Debra Diamond Brings Wall Street Smarts to NDEs, and Mediumship |424|

If a goal is to have mainstream acceptance, we cannot rely on mediums. As an analogy, lenr might be real but is it economically viable? How can society change if death never occurs, yet no one really believes this?
Well as I think I pointed out before, scientific facts are not immediately assessed by the criterium, is this ecconomically viable! Using that criterium, science would never have left the stone age.
Religion says have faith, yet we americans spend a fortune 'fighting' death. In short even 80% reliability is amazing yet innefective for cultural change. Even if their was another institution doing what she does, also getting the same ball park results, still nothing would change (is my prediction)
The materialists and adherents to various other scientific doctrines rely heavily of poking fun at anything that threatens their dogmas. We have to accept that is true, but in a way, it isn't important. Ordinary people often seem to have a more accurate assessment of the truth than the 'experts' that we are supposed to listen to.

David
 
I grew up in a Protestant faith that denied communication with the dead was okay. That was mainly my father's hardline influence - except when he died, at his funeral my then partner, a clairvoyant, saw him trying to attract the attention of the minister to tell him that things were not as he was saying. My partner doubled up in laughter and had to pretend it was grief so as not to offend the company.
that's hilarious but I love it, Micheal. I mostly live by the instructions of Jesus in the Gospels but some of what I picked up from Kardec's Spirit's Book has affected the way I live now as well. I take from it as fact that we live a series of lives on Earth. It is not Heaven or Hell for all Eternity for any of us as "The Church" will have us believe. Kardec's medium/Spirit guided book tells us the poor and luckless are as important to God as the rich and sophisticated. Knowing this and being retired and a gardener, I try to provide the best of my vegetables for the least of God's children at the local soup kitchen. Providing for the people who eat there is no different than providing for Jesus Himself if He were among us. These people have a Divine right to life as they also gradually make their way back to God.
 
I think I have heard of mediums saying the person in question is unavailable.

However there are other issues.

1) Some people suggest that people have another component that remains in the spirit world.

2) The structure of time may be more complex than we tend to assume.

David

For sure. I think we are multidimensional and “multipersonal” (for lack of a better word). “The Higher self” is a re-occurring theme in NDEs and OBEs. A lot of good channeled sources similarly mention it. Which you take with a grain of salt, but it’s a common concept.
 
I found this interview interesting but I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on non-duality and how it vibes with the idea of spiritual beings? Are they even important if there are just part of relative reality?
great question... have wondered too. I sometimes feel like this is all middle earth stuff :)
 
If a goal is to have mainstream acceptance, we cannot rely on mediums. As an analogy, lenr might be real but is it economically viable? How can society change if death never occurs, yet no one really believes this?

I think we have to keep a perspective here. There are many cultures that accept that human spirits persist after death, but who rely on skilled mediums to facilitate contact. In this role the medium does not prove anything, and services only to enable contact. This is very different from the idea that the medium is part of a system of proof.

The fact is that we often rely on experts to facilitate communication - advertisers, PR spinners, lobbyists negotiators and mediators for example. There was a time when that role of facilitating contact was technological - scribes, telephone switch operators - and in India women can make a living by owning a mobile phone and facilitating contact between the poor who can't afford one and distance family members who can.

We have tended to see mediums and the like in a contested sense - as a component of proving the case. We gotta stop that. We don't need them to prove anything - its not their job. But we may need them as facilitators of communication - which is their job.
 
In the Christian sect I grew up in, "spirit guides" and other entities that were not specifically dead people, would mostly be seen as idols or even "satan in disguise" and so experiences with spirit guides and other entities were to be avoided.

Christianity has a mixed relationship with the dead. Think Catholic saints on the one hand and the Protestant aversion to anything not God on the other. The Christian take over of 'pagan' cultures either supplanted indigenous spirit guides with Christian ones or sought to eradicate them entirely as Satanic. Catholicism has always been more accommodating, which is why it retains a kind of natural pagan quality.

But let's also remember that Christianity is ultimately a spirit religion. Technically it has a dead guy as the focus of the faith. Calling him the only begotten Son of God ups the ante to the nth degree. He is the dead guy spirit who trumps all others - the ultimate dead guy spirit in fact. For Christians who may have a reflex to feel offended here - all I am doing is rephrasing what is clearly believed and putting it into a language that shows that the faith is not fundamentally different from what humans have believed for yonks, and still do believe.

