Messages

there is another problem with the idea of US citizens emigrating to Canada, and thats the possibility that Canadians might not want them!

Doug

I guess I would have to say that I've never seen or met a person in Buddhism who worships a statue. (I began Dharma in 1959). There may be someone who is simply ignorant of the Dharma and does so, but a Buddhist is one who has taken refuge and is a member of a sangha. By that point they would have been trained to know better.

yes, but I think you refer to the  'lessor wheel' of budhism (that practised in vietnam and Thailand) which does not include other bodhivisatas and other deities. But this is not actually the most common form of buddhism in the east. The most common form, the 'greater wheel', practised in China, Japan (and a varient in Tibet) DOES revere loads of deities, (who are perceived as belonging either to the class of boddivistas or are beings in the 'deity' realm, which are still useful in praying to as they can get things done for you.

I would agree that 'respect' and 'revere' are the keywords here however, rather than 'worship' which is a grovelling concept common to middle-eastern traditions which I have never had much time for.

I absolutly have no roblem with using statues as representations of deities/and or buddhas. I think most people are smart enough to realise that the statue isnt *actually* the deity but simply a representation and focus for reverence (again I wouldnt use 'worship').
This obsession with 'idols' is evidence of a middle-eastern inspired hangup, which some western 'buddists' do not appear to have been able to let go of entirly, and which jews, muslims and christians constantly bang on about with their 'idolatery' accusations... I would simply say.. so what?

I have never been able to understand this hangup.. even in classical greek times, people KNEW that the statua wasnt ACTUALLY a deity but was simply a useful representation, and was a focus for reverence. they wre well aware that the deity itself didnt have this exact form (although it could adopt it if it so chose)...

This hangup ultimatly all come's from that scare tactic line in Leviticus 'he who prays to idols shall be destroyed'.... yeah very nice, I'm worried.

Douglas

Sorry Frank, but I remember you were going to start a new thread about the topic I brought up; if you remember, the issue I was wondering about was that of 'hauntings' and such like; ie of those ex-physical people who are fixated on the physical world and if/how much influence they can have on it.

I remember Monroe describing a scene in the rtz where he witnessed deceased individuals trying desperatly to get reactions from in-physical humans, but finding that they just walked right through them and so on (Far Journeys). I'm just wondering how that gels with your findings where non-physical people cannot even percieve the physical world, never mind attempt to interact with it...
However, since the rtz IS an astral zone, sometimes called the etherial level, but is so close to the physical as to be an almost exact match, is it not possible for those who are fixated with a particular area of the physical to exist in or close to the rtz, thus allowing a level of interaction?

I believe that in certain circumstances this close relationship can sometimes allow some 'bleed through' that results in manifestations in the physical world (esp. in places where a significant emotional event has occured, such as a murder or whatever).. often called 'hauntings' and 'ghosts', a subject of research by Bruce Moen and others.

Just wondered if you had any input/opinions on the above scenario

Douglas

Interesting reply AryanKnight.. i suppose its up to everyone to come up with their own interpretation at the end of the day.
I'm sure I remember reading that Aliester crowley believed the goetic deities to be projcetions of the unconscious mind (but still powerful and dangerous of course), but then again they may be real.

Good point about Lucifer... I guess there are two Lucifer's actually. There is the Roman deity Lucifer, the one I described, who was a very minor Roman deity of the Morning Star, hense his name 'Light bearer'; Venus in her morning aspect. He is mentioned in Ovid for example.

Then there is the middle-eastern being you speak of and as he had similar attributes to the Roman deity, it wasnt long before Latin speakers were using the name 'Lucifer' to describe this other being; over time the old roman deity was forgotten. I still feel sorry for the roman deity however, as really he had nothing to do with this other being.

Doug

Some of the replies I have read come across as judeo-christian fantasy imo, Well, as I said in an earlier post, i dont believe all the soloman mumbo jumbo attatched to the goetia but if you feel that it adds to the mystery then fine, but I see no reason to suppose the goetic manuals are any earlier than the 15th century (with the Lessor key dating to the 17th!), no matter what the unknown author may claim.

I also believe that all the 72 'demons/angels' are in fact pagan gods, most of their names have been corrupted over time, ie 'Astaroth' = Ishtar.

