Beverly Gilmour, 100s of NDE and a New Insight About Consciousness |350|

#21
I can understand your despair just after the hideous attack in Manchester.

I think it is worth makings a distinction between reports such as hers, that may be explained by a more comprehensive theory of reality, and reports that are also clearly evidential before we have such a theory.

David
I'm probably showing my ignorance David when it comes to science, how to convert things into a theory. I'm sure that I suffer from bias where this is concerned, but Cox and his pals are so arrogant!

Yes, I was feeling despair. Though possibly not for the reasons that you might think. It is difficult to see an upside at times. :(
 
#22
I'm probably showing my ignorance David when it comes to science, how to convert things into a theory. I'm sure that I suffer from bias where this is concerned, but Cox and his pals are so arrogant!
Goodness, I don't think anyone knows what a non-materialist theory of reality would look like! However, I think perhaps Beverley's experiences are hard to treat as evidence, and yet I don't want to dismiss them.

Yes Cox (rather like Dawkins) is arrogant - he makes me cringe!

David
 
#23
Alex's question at the end of the interview:

Do you think Beverley "encountered Jesus" during an out-of-body NDE experience, and what does it mean to even say that?
I don't know to what extent this holds true, but I've noticed that when people encounter Jesus in these experiences that they usually identify him, he doesn't identify himself. They "know" or assume its Jesus for whatever reason - appearance, culture, religious or otherwise.. Beverley said (from memory, I couldn't find it in the transcript) that she saw him as a hooded figure like a monk; she asked him if he was Jesus but he never directly said he was.

Another thing, most encounters with Jesus seem to come in NDEs and not very often in spontaneous or intentional OBEs - people like Beverley and Swedenborg being the exception. I'm not convinced she has had NDEs as opposed to OBEs.
 
#24
The Jesus of the NDE is also very different (to me anyway - I grew up fundamentalist Christian) than what one finds in a strict reading of the NT. No threats of eternal punishment or of being spewed out of his mouth, no real admonitions on Biblical concepts of sin or to repent and be born again, no commands to go to church and be baptized etc etc. Granted, as Alex pointed out, the Bible has a lot of problems and we don't really really know who he was or what he actually said and did. So if there is little self-identification from him, no real continuity with the sketchy records we have of who he was or what the early church taught, what universal meaning can there really be in seeing Jesus in a NDE?
 
#25
Maybe the value of a podcast like this, is to help remind us that there is a lot of wacky, poorly documented stuff on the edge of the field :(
Exactly. This is why any explanation of the NDE (physical or non-physical) should not labour under the burden of having to explain every case.
 
#26
Thinking some more about Gilmour's experience of the grotesque soul, I paged through my copy of Wisdom's Children: A Christian Esoteric Tradition by religious studies scholar Arthur Versluis. The book is a detailed survey of Protestant theosophy (not to be confused with Blavatsky's Theosophical Society) that began with the 17th-century visionary Jakob Boehme.

Alongside Sufism (see the works of Henry Corbin on the mundus imaginalis), the Protestant theosophers spoke of the imaginal realm intermediate between the physical world and spirit as such, and considered the imagination as a faculty to achieve "visionary inspiration by means of images" (p. 157). Versluis writes:

According to Boehme, people already bear within their souls certain images - people use their imaginative faculty inadvertently. We are all servants, he writes, if not to sin and darkness, then, through spiritual discipline, to the light. For if we give ourselves up to a bestial life, to gluttony, drunkenness, lechery, lying, and deceit, then "the eternal Mind figures him also in such an Image of the Adder, Serpent, and Beast, hiding therein, which will be manifested at the [Deceasing] of the Body." When we live in sin, we inadvertently create inward bestial self-images that are revealed after death: a covetous man after death lives in a hell of covetous need that can no longer be fulfilled.

...Indeed, according to Boehme this is the nature of hell: that the individual soul configures itself in a given distorted, bestial image that continues on, and is revealed fully, after death.

...Boehme could not be more explicit:

Now behold, child of man, (seeing you are an eternal spirit) you have this to expect after the death of your body; you will be either an Angel of God in Paradise, or a hellish ugly diabolical Worm, Beast or Dragon; all according as you have been inclined here in this Life; that Image which you have borne here in your Mind, with that you shall appear...
(pp. 158f.)

Since we cannot subject such observations to controlled scientific experimentation, we could follow a chain of abductive reasoning that leads us to consider the possibility, or even probability, that the claims made by Swedenborg, Boehme, Ziewe, and Gilmour have a basis in objective reality, given their nature as corroborative but seemingly independent reports. I'm not ready to claim anything definitive, but the commonalities are striking.
 
