Many parapsychologists consider the Lurancy Vennum case the most power evidence for an afterlife ever provided by a single case.  This case is often designated "The Watseka Wonder" and you can read a summary of it at this website:

www.prairieghosts.com/watseka.html

The possession involved in this case is for me a decisive way of refuting reincarnationist interpretations of past life recall.  Dude and other New Agers apparently need to duck the key points of my critique of reincarnation.  So I will eventually reissue them here refurbished.

Don

I acknowledge your key points.  I do not deny their possibility in certain cases.  However, your critique does not address my key points.  You are the one ducking.

I will give you another opportunity.

How do you interpret individuals with uncanny similarities with their "past life incarnations"?  Those who are able to accurately provide details about real individuals who have lived in the past who they claim have been their past lives, and the parallel traits these individuals share, such as nearly identical physical, mental, and emotional traits, including scars, marks, and diseases in the exact locations the "past life" incarnation had a significant injury.  Surely this is more than just a "spirit merger." 

One question for you.  What is the purpose of these spirit mergers, or as ES calls them, possessions.. why do these spirits do this?  And are you saying that every person alive is a "victim" of these spirit mergers/possessions?  Because almost every individual put under hypnosis is able to recall having a past life.

And what of the strikingly identical accounts of the afterlife, namely the life in between lives, which are prevalent among these subjects?  These individuals describe the planning and preparation of beginning a new incarnation after they are through with a previous one.  Although most of these individuals are completely unaware that such a thing even is possible before hand, they all describe nearly identical key aspects of this experience. This is something that neither of your "explanations" prove wrong, and must be taken seriously if one is going to examine this issue honestly.

I don't believe it can be proven that reincarnation doesn't exist, by showing that some people get possessed.

Swedenborg says what he said, but what about people who have had NDEs where they clearly experienced higher levels of existence and yet they became aware of many if not all of their past incarnations. Such cases aren't a matter of being misled.

Dude and recoverer,

Thank you for setting the table for my refutation of reincarnation.  It's fascinating that neither of you can detect your circular reasonsing and, yes, how you both persist in ducking my main points.  I'm swamped with other responsibilities right now, but stay tuned!

Don

Don:

What do you mean by circular reasoning?

It is really hard to believe that everybody who has a past life memory is possessed.

Regarding the NDE reference I made, I've read a few NDEs where people experienced a very high state of consciousness, and at some point they made contact with their soul/higher self/total self/whatever, and experienced their past incarnations. At the same time they would experience a life review in a manner where no details were left out.

Because of the depth of what they experienced, it is hard to imagine that as Emanuel Swedenborg suggests some lower level beings misled them about having past lives.

One time I went into an expanded state of awareness (while feeling love, peace and divinity) and made contact with my disk in a manner where I saw other members that represented past lives. The impression I got is that each of them still exists, and I'm an extension of the disk they are a part of.

Because of the other information I received during this experience, because of my intent, because of past experiences, and because of what I felt, it is hard to believe that I experienced something that was the result of my imagination, or was some form of deception.

Wow, Don.  You are biting off a chunk here.

No one you have ever lived with, who is significant in your current life, who has any impact on you day to day, is anyone you have lived with before?  You are kidding, right? 

What you say is that everyone who perceives any previous life, a significant connection to another soul, is either possessed or mistaken?  Do you not feel the connection to your parents, your siblings, aunts, uncles, wife, children, grandparents, nieces, nephews, co-workers, friends?  If not, I am sorry for you.  The significance these people play in your life is hinging on the connection they had with you in a previous life or lives.

In my own case, devoid of possession or delusion, I have been able to trace those of significance to me back over several lives.  No one I deal with on a continuous basis is someone with whom I do not have a prior affiliation. 

You may make your case studies and promise us that you will soundly refute "reincarnation" but you have yet to refute anything, and what you say and the sources you quote do not alter what I feel to be right. 

I am sorry for those with whom you live your life...your inability to accept the significance they hold in your life must be painful to those of them who see beyond the dogma.  My best wishes to you and to them.