The duality of Catholicism and Protestantism is a divergence from a common path into two trajectories that have, in my view, singular issues as a consequence of that separation. Catholicism has gone OTT with a muddle of residual pagan magic and spiritism ruined by manipulative theology, and Protestantism has veered into extreme denial of the richer dimension of human reality - usually by chucking everything it does not like into a devil bucket. Intellectually Protestantism napalmed the human spiritual dimension, and reduced the inner landscape to desolation haunted by hungry ghosts, reduced to pretending to be God in order to get attention.

Protestantism gave us atheism and materialism by making the gulf between the human and divine to extreme -with nothing in between. Catholicism is only marginally less catastrophic -it made the habit of murdering opponents popular before Protestantism developed.

While it is true that not all spirit guides are dead folk, most are. In some cultures what we call 'ancestor worship' was actually a strategic effort to placate and distract the deceased, who could be particularly troublesome otherwise. Some elders might come back with the assumption they are to be honoured as sources of wisdom - only to find that is not the POV of those who remain. And then there's trouble.

So we might imagine that in some instances Christianity could be a blessed relief from ever having think ancestors need to be bothered with much once the funeral was done. But there are arguments that Christianity was weakened post WW1 and again post WW2 because it opposed validating contact with the newly departed who were coming back in droves to visit family. If forced to choose between the religion and the experience of one's eyes, family and friends affirming the perpetuation of sons, brothers and husbands it is say to see that the authority of priest and minister would diminish.

Of course the most perplexing phenomenon when it comes to acknowledging the dead is Halloween - which has become in the US a major 'holiday' [just remember that this word derives from holy day]. Halloween is a celebration of the dead - morphed in the US into scary then weird and then Marvel - and so on into even more extraordinary expressions. Its useful to discover what it was originally about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween.
 
...The Christian take over of 'pagan' cultures either supplanted indigenous spirit guides with Christian ones or sought to eradicate them entirely as Satanic.
full stop... say no more... the christian takeover of pagan cultures was deliberate and part of a larger social engineering / control project. IMO all hair splitting after the fact clouds the issue.
 
I think we have to keep a perspective here. There are many cultures that accept that human spirits persist after death, but who rely on skilled mediums to facilitate contact. In this role the medium does not prove anything, and services only to enable contact. This is very different from the idea that the medium is part of a system of proof.

The fact is that we often rely on experts to facilitate communication - advertisers, PR spinners, lobbyists negotiators and mediators for example. There was a time when that role of facilitating contact was technological - scribes, telephone switch operators - and in India women can make a living by owning a mobile phone and facilitating contact between the poor who can't afford one and distance family members who can.

We have tended to see mediums and the like in a contested sense - as a component of proving the case. We gotta stop that. We don't need them to prove anything - its not their job. But we may need them as facilitators of communication - which is their job.
Its one thing to say 'we need no proof' (which i would strike out and replace with 'provide better evidence' ) and an entirely different discussion to say we don't need to convince you. here read our bibles / authoritative source -- ya know the research.

But that isn't what you were saying. i know that. i think you were saying its ok to generalize. so trust the mediums. within reason of course.
 
... Protestantism has veered into extreme denial of the richer dimension of human reality - usually by chucking everything it does not like into a devil bucket. Intellectually Protestantism napalmed the human spiritual dimension, and reduced the inner landscape to desolation haunted by hungry ghosts, reduced to pretending to be God in order to get attention.

I have been thinking lately of how different people with different spiritual worldviews, belief systems, religions, secular worldviews, etc can have "good lives" despite their not all having "correct" interpretations of life, the universe, and everything.

For example, much of my family are ardent adherents of a certain protestant Christian sect. It is a theologically conservative sect. The church teaches biblical literalism, which is not something I am personally interested in.

That said, in my observation, it seems like a person who believes in biblical literalism can have as good a life as a person who is an atheist/materialist and they both can have as good a life as somebody who believes in a universal consciousness model or an animism model. (Naturally, they could also all have miserable lives; I don't think there are any guarantees.)

For me, when considering my goal of leading a good life, it seems that my private, personal interpretation of life, the universe, and everything isn't required to be "accurate" or "correct". I think it's possible for a person to lead a good life even if their worldview or belief system is "inaccurate".

