Also I have read about 500 of the NDE stories and many of them report this experience.
By definition all NDE stories are about those who returned when given the choice. (There's a very small exception for those experiencing open vision and testifying about it as it happens, just before death without return; they don't report on this choice situation.) Therefore we have no technical information about any other choice than returning to the original life.
In the joke, the politician is given a choice and finds hell the more attractive, but after choosing hell it is standard agony and the devil explains that yesterday we were campaigning but today you voted. Thus any NDE, no matter how often replicated, might be part of a conspiracy to make one choice more attractive than another. I have my theories but this is probably not the thread for such detail.
Therefore the theme of OP is framed as, if it feels like love it might be an attempt to harvest you in hell on earth; and if it feels like escape from all voices via darkness then it might be cosmic paradise and greater connection with God and other lives. At the same time, it might also be that love is rightly discerned and the darkness of the cosmos is also rightly discerned. The only way to make the right decision in the future is to practice making right decisions every day (and ultimately the only way to do that is to follow the word of the One who never makes wrong decisions, Jesus Christ). Answering OP by analyzing the meaning of each of the experiences and deciding logically on their import is not my purpose today as what's more important is the right approach in the present. You will not confront the light based on what I or OP says alone but on the whole of life: you won't pick me or him out and say that is the only guidance I need, you'll find it in the collection of choices you made and their overall trajectory.
Thanks for checking in with us Brother Alpha!
I'm troubled how to respond because this is complex but here's a simple thing.
Whatever you choose in the afterlife will be determined by the trajectory of your whole life and not little things along the way. Right now counts forever.
So I think it's in vain to concoct plans of how you will conduct yourself because you haven't experienced what it's like. It's like planning what dream you're going to have tonight, and if you can't do that then how much more this type of convo is counterproductive. What's productive is to practice the discernment right now with the people and spirits you face daily rather than to imagine the future disembodied without taking on the practice you face today.
If there is a trap in the afterlife (and there are a couple, but I don't think this is an accurate description of one), then your current life will direct whether you succumb to the trap out of free will or not. You won't be totally uninformed, you will receive revelation in line with what you practiced in life. If your life makes you easily manipulated and satisifed with contradiction, you'll be trapped and it won't matter what picture it takes to get you there. If you guard your life by putting it in God's hands and observing how he rewards your trust, you'll overcome every lie told to you in the afterlife because you will be given the words to say.
Remember, in the best model of reincarnation, you're talking about a collective soul in which you and other lives have both independent existence and collective direction in relation to a new life; so the "forgetting" aspect (I'll find a better word for it) is locally tied to the physical life and not to the oversoul. So I wouldn't put too much weight upon current views of reincarnation to help direct how to behave. Rather, practice judging all spirits now and you'll judge correctly in the examination.
Then your view of it is like my view of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, whom many Christians still revere. I can't name a single thing I respect about them. But according to my theory their work is mixed too rather than all bad.
True but doesn't apply since the contemporary video is the new offering and doesn't appear problematic prima facie.
A few photos of Netanyahu in Ashdod on the 10th were released. Do you think Reuters reporting a press conference and a separate set of new photos are all staged? It's not impossible, which is why I ask; but it seem Iran is doing the greater bobbing and weaving in this picture.
the talmud is a psyop
Lots of evidence is floating around but it doesn't point and I don't think that's the right take.
I suppose we could say those traditions Jesus rejected were psyops and thus the Talmud contains similar psyops.
My take is that the Talmud reflects the mixed testimony of Judaism and the worst in it is retained, not for it being valid, but for it reflecting concerns held by leaders esteemed by later generations.
I believe Jewish evangelism involves "unspoiling" the mixed testimony, which I define as claiming the good and removing the bad.
It's not to be about force. There are militant Jewish Zionists and militant Christian nationalists who make it about force, but that's not it.
Let's use a text like saying all who were appointed for eternal life believed. God appointing and humans believing happen together. In the same way, Jesus comes when humans are ready and humans ready themselves when Jesus comes. They relate and are coterminous so neither "causes" the other. I think that was Schneersohn's take on "Moshiach" as well, as I don't know him to be a militant.
