Do the mystics of the church believe in the afterlife as the church portrays it - (Heaven/Hell) etc??

Because Saint Therese had visions and stigmata and said the the new testament is the truth

Paranoid schizophrenics also have "visions." 

Objective, first-hand experience of nonphysical energy systems reveals that the Abrahamic heaven/hell belief construct is a mere fantasy.

Instead of wondering about Saint Teresa, why not experience the afterlife for yourself?  Moen's techniques are simple and straightforward.

I suggest that you consider discarding your religious beliefs.

Is an answering a question about Christian mystical experience with a throw-away jab against paranoid schizophrenics fair to either group?

First-hand experience is subjective. Afterlife exploration is radically subjective.

But otherwise yes, the best way to know and not just believe is to go see for yourself. You may not be able to 'prove' your experiences objectively but you can intelligently validate them, at least for yourself. Otherwise you're just subscribing to yet another belief system.

It is unfair to say that "the Abrahamic heaven and hell belief construct is a mere fantasy." 

This comment shows a complete lack of understanding about the nature of consciousness.  Most of conscious perception is based in a belief system of some kind.  One man's belief fantasy is another's reality.

The problem for the "religion bashers" is that many of them believe in nothing, and so in the end have a moral relativism - a state where whatever anyone deems is ok, is so because the standard view is just a fantasy. 

Yet most explorers who are NOT religious  - people at TMI, Monroe, Moen, have found that consciousness is fed by and sustained by love - often called PUL on this board.  At its very essence, judaism and christianity teach love of God and love of one's fellow man (no matter what other messages are thrown in). 

Indeed most sources reference God as the source of this love.  So here you have in some ways a verification by explorers from Swedenborg centuries ago to Monroe, that many basic tenets of the Abrahamic religious beliefs are borne out.

Sure specific laws in the Old Testament are outdated - but these were rules to live by in a different time.  The overall message from the Abrahamic faiths have been verified time and time again by explorers. 

It is important not to be so blinded by hate for orthodoxy or the conformity of religion, that we write off those who call themselves religious as schizophrenics.

Matthew

jdee

One cannot be a mystic if they are operating within a false belief system, as mysticism is the knowledge and experience of spiritual truths, and therefore if what one is experiencing is false, that is not true mysticism.  One can go out and explore hellish planes, and one can go out and explore heavenly planes, and the experience of these dimensions may be true.  But when one interprets and reports the experiences from a state of falsehood, it provides little service to others and can hardly be called mystical.  It is the duty of the mystic to break free from preconceived notions and gain a clear, untainted understanding of the nature of reality.

DocM-

'so in the end have a moral relativism - a state where whatever anyone deems is ok'

Surely moral relativism is simply stating that moral norms are relative to time and place not that moral values don't exist or making a value judgment that 'anything goes' !

Check out Saint Therese wikipedia and tell me what you think. Its the German mystic.

You will all have a different view as you might not be blinded by religion like me.

Jdee,

Wherever your conscious mind takes you, there you will go......

Heisenberg,

No, I disagree with you on this one.  Moral relativism is real, and implies that any course of action is ok, because in the end, nothing matters.  New Age people use this sometimes to somewhat smugly say things such as "it doesn't matter if one is a mass murderer or chooses a dark path, because we are all here to learn, and eventually, that soul will see the light."   They also argue that those killed or maimed will really be ok, because we are simply immortal spirits at play and nothing can really harm us.

Various religious and non-religious groups have taken up there on form of moral relativism - the most prominent being the British mystic Aleistair Crowley, who developed his own religious system called Thelema - whose philosophy was "do as thou will." 

My explorations and intuition and that of many others seems to support the idea that love is at the root of all consciousness and life (whether we see it or not).  This may of course be a belief system, but it is more a fundamental one, not a complicated belief.  If true, it does set up what is known in major religions from buddhism to christianity as "right thought" and "right action."  That which will lead you closer to love (and God) then necessarily becomes "good."  Don has written about this as well on this site.

