Messages

I see you have been reading 'Donald's post on 'Afterlife knowledge forum'
where he brought up this point.

Nope, I actually have no idea who that is or what he posted, heh.  I just wrote what came to me as it came after I read Berserk's post.

This line has been taken completely out of context unfortunatly, and you have to read the whole book, esp. the context of that situation to understand what was going on.

I have read the whole book (the whole trilogy actually), though its been a while.  Maybe I'll read that section of UJ again for the context later on next week.

Then one time he was confronted by what he considered a thought form, in the form of the typical OT 'god' type. If it really was 'god' in the sense that you imagine this being to be, dont you think that monroe would be in no doubt, never mind his own sceptisism? this is 'god' after all and if he wanted you to know who he was, he is perfectly capable of doing so.. saying that it was down to Monroe sounds like a cop out to me.

I didn't say it was God, I said it was (possibly) Monroe's personal projection of God being mirrored back at him.  Just my speculation.

Also it is clear from the description that this being was quite hostile, threatning Monroe on no uncertain terms.. mind you this is quite consistent with 'god' from the OT so maybe thats not suprising and tells you all you need to know about the truth of the OT account of god, not someone I'd be interested in talking to.

I have my own take on the "god from the OT," which I posted a few days ago on the "Against Christianity" thread:

My take on all the questionable OT material is simply that the ancient Israelites were a group of people who'd had an encounter with a transcendental God, but were still nonetheless largely stuck in the prevalent tribal god mentality of their day. The belief in a local god who would help your nation win its wars of conquest was extremely prevalent back then (and even seen in certain administrations today), and even the ancient Israelites were not immune to its influence. It's certainly a convenient belief to hold, as it literally lets you get away with murder under the guise of "doing God's work," and as we see here, if you lose the war, you don't have to take the blame for it. Pretty sweet deal, if you're into that sort of thing. But I don't believe it accurately reflects the reality of who God is and what He wants from us.

I think the true image of God shines through quite a bit too though, most notably with the prophets, who railed against the sins of the people and put a strong emphasis on social justice.

I also agree with Monroe that 'god' doesnt 'need' love.. you just didnt pick up what he means by that.. what he means is that you have to start thinking outside of the all to human conception of 'god' which is this guy who sits up in heaven expecting people to 'serve him' (your words) and expecting everyone to love him, like he would be upset if we didnt.

They're not my words -- I was quoting Monroe and operating from the viewpoint of his encounter.  My own idea of "serving God" primarily involves being good to myself and my fellow human beings.

Monroe is saying that what he describes as 'god' and i use inverted commas since i dont accept the standard definition of god as you do,

I do?  News to me.  

Please don't presume to know what I do or don't accept, as to my knowledge, I've never made any such statement here.  For the record, my concept of God is not very well defined at all, as I tend to think that any attempt to define God will result in more distortion than not.  The only definitive statements I'll generally make about God are "God is one" and "God is love"... and that any other statements made about God are based on those two affirmations.  But even still, those are simply my beliefs.

a feeling of light amusement is a very good weapon as this can disarm the most agressive of individuals who seek to dominate or overpower you with fear, as this being attempted to do, as monroe was suceseful in dismissing the being.

Obviously not, if there's any connection between his OBE experience and his death.  If there is, then our only two options are that this being killed him vindictively, or that this was some sort of lesson set up to teach him something, regardless of whether this being was actually sentient or not.  For several reasons, I tend toward the latter view.

However, if it was coincidence as you've pointed out that it could be, then the options you've presented all seem possible too.

it certainly isnt the sort of god form i'd want to associate with.. and this is what it does when it complains about not being loved??? what a psycotic.. if you want him you can keep him.. but watch your back!

Heh... I've written entire essays showing why this is a misrepresentation of the God of the Bible.  In short: I don't want him either.

What I'd recommend is instead of getting hung up on such accounts, is actually go out and get some practical experience in the astral

Good advice, and I'm workin' on it.  Unfortunately I got to about week 3 of Bruce's new book, and then got so caught up in various school stuff that for the last few weeks I've barely had time to sleep, let alone attempt AP, heh.  I was making pretty good progress before that though, and after this week I'll have about five weeks free to get back into it, so we'll see what happens.

Oh, and Monroe seems to be doing perfecly well for himself if you accept the accounts of Bruce Moen and his students, who have encountered Bob Monroe several times on their journeys since his death.

I hope he is; he seemed like a generally decent guy, and his contributions to the world of AP can't be denied.

That incident in Monroe's book kinda made me raise an eyebrow too.

I vaguely recall a Bible passage that said something about God being revealed to people according to the image of Him that they hold, however distorted it may be, but I'm not finding it at the moment.