Obviously, there is a whole other question about how worldviews, beliefs, religions, etc play out in the public/political sphere.

For me, it can be useful to consider one's private, personal goals independently of the public/political sphere -- I think it's an arbitrary division that seems useful for some purposes, though in "actuality" I don't think we're ever totally free of the public/political sphere's influence.

All of this leads me to wonder what draws people to the topics we explore here. If "accuracy" of worldview is not a requirement of leading a good life, what do people get out of these explorations on a personal level? I have some ideas of what I get, but I am curious to know about other people.
 
I have been thinking lately of how different people with different spiritual worldviews, belief systems, religions, secular worldviews, etc can have "good lives" despite their not all having "correct" interpretations of life, the universe, and everything.

For example, much of my family are ardent adherents of a certain protestant Christian sect. It is a theologically conservative sect. The church teaches biblical literalism, which is not something I am personally interested in.

That said, in my observation, it seems like a person who believes in biblical literalism can have as good a life as a person who is an atheist/materialist and they both can have as good a life as somebody who believes in a universal consciousness model or an animism model. (Naturally, they could also all have miserable lives; I don't think there are any guarantees.)

For me, when considering my goal of leading a good life, it seems that my private, personal interpretation of life, the universe, and everything isn't required to be "accurate" or "correct". I think it's possible for a person to lead a good life even if their worldview or belief system is "inaccurate".

Obviously, there is a whole other question about how worldviews, beliefs, religions, etc play out in the public/political sphere.

For me, it can be useful to consider one's private, personal goals independently of the public/political sphere -- I think it's an arbitrary division that seems useful for some purposes, though in "actuality" I don't think we're ever totally free of the public/political sphere's influence.

All of this leads me to wonder what draws people to the topics we explore here. If "accuracy" of worldview is not a requirement of leading a good life, what do people get out of these explorations on a personal level? I have some ideas of what I get, but I am curious to know about other people.

It is amazing that people can be happy and have good lives even when they live in violation of the rules and ideologies of the experts - self appointed, appointed by coercion, appeal to authority, bribe or otherwise.

IMO winners are winners and losers are losers despite others' opinion of the correctness, or lack thereof, of what they're doing and thinking. We all feel this as real when we see it.

Who tells the sky what shade of blue it should be? Who tells the birds what songs to sing? Who tells the falcon it's wrong for eating the rabbit or the song bird? Who made the falcon that does these things? If God is all, then all of that is God and if God is good, then it's all good, in some way.

And if it's not God, then what is it and why does God allow it to exist? And if it there is no God, then everything is just politics.

So why is everyone is up tight?
 
Last edited:
I have been thinking lately of how different people with different spiritual worldviews, belief systems, religions, secular worldviews, etc can have "good lives" despite their not all having "correct" interpretations of life, the universe, and everything.

...

A message that comes through evidential mediums and from NDErs quite often is that what you believe doesn't really matter. It is what you do that matters.
 
For me, when considering my goal of leading a good life, it seems that my private, personal interpretation of life, the universe, and everything isn't required to be "accurate" or "correct". I think it's possible for a person to lead a good life even if their worldview or belief system is "inaccurate".

Absolutely agree in essence with your thoughts. My step father is a deeply committed AoG member and strives to be a good person in imitation of Christ. I admire his devotion and respect his commitment to a moral code with which I have deep agreement. When his daughter and my half-sister decided to express her transgender impulses he stood against his faith community's demand that he reject her - such a judgemental and unloving demand from Christians!

But that ability to live a 'good life' is limited by ideas and comes undone at the fringes. The evolutionary impulse exerts pressure at the fringes where thought and sentiment is looser and more amenable to change. It also imposes upon the core that is more rigid and cause change to occur there too.

I don't think it is possible to be 'correct' or 'accurate', but more aligned with what is. For example, whether reincarnation is real or not should have a huge impact on our notion of justice - which has been formulated within Christian dogma. If 'science' favours reincarnation a whole bunch of moral values concerning crime and punishment may have to be rethought.

The 'good' person who is embraced and influenced by a theology and a creed and a tradition may still be induced to behave contrary to facts and in ways that, were they aware of an alternative understanding, might be antithetical to their innate moral character.

