Messages

I hear what your saying there Tayesin but is it not the case that we are talking about a group of muslim fanatics, NOT the government OR the people there generelly?

I think we have to be careful in not lumping whole countries into the same category just because it has groups of nutters in it... if that was the case the US would be strung up right away

The Indonesian government is not all that bad is it? or is it?

Douglas

greatoutdoors

Hey, i agree with your points as well!

Douglas

Thats retarded. Thats the most disgusting filthy belief ive ever heard of

hehe that's actually the BEST line i have heard on this forum ALL YEAR!!!

WELL DONE!!!

Douglas

Zeus (coolness be upon him) rocks!

actually the death toll is 58000 not 33000

Doh! the toll is going up all the time!

Douglas

ok, but I have to add, most of the nations involved cannot be labled as those who 'take america's aid and then come back later banging on about how they hate the US'.

The countries involved, Sri lanka, Thailand, India, Indonesia do NOT take anti-US stances at all. Your main gripe is with a UN delegate (from Norway!). The countires listed have no major grumbles about the US at all, perhaps some militants in indonesia do but they are a minority of tossers, which you get in any country, including the US.

The above countries are not 'US haters' and gratefully work with the US and other countires on a regular basis.

Your gripe is with the UN, which is a different matter.

Douglas

Im afraid you are wasting your breath with this one, although you bring up some good points...

some people are so concerned about arguing between the branches of what from an outsiders viewpoint are merely different branches of the same religion, ie middle-eastern religion (ie judaism, christianity and islam) that they are completely unaware of everything outside of it, including a whole kalaidascope of of other faiths and religions.

Actually in my view islam is the idea of monotheism taken to its logical conclusion and therefore is possibly the most logical of the three branches of this faith system.. it is therefore also the most dangerous as it takes the implications of the one creator god to its logical and insane conclusion.. that the 'rule of god' is above the 'rule of man', therefor god in opposed to democracy... this is implied in the previous two expresions of this faith system but reaches its full fruition in islam.

For this reason muslims see islam as the most perfect faith and superior than the previous expressions and in this they are correct in a sense as it is the faith that takes the previous strands and works them out to their logical conclusions... however this doesnt mean it is any more correct... in fact it is even more highly dangerous.

Christianity has been tempred by humanistic ideas over the years and secular ethics have taken the edge out of it since the 18th century enlightenment; Orthodox Judaism is as dangerous as Islam in my opinion but again, this group are in the minority and most jews are of the liberal persuasion, again being tempered by secular ethics and humanism...

The only truly fundamentalist faith out there which is still openly oppossed to democracy and therefore human freedom is islam...
For this reason islam must learn to temper itself so that it can fit in with a democtatic model, otherwise it threatens the rest of human democracy..
don't get me wrong, our curent version of democracy isnt perfect either but it is the *least worst system* and the best we have.

I don't want to sound like a george bush character here (and i dont like him as he's a bit too much of a christian fundamentalist for my likeing) but after careful thought I think I would most certainly prefer to live under 'the rule of man' than the 'rule of god' esp. since the 'rule of god'  is still the rule of man but warped out of all recognition.

Douglas

the death toll from the awful quake and resulting tsunami in Asia has claimed 70,000 (and rising), both natives and foreigners and left over a million homeless.
Traveling at 500 miles per hour the shockwave still took at least 3.5 hours to reach the nearest mainland (excluding islands in the epicentre)... if an adequate early warning system was in place, as in the pacific, this 3.5 hours would have allowed many more people to survive...

The one good thing that might come out of this is that we should start taking the issue of early warning systems for seismic events seriously around the world, something that the UN should be dealing with.

Douglas

This quake and Tsunami is really bad, and may exceed the Bam earthquake in Iran last year; and the death toll rises every day.
It brings the whole 'terrorism' thing into perspective a bit... its a bit odd that we are so eager to blow each other up when Mother Nature is more than willing to do the job for us, and far more effectivly.. you would think that this might encourage us to preserve life rather than be so keen to throw it away, but there you go.

Douglas

the need to worship

oriental despotism.... you find that religions reflect the socities that formulated them.
Religons and faiths change and develop... either that or new ones come to replace them...
Trying to write a 'set in stone' set of divinely guided ethics and law is ridiculous as they end up being hopelessly outmoded resulting in ridiculous mechanisms for fitting them in with developing modern conceptions, just as you get from people like 'Beserk' and others.