Ah, recoverer, by your own admission you don't even know what circular reasoning is.  So I get New Age dogma from you, complete with the jargon---higher self and soul disk both logically incoherent notions!  I mean, have you ever paused to reflect on what  life in the Disk is like! 

And when I find the time to develop my full reply, I will summon you from the sheltered New Age Ghetto into the big bad world of scientific research, where "resonating with loved ones" is rightly dismissed as too subjective to serve as a rationale for faith in reincarnaton.  Like I said, stay tuned! ;)

Don

Usetawuz,

It is you who are a bit out of line here.  No one would deny you your right to believe that you have strong connections to your oved ones that transcend this life.  But there are those of differing opinions.   My love for my family is strong - I've told my seven year old that I am convinced that my love for him is so strong, I would volunteer to incarnate to watch over him - were it possible.  Maybe, in fact I did.  However, I have no evidence of this.  Much evidence gathered via hypnosis supports the reincarnation hypothesis (Michael Newton).  However, one experienced hypnotherpist on this forum (Dave-MBS) has said that he believed that Michael Newton led his patients by suggestive questions under hypnosis.  That is why they all gave similar pre-life answers, and found past lives.  He led them to open doors, and look inside, and they had instant tremendous knowledge influxes of a life.  Was it theirs?  It sure felt like it to those under hypnosis.  Could they have had a soul or mind merger and been so blown away that they felt they experienced the "past life" from their own eyes - absolutely. 

We have enough to work through in this life, enough joy, pain, wonder and heartache.  So much so, how sad it is really that many of us lose sight of the present and try to sort through a hypothetical but unproven past life.   Hello?  You are here.  I am here. 

Put another way.  If we do reincarnate and wipe our memories, there is a reason for that.  Almost a tacit agreement.  So to say to a loved one, "ah yes, I am repaying a karmic debt to you from a past life where I did harm to you," is to give more credence to an unproven past and thereby lose opportunities for living in the here and now.

Some argue that we must investigate past lives to heal traumatized aspects of ourselves.  If, after we die, we have the time. and our minds are opened enough to all information that we can actually do this, I say - great idea!  However, it seems that while here on earth, we are meant to live in the here and now.  We shouldn't rob our interactions with our loved ones with speculation about past life interactions with them that are all just speculation.

Explore - yes.  Keep an open mind.  Reincarnation may not be as common as some presume - but either way, explore on your own. 

But live for today.  Hug your loved one because you love them in the present.


Matthew

Don:

I agree that there is a lot of bogus new age information, but if one has experiences showing that the disk viewpoint is in some way true, why would one deny it?

If it's valuable to incarnate once, why not more than once? Once a soul becomes quite large, it makes sense that it would incarnate just one small part of itself in order to learn what it needs to learn and to contribute to what needs to be done.

Ever since I was a kid I had a way of approaching life that went beyond what I learned as a kid. Where did such knowledge come from? It wasn't a matter of being influenced by a spirit that was attached to me, because the knowledge I speak of includes being loving towards other kids even when they were mean to me.

Brian Weiss is one of the people who helped me understand reincarnation:

http://www.brianweiss.com/

It seems illogical that a "loving" creator would only you one life to "get it right" or damn you to eternal hell for simply being human.

I don't know about reincarnation, (I'm keeping an open mind on it) but lets have a level playing field here. If apparently 'new age' beliefs are to be scrutinized by 'the big bad world of scientific research' as Don puts it then should'nt all beliefs, including Christianity, be measured by the same yardstick ? Why should one belief have 'special' status over another ?   

Thanks for pointing out the ELEPHANT in the room, Heisenberg. I hoped someone would.