Therefor I dont divide them up into 'good' or 'evil', and I dont view them as demons in the christian sense. The christian church from an early stage rebranded all the pagan gods as 'demons'.
So pretty much every 'demon' you have ever heard of is in fact a pagan god , once worshipped by people around the world or invarious region (including 'Lucifer', a minor roman deity of little account before his christian 'makeover'.).

The judeo-christian mumbo jumbo surounding the goetia means that you percieve all these deities through the judeo-christian lens which distorts them imo; again if it works for you then fine, but many other people like to strip away all the crud and get on with the mechanics of invoking the deities themselves.

I am still unsure as to whether the deities have any independent reality and are sentient in some way or if they are projections of your own subconcsious, although I lean towards the later interpretation.
It doesnt really matter at the end of the day since the resulting effect is the same as far as the magician is concerned.

Doug

Announced this morning...

Condolences for those who loved him! And for everyone, perhaps a chance now to resolve the long running problems that have contributed to the poisoned chalice of the middle east.

Doug

I'm not convinced this is the case. Christianity was around for over three centuries, and was growing at an exponential rate when Constantine made it the state religion. In fact, I'm sure that was a major reason *why* it was adopted by the empire -- because it was so popular. IMO, it seems to me that Rome needed Christianity a lot more than Christianity needed Rome at that point, and I see no reason to believe Christianity would not have continued to thrive if it hadn't been co-opted

Actually the current historical view is that numbers of christians in the empire actually fluctuated rather than growing steadily, although there was a sharp rise during the chaos of the 3rd century.

Although it is true that Christianity had grown significantly by 313, it must be remembered that it was still a minority religion in the empire as a whole, with only one in five being christian, and even then, most of them were in the east. Most historians are actually agreed that it if Constantine hadnt dopted it as the official religion, it was *highly unlikely* that it would have ever become the dominant religion, since it was imperial patronage that gave the church so many benefits.....HUGE amounts of money started pouring into church coffers and state subsidies were taken away from pagan temples. Constantine then invited bishops into the higher echelons of governemt, an opportunity which the church grabbed with both hands so that within a few years they controlled or at least influenced most of the affairs of state..

This was immpossible without imperial support. The most likely reason for the adoption of christianity was that Constantine was looking for ways to bind the empire together, this has to be seen in the context of his wider imperial policy... Diocletian before him had used traditional religion in the same way.. Constantine also decided to adopt this policy but chose a new religion to do this; it just so happened that his mother was one of those chrisitans.. a chance occurance as they say..

If you look at coinage you can see that Constantine had been at this for a while..
in the early period he was identified with Mars, then he switched to Sol invictus, an eastern sun god, connected with Mithras, then finally Christ.
He stuck with christ.. he saw it as a means of binding the empire together and the one god in heaven seemed to perfectly compliment the one ruler on earth.... a device used by monarchies ever since... and states... god save the queen... god bless america et etc.


One of the best evidence that christianity would never have become the dominant religion without imperial support is the example of Persia, the empire next door.. they had a similar circumstances and a similar amount of christians as the roman empire.. however there, christianity was never officially adopted by the state so the numbers of christians never grew beyond their 4th century rate, they stayed a significant but minority religion.. until the muslim conquests of the 7th century.

Basically, Rome didnt 'need' christianity but it decided to use it.. but the state underestimated the extent to which this would change everything.
The church certainly needed the empire to become a dominant world religion and they took full advantage of this opportunity.. so much so that by the 5th century the empire was basically a christian theocracy.

Bishop Ambrose actually forced emeperor theodosius to publically do penance for his murder of the citizens of thessonalika in the 370s!



The Coliseum as a favorite form of entertainment immediately comes to mind. I'd have to double check on this, but as far as I know, none of this came to an end with the adoption of Christianity.

yes, Gladitiorial combat was only outlawed by the christian emperor Honorius c400, and animal fights etc continued for centuries afterwards..indeed Spanish bull fighting is a decendant of this.

Christianity did not change all that much, it acutally reinforced the dominant order, gave divine right to rule to emperors and kings.. did nothing for slavery.. in fact christianity actually reinforced the slaves position!
oh they waxed lyrical to slaves that they were all equal and would all go to heaven, and they should be happy, were the spiritual equals of their masters etc but not one christian ever thought to actually question the institution of slavery itself, they accepted it's role here on earth; 'you were born a slave, that is gods will, but its your soul that matters so dont worry' and so on... brutality to slaves continued as well.

