To me, this board is a place for those who are looking into alternative ideas to have a safe place to come and openly discuss them. Or at least it used to be.

There are many flaws in the traditional ways of looking at things. I think this is because we create the world we live in...all the stuff beyond gravity and trees and hunger, we didn't create those things, but we create all of our ways of living in the world. We live in a word-built world. Beyond the basic physical, we invent everything. The only thing I'm not sure how was invented is language itself. We invent everything. We invent the concepts and then take the concepts for the reality. Not! But when we try out new ideas, I think that we are trying ultimately to learn that we invent it all. We have to remember that we invented it all.

There is much in our culture that we use without proof that it works. But we use it. Much of medicine has been based on some authority saying "this is the thing to do" and it is done without question. If you think Semmelwiess changed that, think again. Since we require that people use the medical system and even sometimes take their kids away if they don't, then why is there not more requirement to clearly demonstrate that a technique is the correct one? It seems to me that much more is asked in "proving" mediums are real than is asked in demonstrating some medical techniques have a basis in science. Why does this glitch exist?  Of course, we have been taught to fear death and therefore we need the physicians to fight off death at any cost. Mediumd are icing on the cake for day-to-day stuff. 

I don't have time to go into my personal journey or how I got to the point at which I just said.."Good bye Christianity" but I did. I don't care about Christianity other than it is a pain in the whatever to deal with Christians when it comes to philosophical issues. I don't believe in the existence of the historical Christ and I just don't care what "evidence" you show me, it isn't going to be good enough. This is not a topic open for discussion. If that makes me a New Ager  (and I can't figure out what else would) then so be it.

I was disappointed in the example of Johanna what's-her-face as an example because when I saw her writing it was obvious that she is a whacked-out Chrisitan type. Having grown up in the Bible belt, this is not a new phenomenon to me, but having someone who thinks on that level used as the source of arguments to counter say, Bruce's thoughtful descriptions of his experiences was just too much! I don't mean to offend any Christians here who wear their faith with joy and light and truly endeavor to do unto others in peace, but don't ask me to join in...I am a worse "opponent" than any Jew , Muslim, Buddhist, atheist you might meet! I am an ex-Christian! And I don't need to be saved from anything here.

No, this stuff does not all fit together. I just want the freedom to explore the ideas in peace. None of humanity's models have ever been all correct. That's why we keep changing them. So if I accept ES as the gold standard of prrof, then what do w edo next? We never have discussed what we might formally accept as proof. Of course, that is public proof. We might accept things less stringently proved for personal use. We do that all the time anyway. Why not here?

Peace, everyone.

why are we dividing up into two camps?

Alysia,

The camps divide themselves.  Some will sink and some will swim.  Even those who are sinking can feel it.  They fight harder.  Tell me not to say "love"....

Love, love, love.  Again love.

Don't sink.  Swim.

love, blink

I just heard words on TV that said "is this ever going to end?"  How appropriate those words are.

Donald said: i ask no one to embrace my perspectives. i ask only that they escape their cultic conformity and check out other articulate perspectives as I have done.  That way, they at least have a chance of developing a modicum of intellectual integrity.

Don, you see a cult of new agers. I see a bunch of loving, peaceful souls who are trying to help you to SEE.  Oh I know I shouldn't get into this again as it does no good whatsoever. 

Why shouldn't we sign our posts with love. Do you have something against love between souls since we are all ONE.  Don, you are a part of the ONE. It is so very frustrating trying to make you see that yes, you do 'force feed' and jump all over Moen/Monroe.  As I've told you before, go within, deep within and you shall find a beautiful soul and you shall 'see' all as it really is. Don, you can't love anyone until you love yourself. I know, these are just words and don't even make a dent in your consciousness and I'm just wasting time even replying to you.  I will always love you Don even though you don't love yourself.

Forgive yourself for your girlfriend's suicide as it's so obvious that you feel so guilty over this. Forgive yourself and release it.

From My Heart to Yours
I Send you My Love,
Mairlyn

you know what your last post said to me? that you are trying to get back into our good graces so that you can punch us in the face again.....
thanks, I've had enough abuse...you take care of yourself...bottom line is number one Don, thats what you teach us.

sorry to pop this thread back to the top but I had a few more thoughts....

I don't understand the comments about Brinkley. He bases his stuff on first-hand experience, experiences that really changed his life, and by all reports he puts his money where his mouth is. Maybe there is something I don't know about his hospice work? I think Brinkley has integrity.

The choice of Larry Dossey's book on this reading list has me intrigued. This is the type of book I would have expected to be disdained and I am now confused as to the criteria for books being on the list. As one reviewer on Amazon says, "Soft-headed, gullible New Agers will love this book; others beware." But the hard evidence for the efficacy of prayer is not there, not to FDA standards.  On the other hand, at least the starting pages of this book are about the dark side of Christianity, giving a history I would love for present-day Christians to have to study and understand. This is the kind of book I would read not to be convinced but to explore ideas. It is descriptive, not quantitative.  But I don't see how this book could be said to present evidence for demonic possession. Guess I'll just have to read it.

Thinking about Martin caused me to recall another very strange book, by Trevor Ravenscroft : The spear of destiny; the occult power behind the spear which pierced the side of Christ Maybe it is all the hint of secret societies and oocult . I just don't think I'm going to be able to distinguish between Martin's fiction and non-fiction.

