Well now. It seems that "Heaven and meeting Jesus and the angels" is a sure money earner for the christian propaganda zealots. One such person today has come clean that his NDE afterlife yarn about going to heaven and meeting Jesus was nothing but a frabrication! Am I surprised? Heck No! Now the christian publishers and bookshops are pulling his book from the shelves. This book was written by Alex and his father, who I might add was divorced from his wife, Alex's mother, since the book was published. Alex's mother has always raised grave doubts and concerns about the books authenticity. Here's a couple of links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Came_Back_from_Heaven

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/01/16/boy-who-inspired-book-says-he-lied/21130761/
 
I wonder if the other two christian persons mentioned in the second aol link and article will come clean also, especially Colton and his pastor-father, plus that female fundamentalist christian ghost writer they hired to help them write this book, "Heaven is for real". Thank God for Bruce Moen, Robert Bruce, and Willian Buhlman for keeping me on the straight and narrow about the afterlife. Not forgetting the late Robert Monroe. Gman 

That is a highly relevant post Gman. It raises all sorts of issues about truth, lies and deception, confusion, delusion, manipulation etc.

Probably the most significant question in regard to this subject is, How do we know what is true and what is false?

I recall reading in one of Bruce's posts that he gathers information otherwise unknown and looks for material verifications and correlations, and when the weight of evidence reaches a certain threshold then he might adopt a personal conclusion. Or words to that effect, as best I recall. 

Is that the best we can do, or is there a further method than that?

Is there another angle, or another starting point?

Might we be jumping the gun, starting ahead of ourselves? or outside of our selves? and dealing with too chunky and earthly concepts? What about further examining the very nature of our own self, our soul or consciousness, and likewise examining the nature of truth itself, delving inside it, making sure we understand what truth is, and how it can be perceived and taken on within our self. Might we not better learn what knowledge, experience, truth is, and what self, consciousness, soul is, and how it is that we bring these together; learn how it is that we can amalgamate self and truth.

I believe Bruce's method is the best the Earthly mind can do. But I believe the soul, the heart and higher mind together can perform a further method. One in which the natures of truth and consciousness combine. A method that requires no seeking out of correlations or material validation, for it immediately realises and incorporates all things into it. Interestingly, and ironically considering the subject matter of your post, this method to which I refer is there for the study throughout and overall in the Christian gospels.    

crossbow

1796-

**I believe Bruce's method is the best the Earthly mind can do. But I believe the soul, the heart and higher mind together can perform a further method. One in which the natures of truth and consciousness combine. A method that requires no seeking out of correlations or material validation, for it immediately realises and incorporates all things into it. Interestingly, and ironically considering the subject matter of your post, this method to which I refer is there for the study throughout and overall in the Christian gospels.**

Your post reminds me of something a person posted years ago.  His point was that Jesus lived 2,000 years ago and so much more has been learned about the afterlife via "new age" research that there really was no point in studying the Bible.  In his mind it was pretty much irrelevant.

Thanks for helping to right the ship.  It's been listing pretty badly these days.

R

When we read NDEs or anything else we need to do our best to tune into a deeper inner knowing so we can tell whether the NDE or whatever is valid. It is easier to tune into such a knowing if we aren't limited by our own concepts and attachments.

I've read a lot of NDEs that seem valid, but some people will fake just about anything.

Some other well known fakes are Carlos Castaneda, T. Lobsang Rompa and the Amytiville Horror. One might also consider Robert Bruce's Sai Baba story.

If an NDE experience has a lot of dogmatism, it is hard to take it completely seriously.

Regarding the Bible, it isn't as if it fell out of the sky after God finished writing it. Rather, numerous "men" wrote it, "men" decided which parts would be included, "men" translated the parts that were included, and "men" interpret it in various ways.

One of the greatest gifts God gave us is the ability to connect to his love and wisdom directly-inwardly.

People have little depth of vision, they are dazzled by surface details, and bewitched by their own emotions and preferences.

Most people can’t see truth when it’s right in front of them. They only see what they want to see and like to see, or what the crowd around them sees, and what is fashionable to see. Few can see further or deeper than that. They don't even want to, because no more matters to them than that.

Recoverer
Quote:

...some people will fake just about anything. ... Some other well known fakes are Carlos Castaneda, T. Lobsang Rompa...

hmm...

During the 1950’s, ‘60’s and ‘70’s Rampa wrote 18 books about leaving the body and related subjects.

In 1971, ‘85, and ‘94, Robert Monroe published three books about leaving the body, which carry much of the same information as Rampa's books.

1. Rampa described the earth as being a school of rapid learning in which the fact of the soul’s immortality is obscured by the illusion of death and temporary living and how one has to overcome the subsequent illusory values and priorities that occur as a result of this illusion, such as the need for survival and a gamut of resulting associate emotions.
Monroe described the earth as being a school of condensed learning in a predatory world of apparent but false mortality.

2. Rampa said the brain is like a radio receiver/transmitter for the mind/consciousness.
Monroe taught the same.

3. Rampa said consciousness can tune itself to different frequencies and phase in and out of different planes, he said that consciousness is like a radio tuner.
Monroe said the same, that consciousness can tune itself, can phase in and out of different rings and levels.

4. Rampa provided detailed instructions on how to leave the body. 
As did Monroe. And both their instructions are much the same.

5. Rampa detailed how non-verbal / telepathic communication takes place while out of body.
As did Monroe.

6. Rampa explained how to travel from one place to another while out of the body, how to mentally identify a person or location and how to get there.
As did Monroe explain such use of idents.

7.  Rampa explained how to travel in tandem with another traveler/s, with one identifying the location and the other/s hooking on to the leader.
Monroe described the same hook on and follow method.

8. Rampa described astral travel across space to other planets. 
As did Monroe.

9. Rampa described how we have a total self, comprised of an oversoul from which we extend, and how there are other selves extending from that oversoul.
Monroe described the same, with his description of the I-There groups and their extended selves.

10. Rampa said he knew well one of the other selves/extensions of his oversoul, and described the other person and their relationship.
Monroe said he had the name and location of one of his other selves.

11. Rampa described how from deep inter-dimensional space came gardeners of the earth and their agents who cultivated life on earth, starting with initial crops of primitive life, followed by successive crops of more advanced life until introducing humans, then continuing to farm and refine the earth garden through the ages.
Monroe also described gardeners of the earth, and their agents/collectors, their planting of sequential life crops and continued refining of the earth garden through the ages.

12. Rampa said when he died he would be going to another planet along with the other extension of his oversoul.
Monroe forecast his eventual departure/wink out with his I-There group.


There are many more examples of Monroe’s writings being similar or near identical to Rampa’s, too many for me to go on listing…but maybe just one more because it’s amusing.

