Grant Cameron, No Such Thing As Evil ET? |449|

Well basically because Michael Newton seems to go a lot further than anyone else - I'd like to read something that corroborates his account.

David
Agree. It doesn’t harmonize well with who I consider to be very reliable afterlife researchers and experiencers. People like Craig Hogan, Roberta Grimes, victor and Wendy Zammit and OBE practitioners William Buhlman, Jurgen Ziewe, Cyrus Kirkpatrick etc, nor (from what I can tell) does it mesh well with what quality mediums tend to say.
I think that the temptation for Michael Newton to feel and convey that he had the whole afterlife mapped out was too great to resist.

Grant is a great and prolific UFO researcher, and I tend to like that he understands that consciousness seems as though it might be fundamental, and that he draws correlations between UFOs, consciousness, and spirituality, but I also think he subscribes to certain ideas far too completely. Like his idea with the whole Left brain/right brain thing, Michael Newton etc.
 
I think some facts seem to have a lot of evidence behind them, but there is a lot of variability. The way I like to look at it is if you imagine some aliens who arrived at Earth and randomly sampled what is going on. They might encounter:

People making love.

People preparing nuclear weapons.

Buddhist monks wearing masks to avoid breathing in insects and killing them.

People in primitive societies in the Amazon.

Etc.

It would take a long time for them to build up a picture of what goes on on Earth.

I think the mistake is to imagine that the extended realm is in any way simple (like Christian Heaven or Hell would be).

David
I think some facts seem to have a lot of evidence behind them, but there is a lot of variability. The way I like to look at it is if you imagine some aliens who arrived at Earth and randomly sampled what is going on. They might encounter:

People making love.

People preparing nuclear weapons.

Buddhist monks wearing masks to avoid breathing in insects and killing them.

People in primitive societies in the Amazon.

Etc.

It would take a long time for them to build up a picture of what goes on on Earth.

I think the mistake is to imagine that the extended realm is in any way simple (like Christian Heaven or Hell would be).

David
I don't think the extended realm is simple bc we're not simple. It's our projection that creates what we see, so those realms are no different than our physical realm.
 
Strangely, A Course in Miracles was channeled by a professor of medical psychology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Schucman
I find with channelling, the role of the person doing the channelling is significant, more than is often acknowledged. In general, after a while I hear the voice of the scribe more loudly. It is difficult to determine where is the boundary and assign weight to the contribution of the scribe versus any other source.
 
I’m late getting into the conversation because I wanted to read one of Grant Cameron’s books. Honestly, the interview made me question where I should, because I really don’t think he came across well, but I ended up reading Tuned In - The Paranormal World of Music.

It’s a fascinating book, Grant documents all the spiritual and extra-terrestrial influences on musicians. I’d never thought before about how the music we’ve had has shaped the world over the past say fifty years. I wouldn’t know how to begin to quantify it, but would it be fair to claim that if we’d had loads of songs about nationalism and violence instead of love then the world would be in a different place?

The weak point of the book is the thing Alex’s interview highlighted, Grant is largely blind to evil and deception. He dismisses the idea of Satanism, or any dark occult or other unhealthy themes in music. I don’t know how it’s possible to write a book on spirituality and music and not see that. I personally found the book uplifting, as I probably see too much of the darkness, but Grant clearly can’t see it at all.

This phenomenon seems to be part of a larger archetypal pattern; of spiritual people, often producing very interesting work, but who really struggle to recognise evil’s deceptions. A lot of what Grant said about people’s positive experiences with E.T. could equally be said about people’s involvement in cults. The environmentalist movement is demonstrably a green mask covering a desire for resource control, it’s really not clear to me then that E.T.’s expressing concern for the environment are coming from any better place than Al Gore is.
 
I find with channelling, the role of the person doing the channelling is significant, more than is often acknowledged. In general, after a while I hear the voice of the scribe more loudly. It is difficult to determine where is the boundary and assign weight to the contribution of the scribe versus any other source.
Her story is actually really interesting. She was a really troubled person and I think it adds a little bit of credence to the belief that it was channeled from "somewhere else". She struggled with the course basically as soon she dictated it and I think she was basically "mad" when she died. Anyone who reads it will see it is a beautifully written message with so much clarity and focus.
 