Mind you, this perception continued until recently, George Washington for example, ran a slave estate and it didnt occur to him that this was wrong.. indeed modern slavers often tried to model themselves on ancient slavey systems.

Doug

Nonsense! Read any scholarly introduction to the New Testament. Jesus was crucified in 30 AD and the first Gospel, Mark, was written sometime between 64-70 AD, perhaps 34 years later.


Actually that's only the earliest of a range of educated estimates, the others are later,
even so, would you trust 100% an 'eyewitness' account written 34 years after an event?, particlularly after taking into account any agenda that the writer himself may have? cults develop their doctines over time, like all movements. All texts have some bias.

You totally misunderstand the principle: we believe in order that we may understand. It assumes that you have already experienced God's grace and implies that you must now be open-minded

however this implies 'experiencing god's grace' is already a christian vision, but perhaps this is a vision shaped by the believer's own perceptions; otherwise how do we explain similar visions in other cultures, with other deities from other religions (buddha, vishnu etc).. all the others are incorrect? I find that argument suspect, they might say the same of you.
I notice that people's visions are generely governed by the dominant belief system they are broought up with, even if they have rejected it, as guilt issues are often still there under the surface, leading to some unhappy individuals such as the one you mentioned who used to post here.

The vision depends on the individual; if several people had the same experience, they might have very different interpretations, ie monroe and his perception of what 'jesus' was and what you might make of the experience...
but you are claiming to be MORE open minded  than us, when in fact you are not, because that is not possible: by asking us to be more open minded, you actually mean come 'round to your way of thinking'.. this seems so logical to you since this is your belief system therfore all the evidence naturally supports it.
My belief system is different and I accept all the same 'evidence' you do, I just have a different interpretation. it is not a matter of being close minded, we are all 'close minded' to some extent, but you certainly cannot claim to be less so, since you also have a specific view, just as we all do. I think that really, there is no point trying to prove which is more 'logical' or not, since it has nothing to do with logic... its about belief.

You have a warped caricature of the Hebrew God. True, initially Israel had to fight for her survival and Yahweh supported their efforts. But God tells Israel that He is just as much the God of the ancestors of the Palestinian Arabs [the Philistines] as He is the God of the Jews and Yahweh also defends their right to Palestinian territory (Amos 9:7)! Through prophets like Isaiah and Micah, Yahweh envisages the spread of the faith through peaceful means: "They will beat their swords into plowshares and the spears into pruning hooks. nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore (Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3)." Jesus' teaching about loving one's enemies stands in this tradition.


This is one of the biggest problems I have with the christian bible, the two gods portrayed are so different... you can dress it up any way you like but it comes across as wordplay... how you can reconcile ezekiel 25.17 with the 'turn the other cheek' attitude of the 'new and improved' god of the NT is unconvincing and you can see the effort people have gone to to dig through the book looking for some line to reduce this difference, but this disparity is blatant. And to top it all, in Revelations god goes back to his old 'despot' routine once again... after all the peace and love of the NT!!!

But he loves the 'saved'.. oh thats all right then, thats what I call a god of 'unconditional love' alright.. or perhaps he still loves them even when consigning them to hell? that comes across as psychotic!
Its not his fault, since people made their own choice and decided not to accept him as their lord?
come on, he still takes responsibility since he made up the rules!!!
If a dictator announced a similar rule to his people and you rejected it, resulting in your eternal torture, who from an objective perspective, would you blame ultimatly for the suffering caused?

btw I accept your point that the 'eternal' aspect of hell is wrong and one of the biggest lies promoted by churches today, since the original greek word was 'aeon', a time which varied periodically but sometimes meant 1000 years. certainly it was a finite period of time.
someone forgot to tell the 'hellfire and damnation' fanatics in the US unfortunatly. This rejection of the 'eternal' aspect is the one saving grace of christianity and may be what allows it to survive in the modern world, since eternal punishment and suffering is completly incompatible with modern notions of justice.

