I dislike using the term "heaven" at all, simply because it implies certain concepts about the afterlife to most people which are false. 

It is important to understand there is no one place we go after death to stay for eternity.  Rather, there are an infinite amount of "places" (dimensions) to explore within our consciousness, as it is ever expanding, and so we are constantly progressing through these infinite levels of existence. 

Our consciousness is currently in need of the learning and experience of rather basic truths. As we learn these truths and move on to explore more of our greater inner reality, (which is what happens when we leave the earth experience system for example) , we enter more advance systems capable of a greater expression and experience of consciousness. 

PUL is in the equation, of course.  The more we learn to truly know ourselves(which is what happens throughout the entirety of our infinite existence, as we are always experiencing ourselves and simultaneously growing and expanding into more of what we were), the more we move towards PUL, for they go hand in hand. 

The problem with looking only to NDE reports for personal answers regarding the reality of "heaven" is that the individuals are only able to explore the porch, they haven't even entered the house of "heaven" yet... and did I mention that this house is infinite in size and has an infinite number of rooms to experience...and that these rooms increase in all ways as you progress through them... and that this "infinitly-sized house" you are in is really the totality of yourself, which is essentially The One, Source.

Bets wrote: "Harvey--there was a play about Harvey, 'a large transparent hare; you couldn't see him anywhere.' --Is he your avatar?  "

Recoverer responds: Perhaps Harvey believes that having a difference of opinion is censorship. Perhaps it is censorship to suggest that a person can't have a difference of opinion. If people don't want to have their statements contradicted, perhaps they shouldn't post them on the internet. Why do some people believe that free speech applies only to the first person to make a statement?

What if some people wanted a kid to eat an ice cream cone? Would they have to threaten this kid with being thrown into a tub of boiling water in order to get this kid to eat the cone, or will the kid be more than happy to do so simply because he or she knows that ice cream tastes good?

Since Jesus spoke about how knowledge, happiness, beauty, peace and love can be found, would it be necessary for him to scare people in the way fundamentalists try to scare people?

Perhaps people who came after Jesus tried to make it seem like you better believe in him or else, because this was their way of controlling people. Perhaps it is more of a matter of trusting what he says. Certainly a wise and loving God would understand that Souls will find him in many ways.    

Greetings,

I'm wonderring that since the Earth has its own Lucifer angel, maybe it also has its own best Messiah---? 

Maybe there's something lacking in humans' souls that is best taken care of by attitudes that result from what JC advocated.

I'm just wonderring.....

Bets

Betson:

The Book of Isaiah was written somewhere around 600 to 800 B.C. It spoke of a fallen king of Babylonia, a physical person. About a ""THOUSAND YEARS"" later fallen angel language was added, and this supposed fallen angel was given the name of Lucifer. I've noticed that different new age sources speak of Lucifer in differing ways.  Perhaps this is because these sources haven't got a clue as to the history of Lucifer. Perhaps this says something about the credibility of these sources. This doesn't mean that such sources don't have anything to say. It depends upon how a particular source represents itself. If a source claims to come from a being who really knows what's going on, somebody might ask this source how it got the Lucifer thing so wrong.


betson wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2008 at 4:30pm:

Betson:

The only part of the Bible other than the book of Isaiah which speaks of something akin to a fallen angel is the book of Revelations, when it speaks of a seven headed dragon that fell from heaven, swept its tail, and took a third of angels with it.

The language in the Book of Revelations is highly symbolic. It is a letter from John (not John the Baptist) to the Christians of the day that were having a lot of problems with Romans. The seven heads probably refer to seven hills in Rome. 

-Even if an angel who was created by God and abided in the glory of heaven could fall, would this angel be allowed to sweep its tail and take a third of angels with it?

-Even if it did, wouldn't these swept angels on their own volition return to heaven?

-Wouldn't any angel be wise enough to know that God is infinite in nature and that there is no way a limited angel, no matter how large it is, could take on the infinitude of God?

