Copyrighted Logo

css menu by Css3Menu.com


 

Bruce's 5th book, a Home Study Course, is now available.
Books & Tapes by Bruce Moen
    Bruce's Blog now at http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/blog....

  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegister  
 
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 
Send Topic Print
Natalie Sudman gets blown up and laughs about it (Read 67569 times)
Lights of Love
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 881
Re: Natalie Sudman gets blown up and laughs about it
Reply #105 - Oct 14th, 2012 at 2:47pm
 
Hi MA,

Yes, I do think Frank DeMarco is misinterpreting his experience or the information being conveyed to him by "the guys upstairs." 

No other individuated self or selves are created to follow a different path in a parallel world.  For example if I in this life choose to marry Don when I could have chosen Doug does not mean another life is created where Doug and I married and are living a parallel life.  Each of us is a single individualized consciousness. 

Based on my own experience, I don't agree with most of the "many parallel worlds" type of theories that float around in New Age thought.  Yes, other worlds similar to and also very different from ELS exist and these can be visited, even lived in, but these are not parallel worlds created by other choices one could have made or the splitting of individualized consciousness that leads to the creation of one.

All kinds of possibilities or probabilities exist and the only time a probability is actualized is when a choice is made.  The available probabilities can remain in the memory/database of Consciousness and can be followed to see how other choices would have panned out, but no other self or alternate world is created.

Kathy

Back to top
 

Tread softly through life with a tender heart and a gentle, understanding spirit.
 
IP Logged
 
Berserk2
Super Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 844
Gender: male
Re: Natalie Sudman gets blown up and laughs about it
Reply #106 - Oct 14th, 2012 at 5:36pm
 
[Kathy:] If I in this life choose to marry Don when I could have chosen Doug does not mean another life is created where Doug and I married and are living a parallel life. 
______________________

Posing the marriage choice as between my only sibling (Doug) and myself makes me jealous.  OK, I know Doug's a good guy and a doctor with an office at the base of Plke's Peak.  But we never grew out of our sbiling rivalry! Sad

btw. Kathy, Doug recently asked me if I'd be willing to join him in a 3rd world country like Mongolia where Christianity has just begun to make some inroads.  He would provide the free medical care and I would try to serve as a one-man Bible school for wannaba pastors!  This sounds very appealing until the issue of whether I or Doug would be married to you over there is raised!

Don

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
DocM
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2168
Re: Natalie Sudman gets blown up and laughs about it
Reply #107 - Oct 14th, 2012 at 6:16pm
 
I agree with you Kathy.  I think the one thing we carry with us, is what Descartes describe; " I think therefore I am."  There is a certain aspect about our conscious perception that is an eternal "self".   Postulating quadrillions of eternal selves, spun off due to different decisions, sounds interesting - from a certain scifi point of view.  Yet it doesn't seem to gel with what we know in our "gut" to be true.  That we make decisions, see the outcomes and learn, and we are still   the same perceptive mind through and through, even as we evolve. 

I have always spoke out against the notion of fragmenting consciousness.  I am not sure I believe in rescuing aspects of self, as I don't really know that anything can be truly split off from our true "self."  If, by rescuing and aspect of self we say we are addressing a blocked belief or forbidden area of the mind - that is more logical to me. 

I am a monist (as Don has stated), and as such I see our separation from God and the universe as being a self induced exile; one that can be reversed by pursuing a path of spirituality and yes, love.

Mongolia, Don?  Culturally would that not be difficult for you (even if it were a wonderful endeavor and a challenge).  Do either of you speak in the dialect? 

M
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Berserk2
Super Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 844
Gender: male
Re: Natalie Sudman gets blown up and laughs about it
Reply #108 - Oct 14th, 2012 at 7:15pm
 
Matthew,

OK, I admit that my Mongol language skills are rather rusty.  But Doug had interpreters for hjis medical trips there.  btw, the sole church there had a soup kitchen for those made homeless by crop failures near the Gobi Desert. Each winter month, an average 4 of those newly homeless Mongolians died of exposure to the cold in the absence of a social safety network. The rest had their modest homes heated by a long running underground heated water pipe.  The homeless would try to dig down to the pipe to warm themslves, but were arrested if they got caught doing this.

Many New Age claims strike me as false interpretations.  But for me, the more interesting question is how one could even in principle verify claims like these: (1) We can rescue "lost aspects of self"  through retrievals.  (2) Choices not made by us in earth life are in fact made by levels of our consciousness on other planes.  (3) Fictional characters in novels have their own independent existence on spirit planes. Perhaps, a level of the novelist's mind simply dreams or inagines what his characters might have said or experienced instead.  Parhaps a level of mind imagines the consequences of making different choices and these imaginings are lodged somewhere in the unconscious rather than in some etheric plane.  Perhaps so-called lost aspects of self are merely unconscious contacts with the memories of undetected discarnate spirit entities, as Swedenborg claims.