Rampa said that when out of his body he could see his pet cats when out of their bodies. Monroe said the same. And Rampa said he was visited by his pet cats who had previously died….again Monroe said the same.

                                          _________________________________


As Monroe wrote his books after Rampa did, and wrote much the same content as Rampa did, how can you say that Rampa was fake and Monroe was not?

Did Rampa the fake just happen to fluke the truth before truthful Monroe came along and wrote it down again?

Perhaps Rampa was true, and Monroe read his books and copied him?

Or if Rampa was fake, perhaps Monroe was fake too. And if Monroe was fake, perhaps Moen is fake.  Who is to say? Yet so many Monroe/Moen enthusiasts believe Monroe and Moen while saying Rampa is fake.

And there are so many other authors who have written the same as these, mostly each from their own angle, each with their own slant, or pitched to a particular reader. But still the same information. 

Yet grown adults, like group conscious teenagers, read and believe one author, while disbelieving another who says the same, because that is the fashion to do, or because their minds are so fickle and shallow they cannot see past the presentation to the substance underneath. 

Or maybe both Ramps and Monroe are true, perhaps their saying the same adds credibility to each other? and perhaps its their partisan readers who are one eyed and short sighted? And unable to see the truth within the words.   

Recoverer
Quote:

Regarding the Bible, it isn't as if it fell out of the sky after God finished writing it. Rather, numerous "men" wrote it, "men" decided which parts would be included, "men" translated the parts that were included, and "men" interpret it in various ways.

That is the beauty of parable and allegory; it enables truth to slip by the censors.

Truth can stand as bold as brass and many people can't see it, but sometimes truth is so important that it must be disguised. And that is not too hard to do for those who know truth. For we live in an allegorical or fractal existence, where everything is replicated in similar form and function, in dimensions above and below itself, in accordance with the nature of each dimension. The anatomy and function of the bodies and organs of man, animal, plant and mineral, the elements of nature, the heavenly bodies, music, mathematics, symbols, all things have their replications above and below, and all stream forth and branch out from the one source. This is the great tree of life that comes from Eden. For those who can see this fractal existence it is easy to talk in parables and allegory and get truth past those who cannot see it, who despise it and would censor it, to those who can see it and who appreciate it and wish to live by it.

Isn't truth wonderful. Its all around us and within us. Truth is how things are. And if we value truth above all else, if we crave the truth, no matter what the truth may be, then we will come to see things as they are, and we will come to know the truth.

But if we hold any value more important than truth, then that is all we will know. 


Quote:

One of   (liberty to edit taken by cb. I hope Recoverer doesn't mind.)  The greatest gift s God gave us is the ability to connect to his love and wisdom directly-inwardly.

Yes.




ps. And perhaps I'm fake.

Crossbow:

I never read any Rampa books. I just happened to run accross some articles that explained how the books were faked. This doesn't mean that they don't have accurate information. Perhaps the writer knew something. Much of what you listed (the Monroe comparisions) sounds accurate to me including the Oversoul part. This later part matches my experiences and some of the information I received through spiritual means. Others have found the same. Some before reading about such a thing, as in when Bruce had his Disk vision.

Perhaps things such as Disk and Soul Groups are examples of spiritual subjects that a very old book doesn't speak of.  Seriously, would people who were following animal sacrifice protocols be interested in such a thing?

To some extent we're all faking it so the below will work. ;)

"1. Rampa described the earth as being a school of rapid learning in which the fact of the soul’s immortality is obscured by the illusion of death and temporary living and how one has to overcome the subsequent illusory values and priorities that occur as a result of this illusion, such as the need for survival and a gamut of resulting associate emotions.

Monroe described the earth as being a school of condensed learning in a predatory world of apparent but false mortality."

yeah I've read plenty of articles too about certain people being fakes or true or something else, and hear things said about others, neighbours and in the workplace; little of it is credible or useful, its mostly gossip. Mindless and malicious gossip is probably the most destructive behaviour humans get up to. Its the first manifestation of most greater troubles. Even wars often start with gossip. Students of truth might hear it but we treat it with little significance and don't let it get past us. And we don't adopt needless opinions about another just because some else says it. We might consider it, but we observe for our self.

I only listed some Monroe/Rampa comparisons to demonstrate how people in the so-called spiritual community often get trapped in superficial thinking and collective gossip driven opinions. There is little difference between the out-of-body tuition of those two authors, the difference is in their supportive presentation, yet Monroe readers frequently refer to Rampa as fake. Maybe he was or wasn't, but they wouldn't know either way.

Have you ever been in a class with people who complain the teacher is no good, but what they really don't like is the teacher's personality, clothes, or some other irrelevant matter beside the subject of education. Then they say they like another teacher but its really that he just strokes their egos or makes them laugh or because she is "nice". They pay good time and money for education, then forget most of it but remember forever how much they liked or disliked the personality of the teacher and whether the teacher liked them, because that is mostly what such superficial people focus on. Sure there are fake teachers and fake authors, but there are fake students too.

If we are committed and disciplined students of truth, there are basic questions we need to attend to. What is sincerity? what is genuine? What is truth? How do we recognise it? How do we become one with it? Also, what is not truth? what is falsity? what is fantasy? And how do we recognise it and keep it outside of our self? or at least minimise its inclusion. These questions have foundational answers upon which we build the rest of our progress. But few can answer them, and yet over no foundation claim progress. They are houses built on sand not rock.   

Correlation is a good start and exercise, but it is not a final answer, as seen by the Monroe/Rampa correlations. Even crooks corroborate their stories, so we need more than that. And evidence too is still not proof, it is only suggestive, even if highly so, it can still be wrong.    

Experience, knowledge, proof, are interchangeable terms. They are the same thing from different reference points. But our own experience counts for less, little or nothing if we cannot differentiate between what we experienced and the opinions or thoughts that we formed during or from that experience. This might seem at first to be an easy distinction, but its not. For instance, what a person said and what you hear them say are in different places, and potentially different things. Likewise even in our head our thoughts and our self are in different places, different things. Verbal, visual and other thoughts are around our self, not in our self. The self makes the thoughts, and the thoughts if we are not careful and don't distinguish thought from self, will fool the self into believing it is thought. The same with feelings and emotions, all likes and dislikes, and preferences. And then what we think is our experience of something counts for little, for we have polluted our self with all sorts of false identifications that have their own convictions. We need to condense our self down. Know our true core self before we can know what is pure experience and what is conjecture, for actual experience is only in the core self. And so is knowledge. And proof.  

We need fakery in the world; it helps motivate us towards truth. And when we learn to see truth, we can see much more fakery. And we see that the two work together in a fascinating way.   

