|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Aug 19, 2015 6:33:29 GMT
Scottish Lassie, you have (again) misconstrued what I stated and have gone to a different area. As I have in the past, I support your (as well as others) personal beliefs in the non-temporal concepts. In fact I think that it is most likely for you (and others) to do otherwise would at least make your lives more difficult. However, your assertion, “ . . . It is the Atheists who give 100% of their thoughts and time to physical matters, because they don't believe that there is a spiritual reality. . . . “ demonstrates a real misunderstanding of the world outside of your concepts of a 'spiritual world. First, as I have explained to you in the past, Atheists are not the same, but yes, in a general sense Atheists are involved in trying to understand the world, the people in it and their relations to one another. As part of that world, there are obviously people who are committed to their spiritual beliefs and that affects their relationships to others and therefore such is of interest to Atheists. Clearly, some committed to the spiritual world make assertions that they claim are involved in and caused by things not of the temporal world. Atheists are interested in such things and for those assertions have found other (from the temporal world) causes and incentives for the happenings and/or interpretations demonstrating no singular need for the spiritual world. It isn't that Atheists exclude these alleged spiritual world events but rather that they have temporal world reasons for the beliefs in them. That is unacceptable to those committed to their beliefs in that spiritual world so they simply reject that Atheist perspective. Then too, these attributes of those with beliefs in the spiritual world are not new. The leaders involved and the names and terminologies change but by and large the concepts remain the same or at least similar. As I stated in my posting, “ . . . More over, Scientology (as an example) borrow heavily from previous works of others such as Gnosticism and the Valentinians and both of these borrowed significantly from the works of Plato. . . . “ This is true and provable. More over, these older forerunners of these belief systems developed well thought out ethical and moral concepts which are applicable to the relationships of people. To Atheists these are well worth the study. Hi Men an tol, I live in this physical dimension, so am well aware of all the possibilities that can exist to explain unusual occurrences, but as Atheists have no spiritual experiences of their own, they cannot explain it. No doubt this will continue to be the case. I know that my senses are telling me that my spiritual experiences are real and therefore valid. I accept that it is an impossibility for anyone who has spiritual experiences to convince those who haven't had them, that they are real. Knowing this, I ask you, what is the point of continuing along these lines? It really serves no good purpose at all. I personally don't like going around in circles on any topic, where one person doesn't understand the other, and vice versa. Don't you agree? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 15:25:13 GMT
Hi Men an tol, I live in this physical dimension, so am well aware of all the possibilities that can exist to explain unusual occurrences, but as Atheists have no spiritual experiences of their own, they cannot explain it. No doubt this will continue to be the case. I know that my senses are telling me that my spiritual experiences are real and therefore valid. I accept that it is an impossibility for anyone who has spiritual experiences to convince those who haven't had them, that they are real. Knowing this, I ask you, what is the point of continuing along these lines? It really serves no good purpose at all. I personally don't like going around in circles on any topic, where one person doesn't understand the other, and vice versa. Don't you agree? If you do not want to enter such exchanges then the simple thing is to not do so, however I am only responding to your comments about my postings. Such as in this case, " . . . I beg to differ Men an tol, we . . . " is how you began the posting to which I responded. To now say that there is (in affect) no way for one to convince the other of their stated position, is certainly one way of getting out of an untenable position.
For me, I don't see exchanges in that way and instead see them as the only method of diverse peoples with diverse views to come to understand (if not accept) the position of others.
You're the one who provides your beliefs as absolutes and implied as unique and have used them as the basis to demonstrate their value relative to others. In that you focus on Atheism as a view of life that cannot understand simply demonstrates your lack of understanding of Atheism.
More over, and with all due respect, I do not think that you really understand your own belief system as it is not unique in our times nor in the past. Here I suggest that the study of such systems of belief (even by Atheists) have existed throughout the ages of humans. In this case, the tenants of your belief are not only similar to, but in some respects rooted within, Gnosticism.
Gnosticism had a major impact on the development of Christianity as well as offering well thought out concepts of the individual and realization of God in a spiritual reality separating that spiritual realm from the temporal world. I doubt that you would have the interest but if you wanted to, I suggest that you could reference the Gospel of Thomas which addresses the reunification of self with the God as well as the Secret Book According to John (considered the oldest and most complete wring of Christianity) and the book of Zostrianos which describes the contemplation of God and other spiritual realities and the rejecting of material things, and this as a program comprised of discipline, philosophical study, and teaching.
These things (as well as many others) have been studied by many, inclusive of Atheists. More over, these writings are not only reflective of much of what you have offered, but are also inclusive of philosophical practices of life in the temporal world (such as the Gospel of Thomas which is considered a book of the sayings of Jesus and as a book of wisdom).
While these are tied to the texts of Nag Hammadi (that is the place close to where they were found) they each stand alone. And it is obvious that the concepts of these texts (Gnosticism) are clearly affected by the works of Plato. I suggest that the roots of your belief are not new and have been well studied and written about by others who provide far more in depth understanding.
Again Scottish Lassie I suggest that you do continue to follow your beliefs and in that I as an Atheist support you, but please do not make the mistake of considering Atheists as lacking in the ability to understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 19:13:44 GMT
As something that you might find of interest Scottish Lassie (or anyone else for that matter) included herein is an address: The Gnostic Society Library gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm Once you go to this site, on the left of the page is an index to subject matter, I suggest that you go to the Gnostic Archive and select “What is Gnosticism” as you should find it quite informative as well as (for the open mind) supportive of many of the concepts you have offered. |
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Aug 19, 2015 21:56:42 GMT
If you do not want to enter such exchanges then the simple thing is to not do so, however I am only responding to your comments about my postings. Such as in this case, " . . . I beg to differ Men an tol, we . . . " is how you began the posting to which I responded. To now say that there is (in affect) no way for one to convince the other of their stated position, is certainly one way of getting out of an untenable position.
For me, I don't see exchanges in that way and instead see them as the only method of diverse peoples with diverse views to come to understand (if not accept) the position of others.
You're the one who provides your beliefs as absolutes and implied as unique and have used them as the basis to demonstrate their value relative to others. In that you focus on Atheism as a view of life that cannot understand simply demonstrates your lack of understanding of Atheism.
More over, and with all due respect, I do not think that you really understand your own belief system as it is not unique in our times nor in the past. Here I suggest that the study of such systems of belief (even by Atheists) have existed throughout the ages of humans. In this case, the tenants of your belief are not only similar to, but in some respects rooted within, Gnosticism.
Gnosticism had a major impact on the development of Christianity as well as offering well thought out concepts of the individual and realization of God in a spiritual reality separating that spiritual realm from the temporal world. I doubt that you would have the interest but if you wanted to, I suggest that you could reference the Gospel of Thomas which addresses the reunification of self with the God as well as the Secret Book According to John (considered the oldest and most complete wring of Christianity) and the book of Zostrianos which describes the contemplation of God and other spiritual realities and the rejecting of material things, and this as a program comprised of discipline, philosophical study, and teaching.
These things (as well as many others) have been studied by many, inclusive of Atheists. More over, these writings are not only reflective of much of what you have offered, but are also inclusive of philosophical practices of life in the temporal world (such as the Gospel of Thomas which is considered a book of the sayings of Jesus and as a book of wisdom).
While these are tied to the texts of Nag Hammadi (that is the place close to where they were found) they each stand alone. And it is obvious that the concepts of these texts (Gnosticism) are clearly affected by the works of Plato. I suggest that the roots of your belief are not new and have been well studied and written about by others who provide far more in depth understanding.
Again Scottish Lassie I suggest that you do continue to follow your beliefs and in that I as an Atheist support you, but please do not make the mistake of considering Atheists as lacking in the ability to understand.
