Actually, "there is extraordinary evidence of spirits or the afterlife". Furthermore, "Materialism can be shown to be false by empirical evidence and logical arguments. Materialism is not a Rational Philosophy."

Of course, "Some religious leaders reject psychic phenomena because those phenomena threaten the dogmatic teachings of their religion. It undermines their authority as the source of information on the afterlife, God, and other spiritual subjects. In some cases it also subverts their role as an intermediary between the individual and supernatural entities."

Now for more on this "extraordinary evidence":


Source for the quotes:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_fallacies


The points on the near-death site give a good overview of the evidence. You should tell this thread exactly why the evidence does not convince you. The first point is about the famous Pam Reynolds case; she underwent a surgical procedure called hypothermic cardiac arrest. "In everyday terms, she was put to death. After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life. During the time that Pam was in standstill, she experienced an NDE. Her remarkably detailed veridical out-of-body observations during her surgery were later verified to be true." If you know so much about what "biology teaches us", why don't you try and explain it, along with the 51 other salient points of evidence on the near-death site.

http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html


Quoting from the near-death site:

All of those "benefits" in favor of sex-for-pleasure may be achieved by the use of hypnosis, which is not only free but is always readily-available to anyone, and carries no risks; on the other hand, sex is GOD's gift of creative union for procreation; it was not created for you to use to gratify your senses.

Should we ignore the suffering that is directly caused by such ego-gratifying behavior? Why have you refused to discuss the subject of personal responsibility?


IT IS NOT "LOVE", RESPONSIBILITY, NOR EVEN CARING, WHEN ONE WOULD GIVE FATAL DISEASE UNTO THAT OTHER HE CLAIMS TO ABIDE WITH IN LOVE.

I perceive that you are promoting false messages about sex; sex-for-pleasure has consequences, and you choose to ignore them.

Sex-for-pleasure is a holistic way to minimize suffering???

Even if you have stopped talking to me, I will continue the conversation so that all may recognize the truth and gain knowledge. Beliathon and MMH promote sex-for-pleasure, but what about the effects of this kind of behavior? Should we ignore the suffering that is directly caused by such ego-gratifying behavior? Why have neither of these two been willing to discuss the subject of personal responsibility?

God doesn't punish; mankind is punishing itself with over-population and disease because mankind does not want to recognize the truth about sex--that it is god's gift of creative union for the purpose of procreation.

Be careful; don't be gullible and don't let anyone run you--measure truth.
Hear yourself, your GOD. Anybody can talk; only you can interpret for self.
Everybody is nice and everybody is sincere, so you can only judge by the lesson or the word. For example:
God would not tell anyone to take his child up on a mountain and kill him.
Any father that would take his son up there--hearing these mysterious voices and then the angel stopped him--BULLSHIT.
God is a creator, not a destroyer, and he does not test in that manner.
He may test the man, but the child is the one who suffers, and never would god EVER treat an innocent child to that terror--where his father is above him with a knife--oh well never mind son, "GOD" told me to do it.
With sex that is not for procreation, the possibility of pregnancy is never absent, and neither is there such a thing as "accidental" pregnancy; so, mankind must learn to recognize the truth about personal responsibility. ALL ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WHICH OCCURS WITHIN THEIR MANIFESTED ILLUSION whether or not one WISELY chooses to finally recognize and accept this Truth is entirely up to each.

Truth is whatever it is to whomever it comes; my truth may differ from someone else's definition or opinion of that truth, but there is one common truth and as many ways to reach this conclusion as there are individual and unique beings. And if there is any breaking of god's or man's laws, it is invalid. But there may be something very valid in the overall presentment, so simply take the truth and toss out the other, don't turn someone into YOUR conscience. You are the one listening and receiving, and you are the one perceiving.

SEX is not the INSTINCTUAL drive that was created by GOD; GOD created a CREATIVE, nurturing drive TO KNOW and CELEBRATE GOD WITHIN YOU, TO CO-CREATE THE EVER-UNFOLDING EXPANSION AND ADVENTURE OF LIFE! You misunderstand God if you think that he would tell you to sacrifice your child or that you should have sex for the purpose of pleasing self to the point of obsessive pre-occupation--those are acts which are against life.

The sexual act is limiting, substituting and impersonating YOUR CREATIVE AND SPIRITUAL UNFOLDMENT TO KNOW GOD. When you truly understand and recognize this truth, your creative spiritual unfoldment can no longer BE FRUSTRATED AND LIMITED to the repetition of a silly and truly spiritually unfulfilling "sexual act". So be gentle with self and your mate, but be aware and responsible to "consequences" (such as pregnancy) and persistent in your goal (to self) to release and detach from ALL things of Physical Manifestation. Simply RECOGNIZE without punishing self with guilt and shame that this is a transgression against the Creative spirit of life within you. For a time accept that you will have desire because you are "addicted" and many of you understand it as an "extension" of your love.