Yes, in a way some of the fakery that exists is useful because it provides an opportunity to develop discrimination. A part of doing so is discriminating whether somebody wrote a critical article about a source of information for the purpose of helping others find out the truth of such source. It would be a mistake to dismiss noble efforts as nothing more than gossip.

I don't plan to make the mistake of deciding that I can't determine what sources aren't valid (or the validity of what others say about such sources), because if I do so I might as well forget about developing discrimination.

Yes, naturally. The first ability of our awareness is the ability to discriminate between one thing and another. It is the ability to discern and evaluate differences and is the basis of our intelligence. We must exercise it, as precisely as we can, in all matters, so as to sharpen our thinking. 

Unfortunately discrimination is treated as a dirty word by manipulators in psych, couns, social science edu, many of whom know it is the basis of intelligence and clear thinking but reserve it for themselves while discouraging others from exercising and developing it. They do so by cultivating fuzzy thinking in others - encouraging kids to use thesaurus for a dictionary, neglecting gramma, disparaging IQ discrimination/generalisation tests, encouraging emotional focus and following feelings while remaining mentally focused themselves - because mentally focused people easily manipulate emotionally focused people, and that's what their encouraging of emotion focus and fuzzy thinking is really about, especially encouraging it in boys and men. Training people to be sheep under the guise of teamwork. ..... Few are aware of how manipulative and destructive those bastards are, but I am because I'm one of those bastards, undercover I mean. But unlike them I don't want to dumb others down to keep myself above them on a phony pedestal. So I have made it a little projects to wake people up to their own self and to the tactics of manipulators so they are aware of themselves and of what's going on around them and less likely to get fooled.

Gman cobber, if you really don't like fakers, well its not just the fakes in religious-spiritual fields, its also the career manipulators in psycho-social-educational fields. They do plenty cheeky mischief. The bulk of them are fooled too though. Its the awake mentally sharp ones who are the scallywags. Wake the fooled ones up, and those near the edge. Most of the sharp ones are already settled on their path.   

   

1796 wrote on Jan 20^th, 2015 at 8:03am:

Yes, naturally. The first ability of our awareness is the ability to discriminate between one thing and another. It is the ability to discern and evaluate differences and is the basis of our intelligence. We must exercise it, as precisely as we can, in all matters, so as to sharpen our thinking.  Unfortunately discrimination is treated as a dirty word by manipulators in psych, couns, social science edu, many of whom know it is the basis of intelligence and clear thinking but reserve it for themselves while discouraging others from exercising and developing it. They do so by cultivating fuzzy thinking in others - encouraging kids to use thesaurus for a dictionary, neglecting gramma, disparaging IQ discrimination/generalisation tests, encouraging emotional focus and following feelings while remaining mentally focused themselves - because mentally focused people easily manipulate emotionally focused people, and that's what their encouraging of emotion focus and fuzzy thinking is really about, especially encouraging it in boys and men. Training people to be sheep under the guise of teamwork. ..... Few are aware of how manipulative and destructive those bastards are, but I am because I'm one of those bastards, undercover I mean. But unlike them I don't want to dumb others down to keep myself above them on a phony pedestal. So I have made it a little projects to wake people up to their own self and to the tactics of manipulators so they are aware of themselves and of what's going on around them and less likely to get fooled. Gman cobber, if you really don't like fakers, well its not just the fakes in religious-spiritual fields, its also the career manipulators in psycho-social-educational fields. They do plenty cheeky mischief. The bulk of them are fooled too though. Its the awake mentally sharp ones who are the scallywags. Wake the fooled ones up, and those near the edge. Most of the sharp ones are already settled on their path.

"Gman cobber, if you really don't like fakers, well its not just the fakes in religious-spiritual fields, its also the career manipulators in psycho-social-educational fields. They do plenty cheeky mischief. The bulk of them are fooled too though. Its the awake mentally sharp ones who are the scallywags. Wake the fooled ones up, and those near the edge. Most of the sharp ones are already settled on their path."   

Mate!...So true!  George Mann(Gman)
"

So how do we distinguish those who are true from those who are fake?

1796 wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 12:03am:

So how do we distinguish those who are true from those who are fake?

 

Because Alex Malarkey said so in his later admission that his NDE story was false and fabricated by himself.!!! Or do you still miss the point that he came clean via the news services-internet!

You said, "how do we distinguish those who are true from those who are fake? [/quote]

By simple admission, or have you lost the honesty plot!

One way is to try to sense if the Source has integrity and a service oriented attitude.


1796 wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 12:03am:

So how do we distinguish those who are true from those who are fake?

recoverer wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 3:58pm:

One way is to try to sense if the Source has integrity and a service oriented attitude. 1796 wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 12:03am: So how do we distinguish those who are true from those who are fake?

Yes Albert, I agree that a service attitude is relevant. I meant the question more generally though, referring to those who are true or fake generally, not just authors. And I don't mean intermittent hypocrisy which we all fall into ati times, but those career hypocrites who live their life by false good work and false good image.   

A service attitude can be faked, and examples of that are visible all around. We see those who fake love and caring with emotional favouratism that serves their own desires or image, and the type of service they provide reflects their emotional favouratism, which is really just prejudice dressed as service, is hatred for one group diguised as service for another. Now I have answered my own question - we know them by their fruits, by what comes from them, their results. 


Some people don't have just one false front, they have several, even many. 

There are some sources that present themselves in a way where it almost seems certain that they have integrity and a service to others attitude.

The extent to which this can be faked is hard to quantify, but it is generally hard to do in a really thorough way.

Another factor, if a Source speaks of service, is this Source in some way the recipient?

Love, I believe, is the key. Love is not easily understood though; it gets confused with affections, with desires, wants, needs, preferences, and all sorts of warm fuzzy feelings, and even unpleasant feelings too, like hurt, jealousy, anger. I think the best teachings on love are in the New Testament. I am not aware of any other source that teaches love clearer. The NT teaches what love is and what it isn't. The distinction is important.

The differences between fakery and truth, between emotional and genuine love, between false service and true service, hypocrisy and sincerity, are not as easily noticed as they might first seem. It is easy to cross the line. Otherwise JC would not have emphasised the differences and provided examples of each, and Paul and John discussed these too.

Perhaps it is loving to allow each person to determine what source of information helps them grow in love. 





