Quote:


Don, LOVE is what holds everything together even down to sub-atomic particles.  And yes, even dental cavities. And don't knock the beloved tooth fairy. She is very, very real. 

Namaste,
Mairlyn 

Here is my response to the points worth discussing in Bob's otherwise vulgar deleted post.  One day while peering through his telescope, Bob excitedly informed his companion Don that he had just observed a little green man eating toasted cheese sandwiches.   A puzzled Don asked to look through the telescope but saw nothing but sky.   Bob explained, "Oh, well this little green man is so shy that he moves beyond range when he is about to be viewed by strangers."   Seizing the telescope, Bob said, "Look, I can see him again!"   By then, other site members arrived on the scene and insisted on gazing through Bob's telescope to see what the excitement was about.  But like Don, they saw nothing but sky.   Bob offered fresh excuses for their failure.   'Your skeptical belief system is preventing you from seeing him.   Surrender your preconceptions and really look!   Not all science is verifiable," he explained.   His claim is meaningless because he set up the game so that nothing EVEN IN PRINCIPLE can decisively count against it.  

Bob's claim that not all science is subject to verification does not apply to his sensationalistic claim that an indefinable love energy underlies subatomic particles.  Nor is his point that I don't know what subatomic particles are relevant.  Duh, for starters subatomic particles include protons, electrons, a nucleus, and then at a deeper level quarks and leptons.   At a deeper level still, we get into string theory.  But at no point is it permissible to claim that something as etherial as PUL energy, nature spirits, etc. can be the foundation of ,say, string theory.   Why not?   Well, for one thing, such a claim lacks any scientific heuristic value and cannot be tested.    

Though we can quibble over just how to define "love', we all know what normal people mean by the term.  Our problem arises from the need to fine-tune any definition.   But once "love" is prefixed by the modifiers "pure" and unconditional",  it is firmly established as primarily a way of being, not an energy, because words derive their meanings from ordinary parlance and neither Bob nor New Agers get to invent new definitions of standard terms.   Of course, they can thumb their nose at normal people, retreat into the New Age ghetto, and redefine all  their terms so that the underlying realities can never be verified.  

One prominent physicist recently claimed that the more scientists study the universe, the more it begins to look like a cosmic thought.   If Bob wants instead to postulate consciousness as the reality underlying subatomic particles, he is at least no longer guilty of a fundamental category mistake, but he is still hiding behind an unjustifiable belief that cannot advance our knowledge or help us achieve am meaningful consensus.  The status of love as one feature of consciousness may be worth discussing; but it is inadmissible to simplistically equate consciousness with love.

Don

Bob, the telescope analogy used in my post above is a standard example that is typically used in philosophical analysis of the verifiability criterion of meaningfulness.  You can be immature and take it as a personal attack, but I am simply addressing the issues you raise in a philosophically responsible way.  I may occasionally use colorful language to get people's attention, but I relentessly stay focused on the serious issues.   Lighten up!

Don

hey, were you the one, rob roy, with the little black spirit you have 'seen' ,also? that wasnt getting your jokes...

Man this thread is old. Some of my beliefs have changed since it started. I believe there are evil minded influences out there, so unless one wants to be fooled by them, one needs to be warry of the plethora of misleading channeled information that exists.

I understand why people want to underestimate negative influences, it is more pleasant to believe that they don't exist. But if we want to see reality as it is rather than according to what is preferable, we have to be willing to see that there are unfriendly influences that are trying to find ways to mislead people.

Warren Smith wrote a book called "The light that was dark." He was into channeled sources including ACIM. He and his wife started to get troubled by some negative beings. The only thing that helped is when they asked Christ for help.

They were members of an ACIM reading group. When they tried to explain to other members that they were having problems with negative beings, the group members, because of how ACIM influenced them, just wouldn't believe that Warren and his wife were actually having problems. They concluded that they were imagining the whole thing.

This isn't surprising, because even though ACIM goes on and on it doesn't say anything about what negative influences are about. One would think that if the spirit of Christ actually spoke to people, he would provide them with such info.

But no, the only thing the course does is say that Satan doesn't exist and that's it. I agree, there isn't one being named Satan. But why end the discussion there? Provide some information about the negative influences that do exist, rather than say the same few things over and over and over again, until the words reverberate within a person's mind like a broken record that won't stop.

Both the posts, and some of the replies show just how intolerant many members here are of others beliefs. Some of the new age beliefs, and things like exorcisms of babies, and faith healing fit well together here. All of them being as ridiculous as the other.

Because of his Sai Baba story and other things, I wonder if Robert Bruce's possession story is true.

Nevertheless, I believe there are people who get afflicted to varying degrees by negative entities.

Don might rebuke the idea of dealing with them by using PUL. Perhaps there is another way to view this.  Divine love and divine will are connected, so if you respond to them with this combination, it could help.  It has helped me on a number of occasions.

Berserk2 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 5:23pm:


Hi Don,
just as a side comment, I believe that various writers (including Bob Monroe?) have postulated the idea that you can be experiencing overlapping lifetimes. So you may be born for the next incarnation before you check out in this one.
As there's supposed to be no linear time over there, or all time occurring at once, then surely this fits in with the idea of overlapping lifetimes and doesn't negate Dr. Ian Stevenson's research?

Just a thought.
Best wishes,
David.