DocM wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2010 at 11:49pm:

Usetawuz, It is you who are a bit out of line here.  No one would deny you your right to believe that you have strong connections to your oved ones that transcend this life.  But there are those of differing opinions.   My love for my family is strong - I've told my seven year old that I am convinced that my love for him is so strong, I would volunteer to incarnate to watch over him - were it possible.  Maybe, in fact I did.  However, I have no evidence of this.  Much evidence gathered via hypnosis supports the reincarnation hypothesis (Michael Newton).  However, one experienced hypnotherpist on this forum (Dave-MBS) has said that he believed that Michael Newton led his patients by suggestive questions under hypnosis.  That is why they all gave similar pre-life answers, and found past lives.  He led them to open doors, and look inside, and they had instant tremendous knowledge influxes of a life.  Was it theirs?  It sure felt like it to those under hypnosis.  Could they have had a soul or mind merger and been so blown away that they felt they experienced the "past life" from their own eyes - absolutely.  We have enough to work through in this life, enough joy, pain, wonder and heartache.  So much so, how sad it is really that many of us lose sight of the present and try to sort through a hypothetical but unproven past life.   Hello?  You are here.  I am here.  Put another way.  If we do reincarnate and wipe our memories, there is a reason for that.  Almost a tacit agreement.  So to say to a loved one, "ah yes, I am repaying a karmic debt to you from a past life where I did harm to you," is to give more credence to an unproven past and thereby lose opportunities for living in the here and now. Some argue that we must investigate past lives to heal traumatized aspects of ourselves.  If, after we die, we have the time. and our minds are opened enough to all information that we can actually do this, I say - great idea!  However, it seems that while here on earth, we are meant to live in the here and now.  We shouldn't rob our interactions with our loved ones with speculation about past life interactions with them that are all just speculation. Explore - yes.  Keep an open mind.  Reincarnation may not be as common as some presume - but either way, explore on your own.  But live for today.  Hug your loved one because you love them in the present. Matthew

Thank you Matthew...however I am not sure my comments were out of line.  I referenced opinions that I hold in response to another's opinions intended to refute them.       

I agree that our lives are for living in this day, and when I sense a level of increased familiarity with others I want to  find its source.  I have no interest in delving into any aspect of karmic debt or obligation, as that will take care of itself and healing wounds or past injuries has not been my goal, either.  My desire has been to understand the relationships I have with others and it has been enormously gratifying.

While this may not appeal to others, it may never occur to others to consider it if I don't bring it up...and that should have as much credence on this board as another stating he has evidence that will refute my beliefs.   

This may not be pleasing to what some want to hear, but it is in no way meant to be an insult to anyone's belief system:

On looking at things further, it seems to me that belief in reincarnation, and the probing of past lives and karma seems to be feeding an ego-based need.  If we look at all the signs we get from heaven and the afterlife - the golden rule, acting out of love for others instead of personal gain, etc. all those things speak to thought and action in the present, as well as cultivating a certain sense of humility and selflessness with a desire more to serve others than to focus on one's own desires.

If I probe a "past life" in order to understand why I act a certain way now, or what tendencies I brought with me to this life, it is, in some ways indulging my ego based thinking - we are separte from God while incarnate, and my probing of a past life where I willingly separated myself off inside a body may lead useful information to my curious mind/ego.  It does not, however, change the path of spiritual evolution through love of God and one's fellow man.  It does not change the reality that in order to act out of love we must let go of our ego based thinking, in order to become part of the bigger picture.  This doesn't require melting into a mindless void, but many of us suffer from these earthly ego based attachments.  Perhaps, if I may be so bold, the desire to explore past lives and karma is, in some ways holding on ego based attachments.     

So in some ways, perhaps I find myself less interested in exploring potential past lives, because I've seen and experienced enough in this life to know that spiritual evolution moves away from ego based karmic thinking. 

When one acts out of love, there is no negative karma.  The wheel of karma is broken, because one removes the isolated incarnated entity from the game.


Matthew

Don-

I read the article, but my own problem with it is that it requires us to accept the accounts of folks long since dead.  In all fairness I haven't read the book itself, and maybe it's well-documented. 

Right now I'd have to say it's interesting but I wouldn't characterize it as the "most powerful evidence for an afterlife ever provided by a single case."  At least not until I see more documentation so that the credibility of the account can be more accurately assessed.

Another potential problem is that in the mid-19th century it was not at all uncommon for these types of stories to be circulated for the express purpose of publicity and getting people to come to the area out of curiosity to check it out.

And when that happens, money also comes to the town, which was always the motive behind circulating such stories in the first place.