1796 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2015 at 1:28am:

Love, I believe, is the key. Love is not easily understood though; it gets confused with affections, with desires, wants, needs, preferences, and all sorts of warm fuzzy feelings, and even unpleasant feelings too, like hurt, jealousy, anger. I think the best teachings on love are in the New Testament. I am not aware of any other source that teaches love clearer. The NT teaches what love is and what it isn't. The distinction is important. The differences between fakery and truth, between emotional and genuine love, between false service and true service, hypocrisy and sincerity, are not as easily noticed as they might first seem. It is easy to cross the line. Otherwise JC would not have emphasised the differences and provided examples of each, and Paul and John discussed these too.

I have read or heard countless NDEs.  Christian NDEs seem unique in the frequency with which they include paranormal verifiable encounters with unknown discarnates. E.g.
(i) Colton Burpo meets his sister of whom he was unawayre, who died in childbirth.
(2) Dr. Eben Alexander meets his unknown birth sister on the butterfly, a sister unknown to him due to his adoption in infancy. 
(3) In her NDE, Betty Eadie meets her unborn child, which she will later meet and adopt. 

But here is an even more spectacular Christian NDE.  My Dad's pastor friend (Albert Baldeo) watches his dying dad converse with his brother, who is simultaneously dying in a nursing home 10 miles away.  The conversation only makes sense when transcripts are compared from both places.  Family members in both places verify the common time and conversation that occurs. 

Switching from NDEs to astral projection, Swedenborg's verifications far, far surpass non-Christian NDEs in the quality of paranormal verifying evidence.  ES gains from his discarnate contacts detailed knowledge of letters written to relatives, detailed knowledge of the last conversation the deceased had with a friend, the location of a jewelry receipt hidden in a secret compartment known only to the deceased.  By contrast, Robert Monroe's 3 examples of cartoony OBE past life recall don't pass the giggle test.  A pinch he verifies in a conversation with the woman he targeted ignores the fact that people often experience twitches and unexplained pains.  Monroe does identify a doctor he visits from a younger picture, but even that is far below the standard set by ES's verifications.

I dismiss the retrievals posted on this site because they fail to meet the verification standards that ES established as possible through a genuine astral gift.  So I guess the dignity of the New Age Ghetto depends on the desperate expedient of finding one fraudulent Christian NDE and generalizing that to all Christian NDEs.  So sad, but a tad amusing! 

Berserk2 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2015 at 9:22pm:

I have read or heard countless NDEs.  Christian NDEs seem unique in the frequency with which they include paranormal verifiable encounters with unknown discarnates. E.g. (i) Colton Burpo meets his sister of whom he was unawayre, who died in childbirth. (2) Dr. Eben Alexander meets his unknown birth sister on the butterfly, a sister unknown to him due to his adoption in infancy.  (3) In her NDE, Betty Eadie meets her unborn child, which she will later meet and adopt.  But here is an even more spectacular Christian NDE.  My Dad's pastor friend (Albert Baldeo) watches his dying dad converse with his brother, who is simultaneously dying in a nursing home 10 miles away.  The conversation only makes sense when transcripts are compared from both places.  Family members in both places verify the common time and conversation that occurs.  Switching from NDEs to astral projection, Swedenborg's verifications far, far surpass non-Christian NDEs in the quality of paranormal verifying evidence.  ES gains from his discarnate contacts detailed knowledge of letters written to relatives, detailed knowledge of the last conversation the deceased had with a friend, the location of a jewelry receipt hidden in a secret compartment known only to the deceased.  By contrast, Robert Monroe's 3 examples of cartoony OBE past life recall don't pass the giggle test.  A pinch he verifies in a conversation with the woman he targeted ignores the fact that people often experience twitches and unexplained pains.  Monroe does identify a doctor he visits from a younger picture, but even that is far below the standard set by ES's verifications. I dismiss the retrievals posted on this site because they fail to meet the verification standards that ES established as possible through a genuine astral gift.  So I guess the dignity of the New Age Ghetto depends on the desperate expedient of finding one fraudulent Christian NDE and generalizing that to all Christian NDEs.  So sad, but a tad amusing!

Don said,
"(2) Dr. Eben Alexander meets his unknown birth sister on the butterfly, a sister unknown to him due to his adoption in infancy."

and, "So I guess the dignity of the New Age Ghetto depends on the desperate expedient of finding one fraudulent Christian NDE and generalizing that to all Christian NDEs.  So sad, but a tad amusing!"

Another one of Don's meaningless christian biased mouth rattles! Dr. Eben Alexander is now on the New Age 'ghetto' lecture circuit, check out his website.  After he took the Hemi-Sync course, he says in his book that he is now able to return to God which he calls the "OM" complete with sounds he heard there!?....So why are you quoting this 'New Age Ghetto Author?" ......http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2529048/Proof-Heaven-doctor-faced-3million-malpractice-lawsuit-fell-coma.html   GMan George

Eben Alexander: "More than ever since my near death experience, I consider myself a Christian" ("The Easter Question." "Huffington Post").  ;D

recoverer wrote on Jan 27^th, 2015 at 2:05pm:

Perhaps it is loving to allow each person to determine what source of information helps them grow in love.  1796 wrote on Jan 27th, 2015 at 1:28am: Love, I believe, is the key. Love is not easily understood though; it gets confused with affections, with desires, wants, needs, preferences, and all sorts of warm fuzzy feelings, and even unpleasant feelings too, like hurt, jealousy, anger. I think the best teachings on love are in the New Testament. I am not aware of any other source that teaches love clearer. The NT teaches what love is and what it isn't. The distinction is important. The differences between fakery and truth, between emotional and genuine love, between false service and true service, hypocrisy and sincerity, are not as easily noticed as they might first seem. It is easy to cross the line. Otherwise JC would not have emphasised the differences and provided examples of each, and Paul and John discussed these too.

There seems to be an insinuation there. Though I do not know what it is.

It seems as if there is there are some recent attempts on this forum to convert people to Christianity.

I'm all for Jesus, but I don't believe that he was a Christian. I figure he was a Christ consciousness type.

When it comes to the new testament, the stories of Jesus were passed along by word of mouth for years before they were written down, and then men decided which stories would be included in the Bible, and which wouldn't, and how they would be translated.

Therefore, when I read Biblical stories and words that are attributed to Jesus, I use my discrimination. Some of the words sound fine, but I doubt that Jesus said all of the things the Bible gives him credit for. If we have a place for Jesus in our heart, perhaps we want to take care about what he gets credit for.

I have read some wonderful NDE accounts that didn't include a meeting with Jesus. They didn't have some sort of confirmation, but the depth of what was experienced made confirmation unnecessary.

I'd be surprised if Jesus is concerned about NDEs that include him being given more credit than those that don't. Perhaps some experiences include him because very wise spirit beings understand that not everybody will accept what NDEs say if they don't include Jesus. There is no need to minimize the value of NDEs that don't. Each person receives grace in the way that is appropriate for he or she.