Incidentally, Reuters has the video the AI is based on, released along with a public press conference with Bibi yesterday. I doubt the whole Israeli media is pretending to have a press conference with a man that isn't alive.
Incidentally, Reuters has the video the AI is based on, released along with a public press conference with Bibi yesterday. I doubt the whole Israeli media is pretending to have a press conference with a man that isn't alive.
Correct. But look it up. The words (Hebrew) were something like, Messiah may still come today, so do everything you can today to cause him to return.
How can Al-Aqsa get bombed without so many countries immediately declaring war on Israel as to make it a worthless step? It's a great theory but I don't see it this year without further supports. The Orthodox want to slay the red heifer, which means they want sufficient peace that no small group can interrupt and potentially invalidate the sacrifice.
Schneersohn literally told him to say that 30+ years ago. However, I just debunked a totally different Jewish hoax so we'll need to take the claims about AI on this clip too.
You seem to be speaking against Jews, Islam, and Christianity just fine here. I don't even call you out most of the time. Why don't you speak your peace every day and tell others they can do so here too? Are you a doomer, or do you believe in growing the fora where you can speak freely?
a) Unit implies apart from one another, hence DI-verse. b) Unity inside diversion implies
What of "unity implying diversity"?
Com (together) ple (to fill) ment (mind) represents the artificial putting together of real and fake within ones mind
What of unity of real with real? What if "the spiritual real and the natural real are" polar?
God isn't a container
Is One within All?
"Oneself as another" implies All is Other; "one to another" implies One to All.
What of "creatio ex Deo"?
Funny, the text says it was made to a group (not an imaginary "status quo Jew" that you've invented) consisting of
those Jews which believed on him
so you're changing the text again.
Welcome to the victory party. Those of us who have been here awhile have learned to stop quoting enemy propaganda about how old, rich, or powerful it is.
Great. So we agree that there are spiritual covenants that don't apply to races, and we agree that the land covenant from 1499 to 586 BC was a national covenant that applied to a race. So as I said there are two kinds of covenants, and the only question left is whether there are national covenants today, which can be postponed to eschatology. So you can stop arguing.
I am bound by logic. I tested both the Bible and the young earth by logic and found them the inference to the best explanation. I'd love you to start any logic-based post in c/Atheist, where such discussion is usually done, if you want to see who is most logical.
Where would you like me to demonstrate that I know how to use logic? What standards would prove to you that I know? You might be using illogic to say you don't have to propose standards and then when I propose standards you can just say they're illogical: the same trap you say Christians use on you. So your accepting the challenge gives you a duty to define what terms you'd accept.
Meanwhile, I can start by pointing out a couple basics. (1) Either nothing exists or something exists. Can we agree that something exists as an axiom? (2) We can name the sum of all that exists something like All-That-Exists (or maybe "Yahweh" for short). Can we agree on a name for all that exists that would be neutral enough for us to start attributing characteristics to it? (3) Obviously by observation we can define Thing as any subset of All-That-Exists; for instance you and I are Things. So logically all Things except the Thing called All-That-Exists are not All-That-Exists. Do you follow?
So maybe we really are both interested in speaking logically but we just distrust each other. It's something to work on, isn't it?
In short she suspected you of being u/Neo1, and for good reason, and she's now apologized for that.
The community has demonstrated over several months that it doesn't believe in obtaining consensus by voting. Therefore both admin and mods must judge via acting decisively and reading community feel. That is what TINAE is doing with you in this thread. She also has over 5 years' experience in this community and you don't seem to, which makes a difference.
An interesting point is that even if there were an apparent consensus it would need to be ratified by a current mod or admin anyway, so if none of them are willing to judge it as a consensus then it wouldn't matter. So far the community has been unwilling to take any consensus stand in my observation (even the discussion topics are decided by less than a quorum) and prefers to let things happen as the most active move forward with agendas. So I look forward to how your experiment concludes.