Thankyou Men an tol, for giving me your permission to continue with my belief in ECKANKAR, that is very kind of you, but I have to say that we are in the same boat, in that we and everyone else, rely on our senses in order to guage anything. You believe in what your senses are presenting to you as I am also. Bearing in mind that some people appear to have extra senses,(the gifts of Spirit)? Clairvoyance, Clairaudience and Prophecy etc. How can I not understand the things of this world? I live here, but have the ability to visit other dimensions. Which you apparently cannot do, so don't have any real understanding of these dimensions. Reading about the probability of other dimensions is not the same as visiting them in reality, so you couldn't really understand what I am experiencing, which is why I am having so much trouble trying to explain. With you and others suggesting that I am suffering from the condition of schizophrenia, hallucinations or delusion. I have had all three directed towards me as have all ECKists who are brave enough to post their beliefs on these forums. There is however, a book on sale to the public of the experiences of an eminent Neurosurgeon Ethan Alexander entitled Proof of Heaven, which ofcourse is one of the dimensions that the Quantum Physicists believe exists besides this physical dimension. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2015 0:33:10 GMT
Scottish Lassie, I didn't give you permission to do anything, if anything I tried to demonstrate some respect on my part, for you following your beliefs. I don't see my attitude in this context as being any different than I would suggest to anyone else whatever their chosen life path. But if you would rather see yourself as being in some confrontational exchange, have at it as it makes no difference to me.
Your comment, “ . . . How can I not understand the things of this world? I live here. . . . “ has no relevance as any of us can give many instances of people having different interpretation of events in this temporal world, so one person's understanding may not relate to anyone else and their interpretation.
Obviously people can have a challenge when trying to explain an experience to another who has not had such a similar experience. That is common in people talking and debating ideas and is one reason that people have dialog with each other trying to exchange ideas. But in this instance, that doesn't work with me as I have had two different times when I have been declared dead and then brought back to the living. For me there was nothing during that supposed dead period either time. So I do have experience and that experience is nothing, nada, nyet, zero, nil. Even so I do not allow that to contribute to any conclusions of mine as there is not provable evidence that I did or didn't have experiences.
The Dr. Martin you mention is obviously known and the sales of his book demonstrate an interest in this subject by the public but that has always been so. While the public may consider him as significant his colleagues are far less enthusiastic. That is, (from an interview) former colleagues reached for comment were not convinced. Dr. Martin Samuels, chairman of the neurology department at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, a Harvard teaching affiliate, remembered Dr. Alexander as a competent neurosurgeon. But he said: “There is no way to know, in fact, that his neocortex was shut down. It sounds scientific, but it is an interpretation made after the fact.” That is, Dr. Martin's statement of his neocortex being shut down was nothing more than raw opinion.
In reference to your repeated reference to the positions of Mathematicians who work in the field of Quantum Physics and that believe in multiple dimensions has truth but not in the way you have offered that position. This encompasses the concept of String Theory and other mathematical ideas. In terms of multiple dimensions there are an entire range of beliefs of such mathematicians from not believing in any dimensions to an infinite number of dimensions. I have yet to read of any Mathematician who has seriously put forth the idea that not only are there multiple dimensions but that one of them is heaven. You can certainly believe as you wish, but to be perfectly frank this appears to be taking concepts (the possibility of multiple dimensions) and using it to try to justify your beliefs. This is mixing apples and oranges.
In terms, of supporting the concepts of your beliefs, I have provided a link to:
The Gnostic Society Library
gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm
Once you go to this site, on the left of the page is an index to subject matter, I suggest that you go to the Gnostic Archive and select “What is Gnosticism” as you should find it quite informative as well as (for the open mind) supportive of many of the concepts you have offered.
Here I am the Atheist and I have provided support for at least some of your beliefs in sites where not only a lot of work has been done, but where many of the root ideas of your religion (and others) are derived. So I would suggest that before you tear into Atheists that you might come to understand them better than you do today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Aug 20, 2015 3:46:22 GMT
Hi Gibby, It is not a case of ' unless you happen to believe it,' but rather ' unless you happen to experience it.' I along with you and others, have experiences in this physical plane, but not all of us have experiences in the spiritual planes and this is the problem. If everyone also had experiences in the spiritual dimensions, then there would be no disbelief of any kind. I don't know why some people are allowed to see into and visit other dimensions, I only know that it happens. All I can say is: that a person has earned whatever experience they are having and have had, and it has to do with Karma. As a person evolves spiritually they are given more advanced experiences which allows them to sense more of the different aspects of Creation. Nobody is trying to change anyone's belief, we are all just giving our viewpoints on what we have come to understand and therefore believe, because of the experiences that we have had. I don't think that's the only problem, Chris. It's not just that not everyone has had spiritual experiences and therefore it's not reasonable to expect them to accept your claims simply on your say-so. It's also the fact that every spiritual experience is different and that different people have different types of spiritual experience. A psychoanalyist for example will find that their patients tend to have the type of dreams associated with the particular school of psychoanalysis to which they belong - so Freudian patients have Freudian dreams, Jungian ones have Jungian dreams, Adlerian ones Adlerian dreams and so on. Now I've had spiritual experiences that have led me to believe that the Church of England is the nearest thing to the true Christian religion that exists at present. You've had spiritual experiences that have convinced you it's Eckanckar. Others have had ones that convince them it's Islam, Catholicism, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism and so on. Now the problem is that when these spiritual experiences lead people to such different conclusions about the world it's obvious that they can't be used as some kind of barometer of truth or some kind of basis on which to expect others to share your beliefs. Hi Big Lin, How often do I have to say, that I'm not trying to get anyone to change what they believe, but I am expecting people to believe that I am telling the truth as to my experiences. From an ECKists point of view, we are all at different levels of spiritual understanding according to our choices, and taking into consideration through the law of Karma, what we need to learn. We all have different lessons to learn, so consequently we will have different experiences. No person can change a person's belief, only the Holy Spirit can do that with your consent. That will always be the case. It is the Holy Spirit that allows you to have the experiences that you, and everyone else has. |
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Aug 20, 2015 4:20:07 GMT
