1. Afterlife Forums is an online, interactive community designed to give seekers direct access to prominent researchers, to afterlife literature, and to one another in order to foster both spiritual growth and public interest in life after death.
    Dismiss Notice

Thomas Jefferson's views on Jesus

Discussion in 'Spiritual Growth & Development' started by Goldie, Jun 4, 2017.

  1. Goldie

    Goldie Member

    Thank you for that clarification, Roberta.
     
  2. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    I guess I'd better try to resolve this conundrum! On ALF:

    1) It is not okay to talk about religion, but

    2) It is fine to talk about a figure who might also have a religious image so long as we discuss that figure in a non-religious way.

    Jesus is not necessarily a religious figure. His Gospel teachings are spiritual - not religious - teachings, and in fact He told us NOT to turn His teachings into a religion! When we talk about those teachings as spiritual truths that can be validated via communications from people that we used to think were dead, then we're fine. When we start preaching Christian dogmas - which did NOT come from Jesus - then we make Roberta really cranky.... ;-).
     
  3. bluebird

    bluebird Well-Known Member

    Roberta,

    How/where are you drawing the line between "spiritual" and "religious"? How do you define each of those concepts?
     
    Goldie and dopier like this.
  4. dopier

    dopier Member

    These are questions that will probably never be satisfactorily answered until everyone realizes that we're each the captain of our destiny. It's probably intellectual laziness to rely on others' opinions (facts) for one's own direction, but then one should have the right to be intellectually lazy. Therefore, ultimately I don't necessarily think there will be satisfactory answers to your questions. My two cents.
     
    Goldie likes this.
  5. bluebird

    bluebird Well-Known Member

    dopier,

    You may be right. I just don't think we can really have a discussion on these topics without first at least attempting to clearly define them. In my experience, people tend to call their own views on these matters "spiritual", and the views of others on these matters "religious". I have seen this in people from New Agers to Christian Fundamentalists, and everything in between.
     
    Goldie likes this.
  6. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    This is a great question, dear Bluebird! I understand that there is some confusion, because religions often claim to be spiritual; but actually, religions and spirituality are something like polar opposites. Religions are codified belief-systems based in man-made dogmas that might or might not have a spiritual base somewhere in their history. If you don't share the religion's beliefs in those dogmas (e.g. Jesus died for your sins), then you can't be a part of that religion. Spirituality, on the other hand, is a search for and development of one's own true eternal nature. It cannot be based in any dogmas; it cannot be limited in any way, but rather spirituality develops as we seek what is true and as we go ever deeper within ourselves. We do tend to develop beliefs as we grow spiritually - for example, we come to understand that the more loving and forgiving we are, the more spiritual and the happier our lives become; but spirituality cannot have canons or dogmas. It is utterly free. And this is something that the great teachers have told us uniformly, but it is at the base of no religion of which I am aware. Instead, every religion I ever have studied is fear-based, not love-based, so the irony is that being very religious actually makes spiritual growth to any extent probably impossible.
     
  7. bluebird

    bluebird Well-Known Member

    Roberta,

    Thank you for your response. I would tend to agree with those definitions, but I do think that often people who view themselves as spiritual do still have codified belief systems, although they may not view them as such. To be frank, I see that as one of the issues on this website. You don't allow religious proselytizing, a position I understand and with which I agree. However, there have been instances where someone (sometimes me, sometimes someone else) offers a view that does not follow or agree with the general line of thinking in some spiritual circles, only to be told (albeit not necessarily harshly) that s/he is wrong. For example, when discussing the idea that one's "higher self" resides in an afterlife, even when one exists here on earth, or when discussing the idea that deep and abiding grief prevents our dead loved ones from contacting us -- both ideas with which I do not agree. (There are probably other examples as well, but those two come most readily to my mind.)

    I suppose what I'm saying is this -- if religious dogma is prohibited from discussion on this site (and I tend to agree that it should be), then it seems only fair to me that spiritual dogma must also be prohibited from discussion. Not spirituality in general (which, after all, is part of the point/purpose of this forum), but the insistence that only particular spiritual views are correct, which is a form of dogma in itself.
     