But anyway, I definitely get the idea from Monroe's writings that this was the image of God he held.  Outwardly he ultimately rejected this "God," but perhaps at some level he continued "serving" him, and this is somehow connected to what eventually killed him.  Could he have served this pseudo-God by continually feeding Him attention via rejection?  Perhaps by projecting his image of a god who doesn't desire love, he encountered a god who shows no love in return?  Perhaps by priding himself on being so self-sufficient, he ultimately chose to forfeit the temporal connection with the One who sustained his very life, and in doing so was taught his final (earthly) lesson?  I'm just speculating here (and probably not making a whole lot of sense in the process) but I s'pose only Monroe knows the answers, if even he does.

from what I understand, those who followed the Gnostic Gospels believed that were teachings were handed down only those who were spiritually "mature" to handle such subjects.  It was not something for the "masses".

The Gnostics weren't the only ones who engaged in such practices -- the proto-orthodox did too.  Do some googling on "doctrine of reserve," and you'll see what I mean.  There was this prevalent idea that there were certain doctrines that, although true, should remain secret because new converts and the "spiritually immature" were not ready for them.  If you search for that phrase on tentmaker.org, you'll find one example... they assert that this was done regarding the doctrine of eternal torment (thought to be needed in order to scare people into morality) vs. universal reconciliation.

Anyway, though I can't provide any sources (which isn't surprising if these things were kept in secret) it wouldn't surprise me if there did exist a body of mystical Christian teaching, similar to Jewish Kabballah, that included astral projection, as AP certainly would fit into the category of "for spiritually mature eyes only" IMO.

 Once could argue that those who chose the gospels for the Bible were "divinely inspired" or some rubbish, but it was probably more "politically" inspired than anything else.

I would say that it was both.  I think the choice of books that went into the Bible was definitely politically motivated.  However, if we take it as a given that God is omnipotent/omniscient, then it seems to become necessary to acknowledge that He had a hand in it too.

PS - Palehorse - man, I do love reading what you write.  I just wish that I could make sense of things to be as articulate on the subject as you are.  Oh well, with a little more learning and research I am sure i will be one day.

Eh, you could probably attribute it moreso to my needing to get a life.    But thank you, that means a lot.  

Oh, and Berserk, I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your post.  I want to reply somewhat at length, but I don't have time right now, finals week and whatnot.  I'm thinking about making the subject of "a method to the miracles" a thread of its own since it's kind of a tangent in this one, but until then I'll just say you've definitely given me more to think about.

I'd love to hear them all. To clarify, I'm against rape, as while I present biblical ideas I do not follow them in the slightest. So, please go on, I have quite a few Old Testament travesties under my sleeve myself. It really helped break me of the traditions I was raised with I find it interesting you would call them fiction I won't present my own personal views on that as it may offend the people on this board, and I prefer to remain civil with them.

While I respect your desire to remain civil, I wanted to say that I, for one, will not be offended by anything you might have to say on the subject, and I hope others won't either.  Getting offended is generally pointless and counterproductive.  

My take on all the questionable OT material is simply that the ancient Israelites were a group of people who'd had an encounter with a transcendental God, but were still nonetheless largely stuck in the prevalent tribal god mentality of their day.  Both images come through loud and clear throughout the OT, though it's interesting to watch the former eclipse the latter as time (and with it, lessons and experience) moves on.  As I recently posted in another community about one of said atrocities:  

I consider it a simple case of Judah letting their tribal god mentality show. The belief in a local god who would help your nation win its wars of conquest was extremely prevalent back then (and even seen in certain administrations today), and even the ancient Israelites were not immune to its influence. It's certainly a convenient belief to hold, as it literally lets you get away with murder under the guise of "doing God's work," and as we see here, if you lose the war, you don't have to take the blame for it. Pretty sweet deal, if you're into that sort of thing. But I don't believe it accurately reflects the reality of who God is and what He wants from us.

So yeah, that's about where I'm at on this.

This gets into the whole God controls everything and he made the evil in Lucifer, designing him to rebel, and thus has evil within him, and isn't perfect, and that we don't really have free will even though he says we do, and the whole she bang. I'd rather we didn't, as it gets messy.

It gets messy because it's not biblical.  The whole "perfect angel who fell from Heaven" story is based on a misinterpretation of Isaiah 14:12, which, as we can see at the beginning of the passage, is directed at the (human) king of Babylon.  Biblically, Satan has been "sinning from the beginning" (1 Jn 3:4).  As I said, his name and very nature is "Adversary," and he was created that way for a reason.

I'm quite certain he could provide beneficial things to convince the person as a form of temptation.

Your certainty is not based on what the Bible actually has to say about Satan's nature and works.  He can offer the *illusion* of benefit, as he did when he tempted Christ, but he cannot ultimately offer us anything of substance, and there is no biblical precedent for the idea that he has any healing ability.