It is no suprise that the greatest advances in justice, morality and ethics have been secular ones, and the greatest advances in these have been in the last few hundred years of the enlightenment.
One of the greatest advances of the enlightenment was the abolition of slavery  and its rejection as an ethically acceptably idea.
This is something christianity failed to do.. in fact it actually reinforced slavery as an insititution... using the slave/master conception in their attitude to god and his creations... in the original greek version of Paul's letters for example, he does NOT describe himself and his fellow believers as 'servants' of the 'lord' but as 'slaves' of the 'master' (Dominus), somthing that came across as too extreme for later translators.

The idea of democracy, another secular idea, goes against the very idea of the oriental despot god... who is the opposite of democratic... he views himself as above it.. all the last judgement ideas talk of him coming and disolving all governments and establishing his despotic rule on earth.. again this goes against the grain with many people today... and indeed islam takes this idea to its logical and insane conclusion... that democracy. the 'rule of man' conflicts with the 'rule of god' and therefore has no place...
Many christians too would prefer the idea of a christian theocracy if they could have got away with it... luckily secular philosophy and ethics have tempered christianity over the years and have prevented this from becoming dominant in today's world.

Will people be allowed to vote in god's new kingdom?


Douglas

Each to their own i guess... but it does get scary when you realise the extent to which these people believe this and indeed 'look forward' to it...

btw the 'evidence' is not very convincing: the reason more 'catacalysms' seem to occur nowadays is because they are more widely reported now due to advances in communication technology; the 'evidence' that everyone seems to have had 'insights' on the run up to 2000 and thereabouts is more due to ingrained fixations with Christian apocalyptic mythology than reality; this apocalyptic mythology has been merged which much ill quoted and mistranslated Mayan writings to produce predictable results (pardon the pun).

As I've said before, a desire for some kind of catacalysm or sudden change is due to people being deeply unhappy about aspects of their own lives or their perception of the world..
The good news is that change CAN occur, but true change comes from within, not without... Change yourself and the sky's the limit (actually its not   )

Douglas

aaahhhh.... there's nothing quite as entertaining as reading some pointless theology arguments.... Its amazing the extent people go to in order to debate hypothetical scenarios... very interesting logic games... but that's all they are imo.



Reaches for flame proof trousers...

Douglas

Where will I be?

Assuming that i am still on this mortal coil by then, I will be busy laughing at all the gullable types as they stand around confused and as they try to talk their way out of why nothing happened, just like last time and the time before that!

Sorry, but I've seen all this before and it gets boring eventially... trust me

Douglas

Or even better, what would you describe as an 'hallucination'? What is it? Is it real... what is 'real'?

Douglas

Interesting post!

LittlePenguin_

'low lifes' are indeed out there, but don't worry about 'incubuses', this is just a mistaken term for sexual encounters in the astral, but seen though a 'demonic' lens so to speak. Basically just as you get all manner of depravities here such as child molesters, rapists etc, which is what i assume you mean by the term 'low lifes', you will find many more over 'there' too.

However you will only normally encounter them if you are on the same mental wavelength, as like tends to attract like, so unless you are a child molester or rapist then you wont usually come across them and shouldnt have any problems!!!
Of course you can also go and take a look at these people by choice and you do sometimes come across them but they cannot harm you in any way, unless you believe they can of course, in which case its open season I'm afraid!

I have to say that I've never had any of these ecstatic encounters of the type described by Frank, although i'm looking forward to finding out  

Frank_ what do you mean by 'fragments'? I am familiar with 'astral constructs' where you create an astral scenario, sometimes complete with characters.. for example the only sexual encounters I have engaged in via the astral are simple scenarios where I will a nice woman to appear and we get on with it   , but I've never assumed she is anything more than a construct.. a mental 'program' as it were. The reason i have thought this is that such constructs are not normally known for their conversational abilities   , although i've tried but they are always quite vague if you try to push them beyond usual small talk.

Also, if i wanted to engage with real people instead i guess i could just put that thought out and i would gravitate towards others out there who are out to do the same thing? I might try that sometime and see what happens.


