to look at it. The amazing thing is that "Love" is always there... it is the very motor of creation... the 'ego' in order to maintain its existence must create an imaginary opposite... that is... to establish duality... but, it somehow forgets after a time that the opposite was an artifice... an imaginary (illusion) reference point to create dimension... to have a "reality"... then, it gets trapped in the web... “Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”... then the whole of our spiritual path is removing the imaginary clouds we placed over the shining glow of Love that is always there waiting to be seen.

I had a lifetime in which I did terrible things to ascend illegitmately to the throne... but, I had to suppress 'love' to commit those crimes... you can't murder people you love... then I decided I was personally was not loveable... I am just beginning to come out of that trap... of course I am loveable... I AM... pure love... always was and always will be .... now I have to reconnect with the ability to love myself and others... and everything... all is one... the universe is one... it is Love...

S.

The polarity of opposites and their underlying unity is a heady discussion, and in some ways, one can therefore argue that there is a spectrum like a rainbow from which each extreme end would be defined by us earthly folk as an opposite (i.e. love and hate or evil).

Yet there is a practical side to the debate too.  A sadist who "gets off" on inflicting pain on others is acting against love - i.e. in an evil or hateful manner.  If he/she persists in pursuing sadism, going in the opposite direction to the path of love, then he/she is  acting in an evil or unloving manner. 

Now we can argue till the cows come home that the sadist's true nature is loving but he just doesn't know it yet.  Yet on a practical basis, until the sadistic soul evolves, it is evil or unloving.  It associates with others who are of a like mind.  To deny that these choices create a group of unloving individuals is in some ways denying the obvious.  To point out that the core of every soul still is based on love may be true but not a practical or useful way of looking at things.  Your inner nature guides you either toward or away from love.  Unfortunately, there are many whose nature initially compels them toward evil.


M

Mathew-

you make a good point; even if we speculate that evil is ultimately based on an illusion what difference does this make on a practical basis when faced with it.

One reason I am reticent to use the evil label is that there is a temptation when faced with an example of evil to shrug one's shoulders and just consign it to one of those mysterious phenomenon we'll never understand.But when we call someone evil we usually are referring to a person pscychologists would describe as psychopathic (sociopathic) i.e. someone who lacks empathy with another's pain. But the fact is that psychologists do know of influences on its genesis e.g. childhood abuse. I grew up with a boy whose later actions could be described as evil and I personally witnessed some of the childhood abuse he recieved as a boy.I am not saying all abused children become psychopaths but certain individuals may, being more vulnerable to such treatment.

If we are serious about making the world a better place the more we know about the genesis of evil the better, so we can treat it before it develops. I'm not convinced bandying the  word around furthers that cause as it creates a them and us situation; when in fact they may be us in different circumstances. This is not to say we can't identify behaviour we wish to move away from and then take the appropriate measures.

Someone whose work I respect, Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, was quoted as saying that there is a little bit of Hitler in all of us. I know what she meant.

D

DocM wrote on Feb 20^th, 2010 at 9:23am:

The polarity of opposites and their underlying unity is a heady discussion, and in some ways, one can therefore argue that there is a spectrum like a rainbow from which each extreme end would be defined by us earthly folk as an opposite (i.e. love and hate or evil).

Are we supposed to be arguing or having an inner awakening which produces a personal 'knowing'. Arguements get no where... unless there is a meeting of the minds.


DocM wrote on Feb 20^th, 2010 at 9:23am:

Yet there is a practical side to the debate too.  A sadist who "gets off" on inflicting pain on others is acting against love - i.e. in an evil or hateful manner.  If he/she persists in pursuing sadism, going in the opposite direction to the path of love, then he/she is  acting in an evil or unloving manner.

Isn't that the basis of our modus vivendi concerning Bruce Moen's discovery of the "Hell" realms... aren't these hell's illusions based on the residents belief systems that created the hell zone and when a helper brings light to an inhabitant... that inhabitant immediately transcends the 'hell effect' and enters another zone closer to the truth.


DocM wrote on Feb 20^th, 2010 at 9:23am:

Now we can argue till the cows come home that the sadist's true nature is loving but he just doesn't know it yet.  Yet on a practical basis, until the sadistic soul evolves, it is evil or unloving.  It associates with others who are of a like mind.  To deny that these choices create a group of unloving individuals is in some ways denying the obvious.  To point out that the core of every soul still is based on love may be true but not a practical or useful way of looking at things.  Your inner nature guides you either toward or away from love.  Unfortunately, there are many whose nature initially compels them toward evil. M

Is there an arguement...? The reality is this... evil is an illusion... it does not exist in reality or practicality... it is a choice of the individual to lock into a belief system which creates certain effects that provide 'juice'... until they hit the wall of the reaction and they become the victim instead of the victimizer... through the reincarnation process... they will of course remain in that state.. Or they or blessed with 'grace'... i.e.. a Light helper who sees they may bring them out.