You have a warped caricature of the Hebrew God. True, initially Israel had to fight for her survival and Yahweh supported their efforts. But God tells Israel that He is just as much the God of the ancestors of the Palestinian Arabs [the Philistines] as He is the God of the Jews and Yahweh also defends their right to Palestinian territory

However, the BIGGEST reason I will never accept this god of yours is that he comes across as an all to human ruler, a dictator in fact who dispences justice as he sees fit (I stress the HE aspect since although god is officially genderless, this is hardly the perception). this is anthropomorphism... the idea that this being sits there mediating between nations is ridiculous.

As you can probably guess, I have a far more pantheistic or even panentheistic view of what 'god' is, and i believe that the monotheistic view is wrong, as it ultimatly leads to the 'celestial emperor' model, which is all to reminicent of human rulers... of course you might say, 'god made man in his own image' i don't buy this. Ultimalty it comes down to what you believe, not how convincing your argument for the facts that prove it.



Nonsense! You are talking to someone who has taught courses at the graduate level on the Bible and its languages

This statement comes across as arrogant and actually rather immature... even if the other guy is wrong!
So you have a phd ..so what, I dont know about where you come, from but where i come from that doesnt make me think you have any better idea of spiritual reality than anyone else... as Shania Twain says... 'that don't impress me much!'  although well done for your personal achievement!

I also take issue with your blanket perception of 'new agers'. This umbrella term covers a HUGE range of people and beliefs and you certainly can't lump them all together, like all human concerns, there are people who are crack pots, fantastic sensible people and everything inbetween, with so many beliefs differing to such an extent that many of those wouldnt even think of themselves as 'new age'. Where do you stop? those who have adopted hindu doctrines or buddhism officially or unofficially.. are they 'new age'?
You have focused on one the most risable section of this community, if i can call it that, but you can't tar all people who have non-mainstream beliefs with the same brush.
Remember that even your attempts to reconcile the bible with nu age doctrines might itself be regarded as 'new age', as does the astral projection which you are planning to learn.
Certainly, I would disagree with being categorised with the far out element of 'new age' society, and I might add that christianity contains just as many, indeed far more nutters and crazed maniacs spouting all kinds of nonsense, like apocalypse fixations about israel etc ,which i view as pure fantasy.

Doug

as far as I'm aware 'king of te Jews' was the usual title for any jewish king. For example, when Judea became a client kingdom of Rome I believe that Herod was given the title by Mark Antony and later by Augustus.

In the political hotbed of Judea at this time, which was radically split between moderate 'hellenised' jews who wished to work with the empire and accepted the dominant political power of the day and the fundamentalists who rejected all forms of hellenised influence and Roman political tinkering; it was this uncompromising view which ultimatly led to their destruction.  It is wrong to simply think of the situation as 'Jews vs Romans'. The Jewish rebellion later in the 70's AD was very much a civil war as well.
Anyway, I've went off topic but what I was trying to say is that any prominant leader might well have such a title thrust upon them, leading to the 'jesus king of the jews' line, which the Romans called him sarcastically to take the p**s out of him; not because they were fundamentally opossesed to his teachings (if they were even aware of them), but simply because they did not view him as a legitimate ruler. He was treated like any other rabble rouser... and you can't really blame them, since at the time there were a hell of a lot of them around!

Doug

PS

Both might very well see a day of reckoning in our lifetime, in much the same way Jerusalem, and later Rome, paid dearly for their offenses all those centuries ago.

well, we shouldnt be to hard on Rome, afterall it was the Roman empire that eventially adopted christianity as the official religion; thus turning it into a world religion.. we wouldnt have christianity if it wasnt for them; christianity, as we understand it today *is* a Roman religion; a fusion of simplistic judeo-christian monotheism and complex theological neo-platonism.

and the empire didnt do to badly either, by the 3rd century Rome had divorced itself from the idea of just being the city on the Tiber, Rome was an idea and the *WHOLE EMPIRE was Rome*. only the *western* half collapsed in the 5th century ad, the eastern Roman empire (called rather incorrectly until recently the 'byzantine empire) continued until 1453!!

so i wouldnt say they 'paid dearly for their offences' this idea was Augustine's, who had to come up with a reason to explain to pagans (and christians) why god allowed the city of Rome to be sacked by barbarians in 410, even although the empire had been officially christian since 313AD.

yes, although I would be wary of using the term 'close-minded' to equate with 'not believing in my interpretation'.