    Goldie likes this.
  8. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Spiritual dogmas also are taboo, if indeed that is what they are. In the two cases that you mention - the notion that we leave most of our eternal minds behind when we come to earth, and the claim that deep grief is a profoundly low-vibration emotion that can block communication with the dead - there is a lot of evidence that these are facts. For example, Mikey Morgan in Flying High in Spirit tells us that both of these phenomena are true, and he demonstrates them both in his own life.
     
  9. bluebird

    bluebird Well-Known Member

    I am glad to hear that spiritual dogmas are also taboo.

    It is still a matter of what each individual accepts as "evidence". In the two cases I mentioned, to me there is insufficient evidence to establish either of those theories as proof; I view them as a couple of the possibilities among others. Not that my opinion is or should be the be-all and end-all, by any means, but there are many views on these two subjects as well as others, some aligning more or less with my views, others aligning more with yours/Mikey's, and everything in between. Nothing against Mikey, but if he does exist in an afterlife, he is still only one individual, and I think it's generally unwise to accept one individual's views as "facts", or as absolutely true, even if that individual has moved on to a next phase of existence.

    In particular, regarding the claim that "deep grief is a profoundly low-vibration emotion that can block communication with the dead" -- I have personally experienced some things that may very well be instances of my husband communicating with me. As I've made clear in other threads, I don't know if there is an afterlife or not, so I don't know whether my husband still exists or not, but I accept it as a possibility, and other people to whom I've detailed the experiences have often thought they were communication from my husband. My grief is soul-deep and never-ending, so if my experiences actually were instances of my husband contacting me, then that would mean that deep grief does not block communication with the dead, or at least does not always do so. Maybe it depends on the particular relationship, maybe it depends on the abilities of the individuals involved, or maybe it's never really an issue, I don't know. I only know that if there is an afterlife, my own experiences may disprove the idea that grief always blocks communication (and I am certainly not the only person in this position). Therefore, while I think it's ok to say that grief blocking communication is one possibility, I don't think it's acceptable to state that it is definitively the way it is (I'm not referring to you specifically here, I mean in general, on this site and/or elsewhere). To state so definitively would be to attempt to establish dogma.

    On a related/side note, I do appreciate your willingness to discuss this in a civil manner, and I thank you for it.
     
  10. mac

    mac senior contributor

    I'm glad you've provided guidance, Roberta, as I was getting grief earlier when I tried to point out your 'no religion' principle here on ALF.
     
  11. mac

    mac senior contributor

    I greatly miss hearing from Mikey and Carol. It was something special on ALF and set this website apart from run-of-the-mill websites. But he's gone and that's a shame as I used to enjoy hearing about his experiences after he returned to the etheric dimension(s).

    As I often used to say, though, what he told us he had experienced was always indisputable even if I didn't always accept his philosophical 'take' on all issues. Quite rightly you point out that he was simply one individual and not everyone would necessarily share his approach. That's understandable because discarnates come in a metaphorical range of sizes, shapes and colors. And even if he were exactly right about every issue and its interpretation, he may not have been able to communicate the details adequately in the way he was forced to use.

    In my view the emphasis should be that it CAN make communication more difficult (than it is anyway) but doesn't necessarily prevent communication.
     
  12. Nirvana

    Nirvana Member

    So he doesn't communicate with Carol anymore? What happened?
     
  13. mac

    mac senior contributor

    Mikey isn't heard from on these forum boards because Carol doesn't visit here now.... I didn't say that Mikey and she don't communicate with one another. I'd be very surprised if he didn't but I don't know what their present situation is.
     
  14. bluebird

    bluebird Well-Known Member

    Good points, mac; thank you. Regarding the latter point, if the emphasis were put on the word and meaning of "can", I would have less of an issue with it. I have generally not found that to be the case, however (not just on this site, but on others as well).
     
  15. dopier

    dopier Member

    I concur, bluebird. In fact it is my understand that these differences go on for a good while even in higher dimensions, although most likely in a much more mild and loving manner. Perhaps it's part of the greater picture, if there is one, that we should be able to agree to disagree and still co-exist respectfully/peacefully. The golden rule seems to always find ways to rear its ugly, err...its beautiful head.
     
  16. bluebird

    bluebird Well-Known Member

    Amen to that! (to coexisting respectfully/peacefully, that is, and to observing the golden rule.)
     

Share This Page