S.

Seraphis1 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2010 at 8:34pm:

DocM wrote on Feb 20th, 2010 at 9:23am: The polarity of opposites and their underlying unity is a heady discussion, and in some ways, one can therefore argue that there is a spectrum like a rainbow from which each extreme end would be defined by us earthly folk as an opposite (i.e. love and hate or evil). Are we supposed to be arguing or having an inner awakening which produces a personal 'knowing'. Arguements get no where... unless there is a meeting of the minds. DocM wrote on Feb 20th, 2010 at 9:23am: Yet there is a practical side to the debate too.  A sadist who "gets off" on inflicting pain on others is acting against love - i.e. in an evil or hateful manner.  If he/she persists in pursuing sadism, going in the opposite direction to the path of love, then he/she is  acting in an evil or unloving manner.  Isn't that the basis of our modus vivendi concerning Bruce Moen's discovery of the "Hell" realms... aren't these hell's illusions based on the residents belief systems that created the hell zone and when a helper brings light to an inhabitant... that inhabitant immediately transcends the 'hell effect' and enters another zone closer to the truth. DocM wrote on Feb 20th, 2010 at 9:23am: Now we can argue till the cows come home that the sadist's true nature is loving but he just doesn't know it yet.  Yet on a practical basis, until the sadistic soul evolves, it is evil or unloving.  It associates with others who are of a like mind.  To deny that these choices create a group of unloving individuals is in some ways denying the obvious.  To point out that the core of every soul still is based on love may be true but not a practical or useful way of looking at things.  Your inner nature guides you either toward or away from love.  Unfortunately, there are many whose nature initially compels them toward evil. M Is there an arguement...? The reality is this... evil is an illusion... it does not exist in reality or practicality... it is a choice of the individual to lock into a belief system which creates certain effects that provide 'juice'... until they hit the wall of the reaction and they become the victim instead of the victimizer... through the reincarnation process... they will of course remain in that state.. Or they or blessed with 'grace'... i.e.. a Light helper who sees they may bring them out. S.

Where to begin, ok Seraphis, the term argument is used here as another word for discussion - sort of saying "make your case."

Next, your ideas of hells and rescue attempts are not, in my humble opinion quite accurate.  The self created hells are quite real, and the people in them place themselves there... not because of illusions/delusion.  Their minds place them there.  They are following their basic nature at the time.  If and when they are ready to break out of the mold, only then and at that time would a helper be able to get through to them.  It is not a matter of a helper pulling one in a hellish realm aside and saying "Pssstt....hey buddy, this ain't real, come with me."  No.  The person has to have decided that the envirnoment doesn't suit them any longer.   That there is something else, or something isn't quite right. 

When the person is acting opposite to love, no amount of reason or logic will make them look up and say "oh yeah, I only think I enjoy maiming and killing, I don't really." 

We can agree that consciousness comes from God, that evil/bad means a soul going in the opposite direction to God and love, but as I said before, there is still the practical existence of the state of evil.  Either on earth or in the spiritual hells, it is real as long as the person's nature/thought and action support it.  You can't poof evil away by projecting love onto it.  You can't turn a person in a hell "good," by wishing it; they have to help themselves. 

Also, by many reports, when a loving soul drops into a hellish realm, they get confused, clouded, even angry or mean themselves.  That is why when helpers drop to that level, they do it only for the briefest periods of times. 


Matthew

I think your differences are semantics.  It seems you are each describing the same thing, but one of you is looking from the left and the other from the right.  Please continue. 

I think you're both right - evil is an illusionary state but you can't make people people evolved i.e. less 'evil'. If you could evolved entities would have made us all saints by now !

Souls are drawn to hellish planes based on the principle like attracts like.  But our core desires reflect who we truly are more than our belief system.  Saints and psychopaths alike can share basically the same belief system.  So we should speak of Core Desire Territories rather than Belief System Terrotories.  This is in keeping with Jesus' teaching: "The measure you dish out will be the measure dished out to you (Matthew 7:2)."  What we "dish out" is governed by our core desires or longings.  This distinction between CDTs and BSTs is important because it means that retrievals are more difficult to perform than we might assume.  Bruce Moen stresses how hard it is to retrieve spirits from hellish planes.  It is easier to create an incentive to change a belief than to replace a desire that expresses the core of who you are. 

Don

heisenberg69 wrote on Feb 21^st, 2010 at 4:25pm:

I think you're both right - evil is an illusionary state but you can't make people people evolved i.e. less 'evil'. If you could evolved entities would have made us all saints by now !

Is it our job to make people evolve or to just be available to those who cross our paths and engage us in a way that might lead to a meeting of the minds.

I will add this one probe achieving 'enlightenment' is so powerful that it changes the overall level of spiritual awareness exponentially orders of magnitude thruout the universe.

