|
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.
|
|
|
Post by interestedbob on Aug 23, 2015 9:53:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Aug 23, 2015 12:44:23 GMT
Hi Men an tol, what can I say? You apparently have all the answers. I, along with other ECKists are the ones who are having the out of the body experiences. Such as Dr Alexander also had.
Why should your friends think that ECKIsts are weird, we all behave quite normally. I've never had anyone tell me that I am weird. I am a sociable person, I go about my business the same as everyone else does.
Even if I should talk about ECKANKAR, they might ask questions if they are interested, if not, then that is as far as the conversation goes. There is no point in proceeding any further if the person isn't interested in finding out what ECKANKAR is all about.
Our conversation started because we were discussing religion, so I naturally added my tuppenceworth. My viewpoint was ofcourse from the perspective of being an ECKist. I also mention the Christian Bible because I have been a Christian until 1997 when I became a member of ECKANKAR. I also did a 2yr study of Christianity.
I was having supernatural experiences such as out of the body experiences, seeing dead people and was a Spiritual Healer where there is a laying on of hands such as in Reiki Healing. I have studied all the different kinds of healing. And they do work!!!
A person can only discuss the pros and cons of anything if they have had similar experiences, otherwise it is an impossibility to expect people to understand. You evidently don't think that we can have meaningful dialogue on this topic so, we will call it a day If that is what you wish.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 16:16:19 GMT
Hi Men an tol, what can I say? You apparently have all the answers. I, along with other ECKists are the ones who are having the out of the body experiences. Such as Dr Alexander also had. Why should your friends think that ECKIsts are weird, we all behave quite normally. I've never had anyone tell me that I am weird. I am a sociable person, I go about my business the same as everyone else does. Even if I should talk about ECKANKAR, they might ask questions if they are interested, if not, then that is as far as the conversation goes. There is no point in proceeding any further if the person isn't interested in finding out what ECKANKAR is all about. Our conversation started because we were discussing religion, so I naturally added my tuppenceworth. My viewpoint was ofcourse from the perspective of being an ECKist. I also mention the Christian Bible because I have been a Christian until 1997 when I became a member of ECKANKAR. I also did a 2yr study of Christianity. I was having supernatural experiences such as out of the body experiences, seeing dead people and was a Spiritual Healer where there is a laying on of hands such as in Reiki Healing. I have studied all the different kinds of healing. And they do work!!! A person can only discuss the pros and cons of anything if they have had similar experiences, otherwise it is an impossibility to expect people to understand. You evidently don't think that we can have meaningful dialogue on this topic so, we will call it a day If that is what you wish. Scottish Lassie, I am happy for you that you have found for yourself what you believe to be important and significant in your life. Others, should be so fortunate. Yes , as I have related more than once, meaningful dialog is something I not only like but participate in as part of my many contacts and is something I'll be involved in no matter what you do, or don't do. . Meaningful dialog includes 'actual' exchange of information and thoughts as well as give and take as to the credibility of such exchanges. I must offer the comment that trying to do that with you is more than a little challenging. Whether meaning to or not you present an image that begins and ends with your stated spiritual experiences with the comments of others being not worthy of addressing. The few sources that you offer have been less than convincing, such as Dr. Alexander who has been vetted (something you admit to not doing) and he has been found wanting and without credibility by his own peer group. That reality you simply pretend doesn't exist and continue to use his book as a proposed 'credible' source for science acceptance of your claims of the existence of spiritual contact. It isn't such as stated by that very scientific community, but that reality seems to evade your recognition. Your reference of the existence of multiple dimensions being supported by the community of physicists is stated by you as if it is an absolute, it isn't as any physicist and mathematician will tell you (rather it is an interesting musing at best) and certainly has never reached a level of mathematical acceptance within that science community. When actual sources that support your beliefs (at least to some degree or version) such as Gnostics and in particular Valentinian Gnosticism are offered it is as if the offer were never made. In truth you do not have to prove anything as what you have describe are your beliefs, an act of faith. Beliefs and faith cannot be argued and at best can only be provided through the act of witnessing. That witnessing is affective in some venues but not in the world of those who do not have kindred beliefs. In the temporal world witnessing as a singular act has little if any value and really doesn't exist. No, I certainly do not have all of the answers, rather, I view myself as existing in a world of unknowns and in that world seek those things which can be verified through the work of myself or the works of others who verify their provided answers. Does that then mean that I do not find religious organizations and their developed ethics and morals meaningful? Of course not as these are also the tangible result of actions between people in the temporal world, a societal aspect of the nature of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Does it then follow that those who state acts definable only within the spirit world are not of interest to me? Of course not but to be functionally meaningful they must be provable. Spirit contact, faith healing, other such claims, have been in the world of humans as far back as our history goes, but unless they have tangible evidence (at least for me) then they cannot (reasonably) be used as causation for ensuing acts. For whatever reason a person finds these spirit oriented relationships and acts meaningful in their lives I support them to continue. In my community I am one of the strongest advocates for people being part of a religion and following its codes. It is where most people acquire their ethics and morals and community responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Aug 24, 2015 0:54:32 GMT
Hi Men an tol, Let me say this, I definitely do not think that I am being attacked, that word has connotations of animosity to me, and I do not have that kind of feeling towards anyone. I see our conversation as just not seeing eye to eye and there is no animosity in that.