Doug

Very well Shinobi, perhaps I was generalizing too much (we can all be guilty of that sometimes) and I apologize for excessive use of parenthesis (although it is sometimes handy when making side point)

Yes, I agree the USA is so big that any attempt to categorize under one description is wrong, indeed many have said that the whole idea of 'one nation' is a bit of an illusion.. Yes there is the national identity which is very strong but this shouldn't mask the sometimes serious differences between areas. (insert additional comments here).

I think the major problem of why the US religious issue is brought up so much is due to the country being the most influential in the west and therefore has most attention placed upon it... A problem is that secular Britain, which views its secularism as a sign of progress, despite grumblings from church leaders, looks to the US as another progressive country and therefore expects the same level of criticism, skepticism and general secular values as itself; it is shocked when it finds quite the opposite and finds this difficult to understand for a supposedly 'progressive' country.
In the UK we learned the hard way, via Oliver Cromwell etc, that you do NOT mix religion and politics otherwise you are going to have problems; so we are shocked by the constant use of religion by US politicians as this goes against the grain with us.

I think both the UK and the US really are on different wavelengths when it comes to this issue and we do not really understand each other with regards to it.
As example, when a US evangelist points over the Atlantic and talks of 'godless' Europe or Scotland as a 'dark land ruled by homosexuals' (I kid you not   ), we actually take this as a compliment and as a sign of progress!!!

Likewise, when we look over the water and complain about mix of politics and religion and the 'religious nuts' in the US, the US perception holds up this religious aspect as an example of moral superiority.

A common proverbial is that people can base their morality on the bible or Aristotle; we generally prefer Aristotle, while in the US people generally prefer the bible... nothing wrong with either, we just have to accept the difference, and of course recognize that being generalizations, this model doesn't apply to everyone.

Anyway, back to the 'atheist', I agree with where this guy is coming from, but what do others think?

Douglas

PS (I wanted to add another embedded parentheses but could'nt think of anything   )

Tyciol_

Chill out, I was just taking issue with your basic use of the word 'god' as in 'do you believe in god?' as this is a slightly more loaded question than at first apears as there are many perceptions of divinity and 'god' or 'gods'.
Actually, I'm not taking issue as such, just pointing out that there are far more varients of what divinity is than just the familiar notion of the west; in questioning your common assumptions of 'god' it may be useful to go out and look at other conceptions as you may find something out there more to your liking.. the problem is that a lot of people (in the west) are completely unaware of these ideas.

Douglas

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said.


I think this above quote is very important because all the religious types have been jumping on the bandwagon here shouting about how this athiest has 'repented' and 'told you so' attitudes are abounding..

however he is very clear that he doesnt accept the standard middle-eastern conception of 'god' (ie the Judaic, Christian & Muslim concept).
He advocates some kind of intellegent design and whatever created all this could be termed 'god' but that is just what it is, a term.. and not a very useful one i think, as it brings up all the negative connotations which he alludes to in his description of 'oriental despots'.

People make a common mistake in assuming that 'intelligent design' can only equal the standard biblical definition of god with all the bells and whistles (esp. scientists are bad for only refering to this version)).. possibly since that is the most common (and worst imv) type found in the US).

it doesnt just fefer to that version howvever, but to ANY theory of intelligent design... it might imply a more pantheistic view with the universe itself as intelligent, it might imply super powerful 'aliens' for want of a better word, who are so advanced they can create their own universes... the 2001 scenario is a good example of intelligent design without the traditional concept of god..

I also dont accept the traditional concept and i actualy prefer not to use the term, but if I must i bracket it thus: as 'god'.

The biggest problem is that people inprison themselves in terminology... you are either 'athiest' or believe in 'god', 'evolution' or 'design' and so on... its not as straightforward as that... I might be an 'athiest' in the biblical sense but I might believe in 'god' in another sense... so does that make me a true 'athiest'? Terminology is only so useful before it becomes a burden.

Douglas

Thanks for the replys guys, I never made it there last night but I will at some point again.

Doug

Gandalf, if you were Christian, or Jewish and were discussing your beliefs, wouldn't it be logical to use the foundation book of your faith as a source?

