[B-man:] "If you're going to try to be Christian and be a liberal
warm-fuzzy or Universal-Salvationist about it, you might as well
chuck the whole religion."
________________________
Chuck the whole religion?  Why?   Universalism does not implicitly abolish our free will.  Rather, it assumes that we are always free to make decisions to put ourselves on a loving Godward path or to refrain from doing so.  Why not explore the Godward path by direct experience before determining that you would hate it?

[B-man:] "Were I to become a Christian...,I would naturally be a CONSERVATIVE Christian. "
________________________

Of course, because you remain an intransigent secular Fundamentalist at heart.  A major problem with this mentality is its refusal to even consider that it might be mistaken and that an open-ended spiritual quest is needed.  This refusal is fueled by the fear that drives Fundamentalism.  One of the reasons why Islaimic Fundamentalists hate the West is their fear that we are striving to destroy Islam.   In fact, they sense how seductive the positive aspeccts of western culture and technology can be and project malevolent anti-Islamic intent onto us to protect themselves.  Notice how your own Fundamewntalism prompts to create an analogous fear-based warped caricature of Christianity:

[B-man:] "After all, Christianity is a blood-and-guts, kill your neighbor (unless he's meaner that you, in which case you should lick his boots) and
beat-your-wife sort of belief system.)"
_______________________________

Your fear impels you to resort to the desperate expedient of caricaturing Christianity in terms of its worst examplars who themselves refuse to apply its teachings to their lives.  Contrast your caricature with Jesus' teaching: "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies., do good to those who hate you.  Bless those who curse you.  Pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28)."

B-man, why do you so stubbornly refuse to embark on any sort of spiritual quest by direct experience?  Forget about Christianity for a moment.   Why won't you even read a book by Bruce Moen, Robert Monroe, Emanuel Swedenborg, or a good book on NDEs?  You remind me of a guy who is up tight about the fact that he has never experienced sex or romance.  Rather than take the risk of establishing a promising relationship, he freezes like Bambi in the headlights and conjures distorted perspectives on why love and sex would not suit him.  Fear of failure lurks behind this paralysis.  Become "a player" and explore God or the afterlife by direct experience in an open-minded quest.!

[B-man:] "Now, I must say that I rather LIKE Annihilationist Christianity. It
is honest about its "God" being a killing machine who demands obedience from "his" followers."
____________________
If you wind up in a hellish state, that fate is your choice based on the just principle that like attracts like: "By your own standared or measure, it will be measured out to you (Matthew 7:2)."  It is you and your like-minded buddies who will create the hellish conditions in a realm where no thoughts can be hidden (Luke 12:2).  You will always be free to make better choices.  So why do you persist in mischaracterizing God as "a killing machine"?  Universalism and annihilationism are NOT mutually exclusive.   So you are even free to choose annihilation.

Why are you so reluctant to contemplate common elements of astral explorers with very different perspectives on the afterlife?   For example, the Bible, atheist Howard Storm's NDE, and Bruce Moen's  astral exploration all confirm both the possibility of soul retrieval and the annihilation option: e. g.

1. [Christ to Howard Storm:] "For some people this may culminate in the ultimate annihilation of their being, if after they have existed  in this eternity they still do not seek their way back to God.  For others there is the possiblity of salvation ("My Descent into Death," p. 53)."
2. [Bruce Moen:]  "Is death permanent?...Recent exploration has uncovered a sort of permanent death.  It is extremely rare."
3. The annihilation possibility in Scripture (Romans 9:22; Philippians 3:19).  The Greek "apoleia" in these texts means "annihilation."    

[B-man:] "I mean, look at Eternal Torture. Those who reject Jesus are said
to be given "what they chose" when they get thrown into "Hell". But COME ON NOW. What sane person would choose to be tortured forever?"
____________________________________________________

So when are you going to try "sane" choices.  If postmortem torture is your fate, the suffering will result from your gravitation towards like-minded souls to avoid the company of the loving souls you dismiss as boring goodie-two shoes.
As Swodenborg learns during his astral exploration,  the hellbound initially love their new residence.  Only gradually does this realm become hellaceous.  But theirs is merely an educational voyage of self-discovery of the practical outcome of their own preferences and self-chosen nature.  These souls are not eternally trapped; they can make new choices and be retrieved.

