Psychic mediums don't believe in Hell?

Discussion in 'New Age' started by pghguy, Oct 24, 2010.

  1. Christian von Lähr

    Christian von Lähr Messenger

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thomas, I would venture to say Andrew is leaning towards classical Theosophy, and you are leaning towards classical Christianity. The concept of "absolute" would be quite a different thing to a Theosophy than it would to a dyed in the wool Christian, based on your expression of it. As would "God," and "Personal God." Since you accept the word of "mystics," as you say in closing, then you may have to allow that Christianity was a Christian mysticism at its inception to understand how it once too held the concept of Avichi, and later created a concept of "Hell;" although, I should think they might have had a little help from so other belief systems too before reaching their dogma on Hell.
     
  2. Christian von Lähr

    Christian von Lähr Messenger

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0


    On the side, Thomas, psychics and Mediums are not the same thing … by a long shot. Although all clairvoyants, and all mediums [must] be psychic by virtue of the [levels of consciousness] they must traverse, … pure psychism being the lowest … the reverse is not true.

    Psychism is neither religion, nor is it philosophy … certainly not an Easter philosophy. It is an ability, a proclivity most likely [earned] through the process of Evolution. Regardless that they do not have the academic or scholastic understanding of how they can walk, talk and chew gum at the same time, they ARE thusly enabled; this [extra] ability should not be used to punish and degrade. If religions and philosophies actually wanted to include this mystical class, they would; so obviously they don’t, and exclusion is more of an arrogance than a valid presumption of Right. Those in the indicated fields are actually persecuted by the intellectual, the religious and the philosopher … which I view as a rather rude mistake. They have actual validation of existence Higher than all others would intellectualize, theorize and sermonize about. Yet, oddly enough, they reach to a set of realms according to their abilities and in some way which substantiates qualities of spirituality, religion and mysticism – and it is those [who cannot] who chastise. This would also be a characteristic of the Christian church, especially of past.

    There are certainly varied and multiple reasons that psychism does not translate to the special 3-dimensional world of this physical plane of existence. Without some standardized training (which NO ONE is going to voluntarily help out with, nor suggest --- as this class is quite clearly a threat to the offending parties) they cannot produce either the result or rationale to convey uniformly to the ego-locked [programmed] mindset of the masses, the experience, message or purpose.

    Can any religious follower actually conceive that Jesus, the Prophets, Buddha, Mohammad and the assorted saintly dignitaries were not themselves psychics, clairvoyants, mediums, mystics, astrologers and energetic (consciousness) healers? Especially when their views are based on allegorical scripts, stories, parables, sonnets and poems, where the psychic, clairvoyant, mediumistic mystics amongst us have at least [some] common means to express themselves (or they wouldn’t have their labels.)

    Can the average, even the above average Catholic see a “Soul.” Certainly not. They cannot even walk inside of a rock. Duhh. They, like all those who point the finger of difference, simply [cannot] allow their consciousness that is beyond the special Physical world be used to experience everything a clairvoyant, medium or psychic can. “All this and more,” someone once said. I think He also said, “My Father has many mansions.” Well, those mansions ARE other realms of hierarchal consciousness. Life exists in these realms and [most] people cannot perceive them; that is, except for the medium, and sometimes clairvoyant.


    We exist by gradients of consciousness relative to what we have become … within all of those gradients is some life, other than ours at this moment, …. Or it is us in other ways (philosophy would allow we live in multiple realms simultaneously, and correctly so, however we do have a focus to this one at the present.) These gradients even overlap. Add to this [experience] of other realms the varied capability of an individual’s mind to interpret a vast higher-dimensional vibration, and you can understand how difficult it is to have either a clear understanding of the otherside, and a consistent message among mediums.

    This is why the field exists as a matter of a draw from the “Sitter” to a compatible medium who also needs be suited to the consciousness to which he/she will connect. Regardless of what may be said, psychic senses are vibrations that [MUST] be interpreted, they are just done so subconsciously and [redirected] to the clairvoyant eyes, the clairsentient feeling of the intuitive, the ears of the clairaudient, and the “knowing” of a medium or channel. The conditioning of the mind [is the solution] if the real-world truly wants to understand the psychic realms and abilities, and get greater meaning from them. I do not find, though, that there is much willingness for anyone to give up their [power] whether it be knowledge, faith, influence or something else to the psychic class.
    The failing is that the psychic class who explores and learns achieves much. Most so accomplished simply have no volition to share the greater truths with those that scorn them.

