Re: real or not?

by zerdini Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:03 am

KatyKing wrote:Two SNU glitterati are discussing a 'professional' healer.
G1 'She went into it to do good she tells me'
G2 'Well she is certainly doing pretty good'

by obiwan Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:52 pm

Left Behind wrote:
obiwan wrote:I am not sure I'd view 'st' Paul as illustrious.

Well, he HAS had some degree of impact on the world's religious history.

Jim

That doesn't necessarily make him illustrious does it? I can think of quite a few people who had a degree of impact on the world's religious history who wouldn't be considered necessarily illustrious. Assuming what is in the bible is actually Paul's writing anyway. In some ways paul's teachings (if such they are) cause many Christians a great deal of trouble. Personally I see him as a bigot. A man of his time sure, but a bigot nonetheless. In any event I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

@katy - why do you refer to Paul as a medium? I am curious.

by KatyKing Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:12 pm

I quite like Paul putting aside the misogyny and the filters of translators etc. It's his self acknowledged fallibility...
those things I should do I don't... I believe,well I did. Help my unbelief! They were all mediums and/or healers, the whole book is a spiritualist text as is the Koran (written via automatic writing) and all the other writings upon which religionistas have based their subsequent follies. The original authors were just people who happened to be either mediums or inspirational speakers all as fallible as the rest of us still are. Nice to see Paul has moved on, still getting a living and doing some good with that healer.

by obiwan Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:22 pm

Left Behind wrote:The older I get, the more I hope it isn't true. Going around once in this world is enough for me!

Jim

Perhaps the best thing is not to think about it too much, since the information about it seems so contradictory. There does seem to be evidence to support it and testimony from people such as Silver Birch, however I don't get the impression it is as mechanistic or regimented as many seem to think.

I often find that my own prejudices or fears are unfounded when presented with the reality of a situation. Given the testimony of those inhabiting the other world from many sources, eg Leslie Flint, I don't get the impression that anyone is forced to do anything they are unready for, or unwilling to do (assuming them to be what they purport to be Smile

)

by obiwan Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:33 pm

KatyKing wrote:I quite like Paul putting aside the misogyny and the filters of translators etc. It's his self acknowledged fallibility...
those things I should do I don't... I believe,well I did. Help my unbelief! They were all mediums and/or healers, the whole book is a spiritualist text as is the Koran (written via automatic writing) and all the other writings upon which religionistas have based their subsequent follies. The original authors were just people who happened to be either mediums or inspirational speakers all as fallible as the rest of us still are. Nice to see Paul has moved on, still getting a living and doing some good with that healer.

I hear what you say. The Bible of course isn't 'one book' per se. The majority of it has very little spiritual content of any kind at all. Some would argue it is a political document at the end of the day, many contemporaneous texts of equal pedigree are omitted and in the Old Testament,it is a tribute to colonialism, brutality and frankly reads more like an apologia for a fledgling nation (god said have this land, smite these, kill those etc etc).

Who says Paul has moved on? (though. I suspect your comment re the healer is tongue in cheek) Very Happy

How on earth could one validate the person communicating through the medium is the person who was the apostle Paul?

As an aside, though I am less familiar with the Koran, I can't think of any evidence to support its claims of inspiration and frankly the bits I have seen are monumentally dull as literature. Especially when compared to Greek and Roman authors and poets.

by KatyKing Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:52 pm

You are preaching to the choir bro. I'm the last one to bang the drum for any so called authoritative texts. They were all written, rewritten and interpreted by humans. Not wishing to sound blasphemous as I own and enjoy reading Silver Birch but does anyone else think that picture of him looks rather like a Surrey commuter or provincial bank manager circa 1948 albeit one with a feather in his hair?

by Left Behind Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:33 pm

obiwan wrote:
Left Behind wrote:
obiwan wrote:I am not sure I'd view 'st' Paul as illustrious.

Well, he HAS had some degree of impact on the world's religious history.

Jim
That doesn't necessarily make him illustrious does it? I can think of quite a few people who had a degree of impact on the world's religious history who wouldn't be considered necessarily illustrious. Assuming what is in the bible is actually Paul's writing anyway. In some ways paul's teachings (if such they are) cause many Christians a great deal of trouble. Personally I see him as a bigot. A man of his time sure, but a bigot nonetheless. In any event I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

@katy - why do you refer to Paul as a medium? I am curious.

First of all: YES! I consider impact as impact: much in the same spirit that Time Magazine selected Adolph Hitler their man of the year.

Secondly, I consider Paul's missionary activities and writings integral, probably necessary, to the spread of Christianity: the effects of which over the centuries have been far more positive than negative.

