Messages

Mustardseed, settle down there!

ok, egos have been bruised, things have been said on both sides etc...

The best thing is for you both to leave each other alone for a while, like you say, although for eternity might be a bit over the top!
Perhaps in a few weeks/months/years things will have settled down a bit in order that a reasoned discussion can take place.


------------------------

Anyway,
Beth, I agree with your comments about symbolic meanings verses literal ones. Certainly in Europe, especially amongst 'catholics' and even amongst the 'protestant' community, the general consensus amongst christians is that the bible and christianity is of a more symbolic, metaphorical and ultimatly more spiritual nature. As you quite rightly say, most reasonable people do have problems accepting that the OT is literal fact, for example!

However, there are still a small hardcore group who are still attatched to the idea of the bible as literal fact. This small group is nevertheless highly vocal, but they ARE a minority amongst the
christian population here.

I'm sure I will be slated for this one, but I do think that some people prefer to take a completely literal view of the bible as it is a 'no-brainer', it requires no depth of thought, rather it is just a question of learning passages by rote and obeying 'the commandments'. This is the tool by which the organised church has controlled the masses for centuries, but this period is coming to an end, and I might add, they know it.

They see any interpretation other than literal as a direct attack on their beliefs; they do not have the will-power to spend time looking at the deeper symbolic meanings; such an approach requires too much effort, and besides it is more challenging and dangerous, as it requires free-thought and a willingness to come to your own conclusions rather than someone else doing it for you.


As you will know, the conflict between the literalists and the 'symbolic/metaphoricals' has raged in christian circles since day one. During the Roman period (esp before nicea 325), there were several 'strains' of christianity but eventially conflict arose between the 'gnostics' (who viewed the texts in a more symbolic/metaphorical manner) and the hardcore, literalists; as for Emperor Constantine himself, he couldnt really care, he just wanted a consensus!

Eventially the gnostic branch were hunted down and persecuted.

However, I have always wondered about the the 'chicken & egg' situation here.... Can anyone really prove who came first... gnostics or literalists?

Modern day gnostics say that the scriptures were always written in a highly symbolic manner for initiates while the lay-man took them at face value.

Literalists have always said that the scriptures have always been designed to be taken at face value because they are, quite simply, FACT.  The gnostics on the other hand are just a bunch of subversive heretics who started reading meaning into things that were'nt there and they have quite rightly burned in the purifying flames of righteusness (to use the language of early christian texts!).

Will we ever know which came first?

Regards,
Douglas

To be honest guys, I am still trying to fathom that last experience out!
As for whether they were suprised to see me, I'm not sure.
I had thought they were waiting for me to surpise me (which they did!), but maybe I suprised them!

Anway, I'll have to mull this one over for a while...

Douglas

Guys..........what a load of old horseshit! (IMO)

If I had a Euro for everytime it 'the end of the world' i would be a billionaire by now...
You can believe what you like, but i have lived through so many 'end times' that it really is getting tedious now.. The worst ones so far have been the 'millenium' nutters, around the same time we had the nostradamus 1999 retards... What you always find is that as soon as the latest one *doesnt* come true then excuses are found and the attention is forced onto the *next* end time story..

I've acutally noticed a cultural difference here. It seems that the obsession with 'end time scenarios' is a purely American thing. It isnt a fixation in Europe as such. I think it is because christian apolcalyptic mythology is so ingrained into your culture. Is it not the fact that the majority of the population think that the biblical revelations are 'fact' that they 'will happen'?
btw this is purly an observation Im not trying to be anti-american at all, Im just noting a cultural difference thats all!

The result of this is that you start looking at other cultural myths with 'christian apocalypse glasses', eg the Mayan prophesies.
If you actually study the Mayan prophsies the 'end time' is nothing like the crap in revelations, it is in fact more subtle, a raising of universal consciousness.  