Scottish Lassie, I didn't give you permission to do anything, if anything I tried to demonstrate some respect on my part, for you following your beliefs. I don't see my attitude in this context as being any different than I would suggest to anyone else whatever their chosen life path. But if you would rather see yourself as being in some confrontational exchange, have at it as it makes no difference to me. Your comment, “ . . . How can I not understand the things of this world? I live here. . . . “ has no relevance as any of us can give many instances of people having different interpretation of events in this temporal world, so one person's understanding may not relate to anyone else and their interpretation. Obviously people can have a challenge when trying to explain an experience to another who has not had such a similar experience. That is common in people talking and debating ideas and is one reason that people have dialog with each other trying to exchange ideas. But in this instance, that doesn't work with me as I have had two different times when I have been declared dead and then brought back to the living. For me there was nothing during that supposed dead period either time. So I do have experience and that experience is nothing, nada, nyet, zero, nil. Even so I do not allow that to contribute to any conclusions of mine as there is not provable evidence that I did or didn't have experiences. The Dr. Martin you mention is obviously known and the sales of his book demonstrate an interest in this subject by the public but that has always been so. While the public may consider him as significant his colleagues are far less enthusiastic. That is, (from an interview) former colleagues reached for comment were not convinced. Dr. Martin Samuels, chairman of the neurology department at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, a Harvard teaching affiliate, remembered Dr. Alexander as a competent neurosurgeon. But he said: “There is no way to know, in fact, that his neocortex was shut down. It sounds scientific, but it is an interpretation made after the fact.” That is, Dr. Martin's statement of his neocortex being shut down was nothing more than raw opinion. In reference to your repeated reference to the positions of Mathematicians who work in the field of Quantum Physics and that believe in multiple dimensions has truth but not in the way you have offered that position. This encompasses the concept of String Theory and other mathematical ideas. In terms of multiple dimensions there are an entire range of beliefs of such mathematicians from not believing in any dimensions to an infinite number of dimensions. I have yet to read of any Mathematician who has seriously put forth the idea that not only are there multiple dimensions but that one of them is heaven. You can certainly believe as you wish, but to be perfectly frank this appears to be taking concepts (the possibility of multiple dimensions) and using it to try to justify your beliefs. This is mixing apples and oranges. In terms, of supporting the concepts of your beliefs, I have provided a link to: The Gnostic Society Library gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm Once you go to this site, on the left of the page is an index to subject matter, I suggest that you go to the Gnostic Archive and select “What is Gnosticism” as you should find it quite informative as well as (for the open mind) supportive of many of the concepts you have offered. Here I am the Atheist and I have provided support for at least some of your beliefs in sites where not only a lot of work has been done, but where many of the root ideas of your religion (and others) are derived. So I would suggest that before you tear into Atheists that you might come to understand them better than you do today. Hi Met an tol, You obviously weren't aware that I was teasing you, which I do on occasion. No matter, I'm not trying to tear into Atheists either, we are all at different stages of belief, and as far as I am concerned, we all believe whatever, according to our own choices from the beginning of time and according to the law of Karma. What strikes me, is the fact that you try to pooh-pooh every theory or fact that I provide as a reason to explain the truth of what I believe. Atheists are welcome to their belief as it is no skin off my nose whatever anyone believes. |
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Aug 20, 2015 4:28:16 GMT
Hi Men an tol, you seem to have mistakenly attributed the author of the book Proof of Heaven to Dr Martin instead of Dr Ethan Alexander.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2015 14:44:12 GMT
Hi Men an tol, you seem to have mistakenly attributed the author of the book Proof of Heaven to Dr Martin instead of Dr Ethan Alexander. You are correct that I used the wrong name in referring to the author of the “Proof of Heaven” in the beginning of that paragraph. However, reading the complete paragraph that mistake on my part is evident as Dr. Martin (for whom Dr. Alexander worked) is critiquing the book. More over, the inaccuracies in Dr. Alexander's book are made very clear by the article written in Esquire magazine on this entire incident, which in part states, “ . . . Alexander's book has been criticized by scientists, including Sam Harris who described Alexander's NDE account (chronicled in Newsweek, October 2012) as "alarmingly unscientific," and that "everything – absolutely everything – in Alexander's account rests on repeated assertions that his visions of heaven occurred while his cerebral cortex was 'shut down,' 'inactivated,' 'completely shut down,' 'totally offline,' and 'stunned to complete inactivity.' The evidence he provides for this claim is not only inadequate – it suggests that he doesn't know anything about the relevant brain science." "Even in cases where the brain is alleged to have shut down, its activity must return if the subject is to survive and describe the experience. In such cases, there is generally no way to establish that the NDE occurred while the brain was offline." Neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks agreed with Harris, saying that "to deny the possibility of any natural explanation for an NDE, as Dr. Alexander does, is more than unscientific – it is antiscientific."..."The one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander's case...is that his NDE occurred not during his coma, but as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function. It is curious that he does not allow this obvious and natural explanation, but instead insists on a supernatural one." . . . “ Also in that same article there was additional investigation of Dr. Alexander's past with such as, “ . . . Esquire magazine reported (August 2013 issue) that before the publication of Proof of Heaven, Alexander had been terminated or suspended from multiple hospital positions, and had been the subject of several malpractice lawsuits, including at least two involving the alteration of medical records to cover up a medical error. The magazine also found what it claimed were discrepancies with regard to Alexander's version of events in the book. Among the discrepancies, according to an account of the Esquire article in Forbes, was that "Alexander writes that he slipped into the coma as a result of severe bacterial meningitis and had no higher brain activity, while a doctor who cared for him says the coma was medically induced and the patient was conscious, though hallucinating. . . . " The point Scottish Lassie is that Dr. Alexander's veracity is highly suspect at best and far from a 'best source' as evidence of support for you positions from the scientific community. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2015 15:26:20 GMT
Scottish Lassie, your comment, “ . . . What strikes me, is the fact that you try to pooh-pooh every theory or fact that I provide as a reason to explain the truth of what I believe. . . . “
While I understand that being the self declared victim is nice role to assume, that is really a misinterpretation of my postings. Apparently you seem to prefer that you make your comments and then the rest of us simply silently stand in awe of your comments, even if we do not agree with them. Rather than trying to 'pooh-pooh' every theory or fact you provide as a reason to explain the truth of what you believe, I have stated my opinion and in addition provided sources which provide the roots of the concepts you espouse.
Obviously I have a very different perspective, but not understanding is not a problem I have. On the other hand you disregard the questions posed by others (including myself) continually repeating your position. Almost as if you are part of a taped loop and cannot expand beyond the words learned. It is not a surprise that others find that frustrating, if not a turn off relative to what you offer.
The impression is that you have no desire to enter actual dialog about these subjects but only to continue to state and restate and restate, your words. That is perfectly okay for you but others (myself if no one else) prefer actual dialog and actual exchanges.
For example, you seem to place all on the spiritual experiences you have related. Then when others do not accept those, you say something as that 'if we had those experiences we'd understand.' Maybe so and maybe not. I related my personal experiences of being dead twice and that I had no such spiritual contact. Others have asked the questions as to your opinion of others who have also professed to have had spiritual experiences but relate very different details (such as Muhammad). However, no real response from you except another repeat of your self professed spiritual experiences.