[B-man:]What about those people (like myself) who would NEVER be happy in
"Heaven", short of being subjected to a radical pre-frontal lobotomy?...The Christians would get what THEY chose (a Christian afterlife. Hope they like singing and gardening!)...The afterlife is full of rules and regulations I can't stomach? No problem, I don't have to go there - and I won't be punished for that choice!
__________

The "rules and regulations" will merely be a function of the prevailing atmosphere of pure unconditional love [PUL], not of stifling legalism.  How can you pre-judge such a blissful state of elevated consciousness that you have never even experienced?  Your secular Fundamentalism lurks behind your comments here.   You are terrified that if you began a legitmate spiritual quest, your old self might be replaced by a more spiritual self.  You would rather be miserable and empty than admit that you just might be wrong.  

[B-man:] "According to Christianity, "God"/Jesus explicitly demands "my way or the highway", right?"
__________________

Wrong!  Consider just 5 New Testament texts that teach the possibility of salvation apart from formal profession of Faith in Christ:
(1) "John said to Him, `Teacher, we saw a man using your name to cast out demons, but we told him to stop because he isn't one of our group.' `Don't stop him!' Jesus said.  `No one who peforms miraclews in my name will soon be able to speak evil of me.'  Anyone who is not against us is for us (Mark 9:38-40).'"
If Jesus' attitude were "my way or the highway" as you suggest, why doesn't he summon this Jewish exorcist for indoctrination?

(2) "Blessed are the poor in Spirit (i.e. the truly humble) ; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3)."
(3) "There will be eternal life for those [non-Christians] who by perseverance in dooiing good seek for glory and honor and immortality (Romans 2:7).
(4) "Sin is not imputed where there is no moral' law (Romans 5:15)."
(5) "God has overlooked the times of ignorance (prior to Christ's arrival--so Paul in Acts 17:30)."

Such texts are consistent with Jesus' reply to atheist Howard Storm during his NDE: "[Storm:] What is thebest religion?  I was expecting the answer to be something like Methodist or Presbyterian or Catholic, or some other denomination. They answered, `The religion that brings you closest to God.'"

Don

You do realize your going by a book right? Everything you "think" jesus said you have gotten from the bible.

Jesus was a regular guy, if he was born in this day an age he would be considered to be someone like Gandi. It is a shame that he had to be born in a time where people attributed everything to acts of god.

The people that wrote the bible needed someone that lived so people could relate to him somehow. Who better to use then Modern day Gandi. You seem to forget that it was pretty much the Religious community at the time that put Jesus to death.

Another thing though somewhat irrelevant, everytime I speak to a pastor or another religious figure and question him about his beliefs they can't hold an argument. They always run back to the bible for help. Basically they just quote the bible. By quoting the bible they are just proving that they get all there "info" from a book.

Kinda disgusting in my opinion.

What i'm trying to say even though you probally know from my previous words is this.
I believe that your religion is bull, I believe they are all bull.

What do you think about Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite, Dionysus and the rest of the greek pantheon?

How about Anubis, Bast, Nephthys, Osiris and certain other Deitys from Egyptian mythology?

We consider this myth now.
We say that these Diety's NEVER existed.

Myth: A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.

We call this myth now. But in that time it was Religion, people would die for these gods, kill for these gods, and had books that in their minds proved the existence of these gods.

See a connection yet?

Every continent had a different religion.

Get it yet? I hope so.

I have seen the effects that NDE's have had on atheists and believers alike.
I have read documented reports on OBE's that blow me away. From skeptical polymaths like myself.
I have spent countless hours researching and reading about the afterlife, Critiquing and learning at the same time.

I believe in the afterlife because I have proof, I have knowledge, Real knowledge, not knowledge from a 2000 year old book that talks of things most commonly found in fairy tales.

Religion spits in the face of science on every page.
Stop quoting scriptures and wake up.

As to the others on this board who have come to know the REAL GOD.
KUDOS TO YOU.

Quote:


All religions need to be chucked. They hold us back from discovering the truth of what we really are and limit our true potential.  Why do you think so many people are caught in the lower focus levels of their hollow heavens and hells. Religion. If we accept that going to heaven to be with god and jesus is all there is for us after this life on earth, we end our quest for the truth and can never unlock our full potential.

[Ra:] "You do realize your going by a book right?"
___________________________________________
Actually no.  I go by my own many paranormal experiences of the supernatural that support the Christian faith.   B-man made claims about a book which warrant responses from that book.  I hate to break this to you, Ra, but most of our knowledge comes from research and experiences reported in books.    