Last edited:
#27
Thinking some more about Gilmour's experience of the grotesque soul, I paged through my copy of Wisdom's Children: A Christian Esoteric Tradition by religious studies scholar Arthur Versluis. The book is a detailed survey of Protestant theosophy (not to be confused with Blavatsky's Theosophical Society) that began with the 17th-century visionary Jakob Boehme.

Alongside Sufism (see the works of Henry Corbin on the mundus imaginalis), the Protestant theosophers spoke of the imaginal realm intermediate between the physical world and spirit as such, and considered the imagination as a faculty to achieve "visionary inspiration by means of images" (p. 157). Versluis writes:


(pp. 158f.)

Since we cannot subject such observations to controlled scientific experimentation, we could follow a chain of abductive reasoning that leads us to consider the possibility, or even probability, that the claims made by Swedenborg, Boehme, Ziewe, and Gilmour have a basis in objective reality, given their nature as corroborative but seemingly independent reports. I'm not ready to claim anything definitive, but the commonalities are striking.
The problem is they conflict with other sources of purported information so I'm not sure it gets us anywhere.
 
#28
That's true but we can have whatever theories we like in physics, however if they can't be demonstrated to be true, they remain just that don't they?
Probably not... MWI, string theory and a few of the other unfalsifiable ideas have been mostly adopted on faith in math and technojargon, and their acolytes are (in increasing fashion) developing characteristics present in religious fundamentalists. Remember that several of these were intentionally created to take "god" out of the equation, they are not just hypotheses.
 
#29
The problem is they conflict with other sources of purported information so I'm not sure it gets us anywhere.
Sure it does. I gets us to the next stage of the conversation, which is the comparison of traditions. We begin to ask questions about relative coherence, the possibility of synthesis, etc. Can these differing perspectives be harmonized? Does one perspective demonstrate greater evidential quality and can explain the other internally within its own framework? This is where the work gets fun, not where we throw up our hands.
 
#30
Sure it does. I gets us to the next stage of the conversation, which is the comparison of traditions. We begin to ask questions about relative coherence, the possibility of synthesis, etc. Can these differing perspectives be harmonized? Does one perspective demonstrate greater evidential quality and can explain the other internally within its own framework? This is where the work gets fun, not where we throw up our hands.
Sounds like navel contemplation to me lol
 
#31
Probably not... MWI, string theory and a few of the other unfalsifiable ideas have been mostly adopted on faith in math and technojargon, and their acolytes are (in increasing fashion) developing characteristics present in religious fundamentalists. Remember that several of these were intentionally created to take "god" out of the equation, they are not just hypotheses.
I'll just be a little picky here. I agree that these theories are (at least with our current technology) unfasifiable, but there are "reasons to believe" them. For instance some scattering problems have "stringy-like" solutions. And it's natural do expect some theory resembling string theory to be the correct theory if you require some symmetries to hold at the planck scale. However, I do agree that some people are way too agressive when talking about ST (both string theorists and anti-string people).

Also, for the same reason, I think that a lot of theories involving spirituality are unfalsifiable. However, we can still reason about them and find reasons to believe/disbelieve them.
 
#32
I'm going to bang my old drum again: why don't we accept that these experiences are, at least to some extent, subjective. What a person in that situation sees and reports is subject to beliefs and expectations to a far greater extent than, for example, what we might see and report about a trip to the shopping mall or the seaside. So one person's Jesus might be another's Mohammed or an angel.

That is not to say that the subjective is unreliable or invalid. Our society has raised objectivity to a status of equivalence with the truth. Indeed, the term "objective truth" has become a tautology. Conversely, subjectivity has become something to avoid at all costs as B. Alan Wallace says, we have the Taboo of Subjectivity.

The point is that people who have experienced these events seem to come back with a message. That they claim to have received the message from Jesus or from an alien doesn't really matter to me. The consistency of the message is what we should be considering, IMO. Having said that, I confess that I have not listened to this podcast yet so must reserve my opinion of what the lady has to say.
 
#33
Yay, I finally got time to listen to the whole thing. (A reason I like transcripts is that it's a *lot* faster to read than to listen, but I understand they do take time and effort to produce.)

I have to say I think Bev comes across very well. I get the sense she is simply reporting what she says (her responses when asked about aliens and reincarnation: 'I don't know, I don't rule it out, but I didn't personally receive any information about that' rings true to me)

I think it's quite possible that the 'Jesus' she met is the 'real' one. As in, I think Jesus of Nazareth is a real person and that he's quite active out there on the etheric internets or whatever those higher levels of thought-consciousness are made of. I think he is also increasingly active in recent decades.