I'm going to use a Jewish comparison because it's easier: if you say grace to God a thousand times before sitting down to some pork chops: you've still sinned. Replace pork with devil magic, and you have my meaning.

And how do you know you've sinned?  Because it says so explicitly in their scriptures.  Not so with astral projection.

The bible never tells you to astrally project, only occult sources do.

There is at least one biblical instance where John the Revelator was "in the spirit on the Lord's day" and only *then* did God start giving him the revelations that eventually composed the last book of the Bible.  Now, I realize there are a few possible ways you could take that, but it sounds to me like he had already projected on his own, and the angel met him there.  The same ambiguity is seen when Paul talks about "a man" (who is believed to be Paul himself) was "caught up to the third heaven -- whether in body or out of body, I don't know, God knows."  

It's magic, just without the ritual.

Then according to the biblical definition, it isn't magic.

However, I don't believe it's magic by *any* definition.  Every source I've seen has stated that it's a normal human phenomenon that occurs every night at the onset of sleep.  The experiences that originally lead me to this site lead me to believe they're right.  Thus, I don't think it's "magic" any more than electricity was magic before we figured out that we could control it and put it to use.

Magic, psionics, energy work, whatever you want to call it, it's not biblically defined only as praying to false idols. Actually trying to produce effects is NEVER EVER EVER done in the bible. No, you simply pray, ask what you want of God, and leave it to Him to engineer it.

The exact same logic is used by Christian Scientists to condemn medical intervention, and they're wrong for the same reason.  You seem to be reading this "Pandora's box" mentality regarding knowledge and experience into the text that may well have characterized the medieval Roman church and modern Christian fundamentalism, but is not found or encouraged anywhere in the Bible.  If anything, Jesus explicitly stated that many of his impressive works were done, at least in part, to show us what we're capable of.

It isn't necessary, but I often read of 'Guides' on these boards used to aid in journeys such as astral projection. I assume that every Christian here is opposed to that?

I'm can't speak for every Christian, but I personally am wary of such "guides" for the same reason I'd be wary of any anonymous random stranger who showed up and started trying to give me advice.  That said, I've never encountered a non-physical entity, and if I did I would probably treat them with the same respect I'd show to any human being.  And, if they had something they felt it necessary to share with me, I'd evaluate it with the same critical thinking skills I'd put toward any other person's advice.  

There is no telling who is a guide, and who is a demon. The only leader there should be to you is Jesus.

Sure there is -- that's what "testing the spirits" is all about.  But yeah, I think that's probably where the warnings against mediumship came from -- there's no reliable way to tell whether that invisible entity is really your dearly departed mother, or just someone claiming to be her in order to manipulate you for whatever reason.

However, I'd think that on the astral plane, the playing field would be a bit more level as far as getting a better idea of what you're dealing with.  And while I agree that my only "leader" is Jesus, I'd also say that my teacher could be anyone who has more knowledge and experience in a given field than I do, whether physical or not.  I'd also add that respect of that nature has to be earned.

You're developing a supernatural ability. You're remaking your mind, the mind god gave you, in a way the bible doesn't tell you to remake it. A questionable way. See next paragraph...

Like I've said, I don't believe it's "supernatural" at all, but rather a natural phenomenon not yet fully understood by the mainstream.  And again, I don't believe I'm remaking my mind anymore than a bodybuilder is remaking his muscles.  I'm developing dormant potential that exists in every human being... which, I might add, was a major theme of Jesus' message.

Turning into a spirit (which is what you could see an OBE as,

But I don't; otherwise I'd call it "astral transformation."  I see it merely as projecting a copy of my consciousness outside of my physical body.

or communing with spirits (meeting other astral projectors) is quite obviously against the rulings.

Again, you're reading something into the text that simply isn't there.  According to your logic, if John the Revelator and the apostle Paul happened to be "in the spirit" on the same day and ran into each other, they'd be sinning.

There simply is no biblical precedent for any ruling about meeting other APers... although the scenario above does make the idea of a negative ruling seem rather ludicrous.

The intentions must be extrapolated.

Indeed they must... since they aren't in there to begin with.  This is a good example of eisegesis in action.

As for someone saying something to the contrary, I'm pretty sure if you told your average Christian minister/priest/Reverend that you wanted to astrally project or open up your chakras or channel energies through your body he'd say it was devil's work.

This means very little to me, since I'd say the same of the offices of minister/priest/reverend themselves.  They aren't in the Bible and didn't exist in the 1st century, so as far as I'm concerned they have no inherent spiritual authority.  They do, however, have institutions and hierarchichal interests to uphold, which is why I'd examine anything they had to say in light of that at the very least.  However, if they could demonstrate that they'd studied all the relevant issues and present a convincing case while coming off as honestly having my best interest at heart, I would consider it based on its own merits.