Meanwhile, your game of creating AI atheist memes and posting them where you've pretty well banned all people interested in discussing them continues. Funny, the atheists around here have a consistent habit of thinking themselves very logical but refusing to commit to shared standards of logic with others were agreement can be reached; that's pretty well the opposite of consensus-seeking.
I'm going to leave the sticky discussion between the two of you because unless something changes you get to face the same status the other discussions faced. Also, I should have pointed out that my record shows I don't believe in open-ended questions (here you have three options or implied "none of the above" or "write-in"). A community question should be binary, yes-no, such as current mod team versus changes, because otherwise results among three or more options can be gamed without indicating accurate consensus. The last question I posed had more votes in favor of new mod team (unnamed) than then-current inactive mod team, but was not heavily attended. So far yours is even less attended. This forum is rather like herding cats and resists changes to status quo. That's why admin took the steps it did.
When you learn to use logic the way others do instead of using it imbalancedly to direct results to what you already believe, then we can talk more about my supporting your bids.
abrahamic faiths have caused literally billions of deaths, many of innocents and particularly of gnostics
Thanks for admitting your own bias.
I'm being honest with you about my first take. Because of the host I'm interested in starting with inspecting the meat for poison and not wasting time in inspecting the table arrangements. If you see me actually thinking they say something they don't, call it out, but you haven't done so in your other comment and you too have a history IMHO of saying that I'm saying something I don't. If we agree Words Mean Things and know the difference between reading and inferring, that should suffice.
There is no scientific consensus on existence of Venusians. However, the scientific consensus for all history has been recent creation, with the exception of a blip caused by a few folks who wanted to be identical to apes. All creation stories speak of order arising from outside, none speak of order gradually arising without direction by billions of steps that we don't have time for even in the evolutionary timeframe. And that's all beside the point because it's only about similarity between your or my worldview proposed and your or my scientific origin story, which isn't a final criterion.
Looking at Jesus's results as compared to Barabbas's or Ra's or anyone else's seems to uphold his view of freewill over theirs. That is a pretty good criterion.
We have two metaphors about light. One, God is light and in him is no darkness at all (nonpolar). Two, God dwells in inapproachable light and God dwells in deep darkness (polar). Thus unity in diversity.
When you speak of matter made of light you ignore the suppression of light via its absence of light (i.e. we're back at black holes after all). There is no light phenomenon detectable beyond the event horizon. So the fact that matter allows structures that locally preclude light suggests that we cannot speak of all being one in the sense of light and black hole being the same. But the nonpolarity teaching entails that they are ultimately the same in all respects, instead of teaching that light is creative and a black hole is nihilist.
Both Christianity and channelers are simply lessons learned from other people. I put the lessons of Christianity here because it's clear the channelers wish to contradict them. Only one half of a binary can be true. The channelers aren't out there saying "the Bible is true but the opposite is also true in a different sense"; they're saying the Bible isn't true. So I've already taken the step back. So far the conclusion by comparing the two isn't working out well for the gnostic channelers.
I read the summaries I quoted. The "harvest" theory says clearly if you don't choose then you can stay in your "third density" reincarnating indefinitely. That means no final judgment confirming you in either good or evil. Thanks for making an assumption about my ability to describe the day of judgment though. But, again, the idea of "evolve or don't, it's all one" is set up to contradict the Christian teaching of judgment by appointment.
As we progress, I'll probably come to a point where I can list all the differences and criteria and indicate a more comprehensive conclusion. All this is just to scratch the surface of the material as I have time and inclination. While the rest of the community reviews it (or ignores it), it might be wise for both of us to keep working on that brotherhood paradigm we've discussed. The Origenist method of reviewing everything no matter how repugnantly Grecian might help us here, even though I generally deprecate the method otherwise.
It's older than Groening.
My point is that I'd rather partake whole meals than extricate what is negligible from a raft of poison that has killed others. See what you think of my initial statement.
Thanks, I read you as saying "it's the satanists".
FYI as a newcomer, two or three of us give more upvotes when collectivist language isn't used. I tell people Name The Jew For Real: don't blame the fictional boogeyman "The Jews", blame the Kushners specifically and name their associates.