People who report encountering him often talk about not just a sense of ultimate *love* but also a strong sense of *authority* - not quite fear, perhaps, but, something similar: a sense that he is not messing around and when he says 'you have a choice to alter your life for the better' he means it - change is our responsibility but just being told that we *can* change can be very intimidating. He also has a habit of *not being afraid of anything* and *not being especially attached to material possessions* and both those attitudes can be frightening (it means he walks into dark places and can take you with him to observe). If Jesus talks about the near planetary future and the need for social/spiritual change, he can also be a little scary, because our future right now *is* scary and the real Jesus doesn't always sugarcoat the things he says, although he always brings hope and not just grimness.

I think Mary, historically, also falls into this category. Marian apparitions often occur before disasters. Like Jesus, when she says to do something, *it is in your very best interests to pay attention*, because there might be a war or natural disaster about to break out and perhaps it can actually be stopped.

(Also I think there was a slight misunderstanding midway in the interview: Alex asked Bev 'how do you see Jesus relating to the darkness' and she said 'absolutely petrified of him'... I think she was not saying *she* was petrified but referring to *how dark spirits/ghosts see Jesus*, as she describes an encounter like that in her blog. Jesus has a kind of aura that scares the darkness. But... there's still a slight edge to Jesus, imo. Not that he's scary but that he's *good* and pure goodness is actually more freaky to experience than we like to think.)

On the other hand: I also think there are a bunch of spirits that, like fundamentalist preachers on the Earth plane, like to impersonate Jesus because they're on a power kick. Those ones can feel scary but don't so much have the love. One of the ways of telling the difference is: does the 'Jesus' try to control you, or give you a sense of freedom? Another is: does he point you toward others, toward compassion and forgiveness and giving, or do you feel isolated and as if everything only depends on you?

Also - and this isn't always reported but some of the Jesus encounters that to me have the highest sense of validity show this - I think the real Jesus is a pretty good *teacher*, with a real gift for expressing complex ideas very simply. (Three examples that have this quality for me: Julian of Norwich's Revelations of Divine Love; Helen Schuchman's A Course in Miracles; and Glenda Green's Love Without End.) He can describe concepts on basic or advanced levels, depending on the audience. (But the apparently 'basic' teachings can actually often be the more profound. Eg 'God is love' seems oversimplified but really isn't.)

I would love to look at Bev's book to see if any of the material she brought back connects with any of these other ancient or modern 'Jesus encounters'. Or, eg, with the Stephen material, as I'd expect Jesus' disciples to think a bit like him.

Regards, Nate
 
Last edited:
#34
On the other hand: I also think there are a bunch of spirits that, like fundamentalist preachers on the Earth plane, like to impersonate Jesus because they're on a power kick. Those ones can feel scary but don't so much have the love. One of the ways of telling the difference is: does the 'Jesus' try to control you, or give you a sense of freedom? Another is: does he point you toward others, toward compassion and forgiveness and giving, or do you feel isolated and as if everything only depends on you?
I think that is the problem in a nutshell. I mean when someone tells you that you should reform, or continue as you are, that can be interpreted as freedom, but it can also be interpreted as some sort of control.

This is not just an obscure technical point. The man who killed all those kids in Manchester the other day, was reported to be very religious. I'll bet that man was pointed to other 'great martyrs', and he probably felt love for them. Maybe there was even some sort of spirit guide helping him to 'be strong' and 'do what he had to do'.

David
 
#35
Yay, I finally got time to listen to the whole thing. (A reason I like transcripts is that it's a *lot* faster to read than to listen, but I understand they do take time and effort to produce.)

I have to say I think Bev comes across very well. I get the sense she is simply reporting what she says (her responses when asked about aliens and reincarnation: 'I don't know, I don't rule it out, but I didn't personally receive any information about that' rings true to me)

I think it's quite possible that the 'Jesus' she met is the 'real' one. As in, I think Jesus of Nazareth is a real person and that he's quite active out there on the etheric internets or whatever those higher levels of thought-consciousness are made of. I think he is also increasingly active in recent decades.