1796 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 2:01am:

recoverer wrote on Jan 27th, 2015 at 2:05pm: Perhaps it is loving to allow each person to determine what source of information helps them grow in love.  1796 wrote on Jan 27th, 2015 at 1:28am: Love, I believe, is the key. Love is not easily understood though; it gets confused with affections, with desires, wants, needs, preferences, and all sorts of warm fuzzy feelings, and even unpleasant feelings too, like hurt, jealousy, anger. I think the best teachings on love are in the New Testament. I am not aware of any other source that teaches love clearer. The NT teaches what love is and what it isn't. The distinction is important. The differences between fakery and truth, between emotional and genuine love, between false service and true service, hypocrisy and sincerity, are not as easily noticed as they might first seem. It is easy to cross the line. Otherwise JC would not have emphasised the differences and provided examples of each, and Paul and John discussed these too. There seems to be an insinuation there. Though I do not know what it is.

I'd like to add something to my last post. Let's say that Jesus did come again. Would people be more willing to listen to him because they better or else, or because they aren't forced and like what he has to say?

Inward spiritual decisions need to be joyful in order to be truly effective. When people start pushing a fear-based belief system, they interfere with the blossoming of spiritual joy in others. Is that what Jesus or any other light being would want?

<<Perhaps it is loving to allow each person to determine what source of information helps them grow in love.>>

Albert-  I'm wondering if you were serious with this statement?  For example, suppose a person told you that ACIM or Seth was his source for helping to grow in love. What would you tell him if asked for advice?

I know in the past you have frequently said that you feel obligated to encourage people to steer clear of sources that you don't believe to be legitimate.

Have you changed your position on that, or was the above quote tongue in cheek?

Just wondering.

R

Roger:

Good question. I thought of what you mentioned when I wrote the words you refer to. Nevertheless, I chose to write them because I didn't want possible exceptions to prevent me from doing so.

The main thing I responded to are the following Crossbow words: "I think the best teachings on love are in the New Testament. I am not aware of any other source that teaches love clearer."

Of course Crossbow can have this viewpoint, but because I've read things that seem to speak of love more clearly and directly that the new testament (e.g.; has the New Testament described an experience of divine love as well as some NDEs have?), I took exception to what Crossbow said.

It seems to me that some people have recently been posting on this forum as if they want to get people to become more Christian. I don't believe this represents full appreciation and respect for whatever legitimate spiritual path people might be on.

I can't say for certain, but my guess is that if Jesus was here today he wouldn't speak up for one religion over the other. In order to say what's spiritually important and usueful, he wouldn't need to.

Albert 










rondele wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 3:25pm:

<<Perhaps it is loving to allow each person to determine what source of information helps them grow in love.>> Albert-  I'm wondering if you were serious with this statement?  For example, suppose a person told you that ACIM or Seth was his source for helping to grow in love. What would you tell him if asked for advice? I know in the past you have frequently said that you feel obligated to encourage people to steer clear of sources that you don't believe to be legitimate. Have you changed your position on that, or was the above quote tongue in cheek? Just wondering. R

For the record, I would love to see everyone become a Christian.  But I also advocate honest and open inquiry, some thing I feel is lacking, e.g. in G-man's insinuation about more fake Christian NDEs.  As for me, I have read all 3 of Robert Monroe's books, Robert Bruce, Buhlman, even Seth books, and many more New Age books to see if I can learn from alternate perspectives.  I'm even hoping to take a week-long training at TMI.  I applied once, but was closed out!  People like G-man apparently can't handle the openness of Christians like myself and Eben Alexander to New Age approaches.  Why? Because they are so stuck in their myopic New Age Ghetto that they can't learn from alternative perspectives; and so, they rely on crude caricatures of Christianity to excuse their bias.  They don't realize, for example, that Christianity of the first 2 centuries provides the first  literary advocacy for soul retrievals!

Albert, why do i get the felling that you know very little about New Testament teaching about love, even as you trumpet the superiority of NDE perspectives on love.  I challenge you to identify the 3 clearest New Testament texts on love.  I'll bet you can't do it.

Don:

Over the years I've read Mathew, Mark, Luke and John more than once, the rest of the New Testament to a lesser extent. I can't say that I have the New Testament memorized like some people have memorized it on a verse by verse basis. There isn't any book I've memorized to such an extent.

There are parts of the gospels like the Sermon of the Mount that I like, but I can't recall anything where a person speaks of things such as merging with God and many other Souls and experiencing a vast expanse of love. Therefore, I can't say that the Bible has inspired me to the same extent that some other Sources have done so.

No disrespect is meant by this. I experience divine love pretty much on a daily basis, and accordingly I relate to what some NDErs say.

I read Eban's book and I can't recall the part of his being a Christian. It could be that I forgot that part. It is not uncommon for me to read a book a second time, and much of the book seems new to me. My memory isn't perfect.

I liked Eban's book. I "didn't" get the impression that he is a fraud.

Regarding your loving the idea of everybody becomming a Christian, perhaps eventually this will happen for most if not all Souls in a way you don't expect.  I say this with the thought that Jesus is about a way of life, a way of understanding, a way of being, that isn't owned by any religion completely.

Regarding whether Jesus is something such as a manifestation of God, the first Disk to merge back with God, or another such possibility, I figure people will find out what is so when the time is right. As long as they reach the point where they want to be at one with that which is most wondeful, what will prevent them from finding out what's true?

Berserk2 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2015 at 11:27pm:

Eben Alexander: "More than ever since my near death experience, I consider myself a Christian" ("The Easter Question." "Huffington Post").  ;D

What! No corroborating links in your post? Surely you can copy and paste some evidence?..George..GMan 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eben-alexander-md/the-easter-question_b_2979741.html

Albert, you say you took exception to my comments about the new testament, and infer I'm trying to convert people to Christianity, and you infer I'm somehow not allowing others to determine their own sources of inspiration.

Yes I am Christian, and I don't care whether you or anyone else of this forum is Christian or not? Again - I don't  care. So next time you are having a fantasy that I'm trying to convert you, remember - I don't care.    

Its a public forum and can mention my Christianity, and my beliefs if I wish to.
And I can state them as facts if I want to.

I credit people with their own freewill and free intellect.  Read that again Albert, and try to comprehend what it means to do actually and sincerely credit people with that quality.
Part of it means I expect others to think for themselves.
It means I make statements and I don't expect others to take them as truth, but to think about them.
It means that when I give instructions I don't expect others to treat them as orders.
It means that when some over sensitive insecure idiot starts bleating that he's having his free determination restricted because of something I said, and on an internet forum of all things, then I will tell him to mature and take responsibility for himself and start exercising his own freewill and intellect.      