Some people might say free will would enable an angel to fall, but having a free will doesn't mean you have to act in the most stupid manner possible.  I figure humans turn away from God and love, because there are various negative influences this World includes, including our self defense instinct. The same instinct that causes a neighborhood dog to bark at everybody who passes by. What negative influences would an angel be exposed to?

Some people claim that jealousy of God would prompt an angel to fall. Jealousy of what? Power? Power is something beings crave when they become concerned about how to find things such as security, happiness, peace and love. Would an angel who abides in heaven have a problem finding such things? Would an angel who knows about oneness be competive with others.

Going by my experiences divine love feels so wonderful and humbling, there is no way an angel who is exposed to divine love would want to fall.

If angels can fall, then what would prevent any spirit who makes its way to heaven from falling? Isn't abidance in heaven supposed to be an eternal reality?

When it comes to the boogie men/spirits of the World, perhaps it is best to consider the spirits of humans who lived their lives in a negative way, and perhaps alien beings who are unfriendly for whatever reason, rather than a fallen angel.

I believe the odds are very high that new age sources which speak of fallen angels,  got the idea from an inaccurate understanding of the history behind fallen angel talk within the Bible.  Some sources adhere to the concept that this World is a big mistake, not the result of divine will, and blame it's creation on Lucifer, even though a being named Lucifer didn't intially exist within the Bible, and even though Lucifer isn't spoken of as creator of this World, after the name "Lucifer" was added.  I suppose such sources get away with such misinformation because many people, even though they've heard of the name Lucifer, don't know the history behind the name.






 


betson wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2008 at 5:01pm:

Hawkeye:

If we lived in an Islamic country, we probably wouldn't get away with having a conversation like this.

Have you ever read the words of Mohammed? As I stated earlier, I haven't. Perhaps if each of us did so we would find that the words attributed to Jesus are more positive than the words attributed to Mohammed.

It is also a matter of which former person exists as a light being who can help people. Going by a number of messages and experiences I've had, Jesus is a light being who can help people. I haven't received any messages or had any experiences that involved Mohammed. It seems like the NDEs Don spoke of go along with some of the things I found out.

I believe it is possible that this World will evolve beyond the need of dogmatic belief systems.  Perhaps it is unrealistic to hope that such an evolution will occur in one big swoop.  It will need to take place in increments. Some belief systems are more dogmatic than other belief systems. This isn't a prejudicial statement. It is a statement of fact. Therefore, isn't it possible that some people will need to be brought along in stages, rather big leaps?

There is also the factor of how a person who was really into some form of fundamentalism, just might not be open to having an NDE that is too far to the other extreme. Therefore, they are presented with a light being who actually exists, and also has a historical connection to what they believe.  If they had an NDE with Mohammed, they might have a hard time disassociating him from ways of thinking such as the 72 virgin thing.

There is also the factor of who Islamic people who have NDEs communicate with. If they try to tell other Islamic people about an experience with no historical connection to what other Islamic people believe,  these other people might not listen to them. If they speak of a being other Islamic people know about, Jesus, the people they speak to will be more accepting of what they have to say. They might go from believing in a man who told people if you go out and kill people you'll be rewarded with 72 virgins, to a man who tells people to love your neighbor as yourself, including people you consider to be enemies. Kill vs. Love. Quite a difference. Perhaps we should have more faith with how the light helps people have NDEs. Perhaps they know what they are doing.

I believe it is unfair to equate Jesus with the fundamentalists who have misrepresented him in various ways.



hawkeye wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2008 at 5:38pm:

Hawkeye:

Even if Mohammed was misrepresented by the Koran, a lot of people would be inclined to believe that the Koran does represent him, so they might believe it is divine will to go kill people and that they'll be rewarded with 72 virgins.  The below article talks about how domestic violence is sanctioned by the Koran with his words and example.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020060.php