Alysia,

You ask a good question.  I doubt that "proof" is a legitimate possibility, though I am always eager to discover the merits of claims to have discovered proof.  A more realistic goal is to have "convincing" paranormal experiences or to discover "persuasive" evidence.  So I would rephrase your question this way: if I found more "persuasive" evidence for an afterlife, would that make my relationships more loving?   That is an excellent question for any uf us to ask.

Before his conversion, St. Paul was a hitman for the Pharisees.  He beat, jailed, and murdered Christians with a clear conscience.   His encounter with the blazing light of the Risen Christ on the Damascus road transformed him into one of the most loving and effective agents of spiritual transformation who ever lived.  The purity of his love was in part determined by the passion generated by His experience-based conviction that Jesus truly was the Son of God.  

Most of us use words like "believe" and "convincing" in an inconsistent and often self-deluded way.   For example,  a promoter once hired a stunt man to push a wheel barrel over a wire spanning Niagara Falls.  The stunt man asked if the promoter really believed he could perform this feat.  The promoter replied, "Yes, I do; you have an excellent reputation as a daredevil."  The stunt man than coyly replied,  "Well, then, are you willing ro ride in the wheel barrel while I push it over the Falls?"  

We imagine we are convinced by many claims, when in fact we merely feel a combination of doubt and attraction to those claims.  Consider how few of the graduates of Bruce Moen's course post on this site.  I imagine most of them believe in Bruce's method and may even have achieved the rudiments of initial success.   But in the final analysis their skepticism has generally overcome their initial excitement, and so, they don't practice Bruce's method or post their retrieval experiences on this site.   Does this discredit Bruce's mothod?  Hardly.  Consider the comparison with professed belief in the power of prayer.

Most Christians affirm their belief in prayer, but almost never show up to organized prayer meetings or devote significant time to mastering the art of prayer.  Why not?   Because their alleged "belief" in prayer is more than offset by their doubts about its efficacy.  Spending a lot of time at prayer will seem like a waste of time to someone who unconsciously expects no exciting results.  We domonstrate what really "convinces" us not by our professed belief system, but by our commitment of time and energy to those causes.  

I want to be convinced that retrievals are possible through Bruce's method.  But I am unconvinced by the many retrievals reported on this site.   The expected verifications are not there.   But if I were genuinely persuaded that I might be able to perform retrievals, that would be one of the most important insights of my life.  And my day-to-day priorities would be altered accordingly.  I would be offering daily posts on my retrievals and their verifications and would do everything possible to persuade others to master this skill.   What could be more important than upgrading the spiritual plight of trapped discarnate spirits? Our passion for a worthy cause increases as a function ot the degree to which we are persuaded (1) that the cause is practical and noble and (2) that we can make a dramatic diifference in pursuiing it.  The more focused our passion, the more likely it is that we will be consistently capable of loving communication.

But I should answer your question from another perspective.   Many people deem it righteous to share the truth in love and then rationalize the recipient's intransigence with the thought, "Well, I shared the truth with them; what they do with it is their responsibility."  To me, this atttitude is self-righteous rather than loving.   We should instead ask ourselves, "What is the most likely result of my anticipated confrontation with this person?"  Suppose I know a man who is cheating on his wife.   What I would share with him about this, if anything, would not just be based on my convictions about fidelity, but on my intuition as to whether this man is likely to make better decisions as a result of my communication.   The issue of whether my dialogue partner likes me is a matter of ego, not uf love.  So I am willing to confront if I anticipate a positive result.  

I am confrontational on this site with posters I perceive as arrogant or close-minded because I have found by experience that this approach has the best chance of raising consciousness.  Past posters who have continued their E-mail dialogue with me on their spiritual journey are eloquent testimony to this fact. What makes communication loving is its real intention, not the warm fuzzies in which it is framed.  That said, one must always be alert for ways to make one's communication more genuinely loving.  

Don

your answer to me is well thought out Don, even flows gracefully along, but I have too much history with you, so I don't trust you. but then I know you don't care if I do or not.  but even if I don't trust you because I know you have an antagonizing way about you, I still want the best to happen for you and if when you die you go to the pearly gates, they will most likely let you go in either that or you'll just bust on through.
I don't mind rebel rousers at all. I just want everyone to know whatever anyone's opinion is about, its our own opinion about ourself that counts the most and we can learn how not to take a critiscism personally and still continue the debate if debate is truly all you want as you already said you don't think proof will be convince you. you probably believe you have to wait until you are actually dead before you know that you had a life.
debate is a waste of time for myself. at some point Don you begin celebrating that you have a life and nothing else really matters; none of us are alone when we call out for help, we just disagree from whence our salvation comes.