And if I want to I can say that "I am unaware of any book that teaches love clearer than the new testament does".
I'll say it again, just for you and any other new age sensitive fairies who find it offensive, "I am unaware of any book that teaches love clearer than the new testament does".
Are you hurting yet, Mr So-sensitive? Are you feeling that I am trying to convert you? take away your free determination? Grow up Albert. No ones trying to convert you, control you, take away your freewill/free determination or choice. You know that. You're not an infant.

Crossbow:

I meant Don and Roger more than you.  After not having posted for a while they both started posting at the same time with posts that support the Christian viewpoint.

Considering the history, I don't believe it is a stretch for me to believe that Don tries to get people to see and accept the Christian viewpoint. Roger seems to support him to some degree.

You also started posting again at the same time with Christian favorable posts, so perhaps it isn't too much of a stretch for one to think that you might be supporting Don's (and maybe Roger's) recent attempts. I believe it is possible that other people have come to the same conclusion.

I believe it is fine for people to share their Christian viewpoints, but trying to convert people to some degree is touchy territory. I believe that people can find out what Jesus has to offer without becoming a "Christian" of some sort. The Oneness he is a part of is beyond any one religion.

Regarding my being over touchy, believe me, I haven't lost any sleep over this. :) I do get annoyed a bit when people try to pigeon hole Jesus' Christ Consciousness to one religion. This consciousness is revealed in so many places, it does seem a bit off to suggest that "ONLY" the New Testament speaks of it.

Doubt is the key to scientific advance.  Accepted theories must always be confronted with the question: If this theory is wrong or fundamentally flawed, how could we ever discover this?  Put differently, theories, especially theories about fundamental reality, are meaningless unless they are falsifiable in principle. 

If methods of astral exploration were valid, one might expect them to lead to ever increasing knowledge of the afterlife territories and the subtle laws that govern them. Instead, so-called verifications are relatively rare and far from the quaiity of those alleged by ES.  But ES himself is clearly deluded about some of his astral observations (e. g. his claim to have observed thriving intelligent life on other plenets in our solar system--a belief often shared in his day).

To his credit, Bruce Moen has tried to address this problem with "partnered exploration." Despite some interesting parallels, such efforts have in my view been a dismal failure.  This failure is predictably rationalized by attributing the differences to distortions created by the uniqueness of interpreters.  For me, the more rational inference is that genuine afterlife contact has not been achieved and that the astral awareness in question is a variant of the awareness achieved in lucid dreaming.  I say variant because astral exploration is usually conducted in waking consciousness. 

In my own experiments, I have "left my body" floated near the ceiling, and looked down on my sleeping body.  I have performed a retrieval after a suicide, a retrieval which unleashed a powerful experience of pure love.  But subsequently I taught myself to have lucid dreams and eventually realized that my OBE adventures could most honestly be described as lucid dreams, nothing more.  I don't dogmatically project this verdict on all astral exploration.  And I'm encouraged that NDErs with Eben Alexander's medical credentials are engaged in TMI's research.  But until astral projectors learn to trancend their astral fundamentalism (e. g. dpgmatism about Focus 27 and Soul Disks), this area of research will remain bogged down in naive credulity in the service of cheap comfort.  [I don't buy protestations that astral explorers claim to shun dogmatism to speak only from direct experiencel] 

The patterns of most NDEs provide the  best hope of escaping from this murky subjective swamp.  But  I am troubled by the gap I perceive between OBE research and NDE characteristic stages and verifications.  So I sadly remain an intrigued skeptic.   

Regarding what Don just said, one conclusion about the afterlife that I feel confident about is that it exists.

I'm okay with not knowing all of the precise details at this time.

I believe it is safe to say that to some degree the "as you sow so you reap" principle applies. If you plant good seeds, you should be okay.

Can we stop with the "new age sensitive fairies" and other types of ridiculous name-calling just because someone had an opinion? The trouble with "using our words" is that they don't mean the same thing to everyone who hears them.

1796, you just finished recently telling the forum that you were on a mission of some kind to "wake" people up and now you say you don't give a "crappity crap" about it. You create all these posts on the forum insinuating things about all kinds of mysterious "people" in a general way without being specific. Seriously, you do.

So, why so upset when you feel that someone has a difference of opinion? At least, it sounds that way. Because of how you use your words.

I didn't really want to get involved with a conversation in which guys are sticking their chests out and acting macho. But, whatever.

The thing is, "being a Christian" means different things to different people. That's really okay, in my book.

I learn a lot from you guys, no matter what kinds of silly arguments happen here. So, carry on and I'll try to ignore the frequent verbal slurs here. There's no need for it, and no need for personal attacks on anyone. It may seem amusing but it really does lower the quality of the conversation.

Since prehistoric times,countless models and beliefs about the afterlife have evolved.  Why should any of these be taken more seriously than as evidence of superstition and myth-making fueled by  fearful imagination and wishful thinking?  Why should any of this signal more than the history of cultural diversity?

Prior to the 19th century, channeling was generally thought to put people in touch with gods and demons, not with discarnate humans.  How do we know the earlier perspective is wrong?

The first literary evidence for soul retrievals surfaces in the earliest Christian writings of the first 2 centuries AD. But shamanism practices soul retrievals today and no doubt did in the murky past as well.  So attempts by New Agers to perform retrievals is commendable, but needs to be understood in the wider context of other conflicting overviews.   Here it will not suffice to claim confirmation  by direct experience.  That card is played by most religious groups (e. g. Mormonism) and has proven a poor basis for shared knowledge claims.

What is needed is a comprehensible system of empirical verification with the potential for replication.  As an aggregate, the innumerable afterlife claims are contradictory.  Therefore, most must be wrong.  But are any of them right?  On what basis, can that question be answered in a way that advances global knowledge in an unbiased way?  One truth is obvious: a myopic New Age worldview needs to be informed by alternative perspectives on the same type of consciousness or methods. Prickly hissyfits from New Agers in the face of frequent awesome verifications of Christian NDEs must not be dismissed as proselytizing by New Agers ill-equipped for a well-informed response. 

Christians are impressed by the many atheists, Muslims, etc. who are converted by seeing Jesus in an NDE or vision.  But Christians want to suspend judgment about the full implications until they get a fuller picture of the diversity and patterns of NDEs in other cultures and religions.  If an all-encompassing theory is not possible to explain this, then perhaps the best explanation is a series of illusions created by human need and wishful thinking.  But New Agers seem to be the new fundamentalists who pontificate to cover up their fear of honest doubt and the corrective methods such doubt requires.  I mean, just listen to the self-assured New Agers who dominate George Norry's Coast to Coast.   Insinuations that Christians must be lying if their NDEs make Mew Agers feel comfortable is the height of a Ghetto mentality--and it is this insinuation that has triggered these counter-reaction, as unpleasant as that insight must to New Age dogmatists.  "But I am no such dogmatist!!" you protest.  Then show that by demonstrating the interdisciplinary scope of your research. 
And then, explain why astral research has been unable to find an evolving and often replicated consensus about the afterlife territories, the key players, and  the principles that govern the afterlife.   