    Further, as always, and EVEN as with Christianity in its earliest days, [knowledge beyond this realm] should not be shared with the uninitiated, for fear of death … Christianity is likely the worst, as I recall, at taking the lives of those who live outside the dogma. Heretics. Witches. Devils. There are surely countless names we give those who can achieve more than we. I think Jesus, too, had something to say about this along the lines of “not casting pearls before swine.” Did you know that THIS SUBJECT is what was meant?


    Since the thread actually had an intent to include Mediums, I took the liberty of giving them at least a modicum of representation … they should not be a [common enemy] in a spiritualistic setting of those who can only argue and relate scholastically, intellectually-alone, dogmatically and by [unknown] scripture.


    MOST CERTAINLY, Thomas, the psychic class is NOT Earth-bound; quite the converse. They are the gradient of help that just may keep everyone else from being Earth-bound. Phenomena must be controlled, or the world would forsake all to have the experience of magic and spirits. Somewhere, though, there must be a happy medium (and I am not referring to myself, ha.) How can we of the class who can actually relate to different realms share anything in a world that is conditioned to destroy that which is different (again, please review what wonders of destruction Christianity created in the Age of Discovery. Millions of lives lost are my clear factual argument.) Psychics don't kill, but there would be few if any Religions who can make that same statement.


    Surely the world’s most renowned prophets, saviors, saints HAVE ALL BEEN PSYCHICS, most demonstrably even clairvoyants, clairaudients, mediums and channels. WHERE WOULD RELIGION BE without them? WHERE WOULD SPIRITUAL PHILOSOPHY BE without them? It is impossible to separate us from the discovery of the innate and latent potential within. In partnership, or not … those of enlightened ability will HAVE to show the way as the world demands demonstration for it cannot substantiate the supernatural world of spirituality and God with reason alone. And to their peril, the mystic will always be the one who must sacrifice so that others might see the ways and means of existence and the potential of man.
     
  3. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    Hi Christian —

    I can see that.

    I quite agree.

    My point was that a 'mystic' in the Christian sense is not a learned skill nor a natural talent ... it's an infused 'vision' from the Divine. I say 'vision' with the proviso that Christian mystical experience is not necessarily 'visionary' — Master Eckhart, for example, offers no evidence that He experienced the states he was talking about, which is why we refer to him as a 'speculative mystic', but 'speculative' should not be seen in any negative or derogatory sense ... how can you see what is beyond form?

    Well, not the Christian religion, I have to say, that much is obvious.

    Here I would disagree. 'Intellect' in Christianity is the light of the soul that illuminates and permeates the veils of appearances, the greater the intellect, the greater the transparency of forms, until all forms fall away ...

    ... then it is the power of the will of the soul that advances into that 'space' that the intellect cannot illuminate.

    If one thinks of the soul as a lighthouse, the intellect is the light that penetreates the darkness, the will is the power that drives the light.

    There is a wonderful exegesis by Johannes Scottus Eriugena on John 20:2-10
    "She (Mary Magdalene) ran, therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved (John), and saith to them: They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. Peter therefore went out, and that other disciple, and they came to the sepulchre. And they both ran together, and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And when he stooped down, he saw the linen cloths lying; but yet he went not in. Then cometh Simon Peter, following him, and went into the sepulchre ... Then that other disciple also went in, who came first to the sepulchre: and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. The disciples therefore departed again to their home."
    For Eriugena, John signifies the intellect, Peter the will. So when Mary (the soul), sensed that the tomb was empty, the intellect flies to seek understanding, but on arriving, is confronted by the opacity of a mystery, and stops. The will, which is the power that drives and directs the intellect, must then take the bold step into the darkness, which Peter does, and what the wills knows, in faith, informs the intellect, in knowing ... in this reading, the soul, and its powers of intellect and will, are confronted by a mystery which cannot be understood from without, but must be entered into.

