Mark Vernon, Christianity and the Evolution of Consciousness |415|

#61
My original point is that you should not blame religion for the failings of human nature. Whatever type of society or philosophy or religion or atheism, you look at you can find atrocities. People will warp whatever is convenient to suit their (evil) needs.
Yeah, I get that.

But then you might say the failings of human nature is the cause of all suffering. That’s why I get frustrated at people blaming God for our suffering.

In one way I can see why they say that, as if God really did make everything, then it must have made evil. And I think he/she/ it probably did, but I feel certain that he had very good reason for doing so.

Having never looked at religion properly maybe this is how the ‘separation from god’ people talk about exists? I’m ignorant in this whole area where intellect is concerned, intuition is all I have.

If so then I ‘get that part of it’.
 
#62
I mean what exactly are we arguing about. Obviously all sorts of inventions, ideas, political movements change consciousness. However if the term "evolution of consciousness" is to mean something, it simply has to mean a lot more than that.
The reason Mark Vernon traces the evolution of consciousness is that he thinks it informs how people should approach spirituality today.

So he has a point beyond just that consciousness has changed over time.

His point is that we should move forward not backward. To do that you need to know what happened in the past.


there's​
13:50​
quite a lot of that around these days​
13:52​
and by that I mean the sense that we as
13:54
a were give up on our ego we give up on
13:56
our individuality and sink into a kind
13:59
of oceanic bliss and whether it be
14:01
through meditation techniques whether it
14:04
breathe through the use of drugs
14:05
psychedelics that can give us a sense
14:08
that there's more than just me for sure
14:10
but I think it's also infantilizing
14:13
ultimately because it just leaves you
14:16
sort of at the whim or blissed-out in
14:21
this experience in psychotherapy you​
14:23​
talked about it being regressive Freud​
14:25​
for example thought that a lot of​
14:27​
spiritual experience was the kind of​
14:29​
desire to return to a kind of childish​
14:32​
state and where you're held and feds and​
14:35​
nurtured and everything feels like it's​
14:37​
one I think he was wrong to think the​
14:40​
whole of spiritual life is like that but​
14:43​
he was picking up on one part of it and​
14:44​
which is this regressive tendency that​
14:46​
you can see quite a lot of but also I
14:49
think we need to avoid another kind of
14:51
extreme which is the a stream that goes
14:53
to ecstasy's that that seeks just one
14:55
peak experience after another I'm going​
14:58​
to try add in the series to point to a​
15:00​
kind of in-between way of approaching​
15:03​
these things that's not reaching out for
15:06
a kind of loss of self but also is not
15:09
reaching out for one ecstatic experience
15:11
after another but that the spiritual
15:14
sense can steady down and it can be
15:16
lived with more and more day by day it's
15:19
quieter but nonetheless it's more
15:21
sustaining it's sometimes not so
15:23
spectacular and yet actually it grounds
15:26
you in life a lot more and that's what​
15:29​
I'm going to be trying to go for in​
15:31​
thinking about how to see spiritually​
15:33​