The idea I heard earlier perfectly describes this mixup of christian notions with mayan philosophy, so that in the event, those who are more spiritually enlightnened go to a higher level while those who are of low vibration go to a some kind of hellish region... bollocks!

btw you guys might also want to check out the whole origin of the 2012 thing as there is a considerable amount of controvesy going on about whether the whole 2012 thing is complete crap and a result of complete mis-translation of mayan text..
I'm not stating it is, I'm just saying that it IS controversial and those who just accept the mayan thing about 2012 as fact might want to check out the evidence rather than saying 'we're all going to die', which to be honest is wearing a bit thin now...
Perhaps its time to get some new material sherrif...


Douglas
(someone who's bored having lived through more 'end of the worlds' than Einstein has braincells)

Tab_
IMO, I've always felt that the eastern religions, or should we say philosophies, have always been far more spritually advanced than the more crass religious dogmas of the western world.

Douglas

oh hell no, not yet more 2012 nonsense and 'spirit wars'! Those nu-agers have got a lot to answer for.

btw would people stop being so paranoid about 'demons'. This is such a christian fantasy, as it is so concerned with oppositions and conflict.

The word demon comes from the original Greek word 'daimonae' and was just a general term for any kind of spirit, whether it was a godlike spirit or even the spirit of your antie mary.
There was no 'good & evil' in the classical world (or the celtic one for that matter).
The christians however were keen on reducing everything into oppostions, good/evil, light/dark, so spirits were suddenly all 'evil', and there was some kind of war going on.... complete tot.

Which is actually a system which they inherated from late Judaism. Judaism itself got the idea from the ancient Zoaroastian religion of Persia which has had a huge impact on later Jewish and christian thought.

Douglas

In other words, what wisp is saying is that people who don't agree with christian doctrine are wrong or 'misled' in some way.

This is one of the reasons why so many people stopped listning to christian rhetoric years ago.

btw, seeing how this topic has been hijacked into being a font for yet more christian debate, can I suggest someone moves this thread into the christian forums (as homosexuality is such a christian hangup, it would seem appropriate for discussion there).

Douglas

Science is an aspect I'm looking at now. Wow! Unbelievable things being dreamed-up by these minds. Many good things, but unfortunately, in the area of the human body (living ),and in behavior and psychology, failure in a big way. This area of science is in desparate need of spiritual intervention
Wisp
--------------------------------------------------


Yes I agree, but 'spiritual intervention' does not necessarily mean 'Christian intervention'. Christianity in no way has a monopoly over spirituality, despite what their adherents would say.

Douglas

Exothen,
You say my article is misleading; however, I believe it is also misleading to say that there is no influence from classical myth in the NT, as if it arose fully sprung from nowhere.

I can assure you that the similarities are such that to deny the conclusion that there is classical influence in the NT stories is just an example of close-mindedness and refusal to look at evidence that doesn't agree with you belief-set.

How do you account for the similarities then? Just coincidence?
Later pagan writers going back and 're-writing' the myths to deceive?

Please elaborate.

Douglas

I too can hardly wait for Exothen's evidence, it's going to nothing short of sensational, especially seeing how, if correct, the evidence must have evaded the attention of classical historians for decades!

However, I was wondering if Exothen could clear somthing up for me right away; are you a religious pluralist at all; ie do you accept other faiths as equally valid ways of 'looking at the light'? or are you exclusive, in that Jesus is God and everyone else is wrong? If so, then can you prove this?

Regards,
Douglas

Hi,
For the details of the early church and the development of christianity into a world religion under the Roman empire, you really want to check out books on the period, which is officially known amongst academics as the 'Later Roman Empire', also known as 'Late Antiquity'. This period is usually defined as running from 284AD (when Diocletian came to power) to the start of the Arab conquest in the 7th century.

Three good texts are 'the world of late Antiquity' by Peter Brown; 'The later roman empire', by Averil Cameron
and 'Diocletian and the Roman recovery' by Stephen Williams.