  Like Albert, i'm definitely a fan of Jesus, but also like him i don't feel the need to label myself a Christian, and i don't think people need to believe in him or become Christians with a set of certain beliefs to grow or benefit spiritually.

    Real Christianity, is what Buddhism was originally meant to be about as well, a way of life, a way of living, of choosing ethically, lovingly, positively.  The main difference is in Christianity, you also actively love and think about the Creator/Source and not so much in Buddhism.

  Both were meant to be about consciously merging with the Oneness, via love, as an individual.

    Neither was meant to become about involved and codified belief systems. 

    My sense is that there are a lot of non Christians out there whom Jesus considers more close to him in frequency than many Christians. 

   The benefit of Jesus if you can separate him from the religious dogma, is a powerful example of someone who both walked the walk and talked the talk to the nth degree like has never been before seen, to the point that he overcame every illusion and seeming human limitation--including physical death. 

  But for many in this life, it's enough to know that it's important to treat others with kindness, respect, to have empathy and compassion, to partake in positive service to others, etc.  Most are not called in this life, to fully follow that Teacher. 

   If they are ready, they will heed his call and most likely become very attracted to or involved with him, often in a non religious non dogmatic way. 

  Like Albert said, likely at some point, most souls will become more fully aware of the Christ Disk and it's larger role, history, etc and, most most likely while in the nonphysical. 

  For Christians, it would be well to remember that when Jesus was around publicly teaching, he didn't seem to be a big fan of the uber religious, and especially not religious authorities that were dogmatic and hypocritical in nature.  If Jesus was here today, most likely he might sometimes speak out against aspects of mainstream Christianity, just as he spoke out against aspects of mainstream Judaism in his life, as a Jew. 

Justin,

You pontificate about Jesus' soul Disk without evidence.  In first century Judaism, there is no evidence of Jewish belief in reincarnation.  More importantly, your post is irrelevant to the thread.  Jesus never taught that all non-Christians are damned; and Christ-centered NDEs do not imply exclusivism.  For example, when Howard Storm asks his NDE Jesus what is the true religion, Jesus replies, "The one that leads to a relationship with God."

1796 is clearly here to learn about afterlife exploration and to share his perspectives.  Why should his admission that he is a Christian be presumed to imply an unwanted agenda.  That insinuation is just a projection from the New Age Ghetto's myopic axe that it wants to grind. 

Why should New Agers be concerned that Eben Alexander confesses to being a Christian when pointedly asked about this?  And why are they shocked that he makes little mention of this in his books?  I have a doctorate in religion.  If I wanted to proselytize or correct misconceptions about Jesus and the Bible so often carelessly expressed on this site, I would open a series of threads on this subject in  the Religions and Their Beliefs section of this site. 

Don said: "Why should New Agers be concerned that Eben Alexander confesses to being a Christian when pointedly asked about this?  And why are they shocked that he makes little mention of this in his books?  I have a doctorate in religion.  If I wanted to proselytize or correct misconceptions about Jesus and the Bible so often carelessly expressed on this site, I would open a series of threads on this subject in  the Religions and Their Beliefs section of this site."

Recoverer responds: "Who did you have in mind when you said the above? If me, I can't say I was shocked. When I read Eban's book I didn't focus on whether he favours any particular religion. If he favors Christianity I don't have a problem with that.

Regarding whether Jesus knew about the disk factor, why would he speak to the masses of such a thing? He would know better.  Even today there are people who have a problem wrapping their head around the idea that from  a personal evolution standpoint they might be a part of something much bigger than one little lifetime. Maybe Jesus understood that there weren't enough people around that were good at thinking outside of a self-imposed box."

 

  I've had experiences verifying for me that the Disk concept is real, i've also had experiences and messages suggesting that occasionally, a Disk member whose already lived an in physical life will jump back into the fray.  This, "direct reincarnation" for whatever reason, seems to be (much?) more rare though. 

   So, if i know this Disk concept is true for myself, and others, why wouldn't it apply to Jesus too? 

    One of the first messages i've received about the Disk concept, was a dream where i was in a classroom with Bruce Moen speaking.  As he was speaking, his face morphed temporarily into Bob Monroe, and then back again to his face.

  I had this dream because i was new to the concept of Disks and was strongly wondering about the veracity of same after reading one of Bruce's books, and it was a way for my expanded self to tell me that it's true, and indirectly maybe to tell me that Bruce's claim about being part of the same Disk as Monroe's is also true.  But the first part was more the message for me.   

  I've had jaw dropping experiences verifying for me that there is such a thing as karma and other lives.  I've outlined some of this here, the most powerful one which was the powerful synchronicity/correlation verification with a friend whose husband died shortly after we became friends (something that seemed destined almost).   

  My sense, is that you have such strong beliefs about this topic, that i wouldn't be surprised that if Jesus manifested in front of you one day, and said "Don, the Disk concept, karma,  and reincarnation, well, it's is all true." that you might argue with him about it.  Or, you might convince yourself that it wasn't Jesus, but a demon come to deceive you. 

  Even Crossbow whom is a self labeled  Christian, also believes and i assume has had experiences about other lives and karma.

  It's not that important for you to believe likewise, and so i doubt any of the above will be happening anytime soon.  What's most important in this life, bar none, universally speaking, is people knowing about agape, Universal Love and how important it is to choose, live, and open up to same. But, if you happen to have a NDE or the like, and come face to face with him, don't miss the opportunity to shatter your crystallized belief systems. 

  One of the potential signs or indications of progressing spiritually in this life, besides becoming ever a more positive, loving, strong, centered person, is the evolution of belief systems to more and more expanded. 

  Chances are, if one has been holding very similar beliefs and perceptions for many years, that haven't change or evolved much, then there is a likely hood that one is not progressing as much as one might like to think.  Or in other terms, beliefs are like rules, meant to be broken occasionally. 

   It's only when you become fully like Jesus yourself, that you may reach the pinnacle of pure perception and understanding about the true nature of both the larger and smaller realities. 

   I know i haven't yet, and i doubt any posting here have either, so it might be a good idea to keep an open mind because very likely we all here have some erroneous beliefs and perceptions somewhere or sometime. 