we've even got the idea
11:59
that the universe is like a mechanism
12:02
that actually has no inner life it has
12:05
no implicit inner meaning this model has
12:08
been very successful in many ways it's
12:10
given us technology and many comforts
12:13
and secure features of modern life but
12:16
it's left us with the sense that we're
12:17
not sure how to connect with it once
12:19
again and we've kind of lost that innate
12:23
sense there is a meaning to connect to
12:25
we're not sure about that anymore and
12:27
with it goes the wisdom about how to
12:29
really develop that sense and the wisdom
12:32
that would have been held in the great
12:33
spiritual traditions be at the
12:34
monasteries and religious houses in
12:37
other parts of the world in different
12:39
contexts I actually think the
12:41
psychotherapy has arisen in the modern
12:43
world to try and fill this gap this is
12:46
this vacuum we want to work on our inner
12:48
lives again aren't quite sure how to do
12:51
that and often find ourselves stumbling
12:53
over pathologies and so on in the effort
12:55
to do so but nonetheless this is our
12:58
challenge this is how we become perhaps
13:02
cut off from spiritual perception
13:04
through this great evolution of
13:05
consciousness from a time about 3000
13:09
years ago and when it really wasn't an
13:10
issue spirits and gods were felt to be
13:13
all around nature was felt to be alive
13:16
we've come through these various stages
13:18
of stepping back with the bonus that
13:21
that brings of ended
13:23
be now to study the world more
13:24
objectively and but also with this great
13:27
challenge that we need to know how to
13:29
perceive spiritually once more how to
13:32
engage with the inner life of all things
13:34
and not just work on the assumption that
13:36
the only inner life is the inner life
13:38
inside our heads so we need a new
13:41
approach and that's what I'm gonna try
13:43
and talk about in this series it needs
13:46
to think to be non aggressive there's
13:50
quite a lot of that around these days
13:52
and by that I mean the sense that we as
13:54
a were give up on our ego we give up on
13:56
our individuality and sink into a kind
13:59
of oceanic bliss and whether it be
14:01
through meditation techniques whether it
14:04
breathe through the use of drugs
14:05
psychedelics that can give us a sense
14:08
that there's more than just me for sure
14:10
but I think it's also infantilizing
14:13
ultimately because it just leaves you
14:16
sort of at the whim or blissed-out in
14:21
this experience in psychotherapy you
14:23
talked about it being regressive Freud
14:25
for example thought that a lot of
14:27
spiritual experience was the kind of
14:29
desire to return to a kind of childish
14:32
state and where you're held and feds and
14:35
nurtured and everything feels like it's
14:37
one I think he was wrong to think the
14:40
whole of spiritual life is like that but
14:43
he was picking up on one part of it and
14:44
which is this regressive tendency that
14:46
you can see quite a lot of but also I
14:49
think we need to avoid another kind of
14:51
extreme which is the a stream that goes
14:53
to ecstasy's that that seeks just one
14:55
peak experience after another I'm going
14:58
to try add in the series to point to a
15:00
kind of in-between way of approaching
15:03
these things that's not reaching out for
15:06
a kind of loss of self but also is not
15:09
reaching out for one ecstatic experience
15:11
after another but that the spiritual
15:14
sense can steady down and it can be
15:16
lived with more and more day by day it's
15:19
quieter but nonetheless it's more
15:21
sustaining it's sometimes not so
15:23
spectacular and yet actually it grounds
15:26
you in life a lot more and that's what
15:29
I'm going to be trying to go for in
15:31
thinking about how to see spiritually
15:33
and once again
15:35
to unfold over this series
 
#63
In one way I can see why they say that, as if God really did make everything, then it must have made evil. And I think he/she/ it probably did, but I feel certain that he had very good reason for doing so.
However, wouldn't it fit better if we assume that (assuming there is a god), He only has finite power, so that there is a real struggle between good and evil, rather than an all-loving god, who finds it necessary to create beings capable of incredible evil, and then watches them do their worst, before welcoming everyone home at the end of the experience, and then maybe prep-ping them for their next physical life!

David
 
#64
However, wouldn't it fit better if we assume that (assuming there is a god), He only has finite power, so that there is a real struggle between good and evil, rather than an all-loving god, who finds it necessary to create beings capable of incredible evil, and then watches them do their worst, before welcoming everyone home at the end of the experience, and then maybe prep-ping them for their next physical life!

David
That doesn’t vibe with me David. Of course, we’re all guessing at least to some degree, maybe it’s all really guesswork? I’d say that God, from an earthly consciousness pov, is far nearer infinite everything than we can imagine. So while technically you may be right, for all practical purposes, for me, no.

Personally, I don’t think God has (directly) much to do with prepping us for the next life, we might get glimpses of their essence from time to time, as when NDErs encounter ‘the light’ but we don’t hear from any that remain in it, in the similar way that we don’t hear from those that don’t come back to this life. I always smile when I read people that think that one life is enough. Again, I’ve no logical reason to know otherwise, but I still smile. (What’s that about?)