But anyway, you could probably also find many clergy members who would be open to AP.  In particular, there have been Christian mystics all throughout Church history who have engaged in these things; some of which had official status, and some didn't.  It should be said however that most of them simply saw projection, miracles, visions, etc. as just another step on the road to full union with God, and not something to be valued for their own sake.  I just happen to disagree with them on that point -- IMO we have eternity to achieve full divine union, and I feel there's also something to be said for enjoying all one's experiences along the way.  Good site on Christian mysticism: www.christianmystics.com

The bible says to commune with god, the ONLY thing you need is prayer.

Chapter and verse?

These two, you know he wants you to do because your belief system, the bible, is based on it. He sent a messenger, Jesus, as well as told his prophets, that he wanted these done.

Indeed... but that doesn't make your assertion that if God wanted us to do something, it would be automatic and not require effort, any less illogical.  Many things are undertaken for the lessons learned in the effort as much as the end result.  I would put AP in that category.  I believe (with biblical precedence) that being "in spirit" is our natural state moreso than the physical is -- but part of the reason we come here and are put in a position where we have to relearn to be spiritual, is so we'll gain a fuller appreciation for what it is to be spiritual as well as physical.

To be quite honest, yes, we don't know whether or not he wanted these or not.

Too bad He never got around to smiting that first primate who picked up a rock to bash open a nut, then.  Just look what happened!

Seriously, I would guess that there's no ruling in the Bible about developing the inherent faculties we've been given, because the fact that we have them to begin with is evidence enough.  We have, however, been given ethical guidelines for their use... which is, for instance, the difference between using fire to cook your food, and using it to burn down your neighbor's house.  

I would tend to wonder if someone who knew they had the ability to AP and didn't use it would come before God at the moment of death, only to have Him ask "why didn't you?"

It is only the book, the accepted teachings of the Lord. Arguments must be made from that standpoint.

Then I'd recommend giving up the medieval/fundamentalist shtick, and start debating from what the Bible actually says.

Re: all this talk about going back in time and screwing up the future...

I think this "problem" often gets way overblown.  Yeah, perhaps if you went back to any time that's before your own lifetime, this might be an issue... but what about going back to a time you've already lived through?

I think of it this way -- every day, we're creating the future, and every action we take has wider implications than we could ever imagine.  However, if I've already lived the past once and got through it okay, then  if I went back with more knowledge and experience that I've gained in the meantime, why would I be more likely to seriously screw anything up than I was when I went through it "blindly" back then?

Interesting tidbit re: magic and Christianity...

About a year ago, I learned that a book had been released called Ancient Christian Magic.  It contains a large compilation of papyri that date from around 100CE onward, mostly from the Coptic Christians of north Africa, which contain all sorts of spells, rituals, incantations, herbal recipes and so forth.  

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691004587/qid=1102127661/sr=8-9/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i9_xgl14/102-6465937-6712941?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

So take that how you will.  I see it as a good example of the diversity of belief and practice that flourished under the umbrella of pre-Nicene Christianity, and a fascinating subject from an academic perspective.  I'm witholding moral judgment until I actually get my hands on a copy, though.

And you have said that the Bible says this and that, I'm quite interested in what the Gnostic Gospels also say - they weren't included in the mainstream Bible, but we can't necessarily dismiss them entirely (well I can't until I learn a bit more about them). The Gnostic form of Christianity takes on a WHOLE different meaning when it comes to "Spirituality".

The Gnostic gospels are certainly interesting, but for the most part they aren't quite as useful as far as getting to the heart of what Jesus really said, since most of them were written so late.  Though I do know that at least Thomas is thought by some to preserve material from an oral tradition that is as old or older than the Jesus material in the canonical gospels, so that's something to consider as well.  Perhaps it's possible that some of the others did too though; Luke alludes to a knowledge of "many" other gospels that were circulating at the time he was putting his together. (Luke 1)

You're like me though, in that I think all available texts should be evaluated based on their own merits and what they have to tell us, rather than basing it on whether or not they happened to make the cut when a group of politically powerful men on Constantine's payroll were deciding what to put in the Bible four centuries after the life of Christ.

Great site with a huge collection of both biblical and extrabiblical scriptures, multiple translations, commentaries, etc:  http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

Just a thought that occurred to me while reading this thread...

You said your son repeats what he hears... and I don't know if this would work, but have you thought about trying to communicate with them, having him be an "interpreter" of sorts?  Like, you ask them something, and he repeats what, if anything, he hears them say?  

In any case, just wanted to say I find your experiences fascinating.  I'm not sure I'd go as far as the person who said they'd want to live in such a house, but it would definitely be neat to witness *something* that couldn't be explained by conventional means.

