I also grew up a Protestant, in Denmark, but could not make heads or tails of Jesus' birth nor death. Neither the sugar sweet persona with blond hair he has been made in to.
Nevertheless, as a person who was never carefree, but always thinking, that was what I was doing, trying to figure things out. I always quite liked the Jesus who seemed kind to the underdog.
Very briefly about myself: Got married, divorced, immigrated alone with two small kids to Australia, where I had an uncle. Not easy! But I chose to believe what this man Jesus is supposed to have said, that if you really have faith you can ask for anything and it will be given you. Even move mountains. Surely, only a metaphor, but still. Being not quite the average I decided to challenge this. Ha, by psychokinesis, just like you do. Where do I get a mountain? Maybe size is irrelevant, so I got the idea of throwing dice. I sort of prayed, but not like in church, now I can see that it is something else, call it visualisation. Sending my own thought out, probably to that field Sheldrake is on about, can't right now remember the word.
I started out modestly with one dice, but progressed to six and then I was brave enough to want six sixes, and when they came my heart nearly blew a hole in my chest! It was all done after the kids were in bed, all alone, no chance of proving this to anybody. I even repeated it a few times, but then it dropped to five sixes and one other. But I also did it with one after the other, unlike first where I did them all at the same time. Like with Rhine, after a while it bores you and you can't do it as well any more. It has already been proved, so what is the point?
Call me a lier. Call it chance, delusion. AFTER this, I discovered a book in the library about the Rhine experiments with dice. Have you come across the word "library Angel"? It is finding just the book you need at this moment. To this day it happens to me a lot.
I also sat, all by myself trying to guess cards. Shuffled them, relaxed, drowsed off, took a card, so I could not see it, and guessed correctly, several times. I don't think it was guessing, I somehow knew. Tried it with some friends across the room, got it spot on, the guy who held the card knew we did not cheat, the others believed we did.
Then later came the drawings in sealed envelopes with work colleges and friends, and I still have them.
This is all just demonstrations of how we are of one consciousness. What about the loving God, looking after us? VERY GOOD QUESTION, and you are not the only one asking.
Well, I care very much about others and give to charities, as I am a bleeding heart, which some snear at. I as a person, has had struggles and overcome them up to now. I am near the end of my life and dread the end in case it might hurt. But as I am writing this, there is bugger all wrong with me. Nothing wrong I think, except a bit slower. Soon to be 87. I have prayed/visualised all my life AND GOT, received, plenty! Also worked very hard at everything, but got that extra help when needed. No kidding. What Jesus said works. I am no better than anybody, being good has nothing to do with it.
So why all the evil? Does there have to be evil? Who is doing the evil? Well, a lot of humans are, but there are also germs and defects. Could it maybe be true, about reincarnations and learning the hard way that love is the only answer? I would like that to be so, as it sounds like a good explanation, and what with the researchers who have done something to find out, apart from all the anecdotes.
Answers. I have been answered, many, many times. I have also written a lot down, synchronicities and all. I don't go to any church, waste of time for me, but if it is of comfort to some, why knock it? It will sort itself out in time. Will science be of help? What was it Einstein said about science and religion are no good without each other. He did not pray either, like you.
I do, but not in the religious way. And I receive, not because I am any better, I receive for asking. Nice! I like it!
Darryl Sloan Wrote:
> drrayeye Wrote:
> > How would you propose testing your belief?
> > If it's not testable, isn't it just like your
> > former Christian belief?
> Great question, Ray.
> My philosophy is essentially pantheism and
> non-duality. I don't subcribe to these views out
> of personal preference. For instance, I don't
> believe there's a plan for my life, mapped out by
> some higher power. It would be comforting, but I
> can't fool myself that it would be true, not when
> the data shows that this is a world where children
> are raped, killed, or die of malnutrition. Nothing
> is taking care of us. So the "God" that I beleive
> in isn't a personal divinity that I can pray to.
> Why not just abandon the idea of God, then? you
> might ask. Because atheism/naturalism doesn't cut
> it, either. We live in a Universe of phenomena
> that requires explanation, a Universe that
> mysteriously began in a highly ordered state and
> has been getting more disordered ever since
> (entropy). So I subscribe to pantheism because
> it's what I'm left with after I deal with
> monotheism and atheism. So, it's by a process of
> elimination, really.
> Non-duality is actually easier to defend, because
> all of science's attempts at a Theory of
> Everything are "field" theories. In a field,
> everything is a unity. Reality doesn't consist of
> fundamentally separate objects floating in space.
> It may appear to be like that, but that is a
> surface appearance over a more fundamental
> quantum-entangled reality. The question is not
> whether non-duality is true, but what *kind* of
> non-duality is true. Science is currently not
> regarding consciousness as a very important aspect
> of non-duality, whereas I see it as central.
> Science sees a non-duality of the material
> Universe, with consciousness being a largely
> insignificant factor of that. I see consciousness
> as being as significant as matter, if not more so,
> and my fascination with psychokinesis was a way of
> trying to make that testable. Scientists like Dean
> Radin have done far greater work than me in this
> My book is called "I, Universe", not because my
> ego is so gigantic that I think I'm the Universe,
> but because there is no "I" inside my head. The
> ego is a fiction (albeit a useful and necessary
> one). But in terms of the fundamental nature of
> reality, the only intelligent way to use the word
> "I" is in reference to the whole, because the
> Universe (literally "undivided turning") is a