All three are really interesting and written in a good style that tries to avoid the usual monotonous academic style that is common in the field.

I'm not sure about online sources, there is probably loads but watch out for sites with heavy christian bias, which I have come across in the past.


The crucual period is the 4th century; even up until 313AD, christianity was still a minority religion within the empire, with only about 1/5th of citizens being members, and most of those were in the east, but the church grew to supremecy once it began to be officially promoted by the emperors, starting with Constantine and the Edict of toleration in 313.

BTW although from this point on christianity quickly became the most popular religion of the roman empire, paganism died hard and pagans still held high positions at court throughout the 4th century.
Most pagan temples also remained open thoughout the 4th century.

The era of great church building and active persecution of pagans and heretics only really began in earnest from the start of the 5th century onwards (after the sack of Rome) and it is only really from this point on that we can begin to talk about a 'christian society'.

Douglas

Well, as a classical historian I have my own view on this:

I am inclined to think it doubtful that there was any historical character called jesus christ, as there are NO written accounts from the period in which he is meant to have lived, which there should be as Roman admin was highly advanced, and the scale of his miracle working etc as described would definatly have attracted wide attention if they happened in the scale that is written. Also there are no contemprory records that list any place known as 'Nazareth', all these elements came about later, Even Joseph, an important jewish writer during the period in question doesnt even mention any such person.

Some modern christians have tried to get round this by insisting that the authorites 'purged' the records leaving no actual contemprory accounts but this is quite unlikely, in all other similar situations there ARE ALWAYSD traces to be found.
The actual testament accounts are now considred not to have been written by who they claim to have been, but have been composed at a later date, sometime in the late 1st century, furthermore, word analysis indicates that the last three gospals are based on the first one, with a few alterations.


As I have said in another post, all the stories about jesus' miracle working and other stories about the 'last supper' and the 'virgin birth' etc were all stories that were already well known features of classical mythology; as I said, both Dionosyus, the Greek god of wine, and the persian god Zoaroaster both had 'virgin births', had their births fortold by stars, were both attended by wise men and shepherds, and both had 'last supper' scenarios before being betrayed/killed by their followers.
The stories of Jesus' miracle working and healing are re-hashed versions of stories of the greek healer god Ascelipius who is credited as being a 'proto-jesus'.

The reason for this is that for the new religion of christianity to take off it had to contain common pagan elements that would be familar to classical readers, otherwise they were not likely to accept it.
Any classical historian who knows their greek myth will be happy to show you that all the major attributes of Jesus and all the important NT stories are in fact re-hashed versions of earlier classical mythology, which, considering that most of 'state christianity' is a creation of the Roman empire, should not be much of a suprise.

There were certainly christian followers and an active christian cult by the mid 1st century AD if not before, but people should not be suprised at how quickly a mythic cycle, like the story of a healer god like christ can take off. In the same way, many cults grew up around Heracles but it is hardly likely that there was an actual historical figure such as old Heracles himself.

The idea of Jesus quickly grew in christian cult circles as more of a concept, an idea. For example if you read the epistles (letters) of Saul (later st Paul) he nowhere mentions any real historical character called Jesus christ. Rather, Christ is an idea a godlike figure not of this world. As the myth grew it eventially became accepted as part of the story that he had lived as a man in Judea but there is nothing contemporary that supports this.

However, as Beth suggests, there are some viable modern day accoounts of highly advanced beings who seem to take the form of the christian jesus or at least that is how they are interpreted by the people who see them. However, it is not really that far fetched to imagine that spiritual masters might reveal themselves in a manner that would be familar to the viewer, esp if he/she came from a christian background. For the same reason, we get muslims reporting seeing visions of Allah and hindus reporting visions with hindu deities, in fact this seems consistent with what we know of how these beings operate when they interact with our world.

Douglas

Hello Ghostrider!