I am sure that you understand the resistance of many to your beliefs, so comments are not (should not be) a surprise, but I do not believe anyone is trying to get you to change. Eckandkar has existed for a while now and has succeeded at least to a degree that others (and there are many) have not. For those who join it I suspect that they get something from that association and, in truth, others who join do not and some have apparently had a negative experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Aug 20, 2015 15:40:35 GMT
Hi Men an tol, you seem to have mistakenly attributed the author of the book Proof of Heaven to Dr Martin instead of Dr Ethan Alexander. You are correct that I used the wrong name in referring to the author of the “Proof of Heaven” in the beginning of that paragraph. However, reading the complete paragraph that mistake on my part is evident as Dr. Martin (for whom Dr. Alexander worked) is critiquing the book. More over, the inaccuracies in Dr. Alexander's book are made very clear by the article written in Esquire magazine on this entire incident, which in part states, “ . . . Alexander's book has been criticized by scientists, including Sam Harris who described Alexander's NDE account (chronicled in Newsweek, October 2012) as "alarmingly unscientific," and that "everything – absolutely everything – in Alexander's account rests on repeated assertions that his visions of heaven occurred while his cerebral cortex was 'shut down,' 'inactivated,' 'completely shut down,' 'totally offline,' and 'stunned to complete inactivity.' The evidence he provides for this claim is not only inadequate – it suggests that he doesn't know anything about the relevant brain science." "Even in cases where the brain is alleged to have shut down, its activity must return if the subject is to survive and describe the experience. In such cases, there is generally no way to establish that the NDE occurred while the brain was offline." Neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks agreed with Harris, saying that "to deny the possibility of any natural explanation for an NDE, as Dr. Alexander does, is more than unscientific – it is antiscientific."..."The one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander's case...is that his NDE occurred not during his coma, but as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function. It is curious that he does not allow this obvious and natural explanation, but instead insists on a supernatural one." . . . “ Also in that same article there was additional investigation of Dr. Alexander's past with such as, “ . . . Esquire magazine reported (August 2013 issue) that before the publication of Proof of Heaven, Alexander had been terminated or suspended from multiple hospital positions, and had been the subject of several malpractice lawsuits, including at least two involving the alteration of medical records to cover up a medical error. The magazine also found what it claimed were discrepancies with regard to Alexander's version of events in the book. Among the discrepancies, according to an account of the Esquire article in Forbes, was that "Alexander writes that he slipped into the coma as a result of severe bacterial meningitis and had no higher brain activity, while a doctor who cared for him says the coma was medically induced and the patient was conscious, though hallucinating. . . . " The point Scottish Lassie is that Dr. Alexander's veracity is highly suspect at best and far from a 'best source' as evidence of support for you positions from the scientific community. Hi Men an tol, I guess then, thousands and thousands of ECKists must all be hallucinating as they have all had the same sort of experience as Dr Ethan Alexander. No more to be said. The atheists have spoken!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Aug 20, 2015 16:28:54 GMT
Hi Men an tol, you seem to have mistakenly attributed the author of the book Proof of Heaven to Dr Martin instead of Dr Ethan Alexander. You are correct that I used the wrong name in referring to the author of the “Proof of Heaven” in the beginning of that paragraph. However, reading the complete paragraph that mistake on my part is evident as Dr. Martin (for whom Dr. Alexander worked) is critiquing the book. More over, the inaccuracies in Dr. Alexander's book are made very clear by the article written in Esquire magazine on this entire incident, which in part states, “ . . . Alexander's book has been criticized by scientists, including Sam Harris who described Alexander's NDE account (chronicled in Newsweek, October 2012) as "alarmingly unscientific," and that "everything – absolutely everything – in Alexander's account rests on repeated assertions that his visions of heaven occurred while his cerebral cortex was 'shut down,' 'inactivated,' 'completely shut down,' 'totally offline,' and 'stunned to complete inactivity.' The evidence he provides for this claim is not only inadequate – it suggests that he doesn't know anything about the relevant brain science." "Even in cases where the brain is alleged to have shut down, its activity must return if the subject is to survive and describe the experience. In such cases, there is generally no way to establish that the NDE occurred while the brain was offline." Neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks agreed with Harris, saying that "to deny the possibility of any natural explanation for an NDE, as Dr. Alexander does, is more than unscientific – it is antiscientific."..."The one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander's case...is that his NDE occurred not during his coma, but as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function. It is curious that he does not allow this obvious and natural explanation, but instead insists on a supernatural one." . . . “ Also in that same article there was additional investigation of Dr. Alexander's past with such as, “ . . . Esquire magazine reported (August 2013 issue) that before the publication of Proof of Heaven, Alexander had been terminated or suspended from multiple hospital positions, and had been the subject of several malpractice lawsuits, including at least two involving the alteration of medical records to cover up a medical error. The magazine also found what it claimed were discrepancies with regard to Alexander's version of events in the book. Among the discrepancies, according to an account of the Esquire article in Forbes, was that "Alexander writes that he slipped into the coma as a result of severe bacterial meningitis and had no higher brain activity, while a doctor who cared for him says the coma was medically induced and the patient was conscious, though hallucinating. . . . " The point Scottish Lassie is that Dr. Alexander's veracity is highly suspect at best and far from a 'best source' as evidence of support for you positions from the scientific community. Hi Men an tol, to my understanding, Dr Alexander would have slipped into the coma as a result of the coma being induced. If he was already ill he mightn't even have been aware that this had been done, so assumed that it had happened as a result of his brain closing down. Apart from that, I can see quite clearly that you are not understanding what I am explaining. I said earlier that certain experiences are given to those who are ready for it, and having a NDE evidently wasn't meant for you at that moment in time. I did say that the Holy Spirit is in charge of all experiences, according to the Karma that you have accrued. How often do I have to say this? I could also say,that perhaps the Dr was mistaken and you hadn't died at all? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2015 17:57:05 GMT
You are correct that I used the wrong name in referring to the author of the “Proof of Heaven” in the beginning of that paragraph. However, reading the complete paragraph that mistake on my part is evident as Dr. Martin (for whom Dr. Alexander worked) is critiquing the book. More over, the inaccuracies in Dr. Alexander's book are made very clear by the article written in Esquire magazine on this entire incident, which in part states, “ . . . Alexander's book has been criticized by scientists, including Sam Harris who described Alexander's NDE account (chronicled in Newsweek, October 2012) as "alarmingly unscientific," and that "everything – absolutely everything – in Alexander's account rests on repeated assertions that his visions of heaven occurred while his cerebral cortex was 'shut down,' 'inactivated,' 'completely shut down,' 'totally offline,' and 'stunned to complete inactivity.' The evidence he provides for this claim is not only inadequate – it suggests that he doesn't know anything about the relevant brain science." "Even in cases where the brain is alleged to have shut down, its activity must return if the subject is to survive and describe the experience. In such cases, there is generally no way to establish that the NDE occurred while the brain was offline." Neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks agreed with Harris, saying that "to deny the possibility of any natural explanation for an NDE, as Dr. Alexander does, is more than unscientific – it is antiscientific."..."The one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander's case...is that his NDE occurred not during his coma, but as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function. It is curious that he does not allow this obvious and natural explanation, but instead insists on a supernatural one." . . . “ Also in that same article there was additional investigation of Dr. Alexander's past with such as, “ . . . Esquire magazine reported (August 2013 issue) that before the publication of Proof of Heaven, Alexander had been terminated or suspended from multiple hospital positions, and had been the subject of several malpractice lawsuits, including at least two involving the alteration of medical records to cover up a medical error. The magazine also found what it claimed were discrepancies with regard to Alexander's version of events in the book. Among the discrepancies, according to an account of the Esquire article in Forbes, was that "Alexander writes that he slipped into the coma as a result of severe bacterial meningitis and had no higher brain activity, while a doctor who cared for him says the coma was medically induced and the patient was conscious, though hallucinating. . . . " The point Scottish Lassie is that Dr. Alexander's veracity is highly suspect at best and far from a 'best source' as evidence of support for you positions from the scientific community. Hi Men an tol, to my understanding, Dr Alexander would have slipped into the coma as a result of the coma being induced. If he was already ill he mightn't even have been aware that this had been done, so assumed that it had happened as a result of his brain closing down. Apart from that, I can see quite clearly that you are not understanding what I am explaining. I said earlier that certain experiences are given to those who are ready for it, and having a NDE evidently wasn't meant for you at that moment in time. I did say that the Holy Spirit is in charge of all experiences, according to the Karma that you have accrued. How often do I have to say this? I could also say,that perhaps the Dr was mistaken and you hadn't died at all? Come now Scottish Lassie, now we are going to second guess the doctors from a distance? For me the event was real and the lack of any spirituality was real and not uncommon. Now you are telling me what my experiences really were, what really happened, and what they really meant. I guess none of us (at least me) should believe anything in our lives until we chaeck with you? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2015 17:59:28 GMT