Yes but I'd also expect people to be at least *aware* of other conceptions of 'god' as well as the one you are brought up in... otherwise this results in ignorance and narrow-mindedness, an all too comon feature of todays world; a good wide ranging conception of world beliefs should be a basic part of all peoples education, whether I am 'christian or jewish'  *or for that matter* Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Taoist and so on.. ever heard of them?
You may be suprised but there IS a hell of a lot of people out there who are completely ignorant of any other religion outside of their local church down the road.

Douglas

Last night I also experienced an intersting  split mind effect upon waking up, although its difficult to describe, i will try!

I woke up to find that I was two minds!!!
Lets just say the left hand one and the right half one.. now i was still 'in physical' as it were, just lying there half asleep..
A thought entered my 'left mind' but my other half had not thought of it yet (cant remember what the thought was).... so i experienced the moment of both thinking of something but also of not thinking of something at the same time!!!
then the same thought occured in other half of my mind so they then came into sync.. the funny thing being that i knew what i was about to think BEFORE I started thinking it (due to my other mind thinking it before)... so a kind of reverse deja vu effect....

Ok so you should be completly lost by now, I know i am... mind splits are always so confusing..

Douglas

last night i visited this interesting astral region, where i went twice before. The last time, I met a group of people i seemed to know very well but for the life of me i can't remember who they are afterwards!

The feeling of homecoming and love from these characters is quite astonishing, resulting in me caliing one of them 'dad' last time for some reason!

This place seems recognisable due to the golden radience emanating from it, the grass is a wonderful green, the sky a wonderful blue, the sun in the sky but with a golden sunset effect permeating everything, gently rolling hills etc... anyone else been here? It is quite stable too which i like.

Once again, i felt the 'pull' which always brings me here and where i feel i have to seek out those people i know here.

however, this time, instead of just finding 'my group' as it were, i came across lots of people all sitting around in different groups on the grass, over quite a large area.

As soon as i got there i immdetialty went to the first group i came across and said hello and so on.. however this time the people in this group were not quite as openly firendly as i am used to here; when i said hello to the guys there one of them looked slightly miffed (only slightly) and nodded over to another group, saying 'thats the ones you are looking for over there'.. er ok then i said and moved to the other group.. right away i recognised the other group and they were all smiles etc and I felt right at home there although I dont remember saying anything of any great worth..

Just when things got interesting i got zapped back, as usual.. still i am chuffed with the progress as I feel that this region is important somehow.
I am wondering about the less than ecstatic responce from the first group however, as the overriding attitude in this place is one of friendliness.

Is it just because some people get slightly irritated by half aware types (I woke up via a dream) turning up now and again and annoying people with pointless questions and dumb responces? or was it more likely that it was my OWN perceptions colouring my interpretations? in which case, this guy was perfectly fine and it was me who misinterpetated what was going on..

either way, I'm not too worried and i aim to get back there..
I have found my 'key' to getting back i think, I just need to focus on that wonderful golden light and green grass and i feel that pull again..

Hopefully tonight i will get back there again..

All for now
Douglas

Beserk_

Once again it comes down to the basic fact that the academic way does not work when exploring wider reality; I have learned this the hard way. What counts is *personal experience*, everything else is a *guide* nothing else; such 'guide books' are of course very useful but can be superceded or modified by one's own personal experiences or indeed by the subsequent experieces of the original writer. None of Monroe's books or any other explorer contains absolute truth in any way, just the writers own experiences, indeed if you read all three of his books in order, you can see how his perceptions changed as he gathered personal experience.
Unlike most mainstream religious types, most *experienced* astral explorers don't quote written texts as if they were god's truth, indeed you are already behind the times as many new developments have taken place since monroe's time; such books are guides only.

I find that the analogy of the tourist guide book works best here, they all describe the same place and many basic features can be found in all, but the description and personal interpretation of them can vary widely from person to person, however this doesnt mean that the things they all describe are not real.. For this reason, instead of armchair theorising, you have to get off your chair and take a look for youself.

As for Monroe's 'bogus obes' You try to bring in Tart's findings here as if this somehow cast doubt on Monroe's abilites. Once again this shows you have (or at least display) very little practical experience of OBE states. As anyone who does will know, the astral enviroment  often does *not* match the physical one, due to what i call 'reality fluctuations'. This is where your own mind adds things to the local enviroment, if you dont keep the creative/emotional part of your mind under control (which is sometimes just not possible) then the astral enviroment undergoes all kinds of changes.