If PUL is the foundation of our being, then there is both and order and a "good" action, even in general terms.  This blows apart the theory of the moral relativists who may see causing pain and misery as simply "exploring your dark side," as if it were a hobby that we drop when we feel like it.   

So this is why moral relativism rings so wrong to me.  If there is no "good," then nothing matters.  There is no love or PUL as we've talked of if moral relativism applies.

Matthew

I agree with the below.


I Am Dude wrote on Dec 27^th, 2011 at 7:40pm:

jdee One cannot be a mystic if they are operating within a false belief system, as mysticism is the knowledge and experience of spiritual truths, and therefore if what one is experiencing is false, that is not true mysticism.  One can go out and explore hellish planes, and one can go out and explore heavenly planes, and the experience of these dimensions may be true.  But when one interprets and reports the experiences from a state of falsehood, it provides little service to others and can hardly be called mystical.  It is the duty of the mystic to break free from preconceived notions and gain a clear, untainted understanding of the nature of reality.

Regarding Moral Relativism, in order for the creative process to be functional, free will has to exist.

In order for each of us to have the freedom to learn in our own way, it has to be allowed that many of us will learn what needs to be learned the hard way.

As a result, at some point during their development, some souls manifest in a way where they harm others (sometimes greatly). Even if it is unavoidable, this isn't a good thing! It's never a good thing when one person does something that causes another to suffer.

There are some new age sources of information that say things that involve moral relativism. They present themselves as if they are deep, but going by what they say they are shallow. If such sources truly looked into their hearts they would not come up with the supposed sophisticated explanation they come up with.

I'm not saying that one should be judgmental towards those who do wrong, but I believe that some people make a really big mistake when they lose the ability to see that it is possible for evil activity to take place. In their attempt to be a sophisticated thinker they separate themselves from their ability to think in a truly wise manner. If 20 guys gang rape a girl, it is an evil thing. What Adolph Hitler did was evil, regardless of what that Conversations of God guy wrote.

Perhaps this is one of the things some channeled sources hope to achieve.  To get people to the point where they can't recognize the difference between right and wrong. How will their souls ever reach the goals they seek if they lack such discernment?

When one isn't caught up in moral relativism it is just as easy to see through the false statements made by people who are as it is to see through the statements of a person who is overly judgmental.

I Am Dude wrote on Dec 27^th, 2011 at 7:40pm:

jdee One cannot be a mystic if they are operating within a false belief system, as mysticism is the knowledge and experience of spiritual truths, and therefore if what one is experiencing is false, that is not true mysticism.  One can go out and explore hellish planes, and one can go out and explore heavenly planes, and the experience of these dimensions may be true.  But when one interprets and reports the experiences from a state of falsehood, it provides little service to others and can hardly be called mystical.  It is the duty of the mystic to break free from preconceived notions and gain a clear, untainted understanding of the nature of reality.

Thank you for you reply!

What is your idea of a false belief system?

And why would Saint Therese experience these visions, stigmata and messages about the Bible if they werent real?

Rob_Roy wrote on Dec 27^th, 2011 at 2:26pm:

First-hand experience is subjective. Afterlife exploration is radically subjective.

I agree that nonphysical reality is more subjective than physical reality.  But, I've run into a whole lot of very objective people stuck in hollow heavens and hollow hells.  All a bunch of religious fantasies. 

I'm not bashing religion; I'm bashing dogma that gets people stuck in belief-constructs. 


Quote:

At its very essence, judaism and christianity teach love of God and love of one's fellow man (no matter what other messages are thrown in).

Absolutely.  At the very essence, religions tend to reflect the findings that modern afterlife researchers have found-- the framework of nonphysical reality, the importance of love and enlightenment, etc.

But the problem is, so much dogma has crept in and buried the essential truths of these religions.

As for me, I have no religion.  No need for extra baggage.  I have facts and information that I obtain through my own explorations and guides.

And let me say this, I have found churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship in Focus 27.  Outside of the belief system areas.  There are actually a number of religious folks in F27 and they are a pleasure to meet.

The problem is being religious.  The problem is being religious and missing the point.