    Here I would distinguish between the intellect as the power of the soul, and the more contemporary notion of a purely cerebral intellectuality as a measure of how clever or rational the mind might be. Modern 'intellectuals' are measured this way ... a profound error.

    Certainly, there is evidence of this happening, and the number of mystics who suffered at the hands of their 'superiors' are many — Eckhart, St John of the Cross, St Theresa are more common examples, and such, sadly, is the way of human nature ... but the Church vindicates Her mystics in the end.

    Agreed, that's why I am drawing a distinction between the terms, as you have done. With the proviso, of course, that Jesus was the Logos of God, and thus transcends all such terms.

    I wouldn't be so sure. Read Adrienne Von Speyr, or Padre Pio, or St John Vianney ... there are many who do just that.

    I read that differently, and I think you've missed the key point of the text. The quote is "In my Father's house there are many mansions" (John 14:2).

    Modern studies of the mind assert that each mind receives data from the (physical) senses, that it takes light into the eye, for example, turns that into electrical impulses, and then re-creates a picture from those impulses, that it is a re-presentation, or a representation, of the One Real. That is the mansion in which the person lives.

    Thus there is the Real, the House, and each created soul is in fact a creation, a mansion within the house — we are an example of multiverse theory in actuality, the difference being that we communicate across those individual universes. We can 'see' into another's mansion by communication with them, and share.

    Christ's call is to show that each mansion is, in fact, just part of the one House, and we are invited to live in the House, not just our own mansion within it.

    Man, of course. builds his mansion, and defends it from his neighbour. Love dissolves the walls of the many mansions.

    The mind, and here I departed from contemporary Theosophy (which is, I would insist, radically different from traditional theosophy) delights in creating degrees, levels, domains, orders, realms, ad infinitum, but it seems to me by so doing it locates itself within ... and does not actually transcend. As the author of Colossians put it: "in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him" (Colossians 1:16).

    I mean no offence, although I must admit it sounds so, but really my Scripture calls me to seek beyond them, for they are all constructs of the mind, they are partitions that separate the 'all in all' and miss the big picture, in a sense something akin to a Tower of Babel — and again, as Colossians states somewhat bluntly (for effect, but in truth) "And despoiling the principalities and powers, he hath exposed them confidently in open shew, triumphing over them in himself" (2:15).

    The Christian is called to life in God, to simplicity, to where, as Meister Eckhart saw, "all distinctions cease to exist"

    Initiation is right understanding, as opposed to error, and it is error that leads to death. The Christian acolyte was bound to the disciplina arcani for the protection of his neighbour, not to claim some moral superiority and quasi-intellectual elitism over him, which I am sadly obliged to say, I saw all too evident in Theosophy, as it is in other so-called esoteric orders.

    I rather think He was referring to the Babel-builders, who would exalt themselves over their neighbour.

    In my Scripture, Christ points to those who are justified in the eyes of God — the widow at the temple, the publican ... those who love God, and call on Him, simply and innocently. The robber on the Cross is an exemplary example.

    I do not, as it might seem, decry the psychic, the medium ... but I do fear that sometimes knowledge becomes its own end, and the mind has an infinite capacity to create, fractal like, layer upon layer, veil upon veil, that stands between the simple soul and its creator.

    The master of Christian Hermeticism, the anonymous author of "Meditations on the Tarot", made just this point, and likened such activity in the mind as symbolised by the worm Oroborus, constantly eating its own tail, eternally reproducing itself ...

    ... indeed, the author asks, why did, for example, Madame Blavatsky, the Theosophical Society, Stanislas de Guaita, Eliphas Lévi, and other great authors of occultism, focus principally on fohat, the energy of the serpent, that moves in a horizontal plane, and exclude the Dove, symbol of the Holy Spirit, which transcends the cerebral intellectuality (light from within), being a light from above ... the single light of love "in which all things live and move and have their being" (Acts 17:28)?

    I don't want to live in my mansion. I want to live in His house.

    Love is "the one thing necessary" (Luke 10:42), Love transcends all difference, all distinction.

