Messages

I agree with Sk8chik.  Jesus of Nazareth would seem to be different than the Jesus who emerged in the theology of the church.  For a few years I let myself be trapped by the fundamentalist Christian worldview.  IMHO it's a very narrow view that ignores much of what Jesus taught and is based on a literalist understanding of the Bible that is skewed and even dangerous.  The day I broke free of that was a real Independence Day!  I do believe that the God of Jesus lives in you and will lead you on your path.  Listen for him and follow him without fear and guilt.

DH

[ :-Duasi-celebs I'm fans of for advice, just for fun, and they actually responded which was so cool I go to a lot of music gigs, and generally people assume that you just can't talk to the band after the show... thinking maybe they're too big or something, or that's just not the way it works. Anyway, I go for it anyway and I've wound up meeting tons of my favorite musicians.
[/quote]

It never hurts to try.  One time I emailed William Buhlman (wrote some great stuff on OBE like Secrets of the Soul} just for the heck of it.  Got his general email off of his website.  He was supposed to be living temporarily in China, so I didn't expect to hear from him -- but surprise! surprise!  He wrote me a very thoughtful email regarding a question I had.  Maybe was getting bored in Shanghai!   

BTW -- we are getting WAY off topic now!

I've learned the hard way never to say "no need to write it down"!   

In my opinion "Our Ultimate Reality" is the most enlightening book I have ever read and well worth the read.

It ranks up there as one of my favorite metaphysical books.  You don't have to agree with all that he says to appreciate what he's done to make these principles more accessible.

Also, Adrian is easier to reach on his other forum Our Ultimate Reality.  He has responded personally to some of my questions through OUR.  He may well be working on a time consuming project right now, but I know he has been generous with his time in the past.

DH

Ok scratch that.
"you have to understand that in their time no-one was supposed to be having sex with eachother without getting married first"

I get your drift.

i've heard about the teachings of seth (i dont know what they contain)... where abouts specifically does neal donald walsch mention it? i'd be interested to look that one up. It seems to me the universe is built on a few very solid mechanisms... one being reincarnation. The model of reincarnation that sk8chik mentioned just doesnt stack up... It would seem theres billions upon billions of souls on the earth in every conceivalbe life form, what soul in their right mind would choose to be an ant? what could they learn from it??... or maybe they HAD to be an ant because all the human bodies were taken. Thered be too much contention for the human species so you'd probably get to be a human every once in a million years if you were lucky... This model of reincarnation where you choose what you are and what you do and then reincarnate as such has no order. It would be random and chaotic. I dont believe the universe works randomly or chaotically in ANY way.
you see my point?... it doesnt stack up. Its not "fair". The model of reincarnation in the Bhagavad Gita was spoken by krishna who was an INCARNATION of god over 5000 years ago!... not just some guy talking to god (if it even really was god)
My best guess is theres only one model thats correct. I would love to read up on the others.

Mez,

Walsch's view of reincarnation is found in Home with God: In a Life that Never Ends -- and probably elsewhere.  I haven't read his other books.  Some of these other "nontraditional" views on reincarnation and karma do present an orderly view of the universe.  You would need to read them to get a grasp of their the basic premises, and to see how choosing the details of your incarnations fit in.  The Seth material is a hard read.  You might check out what Adrian, the founder of the Astral Pulse, says about reincarnation in his ebook Our Utlimate Reality. He provides a pretty clear cut view of an alternative model.

The morals are still good, just the context within which they operate and therefore the manner in which they're applied have changed drastically.

True. 

Another thing that people who torch the Bible don't understand is that the Bible is a library of books written over several centuries by people who had differing understandings of God.  The vengeful jealous tribal deity Yahweh found in the early strands of the OT is a far cry from the God later revealed by Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jesus and Paul.  A book by retired Episcopal Bishop John S. Spong called The Sins of the Bible has some good stuff on this. 

Like other sacred writings, you have to understand the context in which the various books were written and the religious presuppositions the writers had.  You can lose a lot of wisdom and truth by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Just out of curiousity where'd you hear that? from who? and where'd they hear it from?
What you've said doesnt really fit in with the model of reincarnation. Things are chosen for you based on your karma and how you lived this life... not as punishment or reward just a nuetral mechanism upon which the wheel of life turns.
Learn more about it here http://www.krishna.com/node/915

I've read several models for reincarnation.  The one mentioned by Sk8chik is found in the teachings of Seth and Neale Donald Walsch among many others.

It doesn't matter, whatever was good for them in their time isn't usefull for us.

Oh really?  "Love your neighbor as yourself " (Leviticus 19:18)  isn't a useful truth in our day?