You are correct that I used the wrong name in referring to the author of the “Proof of Heaven” in the beginning of that paragraph. However, reading the complete paragraph that mistake on my part is evident as Dr. Martin (for whom Dr. Alexander worked) is critiquing the book. More over, the inaccuracies in Dr. Alexander's book are made very clear by the article written in Esquire magazine on this entire incident, which in part states, “ . . . Alexander's book has been criticized by scientists, including Sam Harris who described Alexander's NDE account (chronicled in Newsweek, October 2012) as "alarmingly unscientific," and that "everything – absolutely everything – in Alexander's account rests on repeated assertions that his visions of heaven occurred while his cerebral cortex was 'shut down,' 'inactivated,' 'completely shut down,' 'totally offline,' and 'stunned to complete inactivity.' The evidence he provides for this claim is not only inadequate – it suggests that he doesn't know anything about the relevant brain science." "Even in cases where the brain is alleged to have shut down, its activity must return if the subject is to survive and describe the experience. In such cases, there is generally no way to establish that the NDE occurred while the brain was offline." Neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks agreed with Harris, saying that "to deny the possibility of any natural explanation for an NDE, as Dr. Alexander does, is more than unscientific – it is antiscientific."..."The one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander's case...is that his NDE occurred not during his coma, but as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function. It is curious that he does not allow this obvious and natural explanation, but instead insists on a supernatural one." . . . “ Also in that same article there was additional investigation of Dr. Alexander's past with such as, “ . . . Esquire magazine reported (August 2013 issue) that before the publication of Proof of Heaven, Alexander had been terminated or suspended from multiple hospital positions, and had been the subject of several malpractice lawsuits, including at least two involving the alteration of medical records to cover up a medical error. The magazine also found what it claimed were discrepancies with regard to Alexander's version of events in the book. Among the discrepancies, according to an account of the Esquire article in Forbes, was that "Alexander writes that he slipped into the coma as a result of severe bacterial meningitis and had no higher brain activity, while a doctor who cared for him says the coma was medically induced and the patient was conscious, though hallucinating. . . . " The point Scottish Lassie is that Dr. Alexander's veracity is highly suspect at best and far from a 'best source' as evidence of support for you positions from the scientific community. Hi Men an tol, I guess then, thousands and thousands of ECKists must all be hallucinating as they have all had the same sort of experience as Dr Ethan Alexander. No more to be said. The atheists have spoken!!! I didn't say anything about thousands of Eckists, just related what the medical community said about the experiences related by Dr, Alexander. I guess the medical community was lying? |
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Aug 20, 2015 22:18:43 GMT
I don't think that's the only problem, Chris. It's not just that not everyone has had spiritual experiences and therefore it's not reasonable to expect them to accept your claims simply on your say-so. It's also the fact that every spiritual experience is different and that different people have different types of spiritual experience. A psychoanalyist for example will find that their patients tend to have the type of dreams associated with the particular school of psychoanalysis to which they belong - so Freudian patients have Freudian dreams, Jungian ones have Jungian dreams, Adlerian ones Adlerian dreams and so on. Now I've had spiritual experiences that have led me to believe that the Church of England is the nearest thing to the true Christian religion that exists at present. You've had spiritual experiences that have convinced you it's Eckanckar. Others have had ones that convince them it's Islam, Catholicism, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism and so on. Now the problem is that when these spiritual experiences lead people to such different conclusions about the world it's obvious that they can't be used as some kind of barometer of truth or some kind of basis on which to expect others to share your beliefs. Hi Big Lin, How often do I have to say, that I'm not trying to get anyone to change what they believe, but I am expecting people to believe that I am telling the truth as to my experiences. From an ECKists point of view, we are all at different levels of spiritual understanding according to our choices, and taking into consideration through the law of Karma, what we need to learn. We all have different lessons to learn, so consequently we will have different experiences. No person can change a person's belief, only the Holy Spirit can do that with your consent. That will always be the case. It is the Holy Spirit that allows you to have the experiences that you, and everyone else has. Two things, Chris. Knowledge and belief are very different aspects of the human mind. But what seems to me a perfectly reasonable question is why a non-Eckist should regard your spiritual experiences as any more valid than those of other religious persuasions. Or even of none - my husband is an agnostic and he's had quite a few spiritual experiences though he doesn't necessarily interpret them in the same way that I do mine. So the basic question remains - what makes your spiritual experiences more valid than mine or Mike's or anyone elses? It's not a question of conversion or trying to trick anyone - it's a very reasonable question to ask. I'm sure there must be Eckist converts who've perhaps had other religious backgrounds - how do you persuade them that their Eckist experiences are more valid than the others they've had? |
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Aug 21, 2015 0:24:26 GMT
Hi Men an tol, to my understanding, Dr Alexander would have slipped into the coma as a result of the coma being induced. If he was already ill he mightn't even have been aware that this had been done, so assumed that it had happened as a result of his brain closing down. Apart from that, I can see quite clearly that you are not understanding what I am explaining. I said earlier that certain experiences are given to those who are ready for it, and having a NDE evidently wasn't meant for you at that moment in time. I did say that the Holy Spirit is in charge of all experiences, according to the Karma that you have accrued. How often do I have to say this? I could also say,that perhaps the Dr was mistaken and you hadn't died at all? Come now Scottish Lassie, now we are going to second guess the doctors from a distance? For me the event was real and the lack of any spirituality was real and not uncommon. Now you are telling me what my experiences really were, what really happened, and what they really meant. I guess none of us (at least me) should believe anything in our lives until we chaeck with you? Hi Men an tol, But isn't this what you have been doing to me since the beginning? Everything that I said in explanation, you would presuppose that it could be this or that, and then I'm supposed to accept your statement that you died on two occasions as being bonafide.COME ON? Anyway, I have already explained how members of ECKANKAR see it. As we go through life, we are accruing circumstances that happen in our life by every action that that we put into place. It is possible that even if a person's heart stops, that doesn't really mean that they are dead, it has to do with the brain. Real death is when a person is brain dead. Perhaps your heart hadn't been stopped long enough to warrent a NDE. Just a thought!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Aug 21, 2015 0:48:48 GMT
Hi Big Lin, How often do I have to say, that I'm not trying to get anyone to change what they believe, but I am expecting people to believe that I am telling the truth as to my experiences. From an ECKists point of view, we are all at different levels of spiritual understanding according to our choices, and taking into consideration through the law of Karma, what we need to learn. We all have different lessons to learn, so consequently we will have different experiences. No person can change a person's belief, only the Holy Spirit can do that with your consent. That will always be the case. It is the Holy Spirit that allows you to have the experiences that you, and everyone else has. Two things, Chris. Knowledge and belief are very different aspects of the human mind. But what seems to me a perfectly reasonable question is why a non-Eckist should regard your spiritual experiences as any more valid than those of other religious persuasions. Or even of none - my husband is an agnostic and he's had quite a few spiritual experiences though he doesn't necessarily interpret them in the same way that I do mine. So the basic question remains - what makes your spiritual experiences more valid than mine or Mike's or anyone elses? It's not a question of conversion or trying to trick anyone - it's a very reasonable question to ask. I'm sure there must be Eckist converts who've perhaps had other religious backgrounds - how do you persuade them that their Eckist experiences are more valid than the others they've had? Hi Big Lin, I have never ever said that my, or any other ECKist's experience is anymore valid than any other person's. All experiences are as valid and as important as any other. We are each given the experience that we need, in order to learn the lessons that we need to learn according to the Karma that we have accrued, because of past actions that we have put into place. When situations have been resolved, the Holy Spirit will give you other experiences untill all your Karmic situations has been resolved, and all lessons learned. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2015 2:19:38 GMT
Come now Scottish Lassie, now we are going to second guess the doctors from a distance? For me the event was real and the lack of any spirituality was real and not uncommon. Now you are telling me what my experiences really were, what really happened, and what they really meant. I guess none of us (at least me) should believe anything in our lives until we chaeck with you? Hi Men an tol, But isn't this what you have been doing to me since the beginning? Everything that I said in explanation, you would presuppose that it could be this or that, and then I'm supposed to accept your statement that you died on two occasions as being bonafide.COME ON? Anyway, I have already explained how members of ECKANKAR see it. As we go through life, we are accruing circumstances that happen in our life by every action that that we put into place. It is possible that even if a person's heart stops, that doesn't really mean that they are dead, it has to do with the brain. Real death is when a person is brain dead. Perhaps your heart hadn't been stopped long enough to warrent a NDE. Just a thought!!! Scottish Lassie, how many times do I have to say that I support you having and maintaining your beliefs. In my case I was in the hospital and the doctors were the ones who told me (and my wife) that I died. They were the ones with the evidence right before them, in their hands so to speak.