It is important to note here that when projecting in the 'physical world' you are actually in a subtle realm just behind physical reality, it is so close as to be almost identical; however because it is an astral realm, like any other, it is possible to add your own embelleshments, as it were, leading to all kinds of confusions; in the unexperienced, this leads eventially to the projector fading out of the 'real-time zone' as I call it, and emerging somewhere in the astral that is suited to their mental state.

For this reason, i am not suprised that tart found that monroe reported different things as those found by himself. I have done this myself. Mental additions are all too common.

for example, in one projection I was able to see my own body go outside and check out some local cars parked outside, i checked the colours, types and items inside them so that i could verify the experience later, which i was able to do.

However at the same time, there were some reality fluctuations which were caused by me, such as the fact that although it was dark in 'reality' during my projection it was bright daylight! I saw some diferences in architecture and so on. This is quite consistent with real time zone projections..
Sometimes this is caused by perculiar modifications to your own perception, for example i have experienced 360o sight which lends itself to all kinds of confusions if you dont know whats going on, and can result in you seeing doors in plasces where there were none and so on.

This is why it is very hard to prove obe projections imperically as you cannot simply match up event described by the projectior to those by the recorder, for this reason scientists simply dismiss the findings, meanwhile ignoring those facts which DO match up, although as i say, it is possible for NO details to match up, although this doesnt mean that the event did not occur.

Talking to people in obe states is also common and monroe and others have recorded situations where the individual involved does not remember or was not in that location at the time. However once again, this does not invalidate the experience, it is just more evidence of reality fluctuations. Allthough some people have noticed, like Robert Bruce for example, that individuals spoken to are often vague somehow as if distracted, and has led to suggestions that perhaps we are talking to the subconscous aspects of these peoples minds, which may be true in some cases.

In all the above cases, i hope you can realise that imperically 'proving' obes for others benefits in the usual academic fashion simply does  not work, what counts is getting out there and doing it yourself. It is certainly good and indeed very useful to provide some advice and guidance for others as well as accounts of your own experience, but this is a guide ONLY.
What you seem to overlook in many of your posts here is that some people (although not all) on this forum have had direct experience of obe states and this is no academic exercise and indeed does not translate into armchair theorising.. this is not a theology site, where we all sit around trying to prove which argument is more logical for a completely hypothetical scenario, which is the background you come from. Theologians are very good at proving which hypothetical scenario is more logical than the other but at the end of the day that all it is.. a hypothetical scenario. None of these logic games are based on actual direct personal experience of wider reality.

An additional problem is due to the plastic nature of the astral in which what ever you want to see will be made real, so if a christian has an obe they will see jesus, just as a hindu will see lord Vishnu, etc.

The key in you own explorations is to be 'unexpectant' and see what is there rather than what you expect. This gives you a completely different experience of reality. Again and again those do this find a situation whereby the astral is composed of many belief systems where you find all your mainstream visions of religious realities, then beyond these are the realms of those who have ditched all the human created religious concepts... they arnt any more 'spiritual' than anyone else, they simply have not confined their perceptions into one little box.

Again, much of this doesnt translate into written academically translatable notions.. you just have to get out there yourself and i urge you to do so.

As for monroe and 'god', i'm afraid i just dont find this connection very believable like you do... so what if Monroe never actually 'wrote' that he experienced drowning sensations before, this doesnt mean he never did.... i say again, drowning sensations are a *very common* panic responce and i know this since i have experienced this many times myself, and i see no reason why Monroe might not have done at times, it doesnt mean they are worth noting, in fact this discussion is the first time i have ever done so.. connecting a common panic responce to a later illness does nothing for me.. those who want to find links in things will do so and this is no exception but i find it unlikely.. As for Monroe's jesus encounter, as far as i remember this was in his early work when he was still finding his feet,, the area he describes is one of the 'belief zones' and you may think that this is proof of the reality of Jesus, but you will have to account for all the other zones whee you can see Allah, Mohammed, Shiva, Buddha Zeus etc etc.. they are all there!