People who report encountering him often talk about not just a sense of ultimate *love* but also a strong sense of *authority* - not quite fear, perhaps, but, something similar: a sense that he is not messing around and when he says 'you have a choice to alter your life for the better' he means it - change is our responsibility but just being told that we *can* change can be very intimidating. He also has a habit of *not being afraid of anything* and *not being especially attached to material possessions* and both those attitudes can be frightening (it means he walks into dark places and can take you with him to observe). If Jesus talks about the near planetary future and the need for social/spiritual change, he can also be a little scary, because our future right now *is* scary and the real Jesus doesn't always sugarcoat the things he says, although he always brings hope and not just grimness.

I think Mary, historically, also falls into this category. Marian apparitions often occur before disasters. Like Jesus, when she says to do something, *it is in your very best interests to pay attention*, because there might be a war or natural disaster about to break out and perhaps it can actually be stopped.

(Also I think there was a slight misunderstanding midway in the interview: Alex asked Bev 'how do you see Jesus relating to the darkness' and she said 'absolutely petrified of him'... I think she was not saying *she* was petrified but referring to *how dark spirits/ghosts see Jesus*, as she describes an encounter like that in her blog. Jesus has a kind of aura that scares the darkness. But... there's still a slight edge to Jesus, imo. Not that he's scary but that he's *good* and pure goodness is actually more freaky to experience than we like to think.)

On the other hand: I also think there are a bunch of spirits that, like fundamentalist preachers on the Earth plane, like to impersonate Jesus because they're on a power kick. Those ones can feel scary but don't so much have the love. One of the ways of telling the difference is: does the 'Jesus' try to control you, or give you a sense of freedom? Another is: does he point you toward others, toward compassion and forgiveness and giving, or do you feel isolated and as if everything only depends on you?

Also - and this isn't always reported but some of the Jesus encounters that to me have the highest sense of validity show this - I think the real Jesus is a pretty good *teacher*, with a real gift for expressing complex ideas very simply. (Three examples that have this quality for me: Julian of Norwich's Revelations of Divine Love; Helen Schuchman's A Course in Miracles; and Glenda Green's Love Without End.) He can describe concepts on basic or advanced levels, depending on the audience. (But the apparently 'basic' teachings can actually often be the more profound. Eg 'God is love' seems oversimplified but really isn't.)

I would love to look at Bev's book to see if any of the material she brought back connects with any of these other ancient or modern 'Jesus encounters'. Or, eg, with the Stephen material, as I'd expect Jesus' disciples to think a bit like him.

Regards, Nate
I kind of like what you say in this post, but isn't it kind of a rabbit hole as well? Real Jesus here, fake Jesus there......is it important that I figure it out?

I mean, in this sense its just like everything else paranormal out there - kind of straightforward at first glance but the deeper you dig the murkier and weirder it gets.
 
#38
All I know is that I would have a ton of questions if I had a near death experience and met Jesus. Like a four year old, I will ask all the important "why" questions to the point of actually annoying the Son of God. ;)
Many NDE reports do describe exactly that - except that rather than causing annoyance, all of their questions are answered!

The catch is that when returning to this physical reality afterwards, the answers are not retained. One possibility is that the information is deliberately blocked, so that the returning traveller has only the small fragments of information needed in order to continue their life. For example if we had a clear foreknowledge of our future life here on Earth, it would interfere with our ability to exercise our free-will, and thus would defeat the purpose of being here. Another possibility is that such understanding and knowledge requires a certain mental state which may not be consistent with our current state of physical existence. There are other possibilities I can think of, but it would drift into more and more idle speculation.
 
#39
Many NDE reports do describe exactly that - except that rather than causing annoyance, all of their questions are answered!
And I'm sure the answers they get are satisfactory as I like to believe that their understanding of the universe opens up substantially in that state. However ...

Another possibility is that such understanding and knowledge requires a certain mental state which may not be consistent with our current state of physical existence.
I tend to agree with this as we are extremely limited in the physical form. And it's unfortunate, but by design I'm sure. But I hope that these physical machines we are navigating in are evolving and will hopefully soon allow us to get closer to the greater understanding of who we are while we're here. Because, I'm thinking we desperately need it right now.
 
#40
And I'm sure the answers they get are satisfactory as I like to believe that their understanding of the universe opens up substantially in that state. However ...



I tend to agree with this as we are extremely limited in the physical form. And it's unfortunate, but by design I'm sure. But I hope that these physical machines we are navigating in are evolving and will hopefully soon allow us to get closer to the greater understanding of who we are while we're here. Because, I'm thinking we desperately need it right now.
Hm I know what you mean but I am not so sure. Almost every development seems to have its dark application as well as its positive one. Perhaps if we have access to even more understanding it would cause problems we hadn't imagined.
 
Top