As others have said to you, nothing, absolutely nothing you have related is provable beyond the idea that you believe it. In the evidence of the temporal world all that you have related can have other explanations. We who did not join you these 'spiritual experiences have nothing other than your word. Others have also expressed their belief that they have had spiritual experiences and they are quite different from yours. For those of us in the temporal world such differences make it very difficult to accept your statements as factual. But then you have heard all of this before and it makes no difference to you within the context of your expressed beliefs.
In addition we know, from science and medicine in the temporal world that such experiences that you have expressed can have other more tangible causation. That doesn't (or at least shouldn't) detract from your expressed beliefs, but they are a reality in the temporal world.
There is also the reality that others (going back to at least Plato) who have addressed some of the same concepts that you have expressed in your beliefs, and links to sources of these who went before have been provided to you, But none of this makes any difference to you as you expect others to just accept your expressed experiences as true and factual. I don't think there is any doubt that you believe what you state, but it does not follow that others will accept them as true and factual.
You continue to say that you have no intent of converting others to your belief system, but that is exactly what you are trying to do as you express frustration that others will not accept you words as true and factual.
Questions have been asked of you that you will not, or cannot, address and really, from my perspective that is understandable. Keep in mind that all others are doing is expressing their understandings of your expressed beliefs from their perspective and that is not attacking you or your beliefs or your expressed experiences.
Again, I'll say that people (and I'll use myself as the example) accept that you believe what you are offering, but for you to expect that others will then commit to accepting what you offer as the singular true, factual, interpretation of what you offer is not a realistic expectation. And no, this is not 'just' an Atheist view of what you offer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Aug 21, 2015 4:46:14 GMT
Hi Men an tol, But isn't this what you have been doing to me since the beginning? Everything that I said in explanation, you would presuppose that it could be this or that, and then I'm supposed to accept your statement that you died on two occasions as being bonafide.COME ON? Anyway, I have already explained how members of ECKANKAR see it. As we go through life, we are accruing circumstances that happen in our life by every action that that we put into place. It is possible that even if a person's heart stops, that doesn't really mean that they are dead, it has to do with the brain. Real death is when a person is brain dead. Perhaps your heart hadn't been stopped long enough to warrent a NDE. Just a thought!!! Scottish Lassie, how many times do I have to say that I support you having and maintaining your beliefs. In my case I was in the hospital and the doctors were the ones who told me (and my wife) that I died. They were the ones with the evidence right before them, in their hands so to speak.
As others have said to you, nothing, absolutely nothing you have related is provable beyond the idea that you believe it. In the evidence of the temporal world all that you have related can have other explanations. We who did not join you these 'spiritual experiences have nothing other than your word. Others have also expressed their belief that they have had spiritual experiences and they are quite different from yours. For those of us in the temporal world such differences make it very difficult to accept your statements as factual. But then you have heard all of this before and it makes no difference to you within the context of your expressed beliefs.
In addition we know, from science and medicine in the temporal world that such experiences that you have expressed can have other more tangible causation. That doesn't (or at least shouldn't) detract from your expressed beliefs, but they are a reality in the temporal world.
There is also the reality that others (going back to at least Plato) who have addressed some of the same concepts that you have expressed in your beliefs, and links to sources of these who went before have been provided to you, But none of this makes any difference to you as you expect others to just accept your expressed experiences as true and factual. I don't think there is any doubt that you believe what you state, but it does not follow that others will accept them as true and factual.
You continue to say that you have no intent of converting others to your belief system, but that is exactly what you are trying to do as you express frustration that others will not accept you words as true and factual.
Questions have been asked of you that you will not, or cannot, address and really, from my perspective that is understandable. Keep in mind that all others are doing is expressing their understandings of your expressed beliefs from their perspective and that is not attacking you or your beliefs or your expressed experiences.
Again, I'll say that people (and I'll use myself as the example) accept that you believe what you are offering, but for you to expect that others will then commit to accepting what you offer as the singular true, factual, interpretation of what you offer is not a realistic expectation. And no, this is not 'just' an Atheist view of what you offer.
Hi Men an tol. If I appear to you as being frustrated, it is only caused by my inability to explain and have people understand my experiences. Certainly not because I expect anyone to accept my truth as their truth.There is a difference. Doctors do make mistakes, and you are accepting without question, the truth what your Dr said. How come you didn't quiz him as to how he came to that conclusion? Very remiss of you!!! I would have thought you would have been interested in the pros and cons of his integrity. Were you told how much time had elapsed before you were revived and your heart was beating normally again. You are always so precise in your questioning, that it really surprises me that you were so lax in gaining more information, especially when you missed out in having a NDE. Weren't you curious? Teasing aside, I hope you understand that the experiences that everyone has, is important and valid in respect to what they have come to this physical plane to learn. And as we are here to learn different lessons, we are naturally going to have different experiences. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2015 5:43:04 GMT
Scottish Lassie, how many times do I have to say that I support you having and maintaining your beliefs. In my case I was in the hospital and the doctors were the ones who told me (and my wife) that I died. They were the ones with the evidence right before them, in their hands so to speak.
As others have said to you, nothing, absolutely nothing you have related is provable beyond the idea that you believe it. In the evidence of the temporal world all that you have related can have other explanations. We who did not join you these 'spiritual experiences have nothing other than your word. Others have also expressed their belief that they have had spiritual experiences and they are quite different from yours. For those of us in the temporal world such differences make it very difficult to accept your statements as factual. But then you have heard all of this before and it makes no difference to you within the context of your expressed beliefs.
In addition we know, from science and medicine in the temporal world that such experiences that you have expressed can have other more tangible causation. That doesn't (or at least shouldn't) detract from your expressed beliefs, but they are a reality in the temporal world.
There is also the reality that others (going back to at least Plato) who have addressed some of the same concepts that you have expressed in your beliefs, and links to sources of these who went before have been provided to you, But none of this makes any difference to you as you expect others to just accept your expressed experiences as true and factual. I don't think there is any doubt that you believe what you state, but it does not follow that others will accept them as true and factual.
You continue to say that you have no intent of converting others to your belief system, but that is exactly what you are trying to do as you express frustration that others will not accept you words as true and factual.
Questions have been asked of you that you will not, or cannot, address and really, from my perspective that is understandable. Keep in mind that all others are doing is expressing their understandings of your expressed beliefs from their perspective and that is not attacking you or your beliefs or your expressed experiences.
Again, I'll say that people (and I'll use myself as the example) accept that you believe what you are offering, but for you to expect that others will then commit to accepting what you offer as the singular true, factual, interpretation of what you offer is not a realistic expectation. And no, this is not 'just' an Atheist view of what you offer.