I am not discounting your experiences, I just have a different interpretation of what underlies them, that's all.
I can hear your explanation and I am happy to mull it over, but if in the end I happen to disagree with the interpretation and underlying cause of it, that does'nt mean i'm close-minded, it just means I have a  different opinion than you do; just as you may find difficulty with Monroe based views for example, if at the end of the day, after all the case studies etc you still reject that interpretation in view of your own one, that doesnt make you close-minded per say, you just have a different interpretation.

Doug...
PS it should be noted as well that underlying both our positions are two fundamentally diferent perceptions of  the 'divine' world, and we both will attempt to find 'evidence' to prove that ours is more logical or more correct in some way, which is impossible since in my view physical world logic does not apply to what lies beyond it. In my opinon, theological head banging just goes round in circles, chasing shadows. It might show how clever someone is compared to another, but it doesnt equate with a more accurate conception of the 'divine world' and our relation to it.

As a Roman historian myself I dont have any beef with your historical references to a messiah/cult leader figure called Christ, I am happy with most of the references to conclude he existed, although there is some doubt about the Josephus reference as there is some evidence this may have been tampered with at a later date.

however, no amount of lecturing is going to convince me that he was conceived divinely (a common pagan theme) or that he was actually the 'son of god' or that he actually performed 'miracles' or that he came back from the dead. Just because it was 2000 years ago, doesnt make it any more believable you know; even credulous individuals like Tacitus and Suetonius wouldnt swallow all those stories as fact, why should I?

Each to their own...

Doug.

PS interesting reading though and ok i admit it I have a classical world bias: I remember the famous line of one exasperated Christian rhetor who once blurted out to his stubborn pagan audience 'what has Athens to do with Jeruselum???!!!'

I prefer to ask, 'what has Jeruselum to do with Athens?'

'leolam' is what you buy from the butchers once a week...

or is that 'leG o' lamb'?

One of the two

Doug

The New Age movement is still too insular and cultic to gain widespread intellectual respectability. What is needed is greater input from experts in collateral fields, e.g. Bible scholars, church historians, physicists, parapsychologists, and neurologists. At least, this site attracts more diversity than most in this area and, therefore, has some potential to promote interdisciplinary dialogue.


I find this above paragraph suspect... it sounds like you have an agenda and that agenda is to attack the 'new age' movement with everything you've got... neurologists? Careful they might turn on you as well!

I know that you say this is purely to do with the nu-age misinterpretation of the bible and reincarnation, which I agree with you on, but your above paragrapgh hints at a much greater agenda:

While pretending to come across as objective, you are in fact hiding a quite fanatical disdain for this perceived 'enemy' called the 'new age movement', which you want to destroy as you view it as a threat to civilisation... as any nu-age pot smoking hippy would happily say to you, 'chill out man!'

Doug.

PS
I am an academic specialist in the field of biblical and early church studies.
There's a suprise! A bible thumper you mean?

I do remember him Exothen, although from what I remember there were good reasons for taking that action although it was unfortunate.

From what I remember though he was posting countless messages IN CAPITALS on ALL the forums, basically screaming at everyone that they were under the thrall of satan etc..
The result of this debacle was the creation of the christian forums on this board so you can say that it resulted in a positive step from one point of view. The idea was that people with christian concerns/interests would have a place to debate/make their case with others and with those who were interested enough to take a look.

This guy was way over the top however, and eventially became unmanageble, but perhaps this was due to inexperience, since as you said, he had only recently had his revelation... perhaps he would learn from the experience here and take a more measured, reasonable approach in the future.

Doug

PS for the record 'Astral projection' is the the practice of training yourself to leave your physical body and roam in spirit form, whether in the physical world of 'higher' levels of reality.
You might have heard of this in related experiences known as 'Out of body expeiences', which is the same thing except that this happens randomly during a serious accident or during an operation for example, both of which suggest that it is a perfectly natural occurance. Whether you should activly 'train' yourself to leave the body by choice is another matter however and perhaps not everyone would agree with this practice.

Neither Christian or Muslim sides are going to convince the other no matter how clever the rhetoric or theological trickery; thats the hellenistic influence; clever rhetoric and theology.. anyone can argue with validity for as long as they like, while their beards grow long

In the end, choose and stick with it.