Perfect example of media mind corruption and brain washing.  Do not relate tribalism in Iraq to Muslim vs. Muslim violence.

If the murderous tribalism in Iraq isn't "Muslim v.s Muslim" violence -- then what is it?

rofl. 
The way I look at it, its not straightforward that some stories are metaphorical and some are literal. The old testament was written with very deep hidden meaning; rabbis study the significance of the arrangement of every letter in it. So some stories might be literally based but the way they are recounted is in a manner to analogously express something, and some portions may be purely metaphorical. There's never a part that's just storytelling for the sake of telling a story; then it would just be a history book.

Exactly.  Anytime the ancients used a story it was always to make a point.  And it's nearly impossible to determine what was purely  literal and what was purely metaphorical.  I'm sure that literal facts were often used metaphorically.

Welcome Jax.  Plenty of good discussions going on here.

Almost all of its stories are symbolical... Apparently with some ''true'' accounts, such as the life of Jesus etc. But really, I can't understand how anyone could take the genesis story seriously, or rather: literally. That there are people who believe we were ''created'' some 6000 years ago or something is beyond me, but oh well...

The Hebrews who wrote Genesis were great storytellers who used parables and metaphors to express truth.  Later the Jewish rabbis (including Jesus) continued the use of parables and stories to express truth.  It amazes me how many people equate literalism with truth and metaphor with error.  Was there really a good Samaritan in Jesus' Parable of the Good Samaritan?  If there wasn't, did Jesus lie -- or is the real question here (as in Genesis) what is the point of the story?  The ancient Hebrews didn't seem to be into literalism.  Why else would they place two creation stories with conflicting details back to back in Genesis 1 & 2?  The literal details of creation were not the emphasis of the stories, which were written centuries apart.  In Genesis 2, for example, Adam and Eve are used to show that humans are created for companionship and marriage is grounded in God's plan for creation.  When people start building whole theological doctrines out of literal details in Genesis 2 (men are superior to women because Eve was created second out of Adam), they seem to be going way behind what the authors had in mind when they told  a good story to make a single point.

Synergy,

I have suspected much of what you wrote about electro-mag. and projection but have not been able to validate it in my own experience.  Your Navy experience is very interesting and is worth noting.

DH

Anybody have any comments to make on the "Way Station" to the higher plane.
This Way Station was described by Albert Taylor in Pt7 of the YouTube Soul Traveller series
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SsvfpqYCjQ
I have heard that sometimes people are launched onto the Astral Plane during a traumatic death experience, and are greeted at this "Way Station". It is a Place that people goto during death experience when they suffer trauma, and are stabilised there for adjustment before they can go to the higher plane.
At this Way Station, the people are comforted by their relatives, and the surroundings is a Blue Room.
Albert Taylor reckons he has Astral Projected to this Way Station. Listen to the YouTube broadcast!
Absolutely Fascinating! Has anyone else heard something similar?

Robert Monroe speaks about a similar type of way station in his book Ultimate Journey.  He calls it the Reception Center or the Park and describes it as a place to ease of the shock and trauma of transitioning from the physical realm.

DH

["Peace Mustardseed,I also find it interesting, my dear Mustard, that on one hand you wish to discuss Islam, yet on the other you attempt to provoke me with subtle comments - a tactic well worth the title of Christian."]

Peace Mustardseed,
You know, my girlfriend is completely against us having these discussions; she says I'm wasting my time and then distracts me from you - I am in agreement with her, but her distractions are quite pleasant; so I'll keep this up for a while.  I had actually almost forgotten about this but luckily I just completed my afternoon prayer and you came to mind.  I'll get right into it.
So, how did I know that this was the direction you were moving towards?  Oh yes, I've come across this argument before!  Interestingly by someone aiming to create a religious debate in which said person was hoping for a victory on their side.  Thankfully, I have come across this several times in the past and have saved my response (how convenient, I knew it would come in handy).

Mohamed,

I've been following this thread with some interest, but now I'm wondering why you don't take your girlfriend's advice and spend more time with her rather than "wasting your time" responding here.  You stated that this thread is about a "peaceful religious dialogue"  -- but that seems to be a sham in light of the arrogant, sarcastic tone of some of your posts, like the one quoted above.  I have nothing against you personally, I'm just trying to figure out why you seem to bother with a dialogue that is nothing more than a joke to you.

I'm also wondering how sincere you are in "peaceful dialogue" when I read other statements you've made, such as:

"Peace Mustardseed,

I also find it interesting, my dear Mustard, that on one hand you wish to discuss Islam, yet on the other you attempt to provoke me with subtle comments - a tactic well worth the title of Christian."


"A tactic well worth the title of Christian"? 