It’s better this way, not knowing. Don’t you think? Like extended foreplay! ;)
 
#65
I have been away on business with no access to the forum, so I am coming in late to the conversation. I wanted to reflect on Alex's question on whether there had been particular 'evolution' of consciousness since the development of Christianity.

I think the answer is emphatically 'Yes', but the next question is important - Is Christianity the cause or the carrier of an evolutionary impulse? I think the latter is the case.

It is evident from what we know that the Jesus/Christ figure is not unique, but is a representation of a mystical/mythic agent that is enduring. Indeed this is apparent in the Christian tradition itself. The idea of Christ was introduced by Paul, well after the 'historic' Jesus, so the theological fiction we know as Jesus Christ is an invention that had, to have had any real meaning, been based upon known mythic and mystery traditions.

You just don't invent a novel mythic/archetypal character without antecedents. The particular novelty of Christianity was to insist that Jesus Christ was historic. There may have been an actual holy man upon whom the later mythic fiction was modelled, but we can be assured that there was no actual 'son of God born of a virgin' entering the historic realm - that's a mythic formula.

So we are talking correlation and not cause.

There is no doubt that what became the Christianity we knew enabled a specific set of ideas to be expressed at a particular time in history. But that we do not know is the extent to which the same ideas/values were also expressed through what may now be non-conforming and suppressed thought communities.

We do know that the uptake of Christianity through Europe was not always under duress. To what extent were nascent ideas in European 'pagan' communities already attuned to the essential theme of Christianity? One thing we know about 'disruptive technologies' is that they destroy old technologies by rendering them redundant because they offer novel ways of doing things that were not consciously thought of before they came along - yet the uptake was as if we had all longed for that change.

I am an Apple fan because I discovered the iPhone 4 at a critical time in my life. Podcasts made my hours of intensive physiotherapy bearable. I have stuck with Apple, not because they are the only source of podcasts, but because I have had no need or motive to change. Apple did not cause so much as enable podcasts. The content matters, not the tech. I see Christianity as the tech - the Apple of the religion industry.

What has emerged as Western Civilisation has Christianity stamped all over it. But that does not mean that it is the dominant influence in modern times. In various ways Christianity has been influenced by: Greek and Roman thought; Freemasonry; sundry other esoteric movements including Hemrticism and Theosophy; the indigenous pagan traditions of Europe; Hinduism and Buddhism; and other influences. I should have added sundry sciences as well and the Western Philosophical tradition, and innovative modern/contemporary thought.

We might ask whether this particular evolutionary impulse 'began' with Christianity. I think that is unlikely. Indeed its a dodgy business trying to pick starts and ends of cycles. I don't think we know enough to say anything definitive, and I have read material that suggest to me that probably a better marker might be the Roman Empire itself.

In the same way US Presidents like to claim credit for any good economic news during their term/s and blame the previous administration for the bad news, I think we can say that Christianity has tried to take the credit for an evolutionary impulse that was already trending maybe centuries before.

Let's please remember that the Council of Nicaea that really kicked off Christianity as we know it happened in 325AD. We can't call what happened before that date Christianity as we know it. That's 300 years of spiritual passion and energy. Put that in perspective - that going back to 1719 from today.

My point is that even if we credit the Birth of Christ at year zero, there were 300 years of free uncontrolled spiritual innovation before the bureaucrats and politicians took over. I don't think Christianity as it is today has any real claim on those 300 years - and Gnostics will agree. Let's get that scale clear - 300 years. It is then, I believe, that the real work was done - and we see now that even in a supposedly Christian nation that non-conformists and heretics abound. It has ever been thus.

The idea that we are a Christian culture is really triumph of clever branding. I never knew, as I was growing up, that the biro was a brand name for a ball point pen (from the French company Biro). But of course we know that to 'hoover something up' is derived from the Hoover brand - in the same way we 'google'.
 