Doug

my two euros.

yeah no problem, i guess that Chesterson quote you have will always irritate me but I can live with that, and is probably a good reason for you to keep on using it..

I am curious about one thing however: I am interested in and practice astral projection, (the board kind of gives that away!) and you use this board as well. What are your views on AP and how does it fit in with your beliefs? Is it compatible in any way or out of the question for someone in your position?

Doug

ok, but if that person's beliefs have nothing to do with the christian bible then you dont have any beef with it in that case?

Concerning the bible: I know where you are coming from but is it not the case that people can read the same line from the bible and come to a completely different interpretation of it, which can lead to problems? Its just that i bet there are others out there who disagree with some of your views on a text as strongly as you might disagree with theirs... this must contribute to all the factionalism that you get within christianity.. of course you get it in other religions as well, its just that christianity seems to have turned this into a fine art!  I dont think there is any other mainstream religion which is split into so many different factions, all vehemently opposed to one another.

As a matter of interest what branch would you consider yourself as? and i dont' mean 'the truth' or some other such answer, but rather what real world category of christianity do you generelly identify with?

Doug

Exothen I also dont see any connection between Jesus and eastrn traditions  which we both think is a good thing but for different reasons.

Personally I dislike middle-eastern religion in all its facets, ie judaism, christianity and Islam and I would rather they had stayed in the seething poisoned chalice of the region in which they originated, rather than infecting the rest of us.. but of course that is my opinion.

You have a different view which holds these doctrines above and beyond others including eastern ones which again I respect your view..

but I like the idea of the eastern traditions that are untouched; I find them so refreshing in today's world.

Each to their own I always say and I think that most reasonable people, including most moderate christians and muslims would agree with. unfortunalty muslims and chrisitans have that irittating facet built into their doctrine which insists they activly try to convert as many people as possible, which really starts to p**s people off, esp when your standing n the occult section of a bookstore as a responsible adult and you turn around to find a group of people praying at you and thumping tomes of new testement lore....
ok I exagerate, but not by much...
Cant we leave people to believe what they want?

Doug

As Gandalf said, people often read into the texts what they want. Nothing like quoting Scripture without understanding what is even being said.



Yes but I include you in this as well, wheras you of course do not, since you believe that you and those whom you support have the 'correct' interpretation. However others also have differing interpretations which they beleive is the 'correct' one.

That is why there are so many christian factions all arguing that they are correct and firing shots at eachother, I dont think there is another mainstream faith system so fragmented and argumentative as the christian one, but as i said thats what happens when you rely on old texts written thousands of years ago for your belief system.. its subjective, I wont get bogged down with which intepretation is more 'logical', I'll leave that to you.

history is only partially similar to this: history is about trying to find the most 'likely' facts for real world events; it uses a logic based system, but is still subjective, so is theology, but in theology you are all arguing for the most logical point in an argument which is all based on belief, which is then tested against other beliefs.. it cant stand outside of theology only on its own terms.. while this has some similarity to history, history is at least based on real events in the real world, a fact that no reasonable person is going to have any beef with.
Thats what annoys me about Islam, they are big on this 'logic' deal, they say it has 'proofs' which any rational minded individual can find out to indicate that it is the most rational and therefor factual religion.... hmm I dont think so.

As for history, interpretation of this is subjective as every historian knows.

I was just indicating my 'hunch' which any historian is allowed to have, as long as they dont state it as fact ie most supported by evidence.


I accept this and dont see any evidence that jesus went to india, however this issue is not just a secular historical one, it is also a belief issue which is a different ball game entirly in my view. We simply dont know enough about him.
Logic doesnt come into it and trying to 'prove' religious beliefs logically is going to be shot down in flames... keep the 'logic' of your particular religion' within theology debates, it doesnt stand outside of that.

thats the problem with relying on some written texts written yonks ago... anyone can quite easly read into it whatever they like... and they frequently do...

However, if they insist...

Doug

ultimatly it comes down to your own personal belief, if you want jesus travelling to India then go for it.
Those like Exothen are never going to accept anything other than their set doctrine and indeed the indicator that it so conditions their perception can be clearly seen by the tell tale perception that theirs is 'the most logical' and that others are 'illogical', cf  Exothen's favourite Chesterson quote mentioned earlier, which sums up this view perfectly, and is SO common throughout so many religions.