God isn't the only one who can give such powers.

Who else can?  Satan?  Biblically, Satan can't do anything God doesn't allow him to.  In an indirect sense, *all* power comes from God, since all beings with power were created by God.  So how do we discern what kind of power to make use of and what to do with it?  I believe Paul gives us the answer here:

1 Cor 10:23
"Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is constructive.

So then the question becomes, is astral projection beneficial?  I believe it is, and everyone who does it on a regular basis seems to as well.  Therefore, I will feel free to develop that ability until I see otherwise.  What's more, Satan does not possess the ability to do things that are beneficial for us; his name and very nature is "Adversary."  He can't help us for the same reason Jesus dismissed the notion that he was casting out demons in Satan's name as absurd -- because he'd be sabotaging his own motives.

The only powers the people did get were from being faithful, praying, and messages received while awake or in dreams.

Many people incorporate their prayers into their desire for AP ability.  ::shrug::

Mark 11:24
Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Ask, believing that you have already received?  Sounds suspiciously like an affirmation to me.  

It mentions people practicing magic or being possessed by spirits, so he's not necessarily the one behind them, even if you do follow biblical views.

I believe magic and possession are a completely different issue than astral projection.  In the period(s) when the Bible was written, magic was invariably connected to Pagan deities and religious ritual, and thus a form of idolatry for Jews and Christians.  As for being possessed, I don't think I need to get into why it's probably not a good idea to seek out *that* experience.  In contrast, astral projection doesn't have to involve manipulating any deities to do your bidding, so there's really no way to make the same logical connection to idolatry.

What makes you think the fact that God gave the ability to many important people gives you his authorization to make them yourself?

Your question is faulty on two counts.

First, biblically there are no especially "important people," only ordinary people that God chose to do extraordinary things with... sometimes *because* they were such unlikely candidates that it would make the result all that much more powerful.  "There is no Jew, Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."  The constant theme in the Bible is "wow, if God can do such huge things with that guy, then He could easily do the same with me, too!"

Secondly, I'm not "making" anything.  I first became interested in this stuff in an attempt to investigate strange things that were already happening to me.  Just read a few intro posts here, and you'll see that I'm not alone in that regard.  I don't believe I'm obtaining anything that wasn't inherent in me to begin with... I'm merely developing previously unrecognized potential that was there all along.

As for not being "authorized," well, biblically I'm not forbidden either, and I figure that if it was that big an issue, something would have been said about it.  Suffice to say that if I were to abstain from everything the Bible doesn't have a ruling on just because it might make God angry, I'd never leave the house.

My thought would be, if he wanted you to have them, he would have given them to you and you wouldn't need to take lessons or practise to do them, they'd just be done.

If He wanted us to pray, the disciples wouldn't have had to ask Jesus how (Luke 11:1).  If He wanted us to be moral, then being more like Christ wouldn't be a lifelong process.  If He wanted us to fly around the world, He would have given us wings.  If He wanted us to post on message boards using computers, He would have invented them Himself.

No.

As you don't seem to care about the Bible, or Christ, at all, I'll ignore your contributions to arguing Christian religious theory from now on. Yay, you're #2!

Unless you've recently undergone a road-to-Damascus conversion experience I haven't heard about, you're not Christian yourself, correct?  So according to your logic, doesn't this mean we'd have to disregard everything you have to say on the matter?  

I'm too angry to post on this right now... I'd probably get banned for rudeness, so I'll wait a bit. Thanks for contributing to my rage folks!

So let me get this straight.

You're a non-Christian.

You've been trying for days to convince Christians that you know better than they do how to practice their religion.

And yet... you're angry at us?

Am I missing something here...?

I've often wondered about things like this, but I didn't think it was possible.  A while ago I read the account of someone who tried to enter their younger, sleeping body... but all he succeeded in doing was laying on top of it, which was apparently having an erotic dream at the time, and tried to make out with him!  (I might've read it on this very site; don't remember...)  

How did you go about entering your childhood body?

However Jesus didn't think women could be priests, atleast according to Paul.

Paul said "I do not permit a woman to teach"... i.e. Paul made that pronouncement in his own name, not that of Jesus.  It's also thought now that many of "Paul's" seemingly chauvinistic statements about women were not written by him at all; I don't remember if that's one of them, but I can check later.  I think that makes sense, as I can't really see the same guy who said "there is no Jew, Greek, male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" turning around and saying the kinds of things about women that have been attributed to him.

Also, while there were no Christian priests in the first century per se, women did occupy prominent positions as teachers, deaconesses, leaders of church services and so forth.  This is partly because early Church services were held in homes, which in Roman society, was the woman's domain... so she ended up being the de-facto hostess/facilitator more often than not.