The article reminded me of the concept of "walk-ins" that Ruth Montgomery wrote about.  Supposedly a human can willingly relinquish his/her body to someone in the afterlife who wants to incarnate right away, instead of going through the regular stages.  Her "guides" claimed that this happens in rare cases.

Of course, her guides also insisted by the year 2,000 the earth would shift on its axis and there would be mass devastation and huge casualties.

Oh well, maybe the guides were off by 12 years!  ;)

R

Oh yes. A battle of truths. Neither side to be willing to except the others opinions, or beliefs. We all will be finding the "facts" sooner than we might like. But this I would like to say is a guarantee..both will have parts of it right... some of it wrong,.. and, will end up realising that their personal dogmatic beliefs just didn't matter in the long run.

Wondering why possession is "evil"? (Would that have made RMC excepting of evil as she allowed others non phyical to enter into her phyical body?) It seems that there is this book called the Bible that says that Moses heard voices also. He must have been possessed to. He thought he heard the words of God! Mind you so did that lady a few years back who drown her three kids in a tub. She heard God also. Now I am wondering about those to have had this Lord or the Holy Spirit within them. Isn't that a possession also? Must be more of that Christian Beliefs Ghetto stuff. 

DocM wrote on Mar 4^th, 2010 at 12:19pm:

This may not be pleasing to what some want to hear, but it is in no way meant to be an insult to anyone's belief system: Matthew

No insult at all, Matthew and I appreciate your analysis.  It is certainly thought-provoking and I agree with you for the most part.   

Hawkeye:

Surely you know there is a difference between having your energy connected with a being of benevolent intent and a being of negative intent.

I've experienced the presence of light based beings, and, "yahoo!" :)

I've also experienced the presence of beings with negative intent and only a really confused person would consider this to be a good thing.

There are beings who have really bad intentions.


hawkeye wrote on Mar 4^th, 2010 at 2:46pm:

Wondering why possession is "evil"? (Would that have made RMC excepting of evil as she allowed others non phyical to enter into her phyical body?) It seems that there is this book called the Bible that says that Moses heard voices also. He must have been possessed to. He thought he heard the words of God! Mind you so did that lady a few years back who drown her three kids in a tub. She heard God also. Now I am wondering about those to have had this Lord or the Holy Spirit within them. Isn't that a possession also? Must be more of that Christian Beliefs Ghetto stuff.

heisenberg: "I don't know about reincarnation, (I'm keeping an open mind on it) but lets have a level playing field here. If apparently 'new age' beliefs are to be scrutinized by 'the big bad world of scientific research' as Don puts it then should'nt all beliefs, including Christianity, be measured by the same yardstick ? Why should one belief have 'special' status over another ?"   
______________________________________

Precisely.  I routinely wake up, immersed in this thought: suppose some of my key Christian beliefs were misguided.  What then would have to be true instead and how could I discover this?  But most posters here uncritically pontificate New Age cliches without having earned their reincarnational positions.  Their reading is limited to Ghetto-sanctioned authors like Brian Weiss who are rightly ignored in the real world of honest and open interdisciplinary inquiry.  In short, they fall far short of the high standard established by Christian biblical scholarship.  Christians gladly submit their beliefs to the best and brightest agnostic and atheistic minds, despite their anti-paranormal agendas.  By contrast, though biblically illerate, many New Agers here comically sit in judgment on a lofty New Age perch about issues they are not qualified to address. 

My intention is not to convert.  Most posters here are not open enough to be reshaped by exciting ideas outside the New Age Ghetto.  My goal is to try to elevatethe level of debate, so that it is at last balanced and multi-faceted enough to force reincarnationists to reexamine their presuppostional frameworks and thus earn their positions.  Unfortunately, a blunt, in your face style is needed to irritate posters enough to awaken them to the daunting task of honest and open  inquiry. I'm not here to be liked!  Stay tuned.   