#66
However, wouldn't it fit better if we assume that (assuming there is a god), He only has finite power, so that there is a real struggle between good and evil, rather than an all-loving god, who finds it necessary to create beings capable of incredible evil, and then watches them do their worst, before welcoming everyone home at the end of the experience, and then maybe prep-ping them for their next physical life!
David, please. We have to be careful about imposing our ideas on any conception of the divine in a definitive way. The divine can be all loving and accommodate what we call good and evil. We can think of the divine only in terms of our conception of an absolute system. For example it is absurd to consider the divine as all loving and then insist that it be only good as a demonstration that it is all loving. In a cosmos of all good there can be no conception of 'all loving'.

Besides, who says God is 'all loving'? That notion might arise in Christianity, but its on its own there. Other traditions suggest that the divine is 'just' (karma) or seeks 'harmony' (Maat). Maybe the term 'loving' embraces that?

We can't define God in our terms and then critique that definition as if it is real.

I do not want to discourage inquiry but before we attribute attributes to the divine let's explore what we mean by 'good', 'evil', and 'love'. For example let's consider a simple model of a loving human parent. How would that love be best expressed toward their child? If this excites debate on parenting let us that have that debate in the realm of experience rather than impute attributes to the divine we have not fully tested for ourselves.
 
#67
hese things that's not reaching out for15:06a kind of loss of self but also is not15:09reaching out for one ecstatic experience15:11after another but that the spiritual
I spent years confused by the notion egolessness and selflessness. It took an deeply insightful commentary on Eastern esoteric traditions to awaken me to the problem of misinterpretation by the authors I was reading. Whether they were writing from the POV of purely intellectual experience, or simply failing to convey their intended meaning because of the paucity of our language at the time, the impact was the same - misrepresentation of the original intended meaning.

It is not the loss of the sense of self, but the loss of the sense of self as separate, that matters. The use of the term 'ego' is problematic because there's no agreed definition in this case. If ego means the sense of 'I', how do we square that with the tradition that articulates the divine as 'I am that I am'?

Likewise the lust for peak experiences can become a kind of pornographic passion that can lead to deeply inauthentic representations of 'englightenment'. I have read accounts of fans of gurus carrying on about the length of time their guru spends in a meditative state. Meditation is an enabling methodology - but it does not mean that meditation per se leads to enlightenment. I know habitual meditators (by their own claims) who are complete twats - and I do not want to argue that meditation has not improved them. Its just not a guarantee - just like fishing does not assure you will catch a fish - only if you are not, you assuredly won't.
 
#68
I spent years confused by the notion egolessness and selflessness. It took an deeply insightful commentary on Eastern esoteric traditions to awaken me to the problem of misinterpretation by the authors I was reading. Whether they were writing from the POV of purely intellectual experience, or simply failing to convey their intended meaning because of the paucity of our language at the time, the impact was the same - misrepresentation of the original intended meaning.

It is not the loss of the sense of self, but the loss of the sense of self as separate, that matters. The use of the term 'ego' is problematic because there's no agreed definition in this case. If ego means the sense of 'I', how do we square that with the tradition that articulates the divine as 'I am that I am'?

Likewise the lust for peak experiences can become a kind of pornographic passion that can lead to deeply inauthentic representations of 'englightenment'. I have read accounts of fans of gurus carrying on about the length of time their guru spends in a meditative state. Meditation is an enabling methodology - but it does not mean that meditation per se leads to enlightenment. I know habitual meditators (by their own claims) who are complete twats - and I do not want to argue that meditation has not improved them. Its just not a guarantee - just like fishing does not assure you will catch a fish - only if you are not, you assuredly won't.
Enlightenment does not necessarily make you a nice person. It means you suffer less.

I think it's okay for people to chase peak experiences or wallow in bliss or oneness or emptiness if they choose to. They will learn from their experiences and that is the point of having them. Eventually they will see what is illusion and what is real get where they are supposed to go. There can be many paths up the mountain but they will all converge at the top. I have learned to ignore spiritual snobs who think their way is the best. They know their way but they don't know the other paths they have not followed but are quick to criticize. I formed the opinion that they are mostly full of crap when I realized I could always find some other "master" to contradict their opinion. There is no "one" "correct" way.
 