I’m late getting into the conversation because I wanted to read one of Grant Cameron’s books. Honestly, the interview made me question where I should, because I really don’t think he came across well, but I ended up reading Tuned In - The Paranormal World of Music.

It’s a fascinating book, Grant documents all the spiritual and extra-terrestrial influences on musicians. I’d never thought before about how the music we’ve had has shaped the world over the past say fifty years. I wouldn’t know how to begin to quantify it, but would it be fair to claim that if we’d had loads of songs about nationalism and violence instead of love then the world would be in a different place?

The weak point of the book is the thing Alex’s interview highlighted, Grant is largely blind to evil and deception. He dismisses the idea of Satanism, or any dark occult or other unhealthy themes in music. I don’t know how it’s possible to write a book on spirituality and music and not see that. I personally found the book uplifting, as I probably see too much of the darkness, but Grant clearly can’t see it at all.

This phenomenon seems to be part of a larger archetypal pattern; of spiritual people, often producing very interesting work, but who really struggle to recognise evil’s deceptions. A lot of what Grant said about people’s positive experiences with E.T. could equally be said about people’s involvement in cults. The environmentalist movement is demonstrably a green mask covering a desire for resource control, it’s really not clear to me then that E.T.’s expressing concern for the environment are coming from any better place than Al Gore is.
What are evil's deceptions?
 
What are evil's deceptions?
I simply mean any use of deception for nefarious purposes. That could be someone wearing a mask to get a certain relationship, a cult leader abusing the language of spirituality, or an organisation like the WWF acting as green cover for corporations to damage the environment.

This could also apply to the spirit world, with accounts of nefarious spirits pretending to be people's loved ones etc.
 
I’m late getting into the conversation because I wanted to read one of Grant Cameron’s books. Honestly, the interview made me question where I should, because I really don’t think he came across well, but I ended up reading Tuned In - The Paranormal World of Music.

It’s a fascinating book, Grant documents all the spiritual and extra-terrestrial influences on musicians. I’d never thought before about how the music we’ve had has shaped the world over the past say fifty years. I wouldn’t know how to begin to quantify it, but would it be fair to claim that if we’d had loads of songs about nationalism and violence instead of love then the world would be in a different place?

The weak point of the book is the thing Alex’s interview highlighted, Grant is largely blind to evil and deception. He dismisses the idea of Satanism, or any dark occult or other unhealthy themes in music. I don’t know how it’s possible to write a book on spirituality and music and not see that. I personally found the book uplifting, as I probably see too much of the darkness, but Grant clearly can’t see it at all.

This phenomenon seems to be part of a larger archetypal pattern; of spiritual people, often producing very interesting work, but who really struggle to recognise evil’s deceptions. A lot of what Grant said about people’s positive experiences with E.T. could equally be said about people’s involvement in cults. The environmentalist movement is demonstrably a green mask covering a desire for resource control, it’s really not clear to me then that E.T.’s expressing concern for the environment are coming from any better place than Al Gore is.
I think sometimes those in the spiritual community just choose not to focus on negativity. It's really no different than here. I really don't understand the issue with trying to figure out if there are negative entities or not. Are there negative entities on this planet? Of course!!! The real issue for me is how to see the world in a loving way. Love for me is the answer (cliche, I know) Love is the ultimate reality and I interpret my reality based on that.
 
This episode was so much fun I had to listen to it twice.

I am stuck in the same cul-de-sac that Alex found himself stuck in with Grant and I have no answers.
Trying to bring sanity or good communication to a topic like this one really points out the limitations of language. Consciousness is a verb; separation is a noun kind of a thing. So, I'm right back to the Miguel Connor idea or focus on when did good come into the world? If you accept the idea that the physical world is a place ruled by Satan or whatever name you choose, then you can begin to find a way out of here by taking personal responsibility for your choices. "Life has no meaning except in terms of responsibility." Reinhold Niebuhr
 
Which facts have evidence behind them? Can you give some of these examples?
Sure!