And no, I will not be drawn into the worn-out argument about "look at all the wars that have been fought in the name of Christianity/religion in general. . . ". People everywhere and in every era are always fighting about something. "Religious wars" as often as not are at least as much about plunder (the Crusades), or about other factors (the Irish situation) as about bona-fide religious faith or beliefs.

And if they weren't fighting over religious issues - real, feigned, or imaginary - they'd all be living in idyllic harmony, right? Rolling Eyes

No: they'd find something else to fight about: citizenship, race, skin color, social status, who lives on what side of the river or the street, etc.

by Left Behind Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:37 pm

KatyKing wrote:You are preaching to the choir bro. I'm the last one to bang the drum for any so called authoritative texts. They were all written, rewritten and interpreted by humans. Not wishing to sound blasphemous as I own and enjoy reading Silver Birch but does anyone else think that picture of him looks rather like a Surrey commuter or provincial bank manager circa 1948 albeit one with a feather in his hair?

Hasn't Silver Burch himself stated that he really isn't an American Indian, but has merely adopted that name and persona for his work?

by Left Behind Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:39 pm

KatyKing wrote:I quite like Paul putting aside the misogyny and the filters of translators etc. It's his self acknowledged fallibility...
those things I should do I don't... I believe,well I did. Help my unbelief! They were all mediums and/or healers, the whole book is a spiritualist text as is the Koran (written via automatic writing) and all the other writings upon which religionistas have based their subsequent follies. The original authors were just people who happened to be either mediums or inspirational speakers all as fallible as the rest of us still are. Nice to see Paul has moved on, still getting a living and doing some good with that healer.

Yes! We often lose sight of the fact that ALL religions - unless they are based on the self-delusion of their founders, or on deliberate lies on their part (Scientology), are based on spirit revelation.

by KatyKing Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:06 pm

Interesting Jim. 'White Eagle's' the same he comes through as a native American and there are spirit portraits but says he isn't one really.
Winfred Moyes (GW) 'Zodiac' was someone from the Temple in Jesus' days apparently.
I'm luck, 'mine' ("Hah! As if!" she says), amongst other things; was a jobbing upholsterer in the 18th and early 19th century and there are contemporary etchings of her although she looks to have shed a few pounds and dropped 10 years from her appearance since passing.

by Left Behind Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:38 pm

I've heard that this is another phenomenon in the spirit world: that the very young age there, into their prime: and that those past their prime at the time of earthly death (as most people are) reverse-age back into their prime of life.

Or that they can do so, if they so desire.

Jim

by KatyKing Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:13 pm

35 is the optimum I've read. Apparently that's when most people were happiest (where did I go wrong?) on this side of life so that in spirit 35's a popular age to stick at.
It'd be about 45 for me I reckon.

by petal34 Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:47 pm

25 for me! Best time of my life. Laughing

by Left Behind Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:15 pm

35 is good for me: I'll go even closer and say 34.

That was the time I was probably in my best physical shape and health: re-started school full-time at 34, and started deteriorating physically at that point.

by KatyKing Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:06 pm

You can't be much above that now petal. That or its an old photo.

by petal34 Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:26 pm

KatyKing wrote:You can't be much above that now petal. That or its an old photo.

Photo is four years old.
Pats hair....I do like a little colour now and again.
Stops the advancing years.... Sad

by KatyKing Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:46 pm

I dream of hair. Mine went west long since.

by obiwan Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:19 pm

Left Behind wrote:
obiwan wrote:
Left Behind wrote:
obiwan wrote:I am not sure I'd view 'st' Paul as illustrious.

Well, he HAS had some degree of impact on the world's religious history.

Jim
That doesn't necessarily make him illustrious does it? I can think of quite a few people who had a degree of impact on the world's religious history who wouldn't be considered necessarily illustrious. Assuming what is in the bible is actually Paul's writing anyway. In some ways paul's teachings (if such they are) cause many Christians a great deal of trouble. Personally I see him as a bigot. A man of his time sure, but a bigot nonetheless. In any event I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

@katy - why do you refer to Paul as a medium? I am curious.

First of all: YES! I consider impact as impact: much in the same spirit that Time Magazine selected Adolph Hitler their man of the year.

Secondly, I consider Paul's missionary activities and writings integral, probably necessary, to the spread of Christianity: the effects of which over the centuries have been far more positive than negative.

And no, I will not be drawn into the worn-out argument about "look at all the wars that have been fought in the name of Christianity/religion in general. . . ". People everywhere and in every era are always fighting about something. "Religious wars" as often as not are at least as much about plunder (the Crusades), or about other factors (the Irish situation) as about bona-fide religious faith or beliefs.

And if they weren't fighting over religious issues - real, feigned, or imaginary - they'd all be living in idyllic harmony, right? No: they'd find something else to fight about: citizenship, race, skin color, sWocial status, who lives on what side of the river or the street, etc.