My step father thinks what I think is contra truth, because it is contra his creed. I get that to the extent that his creed is limited to moral conduct as a citizen. But when it is declared the necessary truth for a community that does not consent to such interpretation, what is good becomes not good. I care less for my step father's integrity as an individual if he becomes an oppressor in the name of his 'Good'.

Of course, this is a two edged sword. I have no right to expect him to conform to my world view. So we have the idea of being a good person in then context of a moral code applicable to individual conduct - and the idea of being a good person who defends their community and their god against perceived transgressions against what is true and good.

What is good can be what we do and how we act of ourselves - and how we act on behalf of communities and cultures - moving outside the realm of personal responsibility to imposing will on others. This is a balance between the personal mystical and the collective religious notions of duty.

I think we can take whatever measure we want in relation to our own conduct - but when we seek to influence others we have a duty to be 'right' when we impose our will on them - something we humans rarely get right.

So back to the original point - we can be good without being correct or accurate in an objective sense, so long as we apply those values to ourselves and our intimates who share them. Beyond that we enter dangerous territory in which the risks of injustice magnify and multiply.
 
IMO winners are winners and losers are losers despite others' opinion of the correctness, or lack thereof, of what they're doing and thinking. We all feel this as real when we see it.

But Eric, surely that's so long as the game is fair. The 1% who own 90% of wealth are 'winners' through cooked laws and crooked systems. The utter lack of moral integrity of many of the wealthy is not exactly a secret - and if you have hauled yourself into a position of privilege in a rigged zero sum game world you have a choice of how you see yourself.

If, for example, tax cuts are set to favour the wealthy we are not talking about 'winning' on merit are we, but on the luck of the draw. And let's consider veterans who, in service to their nation in conflicts that seem always to favour the wealthy, are left without the means to earn an honest livings (sans legs and arms) or a dishonest one for that matter. They are not compensated for the loss of income they cannot earn. They are losers in the long run. And those who did not serve and did not risk are winners? Is that a fair deal?

Winners and winners and losers are losers? You dwell in a harsh world. I am grateful I am not a dweller therein with you.
 
It is amazing that people can be happy and have good lives even when they live in violation of the rules and ideologies of the experts - self appointed, appointed by coercion, appeal to authority, bribe or otherwise.

IMO winners are winners and losers are losers despite others' opinion of the correctness, or lack thereof, of what they're doing and thinking. We all feel this as real when we see it.

Who tells the sky what shade of blue it should be? Who tells the birds what songs to sing? Who tells the falcon it's wrong for eating the rabbit or the song bird? Who made the falcon that does these things? If God is all, then all of that is God and if God is good, then it's all good, in some way.

And if it's not God, then what is it and why does God allow it to exist? And if it there is no God, then everything is just politics.

So why is everyone is up tight?
I have a feeling that post needs unpacking a lot, otherwise people will come to totally the wrong conclusions.

I am reminded of the verse in the Bible, "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath".

David
 
But Eric, surely that's so long as the game is fair. The 1% who own 90% of wealth are 'winners' through cooked laws and crooked systems. The utter lack of moral integrity of many of the wealthy is not exactly a secret - and if you have hauled yourself into a position of privilege in a rigged zero sum game world you have a choice of how you see yourself.

If, for example, tax cuts are set to favour the wealthy we are not talking about 'winning' on merit are we, but on the luck of the draw. And let's consider veterans who, in service to their nation in conflicts that seem always to favour the wealthy, are left without the means to earn an honest livings (sans legs and arms) or a dishonest one for that matter. They are not compensated for the loss of income they cannot earn. They are losers in the long run. And those who did not serve and did not risk are winners? Is that a fair deal?

Winners and winners and losers are losers? You dwell in a harsh world. I am grateful I am not a dweller therein with you.

No no no......I did not mean material winners and losers - I meant spiritual winners and losers. People internally at peace and growing within themselves versus troubled and lost.

We all dwell in a harsh world. We all face the same negative spiritual influences and we all face the same ultimate material reality; which involves inevitable loss and death. It was designed that way.

Some people just seem to find their way regardless of the challenges before them and others seem to crumble when challenged.

My point was, I think, in agreement with what Dan last_name said. We have all of these moral authorities and gurus and priests and assorted experts telling us what morality and virtue look like, but some people seem to achieve peace, happiness and fulfillment even though they are in contrast to all of those experts' forumals. How can that be? [sarcasm alert].