[Ra:] "You seem to forget that it was pretty much the Religious community at the time that put Jesus to death."
____________________________

How typical of New Age hubris to make insulting assumptions about people they don't know!  I have a Harvard doctorate in biblical history.  What are your qualifications for your pompous insults?

[Ra:] "Another thing though somewhat irrelevant, everytime I speak to a pastor or another religious figure and question him about his beliefs they can't hold an argument. They always run back to the bible for help....Kinda disgusting in my opinion."
________

How amusingly arrogant!  I am far more knowledgeable than you in both religion and the evidence for an afterlife and could crush you in any in depth debate.  Care to engage?  You substitute profanity-laced insults for rigorous analysis of the real issues.  In your posts, you get away with this (despite my protest the Poer Moderator) bccause this site has the expected New Age bias and only makes a pretense at maintaining a modicum of civil dialogue.  I have been absent for several months and will soon leave the site again, until another post catches my fancy.   I am amused by the fact that my courteous posts invariably last only a day or do before being pummeled by unchecked insults that violate the site's unreinforced guidlines.

[Ra:] "I believe that your religion is bull, I believe they are all bull."
_________________________________________________________
Your vulgar dismissals only masks your historical and biblical illiteracy.  How do you counter the eyewitness biblical testimony of miracles such as Jesus' resurrection appearances?  The answer is that you don't even know what the grounds for these eyewitness connections are.


[Ra:] "I believe in the afterlife because I have proof, I have knowledge, Real knowledge, not knowledge from a 2000 year old book that talks of things most commonly found in fairy tales."
____________________________

Proof?  You merely have a premature New Age doctrinal system based on flawed and insconsistent inferences drawn from inspiring, but evidentially flawed reports of paranormal experiences.  Over the years, I have demonstrated this here in many threads on afterlife evidence drawn from astral projection,  OBEs, NDEs, and channeling.   I believe in some of these paranormal reports, but none of them amount to anything close to proof.

[Ra:] "Stop quoting scriptures and wake up."
______________________________________

B-man made several misguided claims about historic Christianity that invited a response from Scripture.   If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
It is you who are "asleep" the incredible variety of experiences, ancient and modern, that support the claims of historic Christianity.  

Don

Don, thank you for your wisdom.  And Tim yes what Spirit is this read in - so true.
The Etheric Christ Consciousness is a jewel from God's Throne.  

PUL

Bro your entitled to your beliefs.

I could care less about your "Harvard" credentials.
I have a trained photographic memory, school is based on memory and analysis.

As to your talk of biblical texts being confirmed by history your wrong.
It is confirmed by the bible.

Get off your knees friend. I am a much more polite person in general but when it comes to religion I think I am doing you a courtesy by being blunt.

In all honesty it doesn't matter; you'll know the truth when you die.

O one more thing. Kudos to you for wasting 6 years in college studying religion so you could tell off non-believers like me

I'm going to stop posting on this forum as of today, Looks like most of the people here are the very same I am trying to get away from in society.

Ra,

Leaving today, huh?  So when your vapid arrogance is directly challenged, you cut and run, thus demonstrating your inability to season your penchant for blustering tirades with a pinch of intellectual rigor.  You resort to ad hominem attacks, F-bombs, and other obscenities to mask your limited capabilities.  With your alleged photographic memory, I'd expect a man like you to relish my challenge that you back up your claim that research on NDEs and OBEs PROVES the existence of an afterlife.   You have clamed that no pastor can stand up to you in a debate and I have called your bluff and exposed you as biblically and historically illiterate.  You made claims about the Bible that you cannot begin to back up.  You have read none of the standard scholarly works in the field.   In short, you don't know enough to be intellectually entitled to aN opinion.  So you understandably choose to go whimpering home to Momma rather than embrace my challenge and defend your unwarranted claims.

I eagerly await your "proof' thread.
Don

Yes, Brendan,  but Spitfire proved to be a truthseeker after all.  The higher temperatures inspired him to rise to the challenge.  He began to share his deepest questions and we had a protracted and rewarding dialogue, the best I've ever had on this site.  We are now buddies!

Why won't you read and react to even one book on the afterlife as a basis for dialogue?  Then the game would be transformed from polemic to fellow seekers trying to find hope through evidence of postmortem survival.   Are you willing to admit that you are even open to a spiritual quest, Christian or otherwise?  If so, how are you pursuing such a quest?  If I could be convinced that you had a sincere desire to know, I would be excruciatingly polite in all my communications with you.

Don

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