1) The fact that NDE's happen, which can very plausibly be extended to actual death.

2) The fact that mediums can communicate with the dead.

3) The fact that reincarnation does seem to take place. How universal that is, is less clear.

All those are consistent with Newton's studies, but he comes up with enormous detail - such as the social organisation in the other world - which as Wormwood as already pointed out, is inconsistent with many other explorers.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...-thing-as-evil-et-449.4511/page-8#post-141781

Obviously out and out materialists would try to quibble with that list of facts, but they struggle to dismiss the best evidence.

David
 
I agree with Raimo add to that where do we draw the line when people get messages or channel Jesus or entities? You do know that if they told a licensed psychiatrist that, there is a high chance they would be labeled schizophrenic.

Where do we draw the line? Or is there a line is it blurred? I mean wouldn't most of the spiritual community fall under these categories?
I think I'd be interested to know where you draw that line. Do you for example accept that it makes sense to label people who have MPD or related experiences, schizophrenic? To me that is utterly arbitrary - how much of what people tell us, do we dismiss as disease?

I almost get the feeling that your ideas have evolved over time to encompass standard materialism. That is fine of course - you are still free to post here on Skeptiko - but it would be nice to read a slightly longer of explanation as to what you now believe.

David
 
Very strange indeed that's I asked in my post where do we draw the line. I'm curious how his "rational" colleagues view him/her
Her and Bill Thetford(helped her edit) kept it pretty hush hush in the beginning...they never really advertised the Course...it's more word of mouth.
 
I thought that Grant Cameron had some interesting perspectives and I don't have too much disagreement with what he said. I just think that he is a poor listener and communicator. It seems he may be letting his ego get the best of him. If one believes in the nondual concept that everything is consciousness, then wouldn't developing the skill of listening to and understanding others be an important thing to learn? How else can you communicate with people and have a positive influence on them? It should have been very easy for Mr Cameron to understand what Alex was saying and respond to it in an intelligent manner, because they really don't have much disagreement. I think that intellect combined with some type of personal spiritual practice of self-reflection yields the best results.
 
I thought that Grant Cameron had some interesting perspectives and I don't have too much disagreement with what he said. I just think that he is a poor listener and communicator. It seems he may be letting his ego get the best of him. If one believes in the nondual concept that everything is consciousness, then wouldn't developing the skill of listening to and understanding others be an important thing to learn? How else can you communicate with people and have a positive influence on them? It should have been very easy for Mr Cameron to understand what Alex was saying and respond to it in an intelligent manner, because they really don't have much disagreement. I think that intellect combined with some type of personal spiritual practice of self-reflection yields the best results.
He really is. Again, I think Grant does good work. But he doesn’t seem to listen when others speak. He just seems to be waiting and biding his time until he can continue talking again. And talk he does.
 
I think I'd be interested to know where you draw that line. Do you for example accept that it makes sense to label people who have MPD or related experiences, schizophrenic? To me that is utterly arbitrary - how much of what people tell us, do we dismiss as disease?

I almost get the feeling that your ideas have evolved over time to encompass standard materialism. That is fine of course - you are still free to post here on Skeptiko - but it would be nice to read a slightly longer of explanation as to what you now believe.

David
I'd like to hear more as well...what makes so much of the openness to previously rejected interior experiences exciting is that we now have a much broader way to verify or reject what some people divulge. For instance, several writers about precognitive dreaming & clairvoyance have pointed out that this is a way for the Supreme Being to express his/her/its love & caring nature. To allow some people to foresee natural disasters, plane crashes, etc. before they happen is a loving way to help humanity to avoid suffering & death if they bother to heed it. I also view this greater acceptance of a person's internal experiences as valid as a welcome change from the authoritarian grip on what is real & true. ND experiencers were routinely threatened in the past w/ time in a mental institution or worse & some American astronauts were told that divulging stories about the artificial structures they saw on the Moon would cost them dearly. This is one reason I deplore the blatant disregard for truth in news media & politics today; it's nothing but a giant step backwards.
 
Top