No you are not very far off, in fact you are quite right. The catholic church and the Orthodox church are two of the most important legacies of the roman empire.

Remember the old stories about the 'decline and fall' of the roman empire? Well, of course, it is now recognised that this idea is a bit of a falsehood.
For a start. in the event, only the westrn half of the empire faded away, with the last western emperor Romulus Augustulus (little Augustus) abdicating in 476.

The eastern half of the empire survived intact and lasted for another thousand years, before falling to the Turks in 1453.
The eastern empire had of course develped itself over this time to become distinct from its imperial 'father'.
However, although modern historians refer to the continuing eastern empire as the 'byzantine empire' as it was founded on the old city of Byzantium, the byzantines alays refered to themselves as Romans as did everyone else at the time, even if they were greek.

Constantinople was originaly named New Rome, however, it must be remembered that by about 300AD the idea of Rome had become dis-assosiated with the city on the Tiber in Italy (although it kept its prestige as the founder of the empire), by this time the WHOLE EMPIRE was Rome, and the capital was wherever the emperor happened to be, afterall full roman citizenship had been given to all citizens of the empire in 212AD.


Meanwhile, in the west, although it is the case that the germanic invaders carved out their own empires in western Europe from 406 onwards, with the Franks (French) taking Gaul, Vandals and goths taking Spain and noth Africa, ostro-goths taking Italy etc,
It must be remembered that the Roman aristocracy survived quite intact, perhaps losing a third of their landed estates but that was a small price to pay. The Germanic peoples needed the aristocracy to read and write and administrate for them and the roman aristocracy did this, and therefor continued to hold land and power as before.

They continued to hold power quit easily; whereas before they were esteemed members of the senate, now they became bishops instead, who had enormous power over everyone, virtually running regions under their care.

So basically, senators became bishops and the old aristocratic families continued as usual, reading and writing in latin as before and chilling out in their villas.

For this reason the church is a direct continuation of the roman senatorial aristocracy... They continued to wear their togas and it became a sort of uniform for church members.... in time this evolved into the priests robes we are all familiar with today!

However, there was a breach between east in west which eventially led to both sides becoming estranged.

For example, the orthodox church does not accept the concept of 'original sin' only the western church does. This idea can be traced back to Augustine who was writing just after the sack of Rome in 410 and had to find a way to explain why the christian god had not prevented the sack of the eternal city, especially as the empire was now officially the 'kingdom of god'. Augustine eventially came up with the idea that god is trying us and that the kingdom of god is NOT WITH US YET (it was the assumption, once the empire was christianised that the new empire was the kingdom of god) and that everyone is born sinful and will only emerge triumphant in Christ after many trials to test ones faith. Of course, this is a reflection of the turbulant times of the western empire as the germanic tribes were moving in.

In the east there wasnt an issue and they never felt the need to formulate such ideas to explain the western crisis; as far as they were concerned, their western brethren were failing due to bad management, which was true enough!

Anyway, thats my rant finished for now, I hope I didnt bore everyone!

Douglas

Hi,
As a classical historian myself, I would just like to point out a few things about the NT and Exothen's comment about 'there's no reason to think that any part of it is myth'.

In actual fact, it is well known among the academic community that most of the NT stories ARE indeed based on myth, what is more, as any classial historian will tell you, the NT stories are basically re-hashed versions of *pagan classical myths* that were already well known up until this time.. they were justr repackaged for a new religion...

The reason for this is simple, in order for the new religion to be popular it had to contain certain elements that would be familiar to a classical readership, otherwise, it would never take off. In this way the NT is designed to *appeal* to classical readers by containing stories that they would all recognise.

In fact, all the main stories about Jesus's healing and miracle working, and much of the events and narrative, are common pagan elements. In reality there is no real evidence that Jesus did any of these things, all we know is that, if the man did exist at all, he was a philosopher/prophet, of which we have a few parrables to his name and that's about it.