Hi Men an tol. If I appear to you as being frustrated, it is only caused by my inability to explain and have people understand my experiences. Certainly not because I expect anyone to accept my truth as their truth.There is a difference. Doctors do make mistakes, and you are accepting without question, the truth what your Dr said. How come you didn't quiz him as to how he came to that conclusion? Very remiss of you!!! I would have thought you would have been interested in the pros and cons of his integrity. Were you told how much time had elapsed before you were revived and your heart was beating normally again. You are always so precise in your questioning, that it really surprises me that you were so lax in gaining more information, especially when you missed out in having a NDE. Weren't you curious? Teasing aside, I hope you understand that the experiences that everyone has, is important and valid in respect to what they have come to this physical plane to learn. And as we are here to learn different lessons, we are naturally going to have different experiences. Scottish Lassie, your comment “ . . . Doctors do make mistakes, and you are accepting without question, the truth what your Dr said. How come you didn't quiz him as to how he came to that conclusion? Very remiss of you!!! I would have thought you would have been interested in the pros and cons of his integrity. . . . “ demonstrates your inability to read without reinterpreting things to fit your world of belief. What has been said by myself that would lead you to believe that I didn't have such a conversation with my doctor? You see I did have such conversations. Not only that but due to the grant donations I and others make to that hospital and their training programs as a teaching hospital, we have a better than normal understanding of the medical work and a very close communications with the medical staff. In addition, I frustrate my doctors because of the deep and extended involvement I have in my own medical situation, they know very clearly that nothing shall be hidden from me and all must be explained in detail. I select my doctors after 'i' investigate their personal backgrounds. With absolutely no knowledge of the people involved or the institution you make conclusions that have no evidence supporting them with apparently no intent other than to diminish the words of others. It seems that anything not fully supportive of your belief system you attack and that would seem to be a tactic used so that you do not have to answer questions. Even so, your assumptions of the lack in others is not founded (particularly in this case) in any real understanding or information. My not bearing publically all of my personal information to your satisfaction is because, such is none of your business. That you immediately take negative assumptions in the acts and words of others speaks very poorly for the ethics and morals of your beliefs and certainly do not reflect the concepts developed and written about by those groups and individuals which preceded your organization in the concepts you espouse some which goes back in records at least 2500 years. Keep in mind that you are the one who has brought this to the forum and it is your efforts which have kept in the front, not as discussions, not as interaction with others, but rather as (whether meant or not) promotion for your beliefs and the organization to which you belong. You have yet to join into any real dialog and exchange of views, rather, on your part it has been simply your personal statements of your asserted spiritual experiences as the 'final answer to all things. It is almost as if you are trying to sell yourself on the reality of your experiences, since you have stated repeatedly that you have no intent to convert others. |
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Aug 21, 2015 8:49:19 GMT
Hi Men an tol. If I appear to you as being frustrated, it is only caused by my inability to explain and have people understand my experiences. Certainly not because I expect anyone to accept my truth as their truth.There is a difference. Doctors do make mistakes, and you are accepting without question, the truth what your Dr said. How come you didn't quiz him as to how he came to that conclusion? Very remiss of you!!! I would have thought you would have been interested in the pros and cons of his integrity. Were you told how much time had elapsed before you were revived and your heart was beating normally again. You are always so precise in your questioning, that it really surprises me that you were so lax in gaining more information, especially when you missed out in having a NDE. Weren't you curious? Teasing aside, I hope you understand that the experiences that everyone has, is important and valid in respect to what they have come to this physical plane to learn. And as we are here to learn different lessons, we are naturally going to have different experiences. Scottish Lassie, your comment “ . . . Doctors do make mistakes, and you are accepting without question, the truth what your Dr said. How come you didn't quiz him as to how he came to that conclusion? Very remiss of you!!! I would have thought you would have been interested in the pros and cons of his integrity. . . . “ demonstrates your inability to read without reinterpreting things to fit your world of belief. What has been said by myself that would lead you to believe that I didn't have such a conversation with my doctor? You see I did have such conversations. Not only that but due to the grant donations I and others make to that hospital and their training programs as a teaching hospital, we have a better than normal understanding of the medical work and a very close communications with the medical staff. In addition, I frustrate my doctors because of the deep and extended involvement I have in my own medical situation, they know very clearly that nothing shall be hidden from me and all must be explained in detail. I select my doctors after 'i' investigate their personal backgrounds. With absolutely no knowledge of the people involved or the institution you make conclusions that have no evidence supporting them with apparently no intent other than to diminish the words of others. It seems that anything not fully supportive of your belief system you attack and that would seem to be a tactic used so that you do not have to answer questions. Even so, your assumptions of the lack in others is not founded (particularly in this case) in any real understanding or information. My not bearing publically all of my personal information to your satisfaction is because, such is none of your business. That you immediately take negative assumptions in the acts and words of others speaks very poorly for the ethics and morals of your beliefs and certainly do not reflect the concepts developed and written about by those groups and individuals which preceded your organization in the concepts you espouse some which goes back in records at least 2500 years. Keep in mind that you are the one who has brought this to the forum and it is your efforts which have kept in the front, not as discussions, not as interaction with others, but rather as (whether meant or not) promotion for your beliefs and the organization to which you belong. You have yet to join into any real dialog and exchange of views, rather, on your part it has been simply your personal statements of your asserted spiritual experiences as the 'final answer to all things. It is almost as if you are trying to sell yourself on the reality of your experiences, since you have stated repeatedly that you have no intent to convert others. Hi Men an tol, I do believe that you are still presupposing my intentions and twisting my words as well.. I am in a position to see both sides of the coin, so everything that you suggest is the case. From my perspective of understanding both sides, I can see exactly which situation is the right one. We happen to be analysing my experiences, so because of that, I'm in a better position to gauge the truth. rather than yourself. I studied the Psychology of Human Behaviour when I was younger, so I do have an understanding of how people think. Whatever experiences people have, I can see them as I said before, from both sides of the coin. And come to a logical conclusion. I am definitely not trying to prove to myself the reality of my experiences, or to anyone else for that matter. I already know!!! I am certainly not going to change what I know to be true, no matter how many suggestions you put forward, to explain my experiences in the Spiritual Realms. There is definitely more to Creation than this physical Plane. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2015 12:02:23 GMT
Scottish Lassie, it is clear that we have (as they say) a failure to communicate as your last posting indicates: “ . . . Hi Men an tol, I do believe that you are still presupposing my intentions and twisting my words as well.. I am in a position to see both sides of the coin, so everything that you suggest is the case. From my perspective of understanding both sides, I can see exactly which situation is the right one. . . . . We happen to be analysing my experiences, so because of that, I'm in a better position to gauge the truth. rather than yourself. I studied the Psychology of Human Behaviour when I was younger, so I do have an understanding of how people think. . . . . Whatever experiences people have, I can see them as I said before, from both sides of the coin. And come to a logical conclusion. I am definitely not trying to prove to myself the reality of my experiences, or to anyone else for that matter. I already know!!! . . . . . I am certainly not going to change what I know to be true, no matter how many suggestions you put forward, to explain my experiences in the Spiritual Realms. There is definitely more to Creation than this physical Plane.. . . . “
You see Scottish Lassie, speaking only for myself, I really don't care what the explanations are for your stated experiences and what you continually suggest as my intent is not true.
That there is the possibility of explanations other than what you prefer is obvious.
That you reject such possibilities is also obvious.
That there is thousands of years of history of others who have addressed such experiences is also obvious.
That you do not desire to deal with that factual history is, again, obvious.
That some (certainly myself) support you having those beliefs (although we do not accept them) is also factual.
It is also clear (whether you mean to or not) that you seem to view yourself as a victim of harassment when others merely want to enter into a dialog about these concepts and that you do not desire to do that is also clear.
I do not believe that anyone is telling you to change your beliefs, keep them, enjoy them, wallow in them, but to not be surprised that others do not accept them.
I'm going to be away from the computer for a couple of days and therefore will not be responding to anything on the computer inclusive of any postings you put out. That is probably a good thing since our (yours and nine) intent here is apparently incompatible.
You seem to desire to post your experiences and have all others except them as factual, period.
I find exchanges of dialog where people of diverse views can have quite different points of view on the same subject as more realistic.