Alyssia,

I find your posts today, here to be inspired.  Blink as well.   Nothing will be gained by mopping up the floor in a debate with an opponent on these forums.  A loving soul does not seek to crush another in debate.  And I don't think, despite Don's scathing eloquent banter, that he wants to truly crush the likes of a Ra or Spitfire in the past, just engage in the debate with gusto.  Socrates had a method similar to this.  He would get you to agree to certain logical statements, and then have you lead yourself to his own inescapable conclusion.

I respect Don's contributions both for his knowledge of scripture and his openness to acknowledging spiritual occurrences. 

Initially, when I joined this forum, I cringed a bit at all the PUL talk.  How can everyone be so loving all the time?  It seemed kind of phony.  The more I have explored my meditation, hemisync CDs/computer hemisync generator, and the closer I have gotten to "pure spirit," the more I have realized and felt in my soul that love, and the expression of love is essential to "getting  it," here on earth. 

"Would that God the gift t'give us, to see ourselves as others see us."  If we are all one, and our divine nature recognizes this, then the issue of "us vs. them," and duality melt away.  We want to be good to others because we are all one.  This is a difficult concept, since on earth we can lie, cheat and steal - and get away with it.  In spirit, there is no such thing - the truth in spirit is transparent.  The thug or criminal shares this unity with us, hard as it is to grasp.  We can oppose them, condemn them too, but we must realize, in the back of our minds that they are us, and if they are condemned, we are in some way diminshed.  (Jesus' saying of "judge not, lest ye be judged").

Hells are created when we judge ourselves in a life review and believe we are not worthy of PUL - a self inflicted punishment for times we were unloving.  Part of Alyssia's boomerang theory.

I mention all of this to raise the civility in areas of honest conversation and debate.  The points seem to get across fine without any disparaging comments or personal confrontations. 

Matthew

On the contrary; I think Don was being very polite to ra.  ra your rudeness exceeds your ignorance - full stop.  

thanks again for posting Tim. I know you're busy in your life and I appreciate hearing from you.  your post reminds me of the collective area where music resides. theres a song called "Imagine." by the Beatles. for some, music is their religion. I don't think I have a religion. anyway in this song the words are like this:

Imagine theres no heaven, imagine theres no hell, nothing to kill or die for, no religion too, imagine all the people living for today, you may think I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one, I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will live as one.

John Lennon? he got shot didn't he? thats too bad the good die young. well, we've died so many times I'm getting used to it and getting memories. in the future there will be no death as we now conceive of death to be an ending.
thanks again Tim. alysia

Tim it is kind of you to stick up for ra - I was hoping he would stick up for himself.  I've been ticked off for my 'phrase' and fair enough I apologise ra.  The thing is ra respect is earned and in my opinion Don, who knows what he is talking about, doesn't need the insults which you issued to him - ra would you speak to your father like that? (not saying Don is your father but he obviously is older than you) lets have some perspective here.

Tim, i hear what you say in the gentle style of Buddhism.  The thing is Tim I didn't write the script I'm just following it.

Here is a bit on Buddhism;

What must have been the reflections on death of one who contemplated from outside the events on earth as they were reflected in mankind before the coming of Christ? had he descended as a higher being from divine, spiritual heights, with conceptions other than human, he must have felt impelled, when he considered the human race, to speak as Buddha spoke.

Buddha had issued from the royal palace in which he had grown up and in which he had seen nothing but what was elevating in life. On quitting the palace, however, he first saw a suffering man, next a sick man, and lastly, and worst of all, a dead man. These experiences wrung from him the words: `Sickness if suffering! Old age is suffering! Death is suffering!' Mankind had indeed felt this to be so, and it was this common feeling of all mankind which burst from the great soul of Buddha.

Then came the Christ, and 600 years after Christ (as 600 years has elapsed between the time of Buddha and that of Christ) there were those who, when they saw the Cross and, hanging upon it, the dead Man, could reflect: `He who hangs upon the Cross is the symbol of that seed from which life in abundance flows!' They had acquired a true feeling regarding death.

Christ Jesus embraced death; he went to that death which had become the characteristic expression of the Father and united Himself therewith. And from that union of Christ Jesus with death was born the Sun of Life. It is a deception, maya, or illusion to think that death is synonymous with pain. When men learn in the course of time to await the coming of death as Christ awaited it, it will prove itself in truth to be the seed of life. In proportion as men opening their hearts to the Christ-impulse offer up something of their own, they will contribute to the growth of a new sun and a new planetary system, and provide for the ever greater increase of the Sun of Life.
~~~~
Buddha, come from His royal palace, and saw the sickness of men ...

May God be with us.
~~~~~~

And ra may love be with you.

Well, I've been away from the board for a couple weeks, come back and it's the same ole, same ole -- Donald and Chumley, both antagonists with the same ole stories.

Tim, thank God for you who keeps a level head and is a great peacemaker.

And of course my dear sis Irene

Namaste
Mairlyn