I understand every word that you have written and what they imply, so every suggestion that you have put forward as to my spiritual experiences, could be a possibility, I am not oblivious of that, but I know that these particular suggestions are not the case.
As for Dr Eban Alexander, no matter what the people that treated him say, I still believe that his experiences are a reality and not a hallucination.
Psychiatrists and such have been trained to believe what is the accepted belief, and ofcourse the diagnosis will always be this, that anyone that has an experience that cannot be explained, has to be an aberration of the mind.
Dr Alexander, also held this view until his spiritual experience changed his attitude to one of acceptance of other dimensions Many people have suffered the indignity of being declared mentally ill, so it is a revelation that a person who previously thought along these lines, should have an experience that proves to him, that there is more to life than what is perceived as a normal occurrence.
Intersted Bob has provided links and the one second from the bottom is a review of his experiences as given to a female journalist. What he had to say is completely plausible as it corresponds to similar experiences that ECKists have had and still have.
By the way Men an tol, when I asked you about the integrity of your doctor as to his diagnosis of the fact that you had died, I was teasing you. I tend to take everything that is stated by someone as being the truth, until I find out differently. As you mentioned that you had not had a a NDE even though you had died, I just thought I would tease you a little, by making that suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2015 2:58:39 GMT
Hi Men an tol, Let me say this, I definitely do not think that I am being attacked, that word has connotations of animosity to me, and I do not have that kind of feeling towards anyone. I see our conversation as just not seeing eye to eye and there is no animosity in that. I understand every word that you have written and what they imply, so every suggestion that you have put forward as to my spiritual experiences, could be a possibility, I am not oblivious of that, but I know that these particular suggestions are not the case. As for Dr Eban Alexander, no matter what the people that treated him say, I still believe that his experiences are a reality and not a hallucination. Psychiatrists and such have been trained to believe what is the accepted belief, and ofcourse the diagnosis will always be this, that anyone that has an experience that cannot be explained, has to be an aberration of the mind. Dr Alexander, also held this view until his spiritual experience changed his attitude to one of acceptance of other dimensions Many people have suffered the indignity of being declared mentally ill, so it is a revelation that a person who previously thought along these lines, should have an experience that proves to him, that there is more to life than what is perceived as a normal occurrence. Intersted Bob has provided links and the one second from the bottom is a review of his experiences as given to a female journalist. What he had to say is completely plausible as it corresponds to similar experiences that ECKists have had and still have. By the way Men an tol, when I asked you about the integrity of your doctor as to his diagnosis of the fact that you had died, I was teasing you. I tend to take everything that is stated by someone as being the truth, until I find out differently. As you mentioned that you had not had a a NDE even though you had died, I just thought I would tease you a little, by making that suggestion. Over the years on the internet misunderstandings occur quite regularly. It shouldn't be surprising as we converse over the internet sort of as if we had our arms tied behind us. That is, in a room of people we have facial expressions, body language, tonal inflection, the opportunity to read responses from the actions (or lack there of) of the audience. Of course, here in the internet we only have the written language, albeit a very powerful language with great depth, but generally we use it very poorly. Getting ideas across to others is always a challenge but some things (I believe) are more challenging than others, such as irony, in fact any type of humor is as often as not doomed to misunderstandings at best. I know, many use the little faces and other icons to try to convey meaning and mood, I'm not good at using them so I don't. Writing (at least for me) is a hard, difficult, task, which is aggressive in nature, meaning, one must take hold of it and make it do as desired. Add to this the reality that many come from different cultural backgrounds which adds even more of a challenge. Spellings are some times at odds with each the of use of punctuation can be a real problem. Now in this day and age we have people who are use to tweeting (I'm not so inclined) and that adds another barrier to possible misunderstanding. All of us also assume more than we should. We assume that all others will understand our implying certain things and then we go off on different tangents often never realizing that we are traveling alone. This has often make me think of the old story (from India I think) of the five blind men walking through a forest when they meet an elephant. One grabs hold of the trunk, another grabs the tail, another takes hold of an ear, another holds a tusk and the fifth one grabs a leg. Now they each describe this 'thing' that they have met and each comes to believe that the others are lying. No common ground is achievable and yet they all have the common experience of meeting an elephant. Do we not all often have the same experience here? Of course, for me it is simple as I know that I am the only one with the real understanding!
|
|