S

Seraphis1,

"Is it our job to make people evolve or to just be available to those who cross our paths and engage us in a way that might lead to a meeting of the minds."

The questions then evolve into these: the board is to say how to evolve? Some individuals from the board or otherwise are to say how to evolve? What's evolved about forcing someone to reach someone's term(s) of evolvement?

"I will add this one probe achieving 'enlightenment' is so powerful that it changes the overall level of spiritual awareness exponentially orders of magnitude thruout the universe."

One probe reaches enlightenment, and for that probe everything changes, while the other probes are free to grow at their own paces. The thing about changing the world is that your/mine/etc. idea about change isn't going to cut it for everybody. Changing one's own world is a different matter.

Hi

That quote from Seraphis is set up as a rhetorical question, imo; he just forgot the question mark.  I read it as the 'we' is a more universal 'we,'   being anyone who is on such a path as the afterlife interest shared here. 
I don't see how anybody could organize such a group (board? this site only?) to get them to agree to anything :),  other than each individual's desire to help. Just consider the variety of viewpoints that fuel these discussions and you can see that no one comes to a very complete agreement about what is what.

Seraphis, I would like to think that anyone achieving enlightenment creates energy so powerful that it reverberates through the universe ! Your wording sounds inspired--but I hope that the standards are not raised with each enlightenment!  It's hard enought o keep up as it is!  :D

Bets

Bets,

"I don't see how anybody could organize such a group (board? this site only?) to get them to agree to anything :), other than each individual's desire to help."

To get them to agree implies an agreement that doesn't come naturally, and if 'with a little help' I'd wonder what kinda help that was.

I've observed some disagreements the last few days, and different ways of dealing with them. The most uncomplicated one I saw today. A customer picked up a bought food item but it fell out of his hands, and then blamed the clerk for the "mishap". The clerk said 'No, you did the picking up part', and then moved on to deal with the next orders. Some kind of balance, and a simple moment I found inspirational while waiting.

A day ago a friend of mine had a disagreement with a family member. The member was mean, but no return to sender by the receiver (ie. walking away, or saying two simple words), and my friend accepted to carry the frustration of the family member. Light.

Some days ago I saw the result of a disagreement on a video snippet. It involved a dog who allegedly had killed some chickens and a dude taking revenge for his mother. The dog was thrown off a bridge by the laughing dude. Broken feet, whimpering and a wagging tail. Dark.

"Just consider the variety of viewpoints that fuel these discussions and you can see that no one comes to a very complete agreement about what is what."

A diversity of viewpoints to form, adopt, share, reject, and be exposed to.

A myriad of timeperiods and cultures to incarnate into - a wealthy dutch businessman in 1748 with a hole in his heart or a whole heart to poke a stereotype, an indian beggar in 2010 with no arms but a son to evoke sympathy as her extended arms, a shaman of an indian tribe in the 1800s healing others' lost soul pieces while ignoring his own, a babylonian whore who loves the male energy more than the money.

A wide spectrum of character traits to choose from using astrological make-up, located all over the the polarity bar - a huge variety of probes having a huge variety of experiences in order to know balance and other.. stuff.

Eventually it works out. I guess.

Volu wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2010 at 6:38am:

Seraphis1, "Is it our job to make people evolve or to just be available to those who cross our paths and engage us in a way that might lead to a meeting of the minds." The questions then evolve into these: the board is to say how to evolve? Some individuals from the board or otherwise are to say how to evolve? What's evolved about forcing someone to reach someone's term(s) of evolvement? .

As bets said this was rhetorical... and I am in perfect agreement with the idea that the path is 'chosen' individually not by force... it can't be forced... spiritual awakenings are a matter of 'grace' you either have grace or you don't. You have to earn it. Everyone on this board has that grace or you wouldn't be here...


Volu wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2010 at 6:38am:

"I will add this one probe achieving 'enlightenment' is so powerful that it changes the overall level of spiritual awareness exponentially orders of magnitude thruout the universe." One probe reaches enlightenment, and for that probe everything changes, while the other probes are free to grow at their own paces. The thing about changing the world is that your/mine/etc. idea about change isn't going to cut it for everybody. Changing one's own world is a different matter.

I depart from that thought by one point... All is One... The Universe is One... The Manifest/Unmanifest is pure love... out of this love, which is One comes creation... one probe not only changes for himself but sends an explosion of power in a ripple effect of light through out the Darkness and Light is experienced by all for a flash of a moment in time... and (I must be on the right track because I just saw a flash of intense blue light as I was writing)... is a little easier for all of us to progress. Think of this, why hasn't mankind destroyed itself yet... 80 to 90 percent of mankind are murderous thugs... I say the 10 percent are so powerful that they compensate and use inner power which overcomes force... (paraphrasing Dr. David Hawkins).

S.