Last edited:
#70
Enlightenment does not necessarily make you a nice person. It means you suffer less.
I guess that depends on what you mean by enlightenment. I have read stuff by people who are claimed to be enlightened, and I really got to go back to Yogananda for any sense of that being the case.

I was going to make a comment about your "Enlightenment does not necessarily make you a nice person." and then thought the better of it -m because, not being enlightened, I really can't comment. And I don't know any enlightened people either. What do you mean by a 'nice' person? I am not being difficult here. Some masters of spiritual practice (enlightened?) are known to be tough and unrelenting teachers. Would you say they are not nice?

Would you say that an enlightened person is one who suffers less? I will grant you that I do not know the inner state of QE2 or any of the other insanely rich or privileged people - so I can't contest your assertion. But I can doubt it, which I do. How do you contrast the life of comparative ease for the madly privileged with the seemingly absence of relative suffering among the enlightened? I suppose I mean to ask what you mean by suffering?

I would say, if we are being strict here, that an enlightened person should not 'suffer' at all. They might experience and endure what we would call suffering, but in a manner that would suggest not the same level of attachment to the experience.
 
#71
I guess that depends on what you mean by enlightenment. I have read stuff by people who are claimed to be enlightened, and I really got to go back to Yogananda for any sense of that being the case.

I was going to make a comment about your "Enlightenment does not necessarily make you a nice person." and then thought the better of it -m because, not being enlightened, I really can't comment. And I don't know any enlightened people either. What do you mean by a 'nice' person? I am not being difficult here. Some masters of spiritual practice (enlightened?) are known to be tough and unrelenting teachers. Would you say they are not nice?

Would you say that an enlightened person is one who suffers less? I will grant you that I do not know the inner state of QE2 or any of the other insanely rich or privileged people - so I can't contest your assertion. But I can doubt it, which I do. How do you contrast the life of comparative ease for the madly privileged with the seemingly absence of relative suffering among the enlightened? I suppose I mean to ask what you mean by suffering?

I would say, if we are being strict here, that an enlightened person should not 'suffer' at all. They might experience and endure what we would call suffering, but in a manner that would suggest not the same level of attachment to the experience.
I think the whole idea of "enlightenment" should be eliminated. It is meaningless. Worse, it's limiting. Lots of people get their notion of what enlightenment means from a cult or religion or some other belief system. Then they go chasing after someone else's sense of things. Might as well spend your life running after the end of rainbows hoping to meet the Leprechaun and find the pot gold someone told you is there. It distracts from experiencing life - and your soul in all its special aspects - by simply living life courageously, honorably and truthfully. It's self-denying. It tells you that you are not enough because there is some vague magical ideal that you have failed to achieve.

Seems to me that poisoning people with the notion that there is some enlightenment that they should be achieving is the ultimate mind control (since people here are into that). He who controls the concept of enlightenment, controls the minds of the seekers.
 
#72
I guess that depends on what you mean by enlightenment. I have read stuff by people who are claimed to be enlightened, and I really got to go back to Yogananda for any sense of that being the case.

I was going to make a comment about your "Enlightenment does not necessarily make you a nice person." and then thought the better of it -m because, not being enlightened, I really can't comment. And I don't know any enlightened people either. What do you mean by a 'nice' person? I am not being difficult here. Some masters of spiritual practice (enlightened?) are known to be tough and unrelenting teachers. Would you say they are not nice?

Would you say that an enlightened person is one who suffers less? I will grant you that I do not know the inner state of QE2 or any of the other insanely rich or privileged people - so I can't contest your assertion. But I can doubt it, which I do. How do you contrast the life of comparative ease for the madly privileged with the seemingly absence of relative suffering among the enlightened? I suppose I mean to ask what you mean by suffering?

I would say, if we are being strict here, that an enlightened person should not 'suffer' at all. They might experience and endure what we would call suffering, but in a manner that would suggest not the same level of attachment to the experience.

