Crossbow:

I meant Don and Roger more than you.  After not having posted for a while they both started posting at the same time with posts that support the Christian viewpoint.

Considering the history, I don't believe it is a stretch for me to believe that Don tries to get people to see and accept the Christian viewpoint. Roger seems to support him to some degree.

You also started posting again at the same time with Christian favorable posts, so perhaps it isn't too much of a stretch for one to think that you might be supporting Don's (and maybe Roger's) recent attempts. I believe it is possible that other people have come to the same conclusion.

I believe it is fine for people to share their Christian viewpoints, but trying to convert people to some degree is touchy territory. I believe that people can find out what Jesus has to offer without becoming a "Christian" of some sort. The Oneness he is a part of is beyond any one religion.

Regarding my being over touchy, believe me, I haven't lost any sleep over this. I do get annoyed a bit when people try to pigeon hole Jesus' Christ Consciousness to one religion. This consciousness is revealed in so many places, it does seem a bit off to suggest that "ONLY" the New Testament speaks of it.

Regarding what Don just said, one conclusion about the afterlife that I feel confident about is that it exists.

I'm okay with not knowing all of the precise details at this time.

I believe it is safe to say that to some degree the "as you sow so you reap" principle applies. If you plant good seeds, you should be okay.

Since prehistoric times,countless models and beliefs about the afterlife have evolved.  Why should any of these be taken more seriously than as evidence of superstition and myth-making fueled by  fearful imagination and wishful thinking?  Why should any of this signal more than the history of cultural diversity?

Prior to the 19th century, channeling was generally thought to put people in touch with gods and demons, not with discarnate humans.  How do we know the earlier perspective is wrong?

The first literary evidence for soul retrievals surfaces in the earliest Christian writings of the first 2 centuries AD. But shamanism practices soul retrievals today and no doubt did in the murky past as well.  So attempts by New Agers to perform retrievals is commendable, but needs to be understood in the wider context of other conflicting overviews.   Here it will not suffice to claim confirmation  by direct experience.  That card is played by most religious groups (e. g. Mormonism) and has proven a poor basis for shared knowledge claims.

What is needed is a comprehensible system of empirical verification with the potential for replication.  As an aggregate, the innumerable afterlife claims are contradictory.  Therefore, most must be wrong.  But are any of them right?  On what basis, can that question be answered in a way that advances global knowledge in an unbiased way?  One truth is obvious: a myopic New Age worldview needs to be informed by alternative perspectives on the same type of consciousness or methods. Prickly hissyfits from New Agers in the face of frequent awesome verifications of Christian NDEs must not be dismissed as proselytizing by New Agers ill-equipped for a well-informed response. 

Christians are impressed by the many atheists, Muslims, etc. who are converted by seeing Jesus in an NDE or vision.  But Christians want to suspend judgment about the full implications until they get a fuller picture of the diversity and patterns of NDEs in other cultures and religions.  If an all-encompassing theory is not possible to explain this, then perhaps the best explanation is a series of illusions created by human need and wishful thinking.  But New Agers seem to be the new fundamentalists who pontificate to cover up their fear of honest doubt and the corrective methods such doubt requires.  I mean, just listen to the self-assured New Agers who dominate George Norry's Coast to Coast.   Insinuations that Christians must be lying if their NDEs make Mew Agers feel comfortable is the height of a Ghetto mentality--and it is this insinuation that has triggered these counter-reaction, as unpleasant as that insight must to New Age dogmatists.  "But I am no such dogmatist!!" you protest.  Then show that by demonstrating the interdisciplinary scope of your research. 
And then, explain why astral research has been unable to find an evolving and often replicated consensus about the afterlife territories, the key players, and  the principles that govern the afterlife.   