But Matthew, your monist theory deserves more attention because it might be in principle verifiable at some levels.  There is clearly a profound truth behind Jung's evidence for a Collective Unconscious.  It seems likely that our minds are not separate units of consciousness, but interconnected "pockets" of consciousness that can draw on a host of shared mental archtypes.  Parapsychological research has proven that our minds can affect each other, whether or not we are willing partners (see David Fontana's book "Is there an Afterlife?").  And now Ray Moody's latest book demonstrates that family members can co-experience the NDEs of their parting loved ones in a parallel recreation of the room with a totally different geometry.  I wonder if this shared astral experience is possible without some notion of bonded minds in some sort of monistic unity. 

Don      

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
DocM
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2168
Re: Natalie Sudman gets blown up and laughs about it
Reply #109 - Oct 14th, 2012 at 7:57pm
 
Don,

All one has to look at is the objective evidence for the shared consciousness of animal groups and people.  Rupert Sheldrake has written of this, though his experiments were not at all conclusive.  If a group of birds learns to use a tool to feed in one isolated part of the world, and then the same birds on the other side of the world begin to repeat that learned behaviour, it implies a connected animal-consicousness.  There are many instances where one could show the connectedness of people and animals to a group consciousness. 

All my intuition tells me though, that this does not imply that individual consciousness is illusory.  We know, in a fundamental way that we think and perceive.  I think that human beings just lose their connectedness to God and separate themselves out into a dualistic existence - until they return home to God and heaven.  I think that dualism, and the creation of our ego is responsible for much misery in the physical world. 

I would truly go nuts if I had to worry about retrieving lost aspects of self, splitting my consciousness into fragments, or reviewing every possible decision which could have taken my life in a multitude of different directions. 


M
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Berserk2
Super Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 844
Gender: male
Re: Natalie Sudman gets blown up and laughs about it
Reply #110 - Oct 15th, 2012 at 1:02am
 
Matthew,

I would suggest two tantalizing starting points:
(1) Check out Sheldrake's latest book, " Science Set Free," in which he challenged 10 basic tenets of modern science and advocates the new research that is invited when these scientiific dogmas are turned into questions.  For Shledrake's 5 minute summary of these 10 questions see the youtube video on his website:   www.sheldrake.org

(2) His concept of "morphogenetic fields" arises from his research on animals and is potentially an intriguing way of challenging the notion that the mind is encased in the brain; and once the mind is relocated outside the space-time continuum as we know it,  a monistic view of the universe as an expression of universal consciousness seems to arise as a useful working premise.  "Morphogenetic fields" might prove to be another way to express the reality behind Jung's Collective Unconscious.

Don
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BobMoenroe
Ex Member


Re: Natalie Sudman gets blown up and laughs about it
Reply #111 - Oct 15th, 2012 at 1:34am
 
Berserk2,

(1) We are 15 minutes into the meeting and the laptop desktop is still not duplicated and projected on the screen. Sorry about that.  (2) Number 2 is not for me.  (3) This is getting a wee bit fragmented, but soon come.  (4) Joe is in the cup, now let's get this show on the road.  (5) Would you still want to go to Mongolia if putting an aspect of yourself, faith, into the soup wasn't part of the deal?  (6) Impatient 9 in disguise, it will have to wait its turn. Crocodile tears won't help you, number 9.  (7) Faith as an important flavour of the soup, for someone desperate for food - AIDs them, AIDs you?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mogenblue
Senior Member
****
Offline


dutch spirit

Posts: 370
Amsterdam
Gender: male
Re: Natalie Sudman gets blown up and laughs about it
Reply #112 - Oct 15th, 2012 at 2:54am
 
Dr. Bob is juggling his jingle again.
Back to top
 

A View into the Hereafter
Only by serving and loving the life of God, the human being conquers his Universe
WWW  
IP Logged
 
DocM
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2168
Re: Natalie Sudman gets blown up and laughs about it
Reply #113 - Oct 15th, 2012 at 7:00am
 
Bob,

I assume you are asking Don if he would go to Mongolia to help the downtrodden if spreading the Christian faith were not part of the picture?

If Don were only interested in converts, what would he be doing engaging in discussion on this board, talking about New Age stuff which goes against the grain of most standard christian dogma?