    Love conquers all.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  4. earl

    earl ?

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,623
    Likes Received:
    18
    Interesting and plausible alternative interpretation of "many mansions vs. Father's House" Thomas. Don't know how useful to a spiritual life on this world and in this realm knowledge of or belief in the notion of other realms and other worlds might be. Did find it interesting when I stumbled across the work of Annabelle Cardoso in instrumental transcommuncication-the controversial research into purported and actual communication with deceased individuals-that her communicants spoke of other realms or levels of consciousness and other worlds. Certainly, traditional Buddhism has for millenia takes for granted spirit realms, "levels" of consciousness, (though they would put it in terms of degrees of self-grasping), and "other worlds." At the same time, however, as you seem to intimate relative to the Christian journey, all of that is seen in Buddhism as so much "background" information and largely non-central to the path of enlightenment. Zen has tended to go so far as to caution its adherents about getting to caught up in experiences of such-"makyo"-or folks would get derailed from what was of key importance in the journey. Do find such insights as might come from psychics/mediums or maybe even those reporting from beyond the veil as just a way to add some interesting details about possible scenery around the bend most cannot visualize from where we are as we journey to some ultimate destination. earl
     
  5. Christian von Lähr

    Christian von Lähr Messenger

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0


    Thanks Thomas. In my philosophy I would consider [this] physical Plane of existence, with the limitations of its typical senses being conducive to perceiving within this Plane, our current mansion. But further, and more importantly to me, those other dimensions, hierarchies or Planes would be levels of [manifested existence] and constitute "the House" collectively.

    Our Physical-world senses are conducive for physical reality and understanding of our realm. Seeing, hearing, and touch are only such as they are because one knows them FROM a physical world perspective. To a psychic, clairvoyant, medium and other variants of psychism, WE would acknowledge that there are [counterparts] to all of these [senses] in successively higher gradations of Consciousness --- and to wit is that we have [form] of Consciousness in other realms/gradations suitable to that level of existence.

    [THOSE FORMS] have their requisite means of sense, and are the counterparts of our physical senses. SO, … those of the mediumistic persuasion basically function [moreso] from the senses of those higher forms [of us]. Although commonly termed “spirit,” such are more correctly “forms” --- basically bodies, just as we have a body now for this reality. This would be the Eastern esoteric perception, by the way. ALL of our forms are [ensouled] in the same way Christianity considers our physical bodies to be ensouled … and esoterically, we would say this will and does vary based on where we are seating our main focus or manifestation of consciousness.

    I would consider, regardless actually being Christian, and being a Medium, that the Highest of what I can consider an ultimate divinity to be "the Absoluteness", an unknowable in an un-manifested / unknowable non-realm outside of [this House], --- such “House” being a Universe of ALL its planes of existence --- and inclusive of the House.

    Jesus to me would be a meaningful and purposeful Prophet that serves great purpose due to His association with a great force for humanity, the Christ Consciousness (a term that precedes Christianity, and stems from the East) and such purpose(s) are for the [consciousness] of man (a level of consciousness, "the Thinker") and regardless [our] form, which is purely arbitrary in its current construction (in other words, we could be cockroaches if that is what the Earth would support best, cockroaches with big brains, ... and this would still work.) Therefore, I am not attached to "form" so very much in spiritual discourse.

    The “Image of God” we may be referring to is at the consciousness level. The Planes or gradations of existence that support our consciousness in its ever-evolving, ever-developing states … is to the occasional level of “perfection,” where the process simply continues all over again at yet a higher platform.

    To bring things back down to the level of the Thread topic, I was thinking ... is not one's religion - basically their belief system - basically and typically that of their parents? I think so. And IF so, then Mediums would believe in Hell, certainly, and at some level, if they were raised within any of the many sects of Christianity.

    Later, however, they, as do some who tend to reason and intellectualize for themselves outside of religious dictates, come to different conclusions as to “what is,” and “what is not” spiritually. Mediumistically, however, this can and will be taken to a different degree through [actual] experience (and to a non-medium, I acknowledge this would be an arguable point), one which [is real] to them, and would therefore, alter their sense of Reality.