Don

Don-

as I wrote before I appreciate your quest for veracity but would'nt you agree that religions are essentially faith driven not science driven ?

recoverer, Of course I see the difference between  benevolent intent and negative intent. When it comes to hearing voices and being possessed what make one mans interpretation of the expearence better than another's? If hearing Gods voice in your head makes you kill, or makes you manifest a tablet of Christianity's golden rules, your still hearing voices. You still believe it to be Gods voice. Are you to ignore the word of God, or follow it, blindly and full of faith into a area of the afterlife possibly no better than someone else's hell, or to do things perhaps perceived as evil to others? Who decides if this word is Gods or not? Surely only the one who hears his voice can deside.
I believe it evil to attempt to entrap others in a belief system territory. That includes all of them. From Christianity to the "Ghetto". Entrapping someone into a BST, no matter what it is, is wrong. I won't stand back and let it happen without recourse, no matter what its called. Try a trip to F26 and see how hard it can be sometime to move some of these people towards God and love. Many are so stuck in a BST, so stuck on one religious belief or doctrine, that they close off love because of their fear of God and retribution. (hell) For me I see parts of Christianity as good, some evil. Same as what Don calls the New Age Ghetto...some good, some evil. But to say one of them is better or good, and the other wrong or evil...I dont think so.   

So, Don, from your standpoint we should earn our right to discuss our beliefs under the auspices of your christian biblical scholarship framework? 

I see this as less a New Age v. Christianity issue and more of a "different strokes" matter.  Your motivation seems more founded on "showing up  those ignorant new agers" than on potentially leading them to the promised land and your fount of knowledge.  Wielding a cudgel to get people to raise the level of discussion also seems out of character for one following the Light of Christ...and to quote one of my favorite Christians..."what would Jesus do?"   

Hawkeye:

I also believe it is wrong to get people involved with belief systems.

Part of the reason this world has so many problems is because there are a bunch of people who aren't thinking for themselves, they latch onto beliefs that are created by other people.

Perhaps people who find their way out of such traps are people who have souls that have learned not to do so.

usetawuz,

Uncritical minds always impute unworthy motives to avoid the hard task of critical thinking that begins with the searching questions: What if I'm wrong?  How could I ever discover that?  You really must learn to read.  That includes not only posts like mine, but deep books that make cases that are contrary to your own perspectives.  My post said nothing about employing a Christian stance as the foundation for this thread.  That's your baggage.  My post merely recognizes that Christian leaders, unlike many New Agers, are eager to learn challenging perspectives from worthy intellectual adversaries.   

Don   

Hi

How is the concept of reincarnation refuted by Mary's being available for earthly visits after her own passing?  Lurancy never claimed she was Mary until she (LV) got so shattered and rundown from being possessed by several entities and by being' medicated' and 'treated' with such cruel methods that she may have tried to escape who she had been.

On another note, I think words are very important and carry much energy, which can be either auspicious or dangerous. What a poor innocent babe to be named Lurancy! So much like lunacy. Her mother's name Lurinda isn't so positive either--lurid? I can't find any lur... words that have a positive connotation: lurk, lure, lurch.
Scarey, but sound may have metaphysical connotations.

There's much to pity in this story.

Bets

Don,

Your disdain for other viewpoints is disappointing and small-minded. All I really see from you is someone pontificating from their bully pulpit and putting people's ideas down. You have done this to me and my posts several times. I don't care if you want to be liked or not either. But I don't take everything I read to be the truth. If it comes from the Bible, I definitely dispute it unless it is read in the proper context.

My beliefs come from my own experiences. 

I, for one, do not need to be schooled nor slapped on the knuckles with your abrasiveness, so feel free to ignore all future posts of mine in the future. If I want to experience true "meanness" as exhibited by the holier than thou christian community, I'll go back to church, thank you.

I had more that I posted about Science of Spirituality, but the edit didn't take. Here's an excerpt that I found appropriate:

"There is a big difference between belief and faith through experience. Belief is something that we read about, or something our parents or friends have told us. Belief is something that we think will happen, whereas an experience is what really does happen. Experience solidifies our belief and then turns it into faith. This happens when we experience the truth for ourselves. Belief plus experience is faith, but belief itself could be blind if it is merely something that someone else has said."

