EternalEssence
|
""The above mainly sprouted when I spoke of near death experiences. I have yet to read and NDE where a person was told, "Jesus Christ doesn't have anything to do with divine reality" in some shape or form. The experiences of people who have experienced Christ in some way, don't get negated by the lack of such an experience by people who don't experience his presence. To suggest that their lack of experience of Christ negates the experiences of those who have experienced Christ, is equivalent to saying this forum doesn't exist because some people haven't experienced it. Well, it's nice to know that possiblity exists since though you may not have read it, it doesn't necessarily invalidate it. Also, you seem to negate those having NDEs that had no Christ connections. As to the odd comment about the existence of this forum -- well, that's a stretch. To those who haven't experienced it, it doesn't exist in their reality, does it? It serves its purpose to those here, who DO experience it, because of the purpose that brought them here -- which, surprisingly is diverse and may have had nothing to do with NDEs or Christ. I write what I write so that anybody who just might have an inkling to find out what Christ is about on their own, might be inspired to do so. The reason I write about it on this thread, is because "YOU" made the suggestion that my experiences are nothing but belief system based hallucinations. Going by your additional posts this is what you had in mind. You make more assumptions, and then throw in words like hallucinations. Anyone reading the thread, as the person above has reported, notes that what you perceive to be denouncement is nothing of the sort. But your belief systems DO color your experiences, as your responses have thus far proven. Sorry, if that is hard to take. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ "Hi Recoverer, i don't see E.E. necessarily invalidating or denouncing Christ, or his place in the grand scheme of things here." What is most important it seems is this concept of invalidation. As it was pointed out in a previous post, only the person having the experience can invalidate it. It is as real to them as anything; however, being real to one person with all of its coloration does not invalidate the experience of another whose experience does not reflect a belief system of the first person who had the experience. "Even if she/he was, well that's her/his prerogative, just as its fine if we disagree with that. Hopefully we all can do it in a civil and less personal manner overall."Supports point above. Hi E.E., i don't understand some of your retorts to Recoverer, particularly about the pointlessness of debating ones beliefs, perceptions, etc., with others, when it seems you are the one who directly responded to one of his posts to begin with on this thread, and seemingly tried to tell him how he should be or believe. You contradict yourself and some of your other statements." Honestly? recoverer is free to BELIEVE in whatever he wants. However, he is going to have to accept the fact that his BELIEFS are his and though shared by some, it does not invalidate the reality that others have different BELIEFS that are just as valid as his claims and experiences, regardless of how he feels about them. He is free to disagree, as he often does. I applaud disagreement because it offers a chance to discuss, as does contradictions, which forces you to think beyond the confines of your experiences. It is never pointless to seek the most knowledge one can gain. As has been stated in previous posts, I have said do not limit yourself, which I believe has been stated by others. I see no difference between you telling Albert (or i) what's up with reality, truth, and his lack of understanding of same, and him telling you his truth, and suggesting that you lack understanding. No difference at all, except that Recoverer is not preaching one thing, and doing another, whereas you seem to be. It was similar with you responding to my replies, and that's why i used the ironic phrase earlier. Do you not see the inconsistency and contradiction here?Ah, and herein lies the the thrust of it: him telling...his truth. First, reality is open to interpretation. I do realize that ALBERTS EXPERIENCES are ALBERT'S truth. I do not take his truth from him. BUT his truth does not entitle him to basically take another's truth from THEM. I am sure that at the core, he has something that states: this is the way it is. Fine. Let him. Let anyone. Free will and the creative spirit. I like him no less and no more because of it. It simply is the way it is. If he changes, he must do it based on his reasons. If he does not like my responses...well, honestly, I don't care. Because he doesn't agree or like something does not make it untrue to anyone but those who align themselves with similar experiences and beliefs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ To me, there is a world of difference (yet also a subtle one) between contradiction (especially as applied to human nature and living in the physical) and paradox (especially as applying to Archetypal creation patterns). Paradox can be indicative of truth, just as yin/feminine--yang/masculine both being equally important and valid energies/realities/perspectives, and yet quite different and the simultaneous existence or truth of both being paradoxical seeming. Similar with the equally true, objective truths of oneness and individuality/uniqueness--these and the law of energy resonation apply to everyone. And everyone resonates differently. Yet, contradiction in other areas oft points to relative degrees of untruth. There is probably a good reason why Bob Monroe, Bruce Moen, and Cayce's sources placed a certain amount of emphasis on practical, more materially obvious verifications relating to nonphysical info. Simple truth is that some psychic sources, have been more repeatedly verified in that more holistic way which also considers the physical and not just the mental and spiritual belief systems. These also seem to contain less contradictions than some other psychic sources. One has to also factor into this equation the varying influences and the degree of those influences (internal and external) that led to them having these experiences. Bruce, for instances, found knowledge in Carlos Castenada. Does that invalidate him because some consider Castenda a hoax? What of those that do not? If he had not, would he have found what he did? Bruce was a graduate of TMI. What influence did that play (well, those of us here experience that to a degree). Do those of us graduating from TMI experience the same thing? No. In the same way? No. Neptune and the right brain says, believe in whatever you feel to be true, let only the heart and your feelings lead you. Mercury and the left brain says wait, some beliefs are inherently and universally constructive or destructive, better discriminate mentally, logically, and practically as well as feel. When these merge completely then the Sun it all its glory shines forth. How many are shining forth only the Sun, and who have merged these completely? If you go with one over the other, than you are only perceiving half truths and your perception will be distorted as judged individually, and from the perspective of the ultimate, the One. This is a beautiful philosophy. Being the astrologer you are, I am certain it means something important to you based on what I read here. E.
|