God is abundance in all Kingdoms, but the catch is you cannot become attached to things of the material world and to your emotional desires. You are borrowing this wondrous physical body and all of the "things" of the manifested world will NOT go with you when you leave your body in whatever sort of transition you earn. It is ONLY YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL THAT IS REAL IN THIS JOURNEY TO ONENESS WITHIN.

Hi MMH,

I do discern that sex for the purpose of pleasure is a limitation, and that limitations are not of God; I am here to use Scripture (Phoenix Journals) to correct the misconception; take a close look at what Hatonn is saying, especially the part that I have underlined, and see the distinction between sexual pleasure and sexual responsibility; I will quote this again since you have said that you do not read all that I am posting:

What you label "makeup sex" is a degrading spiritual trap devoid of love. On the other hand, Through union OF LOVE, the act of sexual intercourse between a husband and his wife for pro-creation was a most sacred and honored responsibility, an extension of their LOVE and COMMITMENT TO GOD in his service as PARENTS of HIS Children. When one is an "adult" and does not wish to have children, the seeking of sexual pleasure by self or with another is a transgression upon self simply BECAUSE YOU ARE DENYING AND LIMITING YOUR SPIRITUAL CREATIVE POTENTIAL WITHIN.

This is the right thread because we are addressing attitudes towards sex, so let us find the common ground; I'm more than happy to defer to Hatonn's wisdom and share it with you and the OP in the interests of truth; You refer to Biblical wisdom which is backed up by "inspiration of God", but if that Word has been corrupted by man then that Scripture is little different from "the word of one called Beliathon" which states that "Sexual nirvana is the key to peace on Earth".


So Phoenix Journals are not Scripture because your book tells you so? I perceive that you have not used your own discernment to conclude this. I also perceive that Phoenix Journals have corrected misconceptions about sex, both humanist and "Biblical". I suggest reading the sections about "Biblical" versus "Christed" Christianity in this Phoenix Journal, but first it is best to read all of Journal 27.

Well, Hatonn similarly has discernment given by God, and has published it via his scribe. Hatonn even travels with Christ. On the other hand, Saul was a Pharisee who never even met Christ. The Bible is subject to misinterpretation and corruption by man's hand, but there is nothing unclear about what Hatonn says about sex; I conclude that Phoenix Journals are the superior Scripture.

Anyway, the point is to have a reasoned discussion about these things so that we can look within to discern our own ideas about sex, and find our own path. The Bible states that God is within you, so let us search within to find God's WORD; God is always speaking.

Hello MMH,
1) Who says that the Hatonn you linked to is the same GCH who wrote the Phoenix Journals and other recordings of the Phoenix Project?
2) Who has told you that God created sex to be enjoyed? I thought God's gift of sex was for procreation, not bodily pleasure!
3) What matter is it whether something is Biblical? Do you want "Biblical" Christianity or do you want Christed Christianity? I believe the world has overwhelmingly stated the preference as you have voted-in and out the true laws of Christ.
4) What do you have to say to this quote from Hatonn, via another Phoenix Journal, which highlights how you are making judgments out of ignorance rather than in wisdom of knowledge:

What you label "Nirvana" is a degrading spiritual trap devoid of love; it is actually a Hell on Earth; When one is an "adult" and does not wish to have children, the seeking of sexual pleasure by self or with another is a transgression upon self simply BECAUSE YOU ARE DENYING AND LIMITING YOUR SPIRITUAL CREATIVE POTENTIAL WITHIN.

And WHAT exactly is your reasoning? I have provided mine, and you have yet to examine it; you dismiss all that has been written but propose no knowledge of your own; that is why I am asking: are you speaking in ignorance? Here is another quote:

I wonder if the original poster (OP) will refute what has been stated in Phoenix Journals regarding sex.


I found this post from OP in another thread; it is ironic to me because it appears he is promoting his pro-sex ideology out of ignorance; perhaps the OP does not know that sex for selfish reasons is a dangerous and unbalanced act. I have quoted the portion of Phoenix Journals where the soul-ution is given; I would like for the OP to take notice, so that Truth and knowledge can win the war. I challenge OP to side with truth and knowledge today, and to recognize the sexual act for what it is. There is a lot more truth in that Journal and it is better to read and have knowledge before denouncing in ignorance.