   

Berserk2 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2015 at 5:26pm:

For the record, I would love to see everyone become a Christian.  But I also advocate honest and open inquiry, some thing I feel is lacking, e.g. in G-man's insinuation about more fake Christian NDEs.  As for me, I have read all 3 of Robert Monroe's books, Robert Bruce, Buhlman, even Seth books, and many more New Age books to see if I can learn from alternate perspectives.  I'm even hoping to take a week-long training at TMI.  I applied once, but was closed out!  People like G-man apparently can't handle the openness of Christians like myself and Eben Alexander to New Age approaches.  Why? Because they are so stuck in their myopic New Age Ghetto that they can't learn from alternative perspectives; and so, they rely on crude caricatures of Christianity to excuse their bias.  They don't realize, for example, that Christianity of the first 2 centuries provides the first  literary advocacy for soul retrievals! Albert, why do i get the felling that you know very little about New Testament teaching about love, even as you trumpet the superiority of NDE perspectives on love.  I challenge you to identify the 3 clearest New Testament texts on love.  I'll bet you can't do it.

Don. Your Quote, "For the record, I would love to see everyone become a Christian."..Your quote!? Why can't you let people be what they want to be?..Or is this some sort of religious-proselyting emotional guilt trip you are covering up for, by sprouting christian dogma, and repetitive debate posts over the years here? GMan    

When we understand that we have freewill, then we realise that our freewill governs what goes out from our self and what we let into our self. In other words, freewill governs not only what we do and say, but also what we listen to and accept. 

People who have realised their freewill don't feel like their freedom is somehow being threatened by other people's words. They know they have their own freewill and they are secure in themselves. They listen to reason and conscience, and what they are not interested in they just let slip by.

Then there are people who cry that they are somehow having their freedom to be their self taken away from them by someone else having made a statement they don't like. There are many such people in the "new age astral travel anti-Christian I'm-a-humanitarian spiritual-but-not-religious" movements who especially like to claim their freedom is being impinged upon when they hear or read someone making a statement about the fullness of Christianity. Of course, no one who has no structured authority over someone can effect their freedom to be their self just by saying or writing something. To claim that they can is quite immature really. Those who respond to another's statements about Christianity by saying they are not being allowed the freedom to be their self are just displaying a tantrum and faking being offended as an attempt to silence others. I would encourage them to wake up to their self, to grow into their own freewill and accountability for their self and to stop attributing control of their self to others.   

Personally, I credit people with having their own freewill. They can take or leave what I or anyone else says. My crediting people with having their own freewill means that I often credit people with more freewill and responsibility for themselves than they are willing to accept themselves.

I am not the least interested in converting anyone to Christianity, not that my saying so means anything to those who want to keep saying that Christians are trying to convert others every time they mention their faith. But really such people know they cannot be converted and that I am not trying to convert them or take away their self determination, and they are not really offended either, they just don't like me mentioning it. They are the ones against freedom of speech, not me.

I have noticed that people are often very wide eyed and interested when I speak what I have learnt from my own experience about the workings of the human mechanism and its energies, the dynamics of the subtle bodies and centres, the stations of consciousness and levels of the soul, the techniques and mechanics of leaving the body, the layout of the astral planes and the greater dimensions, past lives and how to remember them, second sight and how to exercise it, the Earth school system and how it works, but as soon as I mention that I am Christian they cringe, take offense and display internal pain and disappointment. And if I offer to tell them how it is that a Christian has learnt such things then they turn off and turn away. They don't want to learn such things from a Christian. It is not truth they want, but an alternative to truth, and their problem is there isn't one. Truth is all there is. 

As with achieving anything, achieving spirituality requires discipline, and religion is spiritual discipline. So an appropriate religion is beneficial for spiritual achievement.

Personally I think people are generally best to keep with the religion they are born and bred into. They may wish to extend or adjust their understanding of that religion, and add to it from other religions or streams of thought, but I don't think changing religions is generally a good idea unless the individual is genuinely moved to do so, which is rare.       

Irrespective of whether or not one is born and educated into a religion we have the lights of conscience and reason inside our self. These lights can be familiarised with, exercised and brightened, and used to guide one's life. Reason and conscience together is what makes our best judgement.

Everyone seeks innerpeace, therefore let your conscience be your guide, for within your conscience you hear the voice of your true self, and there is no finer peace than to be at peace with your self.

cross†bow

Crossbow:

Certainly you are aware of the fact that pretty much every religion whether Christian or not Christian has its shortcomings. Historically something happens that causes a particular way of thought to have its faults.

Some religions have faults to an extent where they limit and mislead people to varying degrees.  I don't believe it is wrong for a person to feel uncomfortable about this.

I believe that the same discomfort can be felt towards certain new age ways of thought that are limiting and misleading.

You used to provide a link for your site. Is it still available? I have been meaning to read some of what you wrote.

recoverer wrote on Feb 13^th, 2015 at 1:19pm:

Crossbow: Certainly you are aware of the fact that pretty much every religion whether Christian or not Christian has its shortcomings. Historically something happens that causes a particular way of thought to have its faults. Some religions have faults to an extent where they limit and mislead people to varying degrees.  I don't believe it is wrong for a person to feel uncomfortable about this. I believe that the same discomfort can be felt towards certain new age ways of thought that are limiting and misleading. You used to provide a link for your site. Is it still available? I have been meaning to read some of what you wrote.

Naturally. Everything is multisided, and particularly double sided. The stick of knowledge is double ended; to extend one end extends the other. It is impossible to teach something good without making visible that by the opposite concept and application we reveal and teach something bad at the same time. Opposites go together. If we teach good manners, then we teach and reveal bad manners too. If we teach self defence, then we also reveal and therefore teach how to attack someone in a way they cannot defend. If we teach home security, then we also teach illicit entry. If we teach honesty, then we also teach deception. If we teach how to love, then we reveal how to hate. A person will make use of any teaching according to the nature of their own heart. The more of truth and goodness that is taught, then the more potential is given to both the good hearted and the bad hearted.

Each of the main religions emphasise a particular virtue, understanding, or tonic cord, upon which the rest of the religion's teachings are built. Here are some base teachings, each of a particular religion: devotion, composure, courage, oneness and harmony, oneness and right and wrong, love and forgiveness. Every religion, like every teaching, like every character trait of individuals and nations, is double sided, has a beneficial and detrimental application. That is just reality imposing itself onto man.

cb
         
Here is the link to the blog site.   https://lacecurtain.wordpress.com/

Crossbow:

Thank you for the link.

recoverer wrote on Feb 16^th, 2015 at 3:27pm:

Crossbow: Thank you for the link.

You're welcome, and so are others. The blog is underdone. The amount of information yet to be put on there is rather daunting.