Sant Rajinder Singh
Author: Inner and Outer Peace Through Meditation, and many other Science of Spirituality books

Don, One thing you said in an earlier post...
" My intention is not to convert. Many posters here are not open enough to be reshaped"......etc. Convert/reshape?
Well thanks Don, but no thanks. I dont need a "reshaping" into your ideals of what a person should be, act, or believe. To me it is obvious that your strong Christian, holier and more knowledgeable than thou beliefs shape how you relate to others. Don, your turning me off of Christianity. Totally. Its all fine to attempt to evoke an emotional response from someone in an effort to help or to release them from being stuck with fixed ideas, but it would seem your efforts are in belittling others in an attempt to make your beliefs and opinion seem more trueful or closer to what you believe your God to desire. I personally find you extremely egotistical. I almost feel sorry for you. (Perhaps your acting out because of a weakness in an other area that I can help you with? Would you like me to help reshape the way you think or believe?) That said..I read your posts and respond because you have some worthwhile things to say. I dont agree with what seems to be these fundamentalist Christian beliefs, but I am open enough to listen to them. They are worthy of expressing. My God tells me to except the way you are, and to love you the way you are. Which I do. My God doesn't tell me to try to reshape you in my own form or personal beliefs.
Again no "reshaping" for me thanks..I dont want to be anything like you. I am fine just the way I am. My belief in the afterlife is as good or better than yours, in my opinion.
I am reminded of a show I used to watch. Faulty Towers. They had a waiter that always used to say" I learned my English from a book". Funny show. It resonates to me showing about some peoples beliefs. They learn them from books. What a shame. 

Don-

I was inspired by reading Alan's thread to do a remote viewing on you. 

This was last evening, approx 7pm your time.  I found you in what looked like a study.  I got the impression it was in a church but not sure.

You were standing at a podium, giving what seemed like a sermon, and I sensed that others were in the room listening to you.

The walls of the study were lined with pictures of Christian evangelists.  One in particular I'm almost sure was Jimmy Swaggart and I saw what looked like an autograph from him to you!

You seemed to have an angry look on your face, and at times you pounded on the podium to drive home a point.  The whole atmosphere in the room was heavy with anger, as if you were castigating people for not living up to the way of life and beliefs you insisted that they comply with.

To be honest, the whole thing was so oppressive that I could not stay long. Whimpering sounds as if they were coming from small children as you threatened them with eternal damnation was just too much for me to bear.

I'm sorry if I got it wrong but it was so real that I feel compelled to share it here.

R

Rondelle:

I hope everybody realizes that you're joking.

I don't like view things such as it's Christians against new agers.  When it comes to both, both groups are misled by people who claim to have all of the answers. I don't want to be led by anybody's false viewpoints. I want to find out for myself rather than have somebody tell me homosexuality is a sin, or nothing I see is real.

Yes, in my post that didn't quite take, I also expressed disdain at having to express my dislike for Don's attitude and posts. I try not to get riled up. I do not consider myself a new ager. I accept that there many paths to God/Creator/Universe. However, I do feel it is "wrong" to impose one's beliefs on anyone else and to put down their beliefs.

Some could be obviously misled, such as someone worshipping a telephone pole, but then again, who am I to say? I don't think Christians are "wrong," but my personal experience is that they are not quite so open-minded about the possibilities of life and the afterlife and how people view these two very big subjects. Thus, I usually do not "debate" with these people because I could have a better conversation with less acrimony by talking to a wall. Just my experience.

Yeah, I agree with you totally Albert. I want to find out for myself and I don't want someone using their logic or more importantly some else's logic to belittle my ideas or pompously claim objective knowledge where there is none. It's one thing to disagree, but to use what I consider mythology as grounds for crucifying someone's opinion leaves me a little cold.

But I like this board better than some of the others because of the diverse processes of thought.

And I looked at the page on those girls and I've read Fontana's account of this happening. Well... I think it was Fontana and I found it hard to swallow, but possible I guess. I really don't see how it refutes reincarnation in any way, but I guess we all will draw our own conclusions with one belief system or another, unless we experience it for ourselves.

Yours,
Beau

I think a lot of differences stem from the apparent need by some folks to find out how it works...full stop.

I've never seen anything that made me think everyone has to go through the same thing.  There's no good reason, in my mind, to believe we all reincarnate, we all don't, we all do in a specific time frame, we all go here or there or wherever.