The goal of Buddhism is to end suffering for yourself and getting enlightenment is the way to do it. It is not really about being a nice person. This is confirmed by my interactions with enlightened people in person and on-line. Enlightenment does not erase your personality. If you are hard to get along with, getting enlightenment will not change that.

(I have tried many different forms of meditation. Some of them cause irritability. Usually that is due to too much concentration that causes suppression of emotions and thoughts. I practice this form which avoids that problem, I find it very beneficial.)
 
#73
The goal of Buddhism is to end suffering for yourself and getting enlightenment is the way to do it. It is not really about being a nice person. This is confirmed by my interactions with enlightened people in person and on-line. Enlightenment does not erase your personality. If you are hard to get along with, getting enlightenment will not change that.
That’s surely at odds with the message from NDEs?

So what to do? Go with your heart I say. Don’t worry what others may choose.
 
#74
That’s surely at odds with the message from NDEs?
I noticed that too. I think the NDErs are right. How you treat other people (love) is what is important. I don't believe getting enlightenment is the ultimate goal of existence and the end of spiritual development. I don't get my spiritual beliefs from Buddhism. I get meditation and mindfulness practices from it.
So what to do? Go with your heart I say. Don’t worry what others may choose.
Everyone has to use their own judgment. Heart and mind both.
 
#76
I'm not sure either ... but I think we know that ESP is not limited by time or distance, so we can surmise consciousness is not part of the physical universe and therefore is not limited by time which was created with the rest of the physical universe.
My Simple Explanation cosmology suggests that consciousness is unlimited/illimitable and outside of our 3-D universe, (God the Father, Sat, Parambrama), as you say. Whereas the units of consciousness that are part of us and our universe are fractal replications (as above so below) applicable to wherever a unit of consciousness finds itself, and therefore limited by the physical laws of the universe. The unit of consciousness of an atom, for example, is limited to what an atom needs to do to get its job done. A human's unit of consciousness is limited to what a human needs to know, etc. All units of consciousness know how to instantiate the forms they are attached to, whatever the level of aggregation or hierarchy. All units of consciousness know the Simple Golden Rule--that we need to reach out to others to work together with love, information, and assistance, to build things greater than ourselves for the benefit of all.

I say that this Simple Golden Rule is the basis for all moral and ethical systems, within and without religious institutions and texts. You can see this principle does not derive from any religious or moral teaching, because even the rocks and stones follow the same Golden Rule. Otherwise matter would not hold its shape.

This is not to say there is no higher power, or originating consciousness, for it is by the formula of consciousness (law of God) that everything exists. I happen to call this power God the Father and I happen to have a personal mystical relationship with Christ Consciousness by way of my Sat-Guru, Jesus, whom I recognized through anamnesis as soon as I encountered him as a child in this lifetime. For those who claim there is no historicity to the incarnation of Jesus the Nazarene, I would have to say that my lifetime of personal mystical experiences with Jesus clearly argues for something to his existence as a conscious, loving entity. Whether or not his soul ever walked the earth, the personality known as Jesus certainly exists as a viral meme bundle in our collective transpersonal consciousness. I happen to believe Jesus is historical, for I seem to "remember" seeing him in that life. Memories are fickle and easily constructed from pre-existent beliefs...

Regardless, the Christ Consciousness predates the physical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, so we already know there was a personality with vast consciousness holding a coherent form outside of our universe. As I interpret the Gnostic and Christian gospels, it seems to me that the Christ entity entwined its perfect DNA (fully God) with human DNA (fully human through the mother) to provide the consciousness of the human child called Jesus. It is by living, suffering, dying, and resurrecting back to complete consciousness that the entirety of creation is rescued from ignorance and the delusion of oblivion and separation from God. For God was here and walked among us. This is the suffering for our behalf so often referred to in the Bible. Only it was for the personal, unfiltered experience of illimitable consciousness living the human life, not because we may have shoplifted a pack of smokes in 7th grade. Now, as far as God is concerned, He's been there, done that. The mission of consciousness limitation and instantiation is complete. We are all now redeemed and able move on to the next phase of evolution, which is not becoming AIs, or humans with horns, or six-fingered beings or whatever people are proposing for their evolution. According to Gnostic Gospels, this has all been in preparation for the final phase of existence, the "Final Economy" made possible in due time. All is being made ready. The time is at hand.
 