Justin,

You pontificate about Jesus' soul Disk without evidence.  In first century Judaism, there is no evidence of Jewish belief in reincarnation.  More importantly, your post is irrelevant to the thread.  Jesus never taught that all non-Christians are damned; and Christ-centered NDEs do not imply exclusivism.  For example, when Howard Storm asks his NDE Jesus what is the true religion, Jesus replies, "The one that leads to a relationship with God."

1796 is clearly here to learn about afterlife exploration and to share his perspectives.  Why should his admission that he is a Christian be presumed to imply an unwanted agenda.  That insinuation is just a projection from the New Age Ghetto's myopic axe that it wants to grind. 

Why should New Agers be concerned that Eben Alexander confesses to being a Christian when pointedly asked about this?  And why are they shocked that he makes little mention of this in his books?  I have a doctorate in religion.  If I wanted to proselytize or correct misconceptions about Jesus and the Bible so often carelessly expressed on this site, I would open a series of threads on this subject in  the Religions and Their Beliefs section of this site. 

  I've had experiences verifying for me that the Disk concept is real, i've also had experiences and messages suggesting that occasionally, a Disk member whose already lived an in physical life will jump back into the fray.  This, "direct reincarnation" for whatever reason, seems to be (much?) more rare though. 

   So, if i know this Disk concept is true for myself, and others, why wouldn't it apply to Jesus too? 

    One of the first messages i've received about the Disk concept, was a dream where i was in a classroom with Bruce Moen speaking.  As he was speaking, his face morphed temporarily into Bob Monroe, and then back again to his face.

  I had this dream because i was new to the concept of Disks and was strongly wondering about the veracity of same after reading one of Bruce's books, and it was a way for my expanded self to tell me that it's true, and indirectly maybe to tell me that Bruce's claim about being part of the same Disk as Monroe's is also true.  But the first part was more the message for me.   

  I've had jaw dropping experiences verifying for me that there is such a thing as karma and other lives.  I've outlined some of this here, the most powerful one which was the powerful synchronicity/correlation verification with a friend whose husband died shortly after we became friends (something that seemed destined almost).   

  My sense, is that you have such strong beliefs about this topic, that i wouldn't be surprised that if Jesus manifested in front of you one day, and said "Don, the Disk concept, karma,  and reincarnation, well, it's is all true." that you might argue with him about it.  Or, you might convince yourself that it wasn't Jesus, but a demon come to deceive you. 

  Even Crossbow whom is a self labeled  Christian, also believes and i assume has had experiences about other lives and karma.

  It's not that important for you to believe likewise, and so i doubt any of the above will be happening anytime soon.  What's most important in this life, bar none, universally speaking, is people knowing about agape, Universal Love and how important it is to choose, live, and open up to same. But, if you happen to have a NDE or the like, and come face to face with him, don't miss the opportunity to shatter your crystallized belief systems. 

  One of the potential signs or indications of progressing spiritually in this life, besides becoming ever a more positive, loving, strong, centered person, is the evolution of belief systems to more and more expanded. 

  Chances are, if one has been holding very similar beliefs and perceptions for many years, that haven't change or evolved much, then there is a likely hood that one is not progressing as much as one might like to think.  Or in other terms, beliefs are like rules, meant to be broken occasionally. 

   It's only when you become fully like Jesus yourself, that you may reach the pinnacle of pure perception and understanding about the true nature of both the larger and smaller realities. 

   I know i haven't yet, and i doubt any posting here have either, so it might be a good idea to keep an open mind because very likely we all here have some erroneous beliefs and perceptions somewhere or sometime. 

When we understand that we have freewill, then we realise that our freewill governs what goes out from our self and what we let into our self. In other words, freewill governs not only what we do and say, but also what we listen to and accept. 

People who have realised their freewill don't feel like their freedom is somehow being threatened by other people's words. They know they have their own freewill and they are secure in themselves. They listen to reason and conscience, and what they are not interested in they just let slip by.