All the stories about miracle/working healing, were VERY common classical themes: The greek healing god Ascelepius had these same attributes and travelled the land in human form, healing the sick and performing similar miracles to Jesus, Ascelepius is widely recognised as a 'proto-Jesus'.

The 'Virgin Birth' concept was another VERY comon classical theme. Zeus and Apollo plus many other gods frequently impregnated mortal women who later brough forth offspring with divine powers.

Also, the story of the birth being fortold by a star and the story of the shephards and wisemen attending the birth are also features of earlier birth stories of both Dionosyus (Greek god of wine - Roman Bacchus) and Zoaroaster, the persian god (of whom Judaism and later christianity got many of its ideas from)
In addition the 'last supper' story is a common pagan story; again, both Dionosyius and Zoaroaster had a 'last supper' before being betrayed by one of their followers.

As you can see, the evidence for much of the classical mythic content of the NT is actually pretty obvious if you actually KNOW anything about classical myth.  
To be honest, its a pretty obvious occurance, seeing how it was the Roman empire that created what we now know as 'mainstream christianity' and we should not be suprised if the content reflects some of this.

Douglas

Hi Mustardseed,

In the academic world at least, there are two main schools of thought as to how a philosophical argument should be structured. The prefered style in the United States and Britain is the 'analytical philosophy' approach where logic is used to base arguments.

If you want to put forward an argument you have to provide a logical 'premise' that can be said to be 'true'. If the premise is true then the premise is said to be 'sound'. You then follow this line to form a 'conclusion' based on the premise.
(I'm using the quotes here to indicate these terms used in their academic sense). The analytical approach is following the established tradition of classical Greek philosophy.

However, there is also another style of philosophy which doesnt rely on logic and is more a 'stream of consciousness' approach which deals with feelings etc. This is known as the 'continental style'; typically your french existentialists with their berets and turtleneck sweater+pipe types will adhere to this; and is characterisitc of the French & German school.

Analytical philosophy is highly critical of this approach however as it holds logic dear, so you will find it very difficult to have philosophy tought in the 'continental' style anywhere in the UK or US; there, only logical, analytical philosophy is accepted as suitable to teach at undergraduate level (sure, you will be taught about Nietche etc but only AFTER you have been firmly indoctrinated in analytical philosphy first, with a 'logic of philosophy' module being a typical and required component of any given philosophy degree).

btw this is just the academic mode of philosophy, which I have some experience of as I did 1st year philosophy as part of my degree, but I have to say, academic philosophy is really stuck up its own a** IMO

Regards,
Douglas

Dont worry!

zjrules is probably one of these goth/nu-metal angst ridden teenager types with their 'slipknot' or 'system of a down' manufactured nu-crap-metal band cds and walking around with their huge baggy combat trousers with chains and other excrement hanging off them.............

Take no notice!



Douglas

PS I bet you've just been to see 'Underworld' and thought that it was a really great film!

Yes, the 'void' is very well known to those of the Monroe school ilk
(refered to as focus 12)

I prefer to use the term '3d blackness'; this is usually experienced when meditating or using hemi-sync. Basically, the 2d blackness in front of your eyelids (providing its dark of course!) becomes 3 dimensional and you find yourself floating in a peaceful black void.
'Monroe school' types tend to view the '3d blackness' state as the 'bridge' between your own mind and the astral; its where the two meet. As such it allows you to go anywhere you want in the astral given the right intent.

Btw, the 3d blackness state does not have to be empty; as it is where your mind and the astral meet, you can influence it to a great extent. eg next time you are there imagine your favourite piece of music; you will actually hear it all around you in fantastic dolby 5.1000000000!

To use the 3d blackness as an astral bridge: once there, you just place intent to go to some specific astral region and you will see some swirling coloured patttern in the 3dblackness. Concentrate on these and they will form into a 3d 'astral screen' (focus22) which you can then enter to visit that realm.