These two approaches are obviously not compatible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Aug 22, 2015 4:54:35 GMT
Scottish Lassie, it is clear that we have (as they say) a failure to communicate as your last posting indicates: “ . . . Hi Men an tol, I do believe that you are still presupposing my intentions and twisting my words as well.. I am in a position to see both sides of the coin, so everything that you suggest is the case. From my perspective of understanding both sides, I can see exactly which situation is the right one. . . . . We happen to be analysing my experiences, so because of that, I'm in a better position to gauge the truth. rather than yourself. I studied the Psychology of Human Behaviour when I was younger, so I do have an understanding of how people think. . . . . Whatever experiences people have, I can see them as I said before, from both sides of the coin. And come to a logical conclusion. I am definitely not trying to prove to myself the reality of my experiences, or to anyone else for that matter. I already know!!! . . . . . I am certainly not going to change what I know to be true, no matter how many suggestions you put forward, to explain my experiences in the Spiritual Realms. There is definitely more to Creation than this physical Plane.. . . . “ You see Scottish Lassie, speaking only for myself, I really don't care what the explanations are for your stated experiences and what you continually suggest as my intent is not true. That there is the possibility of explanations other than what you prefer is obvious. That you reject such possibilities is also obvious. That there is thousands of years of history of others who have addressed such experiences is also obvious. That you do not desire to deal with that factual history is, again, obvious. That some (certainly myself) support you having those beliefs (although we do not accept them) is also factual. It is also clear (whether you mean to or not) that you seem to view yourself as a victim of harassment when others merely want to enter into a dialog about these concepts and that you do not desire to do that is also clear. I do not believe that anyone is telling you to change your beliefs, keep them, enjoy them, wallow in them, but to not be surprised that others do not accept them. I'm going to be away from the computer for a couple of days and therefore will not be responding to anything on the computer inclusive of any postings you put out. That is probably a good thing since our (yours and nine) intent here is apparently incompatible. You seem to desire to post your experiences and have all others except them as factual, period. I find exchanges of dialog where people of diverse views can have quite different points of view on the same subject as more realistic. These two approaches are obviously not compatible. Hi Men an tol, what you don't seem to be comprehending is: the experiences that I am having are true to me only, as yours are true to you. All that I am doing is letting you in to my life and trying to let you know that there are other dimensions besides this physical one that we all live in. This you can choose to accept as fact, or not, it's of no consequence to anyone. I already know all the possibilites (wordlywise) that could explain my spiritual experiences, but I can assure you they don't happen to be any of the suggestions that you have put forward. Surely I am in a position to make that judgment? Don't you think? I don't expect any others, including yourself, to change you viewpoints any time soon. I hope we are still friends and can perhaps come together again on another interesting topic. I hope you enjoy your two day getaway, and be back on this forum safe and well. By the way, the one thing that all ECKist know for sure, is that no one on this earth is ever a victim. Everything that happens to us, and will happen to us, has been orchestrated by ourselves. We are the ones that put into place the actions that predispose us to future good health, or a life of illhealth, happiness or misery. |
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Aug 22, 2015 15:22:51 GMT
Hi Men an tol, I guess then, thousands and thousands of ECKists must all be hallucinating as they have all had the same sort of experience as Dr Ethan Alexander. No more to be said. The atheists have spoken!!! I didn't say anything about thousands of Eckists, just related what the medical community said about the experiences related by Dr, Alexander. I guess the medical community was lying? Hi Men an tol, The medical profession do not recognize supernatural happenings. They believe it is an aberration of the mind/brain, so they consider the person who experiences these things as having hallucinations so they no doubt think the same of Dr Alexander. As ECKists have similar experiences to Dr Alexander, that is the reason that I said, " then that means that all ECKists must be having hallucinations too." All I know of Dr Alexander is that he wrote the book Proof of Heaven. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2015 21:55:52 GMT
I didn't say anything about thousands of Eckists, just related what the medical community said about the experiences related by Dr, Alexander. I guess the medical community was lying? Hi Men an tol, The medical profession do not recognize supernatural happenings. They believe it is an aberration of the mind/brain, so they consider the person who experiences these things as having hallucinations so they no doubt think the same of Dr Alexander. As ECKists have similar experiences to Dr Alexander, that is the reason that I said, " then that means that all ECKists must be having hallucinations too." All I know of Dr Alexander is that he wrote the book Proof of Heaven. Scottish Lassie, this weekend I was in the local neighborhood of the Eckandkar center in Wisconsin, USA. I have many friends and business acquaintances who live near to it. The center and the organization came up in general conversation (I didn't initially mention it) and I did mention in response to a comment of one of these people, that I had been conversing with someone who lived in Australia and was an Eckist. I'm sure that you would not care for their responses as they all seem to know people who either were current members or people who were past members or both. Now this was not a scientific poll but just the result of general conversation, but they all felt that the members of Ekandkar were at best very weird. I didn't meet any who had a positive view of Eckandkar. These individuals are highly educated and professional with some very deep into their religion and others less so. In reference to comments you have made, a couple of times, you have referred to me as suggesting causation for your beliefs such a schizophrenia and other mental abortions. I don't believe that I have ever made such assertions. In truth I have made other comments, such as referring to your words, in the context of you stating that people not accepting your comments of personal spiritual experiences with the statement of, “you just refuse to believe it” is, “ . . . from the point of view of those living in the world of senses, comments of someone living in a world of make believe and refusing to accept reality. . . . “ That is a perfectly reasonable observation. I have also said, “ . . . There are explanations from the temporal world for all that you have described relative to the world you believe in. I suspect that you reject that position but whether you do or don't reject it makes no difference. . . . “ It too is reasonable and was never specific as to causation. More over, I have stated that I support your beliefs in the spiritual world, although I do not agree with them. And I have taken that position because I suspect that you have no option to the position of accepting your beliefs and rejecting all else. The book by Dr. Alexander was brought up by you as an apparent proof of the scientific world accepting Near Death Experiences. All I did was provide the sources for his peers utterly rejecting his book. You have on several occasions referred to words from Christian theology as some proof or justification for your beliefs. And that is understandable (at least in my part I see it that way) but such comments do not address roots of such possible Christian support and even when I have suggested that you might look into such roots (as support for Eckandkar) you have failed to even acknowledge that possibility. It is quite clear that many of the things you have asserted as part of, and significant to, Eckandkar, are rooted in such as early Christianity and in particular Gnosticism. Even more so, the similarities between Eckandkar and Valentinian Gnosticism are striking. These would seem to me significant elements in any dialog relative to Eckandkar. But I have suggested similar things before and it seems that you would rather be a victim of contrived harassment (if not outright persecution) than enter into dialog that is meaningful. Even so Valentinus's proclamation of gnosis is central to your claims. That in these early years (cir. 300s) of Christian evolution the community of Christian leadership were upset by Valentinus's teaching is not surprising and something that I would think that you would be interested in learning, but apparently my assessment of you is wrong. I do not remember anyone here (certainly not myself) who has attacked Eckandkar but rather they have (inclusive of my self) a perfectly reasonable view representing those in the temporal world expressing doubt as to the veracity of the assertions. To simply state that the spiritual experiences you relate are true, and to claim those who do not see this are not ready to see it, does nothing for open dialog. |
|
Nov 14, 2024 22:18:24 GMT
*
Nov 14, 2024 22:18:24 GMT
*
biglinmarshall.proboards.com/thread/7917/bits-pieces-magazine-issue-2024
Nov 4, 2024 17:39:29 GMT
*
biglinmarshall.proboards.com/thread/7917/bits-pieces-magazine-issue-2024
Nov 4, 2024 17:39:29 GMT
*
yay! 
thanks
Nov 2, 2024 17:09:05 GMT
thanks
Nov 2, 2024 17:09:05 GMT
Oct 23, 2024 18:34:05 GMT