JDEE,
For an example of a mystic that can inspire you and also fit into the religious framework, I strongly recommend Thomas Merton, one of the greatest thinkers of our time, and certainly a holy man of the highest stature.

Bardo wrote on Dec 29^th, 2011 at 10:12am:

JDEE, For an example of a mystic that can inspire you and also fit into the religious framework, I strongly recommend Thomas Merton, one of the greatest thinkers of our time, and certainly a holy man of the highest stature.

Thanks, I read a few of his quotes. Some of them refer to the concept of Hell however. Did he believe in an afterlife of Heaven and Hell?

He was a catholic priest, so he lived within the framework of the church, although he stretched far beyond its narrow boundaries in his teachings. I don't know his position on traditional concepts of heaven and hell, but I will look into that and get back to the group.

'No, I disagree with you on this one.  Moral relativism is real, and implies that any course of action is ok, because in the end, nothing matters.  New Age people use this sometimes to somewhat smugly say things such as "it doesn't matter if one is a mass murderer or chooses a dark path, because we are all here to learn, and eventually, that soul will see the light."   They also argue that those killed or maimed will really be ok, because we are simply immortal spirits at play and nothing can really harm us.

Various religious and non-religious groups have taken up there on form of moral relativism - the most prominent being the British mystic Aleistair Crowley, who developed his own religious system called Thelema - whose philosophy was "do as thou will." 

My explorations and intuition and that of many others seems to support the idea that love is at the root of all consciousness and life (whether we see it or not).  This may of course be a belief system, but it is more a fundamental one, not a complicated belief.  If true, it does set up what is known in major religions from buddhism to christianity as "right thought" and "right action."  That which will lead you closer to love (and God) then necessarily becomes "good."  Don has written about this as well on this site.

If PUL is the foundation of our being, then there is both and order and a "good" action, even in general terms.  This blows apart the theory of the moral relativists who may see causing pain and misery as simply "exploring your dark side," as if it were a hobby that we drop when we feel like it.   

So this is why moral relativism rings so wrong to me.  If there is no "good," then nothing matters.  There is no love or PUL as we've talked of if moral relativism applies.'

Hi Mathew,

I think I need to clarify what I mean when I talk about moral relativism as I understand it can be an emotive issue. My conception of moral relativism is simply that it means morality varies between time and place, but I don’t see it as incompatible with the idea of PUL. For me the key thing to understand is morality is dependent on consciousness which I would argue becomes increasingly attuned to PUL as it evolves. A static morality, to me, would indicate a static consciousness and hence no growth. I think PUL is an important concept but the key word in the phrase is unconditional. If we look at how the idea of God’s love has changed over the centuries from a very conditional fear-based conception (if we don’t worship Him we get smitten) to a much more unconditional idea where real love has no strings attached – its just the way the Universe is constructed. So as consciousness evolves morality changes.

Now to the more thorny issue of whether this notion justifies either directly evil acts or apathy. Again I believe our thoughts and actions are indicative of our consciousness ( i.e PUL attunement) and again as our consciousness evolves our actions become more loving in nature - therefore by definition an unloving act comes from a lower consciousness level. I think this is a case of actions speak louder than words in that a person may consider themselves evolved/wise but their actions betray their real conscious state. People who deliberately hurt others and say that ‘they are exploring their dark side’ are attempting to justify their actions and deluding themselves.

I agree with you that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ exist in that the former is closer to PUL than the latter but unless we think we are the endpoint of consciousness (very unlikely and fortunate as further growth would be impossible!) we are the ‘bad’ when compared to a more PUL attuned consciousness and like a child developing motor skills we need to be ‘bad’ before we become ‘good’. We would’nt normally condemn the child with poor motor skills although we urge and help them to develop good ones; I suppose this is a bit like the Christian notion of ‘hating the sin and loving the sinner’. Certainly if you look back over human history we have all sinned but I think that the important thing is that enlightenment comes from within and cannot be imposed from outside which is why pointing out 'the speck in the eye of the other' is so ineffective.

D