Some folks don't finish high school.  Some go to college, some get graduate degrees, some are "professional students".  I've seen nothing that says our souls have to be any different.  Maybe some people, at least in this particular life, really need to be Christians.  Or Hindus, or whatever.  Some may come back immediately, some may never, there's probably souls out there who never incarnate at all.  "This is how it works" has never worked for me.

Berserk2 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2010 at 8:32pm:

usetawuz, Uncritical minds always impute unworthy motives to avoid the hard task of critical thinking that begins with the searching questions: What if I'm wrong?  How could I ever discover that?  You really must learn to read.  That includes not only posts like mine, but deep books that make cases that are contrary to your own perspectives.  My post said nothing about employing a Christian stance as the foundation for this thread.  That's your baggage.  My post merely recognizes that Christian leaders, unlike many New Agers, are eager to learn challenging perspectives from worthy intellectual adversaries.    Don

Wow, Don...it took a logistical leap in an interpretation of your comment to get your attention...and to prove my point.  You are seeking through every fiber of your being some level of logic, sense and analytical verification for matters of an experiential and feeling nature.  You parse other's interpretations and understandings of their own experiences and attempt to place them in your academically approved framework and pass judgment on their validity, and couch such judgment as an excercise in intellectual curiosity and critical thinking.   

It appears to me that the majority on this board are on an experiential track, and base our beliefs on feeling what is right and what resonates inside.  Your analytical bent is all in your head...it prevents any room for impressions, feelings or other methods of verification of what are essentially personal truths...if you can't verify it in accordance with established, approved and accepted methods, then it is false.

While you analyse matters of import and deep books with worthy intellectual adversaries, I'll be living and feeling my truth.

Hey Use,

I agree with most of what you wrote.  There is something distinctly hollow in setting up rigid scientific experiments to document what is for most of us an intimate an personal experience. 

If you had read Don as long as I have, however, you'd see there is more to him than his dogged insistence on verification of spiritual events by controlled means.  He has beautiful stories from his congregants which he has, in the past posted here, in which they have witnessed ghostly visitations by loved ones, materializations of objects and even as I recall an incident where a dead loved one drove a car for a time. 

Without knowing his congregation, most would dismiss these stories as far fetched/impossible, yet Don does not.  He tells the story of the ghost who drove his loved one's car as if it really happened.  Forget about logic, beliveability, etc. 

And so, I am forced to believe that on this board, Don pushes for the controlled verification approach, but that his humanistic and loving side will believe the same sort of outlandish spiritual stuff from his own congregants because he knows that they are honest people - and he is dealing with them person to person. 

Don is softer on the inside than he lets on.  In fact, my intuition tells me that he is on the verge of a major personal spiritual breakthrough. 

His insights are wonderful when he shares them, and while entering into discussion with him is not for the easily offended or the faint of heart, he does seem in general to respect and engage people who present their views in a cogent manner.


Matthew

Matthew, I appreciate your considered commentary, dispute-quelling influence and reasoned approach to this and other posts.  Yours is much like my father's in that he seeks to maintain a balancing influence throughout any situation...are you a Libra also?  (an engineer client taught me the basics of astrology!) While I will seek to defend or clarify my particular beliefs, especially on a messageboard intended for the discussion of these beliefs, I understand that from your perspective I may be responding strongly to some of Don's more incendiary comments or proclamations.

My background is based in twenty years of legal practice and there is no doubt that there is more than one side to this and any other version of an individual and their opinion.  I have no doubt that Don and I would have nothing but an exceptional relationship face to face, because I enjoy diverse points of view from a social standpoint, and he is expert in his chosen field which always makes for interesting conversation, but this medium leaves us with nothing but brief written opinions through which to guage each others beliefs and intent.  What's more, I have just spent the past three years learning to feel; to depart from my analytical-based viewpoint and move toward a sense/feeling-based viewpoint, so from where I stand, I am a reformed smoker teaching others the evil of tobacco, and Don is still a three-pack-a-day guy. 

I get your point, and I will use your perspective in the future to temper my commentary...I greatly appreciate this website and the opportunity it allows to hear a divergent group of people and the experiences they care to share with the rest of us.