Palehorse - hey cool! Didn't realise that was your site, I found it on Google. That particular article really did open my eyes, as I am currently researching background and histories of Christian beliefs and am finding out all sorts of fascinating stuff. Thanks for writing it!!

Whoa, awesome... I figured you just got it from here, as I think I've linked to it before, but that's really cool if people are finding it on google.  Small world, eh?  

But yeah, it was something I did as an assignment for an english class several years ago.  Figured it was info that people really should be aware of, so I put it up as the first of several essays; little did I expect the numerous positive responses I've gotten since then.  I'm very pleased to see that there appear to be a lot more people than I thought receptive to the idea of universal reconciliation.  

Anyway, the background and history of Christian belief is probably my favorite topic of study, and what I'm trying to base my own belief system on as much as it's possible to reconstruct it (and I'm also an uber-theology-geek anyway), so if you ever want to chat about anything, feel free to keep in touch.

Thanks again!

Tyciol:

Like I said, Jesus specifically said we'd be able to do everything he did and more.  For the majority of Christians who believe Jesus is God (I have a slightly modified view), this amounts to a "go ahead" for AP and related stuff.  Also, when you consider the view that God is omnipotent and omniscient, technically He's the one behind our ability to do this stuff even if He's not directly yoinking us out of body.

As for me, I tend to think that the biblical characters who were given those experiences have shown us what's possible, and now it's up to us to take the ball and run with it.  When a parent is teaching a child to swim, they first take the child into the water, then hold on to him for a while so he can get the feel for it.  Eventually the parent lets go and lets the child swim for himself, though the parent is still never far away.  Once the kid actually knows how to jump in and swim for himself, what sense is there in continuing to carry him into the water?

Lol, well I actually meant in the sense of raising their spirit in order to communicate with it, have it do your bidding, or something like that... whereas Jesus raised Lazarus back to life.

But yeah, if you want to attempt the latter, go for it.  Jesus *did* say his followers would be able to do everything he did and more, after all.

How exactly do you rationalize the idea that God/Jesus are fine with you experimenting with non-biblical spirituality, spirits and occultism, when the bible specifically prohibits it as the domain of sinful witchcraft leading to Satan?

The Bible prohibits idolatry, necromancy, and (debatably) witchcraft.  The Bible also describes instances of early Christians doing things that sound suspiciously like astral projection, having visions, prophetic dreams, and so forth.  There was also a lot of spiritual stuff going on in alternate Christian groups whose writings didn't happen to make it into the Bible, but who I nonetheless view as valid expressions of Christian faith.

So, while the forbidden subjects do occasionally show up here, the ones that aren't are much more prominent.  As a Christian, I see nothing wrong with trying to develop spiritually, or cultivating the ability to have OBEs.  As long as I'm not trying to raise the dead or sacrificing puppies to Moloch, I'm really not seeing any conflict here.

Thanks for the plug, Laiana.  

So far all I have seen of evangelism, no matter what the religion, is a lot of emotionally charged fear based arguments to repent & follow a particular way or else. Now, those who want to be defensive of their religion will always argue that it is not an "or else" situation, but no matter what angle you look at it, dig deep enough into the argument and there is an "or else" in there.

I agree that this is a major problem in Christianity, among other religions.  However, Christians who take this approach aren't paying attention to this:

2 Corinthians 5:18-20
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.

The message of the gospel is a positive one, and not one of fear and threats.  In a nutshell, it is all about getting people to recognize that God has *already* done all the work of reconciling Himself to humanity -- all that's left is for us to become aware of it so that we can enjoy full union with our creator.  The only "or else," therefore, is the kind of hell that is created when people fail to recognize their true identity and that of their fellow human beings.  However, any such hell is ultimately temporary once all relevant lessons are learned, as it is God's final intention to become "all in all." (1 Cor. 15:28)

In order to make more sense, these passages have to be considered in the context of Jewish religion, as well as Paul's elaboration on God's plan of salvation in Romans 11.

The original plan was for Jesus to come and offer salvation to the Jews, and then for them to offer his message to the rest of the world.  It makes sense for Jesus to have come for the Jews first and foremost, since in the first century, the concept of a messiah would've only made sense in a Jewish context.  Done any other way, it would've gone something liket this:

Jesus: "Hi, I'm your messiah!"
RandomPagan: "Uh... that's nice.  What's a messiah?"

You get the idea.    The message had to be established among a following who understood what it meant (i.e. those who'd had a relationship with this God and been expecting this messiah for several centuries), before it could be shown to those who were new to the whole thing.

Since things didn't completely turn out that way, Paul lays out what happened next.  The rejection of Jesus by the majority of his people necessitated that salvation be passed on to the Gentiles.  However, Paul is adamant that although the Jews have experienced a "hardening," so that the Gentiles can be included, once their inclusion is complete, that hardening will be lifted, and "all Israel will be saved" as well.