For example, I'm a happy man despite experiencing some tragedies and ugly realities. Increasingly I feel my spirit growing in proportion to earthly concerns. I feel increasingly aligned to "what is". It's exciting. I look forward to each new day. But you think me to be a misguided monster. How is it possible that I'm happy when I appear to be in violation of your codes and rules?
 
I have a feeling that post needs unpacking a lot, otherwise people will come to totally the wrong conclusions.

I am reminded of the verse in the Bible, "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath".

David

The Bible also says that in the beginning it was already determined which souls were wheat and which were chaff. Life is just a test that sifts it out.
 
The Bible also says that in the beginning it was already determined which souls were wheat and which were chaff. Life is just a test that sifts it out.

I’d love to witness your life review Eric, I imagine I’d find it quite amusing or I’d be scared ....less. :)
 
The 'good' person who is embraced and influenced by a theology and a creed and a tradition may still be induced to behave contrary to facts and in ways that, were they aware of an alternative understanding, might be antithetical to their innate moral character.

My step father thinks what I think is contra truth, because it is contra his creed. I get that to the extent that his creed is limited to moral conduct as a citizen. But when it is declared the necessary truth for a community that does not consent to such interpretation, what is good becomes not good. I care less for my step father's integrity as an individual if he becomes an oppressor in the name of his 'Good'.

Of course, this is a two edged sword. I have no right to expect him to conform to my world view. So we have the idea of being a good person in then context of a moral code applicable to individual conduct - and the idea of being a good person who defends their community and their god against perceived transgressions against what is true and good.

What is good can be what we do and how we act of ourselves - and how we act on behalf of communities and cultures - moving outside the realm of personal responsibility to imposing will on others. This is a balance between the personal mystical and the collective religious notions of duty.

I think we can take whatever measure we want in relation to our own conduct - but when we seek to influence others we have a duty to be 'right' when we impose our will on them - something we humans rarely get right.

So back to the original point - we can be good without being correct or accurate in an objective sense, so long as we apply those values to ourselves and our intimates who share them. Beyond that we enter dangerous territory in which the risks of injustice magnify and multiply.

Doesn't all of that imply that 1. There is a single ultimate objective "good" and that 2. you know what it is?

And what of those that don't follow your prescription? Tossed into damnation? The evidence doesn't support that at all, you know.

And if no one/nothing is tossing the vast majority that violate your prescription for good into the burning pit of sulpher, then how can you be sure that your prescription is correct? Because it would seem that the only one cares about it is you and a few like minded individuals, not the universe or some higher power(s) within it - and not a huge number of people.
 
My strategy firm was visiting a $3 billion West Coast US company once to pitch an operating strategy (at their request). I was there with two of my associates to make the initial capabilities presentation to the exec committee and CEO of the company. Our escort took us from the lobby to the presentation conference room. On the way there, I noticed a guy in a hallway, struggling to get a large rolling trash container out of a janitorial closet. He had longer grey hair, a long grey scraggly beard, a 1980's warmup top and t-shirt, jeans that were hemmed way too high, white socks and some beat up old dirty tennis shoes. He was probably one step removed from being a homeless person, to my impression.

I set down my brief case and walked over to help the obvious housekeeping worker with the task. I offered a platitude 'Hey, how ya' doin'?' and grinned at him. We cleared the handle of the big container from the door edge, whereupon I picked up my brief case and nodded and walked onward with my associates to the conference room.

Fifteen minutes later, we are into the presentation formalities and introduction, whereupon the CEO walks in late.

The CEO turned out to be that same gent who was struggling to get the trash container out of the janitorial closet.

I suspect that spirituality is much akin to this. Making judgements and condemnations as to who is, and who is not spiritually advanced along their life-path, by means of their life position, appearance, socio-politics or money situation which do not fit to your taste - is a rookie mistake. It leaves one vulnerable to being deceived by appearances of virtue, masquerading as good.

The point is, spiritual development exists in every walk/position of life for the most part. And just as there are many empty suits of executive competence (those who think the costume will allow them free pass), even so there exists a similar cadre of empty suits of virtue. Do not be an empty suit, no matter how politically-acceptable that suit may appear to be.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top