    That altered reality tends to classify Mediums, perhaps, as not acknowledging Hell --- but first and foremost because psychic-class expression/experience is [Universal] … and this is an aspect of scientific proof ... regardless the levels of proficiencies between mediums. This is ABSOLUTELY no different than the proficiency differences in any profession or walk of life, and therefore, psychic proclivities follow a presumed requirement of consistency and repeatability that the modern or scientific mind would expect of spirituality. [To them] the validation of their senses (and several come into play) would NOT interpret Hell in the classic Christian tradition. Further, to make this claim, the medium would have some proficiency in experiencing [existence] through [many gradients], and these gradations of Consciousness are what the esoteric mind would portray as Planes and dimensions.

    How they work, how they change, what distinguishes them, what pertains to them is the [business] of the medium and clairvoyant, … and its demonstrable, repeatable, explainable order --- beyond being scientific method, in its own right --- DOES supplant Christian dogmatic [training], with an actual experience that IS reality to said Mediums.

    Again, allowing for the qualifying of the medium – as they differ like any other field – the order of consciousness through gradations of existence allows one to [know] (to their degree of satisfaction) the qualities of “Good and Bad” as might be suitable for ascertaining those qualities specifically in forms of conscious life itself, and individually, … and for distinguishing a [relativity], which would become the mediums’ perspective on Heaven and Hell.


    ALL interesting points of conversation in this thread ... some to an extreme left or right, figuratively, where a medium must walk the middle and acknowledge as best it can the wisdom of both extremes, all the while, having a genuine experience of an enhanced reality which cannot be conversely accepted nor understood by those polarities that would define spirituality reality. I offer my meager voice in support of their predicament so they can feel acknowledged, at least, that they do have a valid position of rightness, it is just between the majorities of non-experiencing people who must justify with mind, scripture and Eastern reasoning alone.
     
  6. Christian von Lähr

    Christian von Lähr Messenger

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0

    Of course, and this stands to reason, said Truth, Word, Law(s) are Universal … and therefore apply to the Universe at large … whoever, wherever, whatever it may be.
    So, to me, … all religions are right, all philosophies are right, all people are right, all life is right and all that we consider non-life by virtue of being OF this Universe is Right … we differ ONLY in our current and individual means of interpretation.

    That grand statement thusly made, … again, Mediums WILL have their perspective of both Heaven or Hell, some will believe, others won’t believe some will have alternatives … these are individual choices and allowable interpretation; and should neither validate nor invalidate a Medium’s right to a voice or opinion. NOTHING of their Divine Right can be negated by any religion or philosophy … for all are relatively speaking in boats, simply not the same boat. All are adrift and the [current] which is Divine will nonetheless take them each and every one to the same distant shore, ultimately.
     
  7. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    Re: Definition of the Absolute

    I use 'absolute' in its perennial philosophical sense, I'm not sure what other definition there is?

    Here's some words taken from the followers of the Perennial Tradition (they offer the best commentaries on comparative religion in my book):

    In metaphysics, the Absolute is that which allows of no augmentation or diminution, no repetition or division; it is therefore that which is at once solely itself and totally itself. It is One, simple and undifferentiated.

    The Infinite is that which is not determined by any limiting factor and therefore does not 'end' at any boundary; it is in the first place Potentiality or Possibility as such, and ipso facto the Possibility of things, hence Virtuality.

    Have to allow? When was it ever not? Christianity — at least those denominations who maintain an authentic Sacramental dimension — is and remains a 'mystery religion'.

    I would state at this pooint however, that the contemporary understanding of 'mystical' as it was classically understood is quite wrong. Today people seek 'mystical experience', whereas the great writers of the mystical within Christianity — the apophatic stream — point not to experience but quite the opposite. As in most things, the modern world tend to view such ideas from a materialist and consumerist viewpoint.

    Well you'd have to show your evidence for that.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  8. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    Hi Earl —
    Well, it's Eriugena inspired ... plus some heavy Platonism ...

    Well, we have our angelic orders and the communion of the saints. As ever, they've tended to drift out of Christian consciousness in this rational, empirical age.