Anyway, I have my own take on what might have actually happened at the time of the "embarrassing" quote you posted.  It's interesting to me that when Jesus basically calls this woman a dog, she doesn't storm off in a huff like most people would -- she gives him a pretty witty reply, he's pleased with it, and grants her request.  I'm just wondering if Jesus' original statement was said in a rather tongue-in-cheek way, as if to poke fun at the social prejudices of his peers... and the woman, who was in on the joke, played along.

Of course that may or may not have been what happened... but I think it does raise a good point about how easy it is to read things into the text from our own biases and preconcieved notions.

Greetings, and welcome.  

Fellow southern Californian here... and wasn't that a bizarre random storm last night?  I was sitting here typing a paper at about that time, and suddenly it's like "what is that noise?!"  Oh, that's the sound of water coming in my open window.  Wonderful.  Heh.

I've had the circled cross on an eraser-sized, round flat mole on my foot for the better part of a month, and no change so far.  However, I'm always wearing boots and/or socks (partly because I don't really want to explain to anyone "what the hell that thing is"), so that might have something to do with it, I dunno.

Interesting bit I picked up though... right now I'm in a Native American Philosophy class, and we're doing presentations.  One woman passed out a little handout with some mystical symbols and captions as part of hers... one of them was the circled cross.  For just the horizontal line, it says: "it represents the power of the formative/receptive force, the feminine principle, without breadth or depth and the source of form as expressed in the sacred law, "everything is born of woman."  

"An upright line symbolized the power of the active/conceptual force, the masculine principle, which gives dimensions and thus a place in space."

The fusion of these two symbols provides a third -- the encircled cross.  The upright, equal-armed cross was an ancient symbol of manifestation in time and space.  When contained within a circle it was a symbol of the limited and changing reality of physical things embraced within the infinity and everlastingness of spirit.  The cross within a circle could aslso represent four expressions of cosmic power flowing to and from their source, or four qualities of elemental unformed substance, and much, much more.  The encircled cross symbolizes energy in balance and equilibrium.  A symbol also of the earth.

So yeah, I thought that was interesting and at least partly relevant.

You know, I hope you get very sick someday, and that there are no hospitals to see you because they are all shut down while the sundry "higher ups" are taking their various responsibilities.

If they did, then I wouldn't have that problem now, would I?

But I love you too, Leo.  

It is disgusting how brainwashed people are, and how justified they feel, in hating the Catholic Church. It never occurs to them to examine to whom power is transferred as the Catholic Church is progressively deminished.

I don't hate the Catholic church.  I see it as an organization run by human beings, with all the faults humans have, especially when they posess inordinate amounts of money and power.  I don't think they're especially evil or anything like that; I just think that they have too much money, power and too little accountability for their own good.  I wouldn't consider myself brainwashed either, as I've studied Church history from Catholic, Protestant and secular sources, and drawn my own conclusions.  I see just as many faults within Protestantism... it's just that they're too fragmented and decentralized to be able to do much damage on the world scene.  Protestants have been guilty of all the same atrocities, albeit on a much smaller scale, and I have little doubt that if they ever had as much power, we'd probably see the Dark Ages version 2.0.  The Eastern Orthodox might have the best record from what I can tell... though it could be that I just haven't studied them as much.  Anyway, I have a lot of good things to say about the Catholic church too -- their mystical tradition is awesome, they've produced some excellent theologians, and they really have done a lot of good charity work around the world.

But people should be reminded that if not for the Catholic Church, the West would not have a single Saint.

Non-Catholic Christians who view all Christians as "saints," and non-Christians who don't care about saints either way, probably wouldn't see that as a problem.  IMO that's a pretty speculative claim though.  For one thing, there were prominent and well known Christians running around long before Rome became a major Christian center with its own bishop.  Secondly, if Christianity hadn't become a major world religion, there would probably be some other major western religion with its own set of saints.

Without the Catholic Church, the West would have not a single valid Spiritual Tradition.

If you're defining "valid" as "Roman Catholic," then sure.  

Otherwise, Judaism and Islam are both considered western religions, though I suppose Islam might not have risen without all the Christian influence it contains.  Anyway, I think a good case can be made that pre-Catholic Christianity would have continued to thrive as it had for 4 centuries, even if Constantine hadn't made it the official state religion of the empire.  Or, maybe a completely different religion would have become a world religion instead.  It's really kind of pointless to speculate about what *could* have happened... that is, unless you've perfected the ability to astral project to alternate timelines.  Which would just be bloody awesome.

Without the Catholic Church, the spiritual aspirants of the world would be stuck with a virtual monopoly of silly Gurus from India.