Then there are people who cry that they are somehow having their freedom to be their self taken away from them by someone else having made a statement they don't like. There are many such people in the "new age astral travel anti-Christian I'm-a-humanitarian spiritual-but-not-religious" movements who especially like to claim their freedom is being impinged upon when they hear or read someone making a statement about the fullness of Christianity. Of course, no one who has no structured authority over someone can effect their freedom to be their self just by saying or writing something. To claim that they can is quite immature really. Those who respond to another's statements about Christianity by saying they are not being allowed the freedom to be their self are just displaying a tantrum and faking being offended as an attempt to silence others. I would encourage them to wake up to their self, to grow into their own freewill and accountability for their self and to stop attributing control of their self to others.   

Personally, I credit people with having their own freewill. They can take or leave what I or anyone else says. My crediting people with having their own freewill means that I often credit people with more freewill and responsibility for themselves than they are willing to accept themselves.

I am not the least interested in converting anyone to Christianity, not that my saying so means anything to those who want to keep saying that Christians are trying to convert others every time they mention their faith. But really such people know they cannot be converted and that I am not trying to convert them or take away their self determination, and they are not really offended either, they just don't like me mentioning it. They are the ones against freedom of speech, not me.

I have noticed that people are often very wide eyed and interested when I speak what I have learnt from my own experience about the workings of the human mechanism and its energies, the dynamics of the subtle bodies and centres, the stations of consciousness and levels of the soul, the techniques and mechanics of leaving the body, the layout of the astral planes and the greater dimensions, past lives and how to remember them, second sight and how to exercise it, the Earth school system and how it works, but as soon as I mention that I am Christian they cringe, take offense and display internal pain and disappointment. And if I offer to tell them how it is that a Christian has learnt such things then they turn off and turn away. They don't want to learn such things from a Christian. It is not truth they want, but an alternative to truth, and their problem is there isn't one. Truth is all there is. 

As with achieving anything, achieving spirituality requires discipline, and religion is spiritual discipline. So an appropriate religion is beneficial for spiritual achievement.

Personally I think people are generally best to keep with the religion they are born and bred into. They may wish to extend or adjust their understanding of that religion, and add to it from other religions or streams of thought, but I don't think changing religions is generally a good idea unless the individual is genuinely moved to do so, which is rare.       

Irrespective of whether or not one is born and educated into a religion we have the lights of conscience and reason inside our self. These lights can be familiarised with, exercised and brightened, and used to guide one's life. Reason and conscience together is what makes our best judgement.

Everyone seeks innerpeace, therefore let your conscience be your guide, for within your conscience you hear the voice of your true self, and there is no finer peace than to be at peace with your self.

cross†bow

recoverer wrote on Feb 13^th, 2015 at 1:19pm:


Naturally. Everything is multisided, and particularly double sided. The stick of knowledge is double ended; to extend one end extends the other. It is impossible to teach something good without making visible that by the opposite concept and application we reveal and teach something bad at the same time. Opposites go together. If we teach good manners, then we teach and reveal bad manners too. If we teach self defence, then we also reveal and therefore teach how to attack someone in a way they cannot defend. If we teach home security, then we also teach illicit entry. If we teach honesty, then we also teach deception. If we teach how to love, then we reveal how to hate. A person will make use of any teaching according to the nature of their own heart. The more of truth and goodness that is taught, then the more potential is given to both the good hearted and the bad hearted.

Each of the main religions emphasise a particular virtue, understanding, or tonic cord, upon which the rest of the religion's teachings are built. Here are some base teachings, each of a particular religion: devotion, composure, courage, oneness and harmony, oneness and right and wrong, love and forgiveness. Every religion, like every teaching, like every character trait of individuals and nations, is double sided, has a beneficial and detrimental application. That is just reality imposing itself onto man.

cb
         
Here is the link to the blog site.   https://lacecurtain.wordpress.com/

recoverer wrote on Feb 16^th, 2015 at 3:27pm:

You're welcome, and so are others. The blog is underdone. The amount of information yet to be put on there is rather daunting.