I find that my "cup of Joe" is best taken first thing in the morning before I begin to type.  Just saying...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mogenblue
Senior Member
****
Offline


dutch spirit

Posts: 370
Amsterdam
Gender: male
Re: Natalie Sudman gets blown up and laughs about it
Reply #114 - Oct 15th, 2012 at 7:24am
 
Please stay tuned for the next episode of dr. Bobs Online AfterLife Journal when we will hear dr. Bob say:
Back to top
 

A View into the Hereafter
Only by serving and loving the life of God, the human being conquers his Universe
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Lights of Love
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 881
Re: Natalie Sudman gets blown up and laughs about it
Reply #115 - Oct 15th, 2012 at 11:09am
 
ROFL @ Don! Grin 

Thought you might get a kick out of my use of your name, but didn't know you have a brother, Doug.


Quote:
There is a certain aspect about our conscious perception that is an eternal "self". Postulating quadrillions of eternal selves, spun off due to different decisions, sounds interesting - from a certain scifi point of view. Yet it doesn't seem to gel with what we know in our "gut" to be true. That we make decisions, see the outcomes and learn, and we are still the same perceptive mind through and through, even as we evolve.

All my intuition tells me though, that this does not imply that individual consciousness is illusory. We know, in a fundamental way that we think and perceive. I think that human beings just lose their connectedness to God and separate themselves out into a dualistic existence - until they return home to God and heaven. I think that dualism, and the creation of our ego is responsible for much misery in the physical world.


Matthew, nicely stated.  Though I'm not partial to labels, the monistic theory that reality is a unified whole and is grounded in a single basic substance makes sense to me.  I see it as if saying, God is the ground of all being.   And as you and Don mentioned there does seem to be some interesting ideas such as Sheldrake's work (something I've followed for years) coming into focus now.  If we think of consciousness as streams of information that is interconnected and can intersect where new ideas or enhanced learning results, this presents a clearer picture I think.

For me there needs to be purpose or usefulness built into any theory and that's why I'd add that we don't just lose our connection to God and separate ourselves into a dualistic existence by accident or that this occurs as a result of chaos within consciousness as some theorists pose, but that this has been done intentionally as consciousness interacting with itself as a way to learn, grow and evolve not only our own inner being towards love, but that of the whole of consciousness and thereby it's substance or being.

K
Back to top
 

Tread softly through life with a tender heart and a gentle, understanding spirit.
 
IP Logged
 
BobMoenroe
Ex Member


Re: Natalie Sudman gets blown up and laughs about it
Reply #116 - Oct 15th, 2012 at 12:13pm
 
Matthew,

You are so sweet. I hope the difficult questions wrapped in weird does not make you stray from your favourite topic, words about how important love is. Smiley It really is a kind advice to have the coffee before starting to type. Thank you very much. When really thinking about it, I'm sure it does not matter if people are well fed and living in houses to hear the word, and that it does not matter how the medicine is coated.

Frits,

Just because you can not see something does not mean it is not there. Touché and well played, sir. Matthew is the doctor btw.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
a channel
Ex Member


Re: Natalie Sudman gets blown up and laughs about it
Reply #117 - Oct 15th, 2012 at 12:45pm
 
Quote:
I think it is irresponsible for someone to make grandiose statements about what the future will hold for millions of other people, especially statements with specific negative implications.

It is kind of like a very religious person threatening another person with hell if that person does something considered "sinful".

I consider it a kind of fearmongering, and no different from what we are often offered by commercial sources of information which are lining their pockets with their sensationalism and innuendo.

Perhaps some people have come back from NDEs and given some correct information about the future at times.

But how that information is often used is suspect to me.

It is like someone waving a picture of a rotten lung to a smoker and demanding that they stop what was for eons a socially accepted and encouraged practice. How likely is it that the smoker will immediately drop the cigarette and declare that clean living is the answer to all of their problems?

Not likely. More likely is that the person has a completely individual road ahead of them (That person may live to be 95 and die of unrelated causes. That person may find other pastimes which are just as pleasurable. That person may find themselves in an environment where smoking is not allowed and so quit. That person may be treated for chemical dependency and become equally hooked on another substance. That person may wake up one day and say, eh, I just don't want to do this anymore.).

So, to use predictions such as "a solar flare is going to wipe you out" or "terrible earth upheavals are imminent" etc. etc. etc. -- go get stocked up on food and ammunition is what a lot of people hear when they listen to such statements. And a lot of people just stop caring at all -- it seems useless to them to care, better to laugh it all off -- or they get depressed instead.

Better to focus on this day, what we can do on this day, and very little else.