Without the Catholic church, a whole lot of writings from Christians whose beliefs and practices differed with what eventually came to be the RCC's "orthodoxy" might have survived to us today.  Origen of Alexandria is probably the best example I can think of offhand.  During his time (early-mid 2nd century) he was *the* most prolific writer, famous teacher and defender of the faith against Pagan critics.  Well, several centuries after his death (5th century IIRC) some of his ideas were condemned as heresy and so many of his writings were destroyed.  As Origen was almost solely responsible for turning Christianity into a complete philosophical and logically consistent worldview that could be taken seriously by the intellectuals of his day, I'd say that's just a bit unfair, not to mention detrimental to the Church's subsequent development.  He never deviated from the Church in his lifetime... the Church deviated from *him.*

But yeah, the point is that I'm going to have to disagree with your claim that the Roman Catholic church is the sole contributor and defender of "valid" Western spirituality.

I might also counter with the fact that if the RCC had remained as powerful as it once was, we wouldn't have had Western democracy, either.  As I learned in a class last semester, the RCC was quite adamant in its opposition to the new governmental/social order, and tried to keep their members from emigrating here, as their view was, in the words of the Pope, that "error has no rights."  And btw, the professor for that class was (very) Catholic.

It is possible to be too cynical.

Yeah, but I don't think I'm there quite yet.  Pretty damn close, but not quite.  

(snip Catholic church story)

So, you see, it goes both ways, or, indeed, worldly people prove to be even more vile and base than Religious People. Worldly people prove even more willing to let hospitals and schools close, if they think they can squeeze another 10% out of a purchase from a Church.

Eh, to me it's not quite so simple in this case.  While it's certainly an admirable goal to keep hospitals and schools up and running, does that justify tricking people into unknowingly giving their money to a religious organization that they might not otherwise?  

Secondly, the RCC itself got itself into this mess, and it has more than enough funds to cover expenses during the times when donations are down.  Given that fact, if a Catholic school or a hospital should be forced to shut down, then no one bears ethical responsibility except the higher-ups in the church itself.  I realize that not a whole lot of the church's unfathomable wealth ever finds its way down to the individual diocese, but that's not really the fault of anyone other than those who control it.  So no, I can't really bring myself to feel sorry for the Catholic church when people opt not to give them money.

All things considered, I'd say one is probably better off donating to a secular hospital anyway... one whose livelihood won't stand or fall based on the Catholic church's latest scandal.

So, in a world where silly incoherent Fab Art can claim Six Figures per canvass, I don't think it is entirely out of line to pay $20,000 for a Work of Art from God. The money will probably be spent no worse.

People do lots of silly things, but putting a religious front on it doesn't make it any less silly... or wasteful.  From a biblical perspective, the motives behind this thing are essentially upside-down.  The woman is selling this 10 year old sandwich with the implied premise that it has helped her win lots of money, and it can help YOU too (though I doubt that someone who can throw down $20k for a sandwich is starving to begin with).  In addition to being a rather dubious claim, the whole thing is a money making scheme on both ends, which doesn't exactly have much in common with Christ's commands about how money should be managed.  

Your line of reasoning just seems rather inconsistent, in that you're condemning non-Catholics for not forking their money over to the richest church on earth so it can pay the bills, then defending a woman who's asking $20,000 for a petrified sandwich that is supposed to help you win big in casinos.  I mean, just think what a school or a hospital could do with that 20 grand.  

I was wondering what some of you Christians thought of this...

I'm not sure what's worse: taking something you really believe is a miraculous gift from God and trying to make a quick buck off it... or not really believing it, but trying to cash in on the faith of people who do.

Cynical?  Me?  Neeeever.

Well, I mostly agree with this part : "be good to yourself, the environment and other people, and don't infringe on anyone's right to life, liberty and property if they're not infringing on yours." except for the "be good to everything" just because one's 'good' may be another's 'bad' and it can get subjective. But, if you always do what you think is right for you and know that you are responsible for it no higher being can fault you for that.

Well, the subjectivity is why I defined it with "life/liberty/property" etc., which doesn't leave much room for interpretation.  Being good to yourself and the environment isn't really subjective either, the more one knows about nutrition, psychology, ecology, etc.  The issue of the correct moral action becomes a bit stickier though, once someone violates your rights or those of someone else.  I have my own ideas on that, but I don't claim the authority to tell anyone else what to do in that situation, other than "don't get so consumed by the need for vengeance that you become no better than the original offender."  I personally tend toward the idea that in most cases, the ideal is a good balance of justice and compassion.

But yeah, I agree that we can only rightfully be held accountable for what we know, and when most people know better, they do better.  However, when information is readily available, ignorance becomes willfull, and therefore, no longer excusable.