Alan, the war happened. Hitler was not the sole responsible Nazi. The war ended and the encyclopaedia of WWII suffering also contains pages with that of German civilians. Churchill quotes foaming (the English way) with hatred are a few posts back in this thread.

When you meet your maker, if interested and as a side note to your hopefully wonderful conversations, ask if you can be shown and get to know the truth about WWII, starting with an overview and progress into smaller and smaller details. If you dare, make a request to experience every German civilian life from their points of view when they were affected by the efforts of those who opposed the Axis powers to win the war. This is but one detail in the big picture, but an important detail to explore if the notion is that Allied actions were absolutely good/the krauts had it coming. Who else better to explore the truth with than with your maker.

  So many tempests in teacups, it's hard to keep track of them all.


Quote:


   Since you asked Alan--i use his original name or the one that is much closer to his original name for a few reasons.  One reason, well, i'll give you an example.  If you were given the name Alan at birth, and you go to a foreign country, would you prefer to be called Alan or say their equivalent of your name?  Personally, i would prefer to be called Justin wherever i go, as that's the name i was born with and am use to.  It's really not that important though, from this angle.

    Two, my "disk", Spirit, or whatever you prefer to call it, had a lifetime (actually, maybe a couple) during Yeshua's time and knew and called him by that name. (insert diatribe here about how past lives are rubbish, etc).

   I prefer to call my friend, by his given name, even though now i'm in a different time and culture.  That's how those selves were introduced to him and knew him. 

    But above all and the reason why i most prefer to call Jesus by his given original name, is that the name Jesus indirectly represents a lot that is negative about the development of Christianity.  It was originally a Jewish/Hebrew movement that got violently co-opted by the Romans.  The Romans referred to him by the Greek translation of his name, Iesous, which later became our english "Jesus". 

  Since i really dislike the Roman "intervention" in this movement, and how much they twisted, distorted, and tried to turn it into something it's not (and they were pretty successful all in all through what became the Catholic Empire), calling Jesus by his given, original name and not his Greco-Roman influenced name is my own little personal rebellion to this development and influence on the legacy of my Teacher's life, example, and teachings.  And an influence that sadly continues to this day.   

  Besides, i have a penchant for accuracy in general. It has nothing to do with being or appearing different despite some folks projections.  That such folks claim to know the heart (motivations and intentions) of others, when they tend to poo poo psychism and any kind of practice of these capabilities seems a bit ironic and definitely hypocritical.  Also, even if one believes in the above, and thinks it's ok or well to practice such things, most whom do, will tell you that knowing the heart of others in only an accurate way always, is one of the hardest things to do.  You have become like, or at least close to being like, Yeshua to do so.  Few humans there are that are even close in this life. 

   Anyways, regarding names, i also recognize that at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what you label him or not.  I don't think he cares and i don't think it's all that important if others call him Jesus or Yeshua, which is why i never have and never will ask others to call him by the latter name though i do.

   Why do you care what i call him?  Is it somehow directly affecting your life in some way? 

   Btw, i usually put (Jesus) right next to Yeshua at some point in my posts to make plain who and what i'm talking about.  A reference point for those who may not know.

   According to the logic of only ever using words that all or most others know, then this would preclude, apparently, ever using more advanced vocabulary. 

   Well, then my speech and writing would become like Donald Trump's, and i just don't want to go there...       Perhaps Rondele is content with sounding like a loud Trump, but i'm not.   

  Personally, i think exposing people to different, unfamiliar or new concepts, ideas, words, etc helps to stretch their minds and keep them flexible and active, which is important for learning and maintaining perceptive capabilities. 

1796 wrote on Apr 9^th, 2016 at 12:29am:

  There are three main types of people when it comes to conflict. There are some who shy away from all or most conflict--usually these are sensitive souls and/or personalities that are polarized to the Yin/feminine side of consciousness. Some are spiritually mature and many aren't that spiritually mature.

  There are those that don't like conflict, but understand that sometimes conflict is helpful and necessary, and will engage in it in selective ways.  These are usually more balanced within as to the Yin-Yang, and tend to be unusually mature Souls in the human experience. 

   Then there are those that like and thrive on conflict, and seem to need conflict and drama and if they can't find it, they try to create it.  These lack harmony and attunement to PUL within, and/or often are over polarized to the Yang/masculine within. 

   It's easy enough to see which people fall into which general categories.  Generally speaking, it's probably best to not engage the latter most of the time.  It's like not giving a bratty, aggressive child a lollipop or attention when he screams he wants another one now. 

I suppose I may fall into the category of a person with "new age" beliefs, though they incorporate aspects of the judeo-christian ethos, buddhism, taoism, and other sources.  I don't believe in aliens controlling politicians ; I think most politicians are of a low enough level of spirituality that they create their own karma. 

Most people who believe in a love based spirituality are not waiting for an apocalyptic wave of destruction to remove one or more groups of people.  That is absurd.

It is funny, that many on the board can't stick to discussing or arguing about the topics, and resort to put downs, stereotyping and in that way being dismissive of others.  That is a display of ego, and it looks ugly. 

M

Well, in the case of Mr. Moen, he offered over a year ago to participate in a partnered exploration with members of the forum. No one responded online. So, people can talk and bluster all they want. But, it is only first hand experience with this kind of exploration which can convince you that there is truth in it which is specific to you and valuable in a way which no one can else can successfully question.

One way you can see how attached someone is to their ego is how often they have to be right about something.  Of course in these forums, people are going to put forth a point of view, and there will be differences.  Some see their point as being a substitute for their ego, which, by its very nature is perishable.  So if they lose the argument, then it is a substitute for a loss in other ways.  It is humbling, if we all could say that we can put forth our views but not be attached to being the winner of the discussion.  Ultimately, the more we judge others, the more we separate the unity of what we are into "us vs. them" the more we distance ourselves into isolated egos.  Those who prattle on about demonic forces, push everything into an us vs. them mentality, and as a man thinketh, so goes his reality.  So Robert Bruce, writes of astral projection and being able to encounter and combat negative forces, and he finds them everywhere.  And Bruce Moen and others believe in love and don't divide the world into "us vs. them" and in general don't encounter negative entities.  Why is that, I wonder?