    Yes, we would agree, from that point of view, it's all a diversion ... it's not central to 'the way' at all, nor even relevant, in that sense.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  9. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    In mine the Absolute is not the collected attributes of all this was, is and will (or will not) be ... the Absolute transcends the totality of things, thus we're not interested in such constructs as this plane or that.

    We too see the 'spiritual senses', but we don't posit other 'realms' or 'gradations' of consciousness — simply spiritual states. But the world of experience is here ... now ... that's what counts.

    I agree on the unknowable Absolute — that is well discussed in our apophatic tradition — but whilst the Absolute is not any of the things that can be said, the Absolute is immanently present here and now, so we have no need of other planes, however one pereives them to be. There is nothing necessary on such planes that is not available here, now.

    And one can predicate certain things of the Absolute, else it becomes an empty term, devoid of meaning.

    I thought along the same lines once. The Jesus of whom you speak is not the Jesus whom I have come to know, nor is He the Jesus of whom the Apostles speak. So Jesus for me, and for millions of humble folk the world over, offers a spiritual discourse which transcends all cosmic forms, and this means one is not required to fit into a cosmic form to aspire to Christ; one is not required to be an ascetic, or an esoterist, an occultist, a metaphysician, a magician, a hermeticist ... a whatever ... this aspect is widely misunderstood, and was rejected by the founders of many of the esoteric schools, who were wedded to the notion of spiritual elitism.

    Love is all that matters.

    So do I, and that's no bad thing in itself. Of course, one must allow for genuine cases of conversion, but that is rare. Sadly one must also allow for the falling awat which has been the tendency for some time now.

    Having said that, the aim is to receive the tradition from one's parents, and realise the message for oneself. My Catholicism, for example, is markedly different from my mother's, and radically different from my father's, although we all profess the same Creed.

    Nor should one underestimate the point that we are the children of our Age. The Theosophical Association and Anthroposphy, for example, are the children of their age. Secularism is another, the child of modernity.

    Actually what you're describing is philosophical relativism — it treats truth as something essentially subjective and maleable. Your assumption that one can "intellectualize for themselves outside of religious dictates" assumes that the individual becomes the arbiter of truth, which is metaphysically a nonsense. It's the Adamic story in a new guise. What they come to know is their own psychism, their own personal spiritualism, rather than coming to know the Spirit, who cvan only be approached on His terms, else the low would be able to corrupt the high.

    In short, the disciple assumes he knows what's best for himself, better than the guru. There's not one authentic tradition that would endorse that notion as anything other than self-delusion.

    As a Buddhist recently said — People demand the right to be themselves and be self-determining, rejecting what they see, and don't understand, by the terms 'dogma', 'creed' or 'doctrine'. They insist that freedom of choice is paramount, whereas in fact this freedom represents itself as the inclination to follow any whim that happens to enter their minds.

    In Christianity there is a distinction between the individual spirit, the psychic activity, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit — and I refer again to the reference re. fohat and the dove in my last post — spiritual realisation is like anything else, one has to conform oneself to it, not conform it to oneself ... such a notion, very popular, is another child of this age.

    There are many 'illumined' — artists, poets, sages, etc. — whose spiritual light is their own dynamic psychism. The Spiritual Life as understood in Christianity is of a different order of being altogether.

    Not really.

    If you think about it, no great spiritual tradition has ever been founded by a medium or a clairvoyant. These are 'material goods' in the sense they belong to the functioning of the physical faculty — some are better than others, some are dormant, in many, like dowsing, the gift is lost if not exercised ...

    But such skills are not central to, nor even necessary, to walk the Way.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  10. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    True.

    Well, this statement does not logically follow from the one above, so that's a bit of a huge assumption — you're saying that the universe and everything in it is infallible, which I would suggest is demonstrably not the case.

    Quite. I would have thought that's the whole point. Interpretations are near or far from the truth according to degree, some are spot on, some are way off.

    The assumption, implicit in the statement, is that my interpretation is right, because that's the way I choose to interpret it, and the same applies to everyone else, which renders 'truth' meaningless.

    Nice sentiment, but ultimately unsound ...