Interestingly, as an aside, the problem with this quote is that it just says 'belief in 'god', now I assume that this individual means the christian conception of god, but theirin lies the problem, the fact remains that there are many conceptions of what 'god' is, which Chesterson will not like as they will conflict with what he feels is the most 'logical conception' ie his version of christianity. Infortunatly the 'most logical' approach is also forwarded by many other religions including the other middle-eastern ones like judaism and Islam, both of which state they are the more logical (as well as other branches of christianity), so you will all just continue going round in circles infinitum ad nausium! (such is the legacy of the greek influence on monotheistic belief ie theology, very clever but all it does is chase shadows).

At the end of the day Exothen and myself have to agree to disagree as neither of us will convine the other.

However, concerning the Jesus travelling to India thing, I think we both can agree on this one. Although it IS technically possible for a Judean citizen to travel to India, for reasons I talked about earlier, there is just not enough historical evidence that he did so. However we know so little of his life since most of his 'non-messiah' life is excluded from the accounts and we have very litle sense of jesus the man. so we dont know what he was doing a lot of the time, esp. his teenage years. So it cant be proved that he DIDNT go to india, so ultimalty as stated, it rests on belief, and if you like this idea then its up to you, trying to 'prove or 'disprove' such ideas historically is not really going anywhere.

My feeling though is that this idea has come around by those who wish to make eastern traditions and middle-eastern traditions compatible, wheras I think they are separate tradtions.

Douglas

suprise suprise, bush has won..

I know almost everyone here in the UK and most of Europe wanted Kerry (in fact most of the world!).

You may wonder why the rest of the world is so intertested; its not just that we in the UK are America's lap dog, it is also to do with the fact that since the US is currently the most powerful country in the world, it matters to everyone who is in charge, this won't change until the next nation comes along, China most likely, although not for a while yet.

However, i don't condone the idiotic move by some UK newspapers (like the Guardian) who encouraged readers to write to US home addresses urging people to vote Kerry, that was just wrong.... other nations have no business interfering with others election processes

I suppose now we'll just have to see what happens next, can't say I'm too excited by Bush's victory though...

Douglas

your right about salem, It seems that Scotland was the main 'burning place' as it were!

Hey its tradition!

Douglas

This is all facinating reading, but what I was wondering was if our 'ego conciousness' dissappers at death but say the person is 100% ego driven what happens? It sounds like they would end up in one of the lower astral regions where the astral enviroment would provide their physical ego demands as before, so they would carry on with what they were doing before. In these cases is it likely that the individual would not even realise that they had 'passed on' as it were?

In these situations, which would be very common I would think, is it the case that most people eventially do wake up to this fact and leave this state?

What you describe does has implications for other areas of enquiry such as 'ghosts'. ok you might ask, what has this got to do with anything, but many researchers and retrieval experts such as Bruce moen and others understand 'ghosts' to be those individuals who are stuck in emotional loops or are still attatched to physical reality in some way.
However, from what you describe, since a persons PEC dissapates there is no way these people could actually interact with the physical realm at all, only with their own astral enviroment. But most reliable ghost and haunting scenarios which many such as Bruce moen and others have personally attested to DO seem to suggest that in *some* cases people who are absolutly focused on the physical realm can manifest there in limited ways.

My own theory of what allows this to happen: Usually you find that 'hauntings' are related to an extreme emotional incident in that area, such as a murder or whatever, I believe this leaves a significant 'emotional footprint' on the physical enviroment: this closes the gap between the physical location and its astral counterpart in the region occupied by the deceased individual and allowes some 'bleed through' as it were, including some quite remarkable phenomena such as the ability even to affect physical objects and so on.

Ok this is just my theory but it might explain how such things occur while still being compatible with the situation you describe.

Moen finds that once a retrieval has been succeseful the 'hauntings' and related phenomena cease.


Apologies for the alternate slant which i've taken this post, I'll let you get back to the topic in hand!

Douglas

Hey Jeff, good to see you popping back from time to time and congratulations btw!

You will see that the die hards are still here (which is good news!) as well as many new folks!

Dougie