Better to tend to the sick, feed the hungry, comfort the sorrowful, attend to the needs of those nearby. If we all did this without threatening others with some kind of misery it would indeed be a kinder world.

I don't know what the purpose of this plane is, or what the "future" is for each individual. It is apparent to me that we each have our own particular destiny which ultimately leads to love, no matter what happens along the way. Of course, that is only my opinion.

In a chaotic world, our small actions and thoughts can make a difference, but there are many variables, and we simply don't know everything, not about today, not about tomorrow, not yet.


  I can understand the above perspective and interpretation Isee.  I guess it really IS a matter of individual perspective, because to me, it is highly irresponsible for someone somewhat in the public eye to tell people that these changes and shifts do not belong to physicality... when clearly if one actually looks at the probable future probability streams it does very much involve the physical as well and in challenging ways. 

   From Bob Monroe's log of experiences: In his 3rd book, Ultimate Journey, Bob relates his experience of meeting a deathless, ageless, sleepless, non eating and sleeping human whom he calls He/She.  He hints that He/She is already well known in some way and is originally more occidental in origin, and is at least some 1800 years old from our human perspective. 

  They have an interesting conversation about a "shift" like subject, and He/She talks about a plan to positively change and unify humanity that won't involve any "isms", military force, political system, etc. but instead recognized and shared world wide necessity. 

Bob says to He/She (from memory, hence no ""), *But recognized necessity is severe stuff, the world would have to be in pretty rough shape*

  He/She confirms Bob's astute observation and replies simply and briefly, *That's why the waiting, the time WILL come.* 

  Was Bob and He/She fear mongerer's, or perhaps did they feel that people needed a heads up about these collectively challenging events? 

  These may be just words on pages for most people, but my guidance has in many ways confirmed the truth of Bob's account and info contained within. 

And it's because guidance knows i can well  handle both this information personally and the criticism and attacks of those with less insight and knowledge, and they know that i will speak up because i do care, do they tell me so that i can relay some of this information as well. 

  Bruce Moen related some information relating to the changes and to many transitioning in the future.  Do you call and label him a fear monger as well?  Conveniently, you do not. 

   See, Isee, i do see and i know you and who you are and know that you have emotional resentment towards me, not even half recognized by self and mostly unconscious, but still lingering from past interactions under different names and to some extent your negative labeling of me stems from such, though you did so subtly and indirectly for that is your usual Watery way.  Doesn't change the way i feel about you though, still accept and care about you though i disagree at times. 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
isee
Ex Member


Re: Natalie Sudman gets blown up and laughs about it
Reply #118 - Oct 15th, 2012 at 3:03pm
 
Thank you for your kind reply, channel of your own spirit and your own beliefs... : )

No, I don't label Mr. Moen a fearmongerer. He has written his books and he goes about his business of helping others contact the world of the spirit. He graciously allows all of us to discuss and argue our way through years of speculation on the nature of beliefs/truth/reality/and whathaveyou. And he doesn't impose his own experiences or beliefs on us by repeating what we can easily find in his books and discuss among ourselves.

But, yes, I have little patience for the "doom and gloom" crowd at this junction. Must be said. Over and out.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lucy
Super Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1158
C1
Re: Natalie Sudman gets blown up and laughs about it
Reply #119 - Oct 16th, 2012 at 2:29am
 
"The Unexplained" ran the episodes filmed at TMI last Sat. They are posted. Since they don't seem to leave them up very long, a week or two, if you are interested, now might be a good time to watch. I don't have cable and reply on the internet versions.

The shows have a lot of Bob Monroe because he founded it and there is a lot of recording of him and they have a lot of Penny, Bob's step daughter who is now a facilitator there.

There are great shots of the physical place, a peek for those of us who have not been there physically.

The Part 2 has a lot of Natalie Sudman. I was a little dismayed because there were other participants!!!! but I think they chose her because they got a great confirmation from one of her retrievals., which was the grand finale. In fact, this episode has more closure, in my opinion, than any other episode on "The Unexplained" has to date. It is interesting and fits in with this thread.

There is also a cameo appearance by Eben (see other thread!) though he didn't wear his Harvard bow tie. I don't understand the people who put the episodes together but that's OK this is still interesting for the follow-up they get for Natalie's retrieval(s). Guess they didn't feel the other footage they must have shot was as interesting. There were a couple of other people who got names and dates but maybe they weren't able to get follow-up from them. They got really good follow-up from Natalie's retrievals.

http://www.biography.com/tv/the-unexplained
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 
Send Topic Print


This is a Peer Moderated Forum. You can report Posting Guideline violations.