Or are you going to tell me that Jesus is the 'Real' god and all others are misconceptions.. very good, except this is excatly the same argument which could be used by any other of the mainstream religions.. leading to a circular argument which leads nowhere..
The idea that ALL these mainstream religions have their places in the 'belief zones' of the lower to mid astral (where like atracts like) is the first idea that actually leads out of this trap. I have noticed that some religious types have noticed this and have actually resorted to adapting this into their beliefs as a way of reinforcing them, which can only be taken as a compliment.
For example, one mustardseed who is a born again christian, now says that there is a 'belief' zone of all beliefs and above this come Jesus and the christian heaven which is real..... once again, any religion can say this and really comes across as a cop out.

Once again, i point out that this revolutionary idea was found through personal experience rather than theorising but is not that revolutionary, since if you look back into the history of occult and mystical literature you will find similar concepts, indicating that some of these people were trying to describe their own personal experiences the same way, the difference being that they were dressed up in mystical mumbo jumbo..
monore came across the same thing but described it in simple practical terms. as do most people nowadays...

A good argument you could use is that the idea that 'like attracts like' and the ideas of 'belief system zones' is itself a belief system construct, but all this does is show that belief system constructs are indeed real, in which case why should mainstream religions like christianity be exempt, esp seeing how they were constructed by theologians here on earth, this makes me trust them even less!

Can i just say that I appreciate the academic approach, as i myself went through 'the academic phase' when just starting out, but after a while i found that this system does not work in exploring wider reality. I came to realise the enormous gap between theology and personal experience, they are in no way connected and theology is just hypothetical logic games (allbeit some very good ones!). You will find this out yourself at some point, I hope.

Merry Christmas!

Douglas

Tyciol is from Canada, eh. Not the US.

True, but then my post was not directed at him, but as a general comment about the US religious situation (generelly speaking).

I think this is a justifed point as i find this situation in no other country to the same extent.... the tedious regularity of the question 'do you believe in the bible' pops up there more often than anywhere else.


cainam_nazier you bring up some good points and i would agree with you about asking people if they believe in 'a' god rather than just 'god' as that is a rather loaded question, unless of course you are already pretty clear as to their basic beliefs.

Doug

You have no idea how many of them I run across. There is an insane wiccan population in Arizona.


Glad to hear it!

The RTZ looks exactly like the physical world and this led people to believe that they were the same thing, but its now reckoned that the RTZ is actually an astral level, but so close to the physical as to be an exact match and indistinguishable from it. So for all practical purposes yes it is the physical world. Everything that shows up here will be reflected there exactly, even people moving around etc...

The reason the rtz is an astral level is because the physical is the densest level possible and you have to be made of the same matter in order to function in it.. As soon as you 'project' you are on a finer level and therefore you operate on the nearest equivalent level, which is just behind so to speak.

Because the rtz IS an astral level like any other, this explains why it is so easy to have 'reality fluctuations' while experiencing the rtz as you can quickly begin adding your own embellishments to the surroundings, leading to al kinds of confusions.. Eventually you will fade out of the rtz zone completely and emerge in some astral environment suited to your mental state..... For this reason trying to keep emotionally stable enough to experience a 'normal' consistent rtz projection is quite a skill, and one that people like Robert Bruce have made their specialty.

Douglas

PS forgot to add, the rtz is what is termed 'the ethereal level' in more mystical terminology, but I'm not sure if monroe had any particlular 'focus level' for it as he was more interested in 'higher' levels so to speak.. i generely call it the RTZ just to distinguish it from C1 or physical consiousness.

The above post highlights a problem which I find is all to common with people in the US. They prove or disprove 'god' using bible sources.

Remember there are many other conceptions of 'god' than the biblical one.. the problem is that most people in the US are not exposed to any other belief system; this can be seen by the common question 'do you believe in the bible?', a negative answer usually followed by an accusation of atheism, implying that belief in 'god' and the bible have to be one and the same... actually they are not.

There are many other conceptions of god out there than just the middle-eastern varient (that is,  judaism, christianity & islam).

What about Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, neo-paganism, confucianism etc. and these are only the mainstream varients.

Just because you dont accept the christian bible does not mean you dont believe in 'god', whatever you conceive that word to mean; never mind what your local preacher has to say. You have to open your eyes, there's a big world out there outside of the local church down the road.

Douglas