Of course, quite often people who reach the focus 12 (void/3dblackness) level prefer not to do anything and just drift in a nice peaceful state, just contemplating things, or nothing at all and as I said, you can choose to do this with your favourite piece of music playing all around you, in a way you've never experienced before (note: I wouldnt recommend 'deth metal' tunes for this one

Nice as this is though, eventully you will tire of this and want to get to the astral proper to do some work!

To sum, Rain's post is a straighforward case of fear completly twisting what should be a very pleasent and fun experience into something horrific; which is easy to say but not so easy if you encounter this with no idea what the hells going on;
I agree that conventional christian 'wisdom' doesnt help matters here and only leads to situations like Rain's.

Rain_ my advice: get back there again and learn to enjoy it!

Regards,
Douglas

Well, I've only ever heard good things about 'Tommi's vibration starter' and you have just provided more evidence for its validity.
You should be pleased that you got vibes so quickly, it shows you are on to a good thing; believe me, if only all presets and other techniques had such results we'd all be laughing!

My advice is that you should take the vibes as a good sign and keep working with the preset, trying to stay awake longer into it!

Douglas

As well, some interesting takes on the Christian message have arisen, such as you might find even today in modern China with a form of Christianity that is far older than the United States or the discovery of the New World._
------------------------------------------------

Erm... christianity IS far older than the United States or the discovery of the New World!!!
Sorry, I just thought that statement was a bit obvious, seeing how the United States has only been around for a couple of hundred years and the Americas themselves were only rediscovered in 1492 (The Vikings under Leif the Lucky, son of Erik the Red, had previously discovered and set up a colony on Newfoundland around the year 1000.. cf the Vinland saga)!!!

Anyway, I agree with what you're saying!

Regards,
Douglas

Hi there Lefthandblack... welcome to the forums, I hope your stay here will be a long and happy one!

Have you any astral experience at all? I am just starting out but I am making good progress according to my own limited standards!

Regards,
Douglas

Hi Beth_
i'm wondering where Platonic thought comes into this, as Plato theorizes in his 'Symposium: (9 or 10 I think) about the true 'art of love'. Plato says that the physical body is a reflection of the higher mind which is in itself a reflection of the divine. So when you fall in love with someone it is fine to appreciate their bodily virtues but you should remember that this feast of lovliness is a reflection of their great mind, which in itself is a reflection of the divine 'all'.

Was Plato a dualist then? He seems to subscribe to the idea that our bodies are reflections of a more ideal state but at the same time he is NOT saying that the body is 'evil' or 'sinful' in any way.
From this idea we get the common expression called 'platonic love' but the modern meaning is not actually correct as Plato doesnt rule out sexual relationships, he just says that you should try to perceive the visible part as part of the greater whole as it were.

I read that the platonic school later went on to further develop this theory to include the whole physical world, that is the whole world and everything in it, including virtues were reflections of a higher divine world.
Is there not a famous analogy that Plato uses of the cave?

Anyway, I'm just trying to figure out what his position is in all this!

Regards,
Douglas

PS Those Greek philosophers though... you've got to hand it to them... awsome stuff!

oops!
Sorry Epicurus but you didnt *propose* the theory of atomism, you only furthered it.
It was originally proposed by Thracian philosopher Democritus (c.460BCE), after learning it from his master Leucippus. Epicurus and his followers later supported this theory and took it on board!

This is according to my great source; that great tome of lore known as the Oxford Classical Dictionary!!!

Douglas

they would be considered Hedonists or Epicurians in the Greek culture...
Beth_


Hey Beth, thanks for your post!

I sometimes feel that Epicurians get a bit of a hard time, not just by later writers but also by their contemporary rivals like stoics and so on.
The common critisism was that epicurians were hedonists in the modern sense but from what I can remember they meant hedonism to mean 'freedom from pain' rather than all out physical pleasure, a small but important distinction.
You are right that many were mostly athiests and believed in addition that bodily death was final, therfore the time to live was now.. but this does not translate into recklesness however.