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  11. Christian von Lähr

    Christian von Lähr Messenger

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Thomas, for the academic Christian view. I hope we can get other perspectives too, those which open up the topic to many schools of thought.
     
  12. sarahbixb

    sarahbixb New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have always held the metaphysical belief of hell, that it's a state of mind and not eternal. I've never believed in the 'devil' or a fire and brimstone hell.

    Lately I have been researching exorcisms, what is your input on this subject?

    There are claims of 'possessed' individuals levitating off of the ground, speaking in multiple languages, claiming they are 'demons' from one of the levels of hell, knowing information about people they could never know, and even claiming to be the 'devil' or 'lucifer', etc.

    What do you make of this?
     
  13. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    I'll bet some people have thought, over the years, that I was possessed.

    I just laugh. Satan cannot cast out Satan! ;)
     
  14. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,807
    Likes Received:
    61
    I have known several very good psychics, and they have all believed in hell, although not exactly hell as it is known in Christian circles.
     
  15. BrotherMichaelSky

    BrotherMichaelSky New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've know quite a few "psychics".....
    each one was an individual with a HUGE past behind them which gave them a unique viewpoint.....
    each one could talk about things I was experiencing, and put a COMPLETELY different flavor on it.....
    each one had a slightly different opinion than the rest....

    And I sat there having EXPERIENCES, trying to figure out what in the world those crazy folks were talking about.....

    I have my own ideas about hell:
    Hell is separation from our Father and Unity. Hell is living OUTSIDE of direct contact with our Father. It is a constant state of existence for most in physicality.
    Hell can be a state of mind- it can be the actual creation of horrific environs to exist in - it can also be the result of failure to take advantage of the ability to purify ones self and seek a higher vibration. Because unfinished creations in Our Fathers environs get recycled....... and the method of purification is to be scoured by fierce pressure and heat - emerging a new clean soul, to begin the process of ascension again...... until one gets it right...
    There is as much confusion about Hell as there is about Satan.... sheesh...
     
  16. Sam Albion

    Sam Albion akaFrancisKing:ViveLeRoi!

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    9
    ..." Hell is other people"...
     
  17. desert-rat

    desert-rat Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see hell as having been invented by the church as a punshiment for not going along with church dogma . I do think there is a area of the astral that people have made in to a hell . A post started by me on another forum Hell(2) desert rat
     
  18. bhaktajan

    bhaktajan Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    10
    ya know what? I don't believe you. I doubt you can explain this position.

    The word 'Hell' the Noun
    is equal cent per cent with
    the word 'Hellacious' the adjective.

    Are you saying that Heaven too is invented by the church too?

    Is there no heaven?

    Also, some do think that orgasims are the supreme purpose?
    Do orgasms existed outside the churchs' domain?
     
  19. desert-rat

    desert-rat Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    We all have the rite to believe what we want . Find in the King James Bible where it states that we will go to heven or hell . To my knowledge the only thing close is Jesus telling the two theives there with him that they would join him in paradice . Many years ago there was a radio preacher that offered all his money to any one that could show him where in the Bible it stated that you would go to heven for following church docturn or hell if you did not . Garner Ted Armstrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia desert rat
     
  20. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    If Heaven and Hell are both relative, then let us praise the Divine that we are where and as we are ... and Hope like h~ that every day gets used in all the right ways for Divine PURPOSE.

    God's Plan involves progressive EVOlution, which is not the opposite of INVOlution, yet to align yourself with the latter is to invite disaster*, while even to affirm one's Faith in the former ~ is passé to some, but no less effective to and for others (thereby, for the rest of us, fwiw).

    CHOOSE your future, don't let blindness, ignorance, and (the forces of) fear & superstition do so for you.

    After a few more seasons in the abyss, we may all be ready for an important quantum leap. My money is with Those Who have long ago made this same transition within Themselves, that They may also stay, and offer whatever assistance we are willing to accept in doing likewise.

    Perhaps we may avoid something unnecessary, and unnecessarily painful & unpleasant along the Way.

    Perhaps.
    ________________
    *Because Mankind travels the Upward Arc.
     

Share This Page