What criteria distinguish the "gullible herd" from the nongullible individual? or rather from a group of nongullible individuals? The problem is that to try new ideas, one has to let one's guard down...one has to try to be innocent, in the sense of blank slate, and yes, I guess that implies risking being gullible.The flip side is that we won't be able to "get it" unless we take the risk.

I understand that we labor here under a handicap for communication...not being able to see faces or hear nuance in intonation and delivery, that would carry so much more information. So I usually take what I read with a good shake of salt!  But I experience the references to the people here as being part of Moen's cult as "unkind guttersniping and shallow psychologizing" and lacking insight into my motivation. The constant comparisons to a religion I no longer accept are just not intellectually tolerable to me.

Monroe's tapes don't work for me the way they were intended. They put me to sleep. I have noticed that if I am feeling muddled, some hemisync tapes can get me thinking again. Like, maybe I'm just not doing arithmetic well one day, and then I use a tape, and then the aritmetic flows aghain. Funny that non-beta would enhance beta.

I like Bruce's stuff because he said that he couldn't achieve obe so he found another way to get the same information. I love American ingenuity! I think the process shows Bruce has alot of integrity. Maybe that's the solution for those of us who don't do this stuff easily...we have to find our own ways. And for that I need the freedom to look at strange ideas in a safe place. So if I have to be a little gullible for a while every day to do that, so be it.

I can't let all these personal attacks go without a fuller and hopefully final response:

[Kathy to Roger:] "I wonder if you announced your intention that the information you gave was to be kept confidential.  If not, then you are responsible for not making your intentions clear."

Kathy, your comment to Roger is appalling.  When one privately makes oneself vulnerable to another and airs sensitive issues, ordinary decency requires the listener to respect the  confidentiality of that sharing.  Some things go without saying.  Can you say "gossip"?  Also, your insinuation that I don't love myself is not only arrogantly intrusive; it displays your ignorance of the problem of pinning down the elusive complex of emotions and attitudes that comprise self-love (e.g. the elusive line between inordinate pride and true humility).   

Alysia, how many times do I have to tell you that all my blood tests have shown I'm cancer-free?

[Alysia:] "Intuition tells me you lied to me in a private mail, that your cancer was cured."

Suppose I really was dying as you suggest and was keeping this from the board.  Who the Hell do you think you are to out me in this regard?  Have you no sense of decency?  Isn't it obvious that you should have checked with me first to see if I really am dying?  If it was too painful for me to share this with the board, don't you think my wishes should be respected?  You are obviously very capable of turning the final suffering of others into a "Gotcha!' and making sport of their pain.

(Alysia:] "You were simply screaming for love all this time."

You are too dense to realize that "screaming" is a patronizing putdown.  Do you really imagine that you and Marilyn are important enough that I need your love more than that of my friends and family?

And now we come to Marilyn's marvelous display of PUL that shifted the board's tone in a lovely way:

[Marilyn:] "You ego is all that matters to you...What is your EGO pretecting you from? The truth."

Bruce Moen's guideline's stipulate: "Disagreements often lead to opportunities for great discussion and learning." This guideline actually encourages me to offer my 3 critiques of BM and RAM: (1) I pointed out an obvious contradiction between BM's claim to be a parallel incarnation of RAM and RAM's own revelation that he has only one parallel incarnation--a female one.  Blink challenged this on the basis of her book's mistranslation of UJ.  (2) I questioned the credibility of RAM's past life claims, specifically (a) that he was once incarnated as a cave man who flew a machine, dodging spears from other cave men and (b) that he reincarnated as a novitiate ordered by Catholic priests to ritually rape his current wife Nancy.  (3) RAM's alleged OBE conversation with the woman he pinched never occurred.  So I questioned the validity of RAM's OBE conversations.  No one has challenged me on points (2) and (3).  Yet Marilyn chooses to violate the guidelines with this vile screed: 

[Marilyn:] "I'm sure that the purpose of this life of yours is to get rid of the EGO which probably been your biggest enemy in every past life."

Oh, you are "sure."  I'm so impressed!  I've always wonderered about my purpose.  You have access to my complete reincarnation history and deem it appropriate to squirt your venom at someone who doesn't even believe in reincarnation.  I can really feel the PUL!

[Marilyn:] "You have talked a lot about listening to the Gateway...tapes which you can never get around to. 

On the contrary, I've practiced with my CDs for hours.  It is human to get discouraged and take a break.  As I've said, I'm now ready to try again.

[Marilyn:] "You don't need them.  You have had experiences yourself that you now don't believe."

The ultimate arrogance is your presumption that you have a better grasp of my own subjective experiences than I do.  I struggled long and hard to convince myself that I had genuine OBEs and that I had really retrieved Janet.  It took a long time for the truth to overcome my wishful thinking.  How dare you presume to know that my painful reassessment is invalid!  If I claimed verification that involved logic, that would be an entirely different matter.  Then my logic could rightly be challenged by analytical minds. 

[Marilyn:] "The board's crash came about because of the negative energies you have created here."

Robert Bruce's board crashed shortly thereafter without any posting from me.  In any case, the discussion on my ES thread was quite cordial at the time.  You had not yet launched your personal attack.  In any case, such a vicious (and I do mean "vicious") accusation is psychotic.

Don

P.S. I know that you New Agers have to be right and so must have the last word.  I would like this post to be my last word on this board for an indefinite period of time.  But I'm human.  Your continual injection of venom in response to honest questions may perpetuate my response to this ongoing display of evil disguised as PUL.