As a matter of interest, the epirucians are also famous as they proposed the theory of 'atomism' that all matter is fundamentaly composed of the same tiny units called 'atoms' and different objects/textures etc are simply atoms in differing arangements....
in other words, modern atomic theory.... not bad eh?

Douglas

hmm, Myself, I subscribe to the panatheistic (?) theory that we are all aspects of god but we are seperate at the same time. Now, given that there may be a astral/spiritual heirarchy (or at least various levels) then it follows there are many beings at various levels of power, some so powerful that they might as well be termed gods from our point of view.

Basically, since god is everything and everyone, this means that there is only one god but also many gods.. at the same time!

So IMO, strict monotheists like Christians, Muslims and Jews are wrong as they take their notion of one god too rigidly, and strict polytheists like Hindus and followers of Classical religion (yes, its making a comeback apparanty.. thank Zeus!), are also equally wrong.. the reality lies somewhere between the two.

I think sometimes that the eastern religions/philosophies are perhaps closest in that they subscribe to the theory that we are all god or aspects of god.
I've always felt that eastern philosophies are far more spiritually advanced than the crass (in comparison) western religions.

Regards,
Douglas

Greatoutdoors:

Here is a link to once such Tarot gaming site that has information on the various tarot game rules, some of which are original and others which are more modern rules. Its also interesting to note that the original game rules for tarot vary slightly from country to country; In Spain, where tarot card games originated in the 14/15th century, the rules differ slightly from Italy where the game 'spread' to (pardon the pun) later.

http://www.pagat.com/tarot/index.html

Douglas

Thanks for the info guys!

Beavis_

hehe You're right there! However, this degree I'm on, which is almost finished is a big thing for me. You see, I'm what you refer to as a 'mature student' basically I went to university at age 26 after doing an 'gateway to university' course. Prior to this I had left school with nothing and was bumming around in dead-end jobs for years which was depressing.

Its something I really want to do just to prove to myself and everyone that 'yes I can get one of yer poncy degrees just as much as the next man', basically a personal development thing. I believe it has practical benefits for my astral work as the subjects I have studied have given me a lot of insight into comparative religion, anthropology, philosophy etc, and has led me to question assumed 'truths' about the world.

In this way I think a humanities centred degree can be useful and worthwhile from a larger perspective and the people involved, both students and teachers, tend to be quite broad-minded.

My problem is the science based courses like physics, biology, mathematics etc, where my experience indicates that the academic attitude of many involved is really smug and they think they know everything about everything; they are also staunch materialists as well IMO; they have an irritating, patronising attitude to those that don't agree with their ideas and they like to think of those who believe or have experience of phenomena 'outside the norm' that they are sadly deluded, or that 'such people are just seeking for a source of comfort and security'.

However I point out to them that the same could be said for THEIR point of view; that they believe in a strict materialist point of view in which 'this is all there is' as this also serves to provide a source of 'comfort and security' as it means that humans are at the peak of the life chain and masters of all they survey; they are also 'secure' in the knowledge that everything is nice and safe and fundamentally 'knowable' (just watch a astrophysicist on TV when he/she is wafting on about their subject, you will detect the sense of confidence and obvious comfort he or she derives from their subject). However, it is quite interesting to note that this safe delusion is beginning to be broken down now that scientists are realising the mind blowing implications of quantum theory and how it mirrors what mystics have been going on about for years!

(I might get flamed for this so apologies in advance to any scientists/engineers here; I know what I'm saying is a generalisation and doesn't apply to all said people!)

WHHHHHHHOOOAAAA!
Sorry guys I've been ranting and went totally off the rails with regards to the topic!

er.......anyway, so that's why I prefer to save astral work for the weekend; I try not to be a slave to the machine at the same time...
er.......thank you...and goodnight!


Regards,
Douglas