#77
That’s surely at odds with the message from NDEs?

So what to do? Go with your heart I say. Don’t worry what others may choose.
Not all NDEs are pretty, focusing on one aspect of anything is dangerous and delusional. We have to take everything in to account even negative NDEs. As a species we don't know enough about the afterlife to surmise its vastness. All we have is anecdotal experiences which have been organized in to data. It's entirely possible that remaining in a state of eternal void can be ones afterlife experience, on the contrast someone can be basking in light. NDEs are on shaky ground. Remaining open minded is a virtue, there might be more work to do as we progress in to higher realms. It could be a stopping point before reaching higher planes a sort of cleansing. I feel some people view eternity as a state of constant, stagnant destinations
I view it as a state of constant change and evolution
 
#78
The reason Mark Vernon traces the evolution of consciousness is that he thinks it informs how people should approach spirituality today.

So he has a point beyond just that consciousness has changed over time.

His point is that we should move forward not backward. To do that you need to know what happened in the past.

I certainly enjoyed that video better than the podcast. In reality, he seems to have moved beyond Christianity.

David
 
#79
Not all NDEs are pretty, focusing on one aspect of anything is dangerous and delusional. We have to take everything in to account even negative NDEs.
Indeed we do, but to ignore or swerve the actual data is surely equally foolish. I think both Jim Smith and David Sunfellow would agree that the overall message from NDEs is a positive one, even including some (or maybe even the majority?) of so called hellish NDEs. They are probably underreported compared to positive ones, but from the relatively little of what I’ve read, given time to process them the eventual outcome is often not what might be expected. I think ‘dangerous and delusional’ might be some people’s interpretation of things, but if that’s the way they’re thinking I think they need to look inward.

I’m not someone who easily reaches a conclusion, in fact I often say that I have not reached any, nor am I one who drools when certain people open their mouths. I have listened to a lot of data, in fact I spent around four years listening/watching videos and reading books and articles from the moment I woke up in the morning until I lay my iPad down to go to sleep. My personal experience is such that I have learned a lot in the past near decade, and I’m still smiling.

I don’t get the negativity that some others do. Maybe that’s delusional, but maybe it’s a simple choice.
 
#80
Indeed we do, but to ignore or swerve the actual data is surely equally foolish. I think both Jim Smith and David Sunfellow would agree that the overall message from NDEs is a positive one, even including some (or maybe even the majority?) of so called hellish NDEs. They are probably underreported compared to positive ones, but from the relatively little of what I’ve read, given time to process them the eventual outcome is often not what might be expected. I think ‘dangerous and delusional’ might be some people’s interpretation of things, but if that’s the way they’re thinking I think they need to look inward.

I’m not someone who easily reaches a conclusion, in fact I often say that I have not reached any, nor am I one who drools when certain people open their mouths. I have listened to a lot of data, in fact I spent around four years listening/watching videos and reading books and articles from the moment I woke up in the morning until I lay my iPad down to go to sleep. My personal experience is such that I have learned a lot in the past near decade, and I’m still smiling.

I don’t get the negativity that some others do. Maybe that’s delusional, but maybe it’s a simple choice.
I'm confused on what you perceive as negativity? The whole picture includes a spectrum of duality, I find you want to see things a certain way, while glossing over what you deem negative. There are reported hellish NDEs, the altruistic nature of me ask who or how can we help change the hellish dimension these people might suffer from in the afterlife. They shouldn't be left behind to suffer in agony from mistakes they made here on earth. That's like saying yea the government is great we live in a great country, as for those people dying by America policies in other countries that's just negative and happening in a small part of the world. Let's focus on the good etc
 
Top