Firstly you're entitled to you opinion. However impact is not the same as illustriousness.

Secondly, Paul's input is a matter of record. Whether it is what it purports to be and how it got where it is is a matter of speculation in some respects and of a political decision by Constantine amongst others.

You mention that you don't want to get into a discussion then make statements about the violent record of christianity since its adoption by Rome and then wave it all away as though it doesn't matter. Of course it does. Your comment regarding the whether or not folks would be fighting over something else if not Christianity looks to me like you're saying it hasn't made a difference then you say there is a lot of good from it. Like every other religion really.

Anyway we've gone miles off track. So if you want the final word on it be my guest.

by mac Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:49 am

Left Behind wrote:
KatyKing wrote:You are preaching to the choir bro. I'm the last one to bang the drum for any so called authoritative texts. They were all written, rewritten and interpreted by humans. Not wishing to sound blasphemous as I own and enjoy reading Silver Birch but does anyone else think that picture of him looks rather like a Surrey commuter or provincial bank manager circa 1948 albeit one with a feather in his hair?

Hasn't Silver Burch himself stated that he really isn't an American Indian, but has merely adopted that name and persona for his work?

If memory serves me well (and often now it doesn't) I believe he mentioned that he was incarnate something in the region of a couple or three thousand years back but not as a tribal Indian.

by mac Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:53 am

KatyKing wrote: I dream of hair. Mine went west long since.

I've often said to folk that one of the first things I'll have when I get back home is a head full of flowing locks!

'Course I also tell folk generally that once we're back there, things may not feel as important as we thought they would when we were here - so maybe I'll just stay as bald as I am now!

There won't be any sun to burn my bonce or cold to freeze it where I'm heading so it simply won't matter. Laughing

by mac Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:59 am

KatyKing wrote:You are preaching to the choir bro. I'm the last one to bang the drum for any so called authoritative texts. They were all written, rewritten and interpreted by humans. Not wishing to sound blasphemous as I own and enjoy reading Silver Birch but does anyone else think that picture of him looks rather like a Surrey commuter or provincial bank manager circa 1948 albeit one with a feather in his hair?

Can't say that's a resemblance that strikes me....but it wouldn't matter if it had. Laughing

One thing I hope is in the favour of texts such as those from SB is that they haven't been interpreted from another language into English and (I believe) the originals - from which book-compilations have been made - are still available for an authenticity check.

by Left Behind Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:23 am

[quote="obiwan"][quote="Left Behind"][quote="obiwan"]

Left Behind wrote:
obiwan wrote:I am not sure I'd view 'st' Paul as illustrious.

Anyway we've gone miles off track. So if you want the final word on it be my guest.

My final word is this: read African Genesis, by Robert Ardrey.

Jim

by obiwan Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:38 pm

[quote="Left Behind"][quote="obiwan"][quote="Left Behind"]

obiwan wrote:
Left Behind wrote:
obiwan wrote:I am not sure I'd view 'st' Paul as illustrious.

Anyway we've gone miles off track. So if you want the final word on it be my guest.

My final word is this: read African Genesis, by Robert Ardrey.

Jim

Thanks for the tip Jim. What is it about? To be frank I have read the bible so many times and so much about it(admittedly when i had religious interests mostly), I don't think I have the will to read one more thing about it (if such your recommendation is).

As an aside the reviews on amazon(uk) don't make it look enticing lol.

by mac Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:41 pm

[quote="obiwan"][quote="Left Behind"][quote="obiwan"]

Left Behind wrote:
obiwan wrote:
Left Behind wrote:
obiwan wrote:I am not sure I'd view 'st' Paul as illustrious.

Anyway we've gone miles off track. So if you want the final word on it be my guest.

My final word is this: read African Genesis, by Robert Ardrey.

Jim

Thanks for the tip Jim. What is it about? To be frank I have read the bible so many times and so much about it(admittedly when i had religious interests mostly), I don't think I have the will to read one more thing about it (if such your recommendation is).

I got the impression this was a regular book rather than anything with a Biblical connection.....

by obiwan Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:42 pm

mac wrote:
KatyKing wrote:You are preaching to the choir bro. I'm the last one to bang the drum for any so called authoritative texts. They were all written, rewritten and interpreted by humans. Not wishing to sound blasphemous as I own and enjoy reading Silver Birch but does anyone else think that picture of him looks rather like a Surrey commuter or provincial bank manager circa 1948 albeit one with a feather in his hair?

Can't say that's a resemblance that strikes me....but it wouldn't matter if it had.

One thing I hope is in the favour of texts such as those from SB is that they haven't been interpreted from another language into English and (I believe) the originals - from which book-compilations have been made - are still available for an authenticity check.

I have to say I too enjoy reading SB.

by Sponsored content