How do you define the title "Christian"? 

You seem not to be aware that the title "Christian" literally means "little Christ".  A sincere Christian desires to be "A little Christ" -- one who walks in the unconditional love of Jesus.  Granted, many don't live up to the title -- but do you think you are winning friends by insulting the many who do? 

And what does your insult about the "title of Christian" imply about the character of Jesus?  Are those Christians who act like jackasses imitating their spiritual leader?

What really bothers me about such a "peaceful dialogue" is that those who insult your prophet are persecuted unto death by angry mobs his followers.  We've seen that happen more than once in the recent past. What I've seen of Christians is that their response to insults against Jesus is consistent with the title "little Christ" -- they respond like Jesus would  -- not, "Kill them", but they pray, "Forgive them for they know not what they do."

I'm just trying to figure out where you are coming from and why you sign you posts with "peace, love and light."  That seems out of sync with the tone of your posts.

DH

Anybody see this?  What do you think?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070806/sc_afp/britainsciencelevitation_070806132733

SpiritWings,

The God revealed by Paul in the New Testament would certainly be considered "emotional".  He is described as being "grieved" when his people (Christians) act selfishly and hatefully rather than loving like Jesus loved (Ephesians 4:30).  On the positive side, Jesus and some of his followers are described as being "filled with the joy of the Holy Spirit" (Luke 10:31, Acts 13:52).  If Jesus somehow reflected the Divine (which I think he did) he showed that God definitely gets angry at religious hypocrisy, religious bigotry and good old fashioned greed in the name of God (Mark 11:15-17, Matthew 23).

I applaud you for taking steps to "think beyond the box" as far as your inherited beliefs go.  Your beliefs need to line up with what is going on inside of you.  Keep searching!   

DH

My apologies to SpiritWings.  I was trying to respond to a quote by Seeking ET.

By the way SpiritWings, I agree that the world could be worse off than to to be in the hands of practicing Mormons.  What would the world be like if all of those who claimed the name "Christian" or "Buddhist" or "Hindu" or whatever, actually lived out the love ethic that underlies their so-called beliefs?

DH

People aren't much different from God.  Sure, it's said "my ways are not yours", but I don't think there's a single emotion or passion that people have that higher beings do not.  God can cry, God can be angry, God can laugh.  Why is this so contradictory to the Christian (and other) scriptures?    At least many non-Christian religions like Islam aren't cursed with this idea that Gods are somehow stripped of anger or some form of emotion........  Paul said "Bridle your passions", not bury them or throw them away.  To bridle means just direct properly and in an orderly fashion. 

SpiritWings,

The God revealed by Paul in the New Testament would certainly be considered "emotional".  He is described as being "grieved" when his people (Christians) act selfishly and hatefully rather than loving like Jesus loved (Ephesians 4:30).  On the positive side, Jesus and some of his followers are described as being "filled with the joy of the Holy Spirit" (Luke 10:31, Acts 13:52).  If Jesus somehow reflected the Divine (which I think he did) he showed that God definitely gets angry at religious hypocrisy, religious bigotry and good old fashioned greed in the name of God (Mark 11:15-17, Matthew 23).

I applaud you for taking steps to "think beyond the box" as far as your inherited beliefs go.  Your beliefs need to line up with what is going on inside of you.  Keep searching!   

DH

I agree with Nick.  Your book was great.   It was a big influence on me.  Hope things are well with your and yours.

DH   

Welcome to the forums.  Sounds like you have a lot to share.  Thanks for posting.  DH   

Could be the info was channeled. But then the question would be - Why did it take the church (Roman Catholics - Pope etc), over 200years to approve witch books to include in the bible ? And even in recent times, new "lost" books appear all over the place - books meant to be in the bible.
Can you explain your opinion on that ?

Apeman,

In the first 200 years after Jesus appeared on earth, there were many diverse "Jesus" groups that sprung up.  They were radically different in their beliefs, such as Jewish Christians, gnostic Christians, Mithric Christians, Platonic Christians, and those who would now be called "orthodox" Christians.  Each Christian group had its own sacred writings, but there was no Bible as we know it now.  Some groups included the writings we find in the Bible now, but many more included those that were left out -- the "lost" books that you mention.  There was no conformity.  Nothing was considered THE official scripture.  Each Christian group kind of did its own thing.  Everybody minded his own business.

Then about 130 A.D., a Christian by the name of Marcion put together the first "Bible".  He thought that the God of the Old Testament (the Jewish God) couldn't be the God of the NT because he was violent and ordered his people to slaughter innocents, and the the God of Jesus was about love and forgiving  enemies.  In his mind there were two different deities, and being a Christian, he chose Jesus' God.  He therefore put together a "Bible" for his followers that excluded the OT and only had the Gospel of Luke and some of Paul's letters, both of which had any references to Judaism cut out.  His brand of Christianity was popular among many and cursed by others, but it stirred up the debate:  What should be the holy writings of Christianity?  The debate went on for a couple of hundred more years until Constantine called the Council of Nicea to debate that issue, among other things.  Was Constantine a pious Christian or a shrewd politician?  I think the latter.  He was trying to unify the Roman Empire, which meant stamping out dozens of diverse Christian groups in favor one strand.  Of course, the sacred writings of the favored group were the ones that made the "official cut".

This is probably way more info than you want (sorry, I used to be a college professor!  ), but the point is, there is nothing simple about the way the "Bible" as we now know it came to be.  There has always been debate among Christians about what should be accepted as "God's Word".  In the 16th century, Martin Luther, the Protestant reformer, edited the Catholic Bible, so the Bible most Protestant groups use now is different from the more ancient version.  Even since that time, some Christian people have wondered, why stop there with the editing?  Who has the final word about what is "God's Word"?

A good reference for this quagmire is Bart Erhman's book Lost Christianities.

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195182499/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-7969723-7860625?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184907450&sr=1-3

Kind regards, DH

I might give water fasting a go. When you's say water fasting do you mean no eating or drinking apart from water or just allowed to eat but drinking only water?? Ive natuarly began to drink as much water as fizzy recently for no apparent reason so i guess its a good time to do a fast properly.

For most people it means just water -- nothing else.

[opinions]

Los Alamos (National Laboratory), a world leader in computing since the beginning of the digital revolution, is mounting a major initiative to help unravel the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy.
http://www.lanl.gov/science/1663/universe.php

Thanks for the fascinating link. 

We live in a wonderfully mysterious universe. 

What amazes me is how so many of us think we have solved the mystery.  There's nothing wrong with trying to figure things out and forming opinions about what is or isn't; however, some of us finite humans have an exaggerated sense of our own superior knowledge and wisdom.  Our opinions become "absolute truth", and everyone with a different opinion is deluded or stupid.  Fundamentalists -- whether they are religious or atheistic -- are confined by their narrow worldviews.  Why can't we just admit that there is a lot we don't understand?  Why can't we admit that some of our opinions might just be wrong?  Since I quit trying to act like an "all knowing god" who was intent on controlling others with my superior mind, my life has been enriched by experiences I never dreamed possible.  A closed mind is such a waste.

Jesus tells us to pray in one's closet and not in the street or in Churches, on the basis that those that do pray in public do so partly for the sake of being perceived as devout, by others.  Moreover, in the New Testament, praying is akin to meditation and not attempting to commune with "God" literally with one's little ego-voice.  Also, Heaven is not conceived of by Jesus as being in the hereafter.  It is apparent to me that the Heaven Jesus refers to is the same as the eternal-now, perceived thusly through being egoless.  If Heaven was in the hereafter, why would Jesus say "seek first the kingdom of heaven within and all will be added unto you." ?   

Mattimo, thanks for the response. 

The New Testament shows that Jesus got really ticked off at hypocrites (and they were the "religious" people trying to look good in public).  He didn't discourage public prayer, but only those who were using public prayer to look pious.  There were times when he was recorded as  praying publicly (John 11).  At the same time, you make a good point that Jesus was a meditator.  The "prayer closet" verse you mention may point to that.  But what is even more convincing to me are passages such as Luke 6:12 through chapter 7, where Jesus goes up on a mountain to pray "all night" -- and then comes down and picks his 12 disciples, preaches a sermon that gives  his basic message, and heals some people. 

Think about it.  How do you "pray all night" unless you are meditating?  Otherwise, you run out of words real quick!  I think he was getting inner direction from "his Father" who told him which disciples to select as his inner circle, and also received the inner wisdom to preach the sermon, and the power to heal people.

And what does Jesus have to say about Sin?  Jesus says that one does not have to commit a sinful external act to be a sinner; one has only to think a sinful thought.  Moreover, when Jesus cures people afflicted with illnesses he (paraphrase) "forgives them for their sins."  Thus, one can deduce that illnesses are not "God's" plan per se as some "faithful" people may believe.  Illness may arise directly due to one's actions/sins; cause and effect; karma.  This sin/karma to which I am referring almost entirely originates from within one's mind.  One must understand this, to see that sinful external actions are merely a manifestation of sinful thinking.   

I agree, it all starts in the mind, and Jesus affirmed that.  He also says, "Whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have receive it, and it will be yours."  Mark 11:24.  It doesn't get more mental than that! 

DH