However, I do agree that certain religious ideologies are dangerous, and I will identify the most dangerous one here in this post--Zionism; I submit more quotes from the same Phoenix Journal:

I am posting some excerpts from the Phoenix Journals as they contain the truth about sex. Please refrain from commenting unless you have read the whole post.








http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/PJ_27.pdf

Each energy has a label. Has this God identified self?

I Ask this man "BADecker" to explain to us all about God,
I Ask for a thorough explanation of the LAWS OF CREATION AND GOD,
I Ask for equation of Creation and Creator.
I Ask him how I am going to awaken and get off my planet if necessary? NOTE: I will Check if it is "magic" or reasonable physics (I am third dimensional and I have physical needs).
I Ask him to identify each energy in the "Godhead", the purpose in the controlling of everything directly, consciously, and so on.

Will ANYONE be able to change the world "Earth" when we leave this topic and thread? Why? How?
God had "consciousness" but even HE had to do something to cause "creation".

Even with no laws, you must still specify the SOURCE. So what about this man labeled BADecker; does he have understanding enough to answer my questions??

My source for this post is Chapter 14 of Phoenix Journal 71:
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/PJ_71.pdf

The mind is not the brain; the human mind is not sourced in the brain any more than the internet can be found in your laptop or your modem.


What is the real function of our brains?
Is it the brain tissue itself that creates our intelligence, or is it the electrical and conductive nature of the brain that allows us to connect to intelligence? More or less like a sophisticated antennae, just like Nikola Tesla observed of himself early in the 20th century.



Briefly, I will explain the evidence for the holographic brain concept; the first example is the double-slit experiment:







Sources:
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/04/16/proof-human-body-projection-consciousness/
http://www.projectglobalawakening.com/2014/03/29/nature-of-mind/
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/observer.htm

NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone.

The level of conscious alertness during NDEs is usually greater than that experienced in everyday life - even though NDEs generally occur when a person is unconscious or clinically dead.


You are in a rush to exit this discussion? It's too bad because apparently you did not review all 52 points:
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

Humanists are not quite right in their worldview because they lack an afterlife-concept; most have not evaluated the 52 points at near-death.com, and the same goes for atheists.

What is missing is your own endeavor to find out the truth about Man and God and the afterlife once you have accepted the survival hypothesis as a well-supported conclusion of science.

Atheists should read more about the afterlife and related ideas before coming to a faulty conclusion that is not supported by the evidence. I have provided the resources that will help one to study the survival hypothesis and beyond.

Hi celestio,
I hope you will stay and chat until our main disagreements are resolved...

I have stated that atheists cannot believe in souls because humanists lack a concept of the afterlife, not because souls are not material.
For the humanist, a soul is a foreign and inert concept--and nothing more than a concept, literally a word without a referent.

The energy you refer to is properly called "spirit", defined as a creative force which enables the birth of entities into the "material plane". If the existence of this spirit is a belief and not (yet) knowledge, then it is (so far) either unjustified or untrue or both. This leaves the atheist "still mistaken" until s/he acquires the justification for this belief; in other words, the concept is still inert (and the belief is unjustified) until it is recognized for what it is.

I propose that a rationalist atheist would also dismiss claims about nature spirits, ancestor spirits, and the entire line of "spiritual" thinking, as nothing more than a metaphor run amok.

You are in a rush to exit this discussion? It's too bad because apparently you did not review all 52 points:
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

I see many interesting things in the other points that you did not mention...

Your counterclaim lacks merit since it is without evidence to support it, as there is no reason (evidence) to believe that NDEs are the result of brain dysfunction; this tactic is typical of pseudo-skeptics. What is asserted without evidence may (easily) be dismissed without evidence.

OK, let's hypothesize as you are saying, that there is some kind of brain dysfunction that is causing NDE. What are we to make of these facts:
1) There is no reason (evidence) to believe that NDEs are the result of brain dysfunction.
2) NDEs are different from hallucinations.
3) Groups of dying people can share the same NDE.
4) NDEs change people unlike hallucinations and dreams.
5) NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone.

These points are from the near-death page and they discredit your faulty hypothesis; I want you to consider this point in particular:


Actually, with 52 points supporting the theory, it certainly does have merit and has advanced the fields of medical science, psychology, and philosophy; People having NDEs have even brought back scientific discoveries (!); what cannot be proven is your counterclaim about some alternative mechanism that does not involve survival, as the skeptical hypotheses are either not valid or have been refuted with these 52 points; you can read more about the changing tides in mind-science in the book "Irreducible Mind", which supports the holonomic theory of mind also mentioned on the near-death page.

Once, atheism meant the opposition to, the resistance against god(s). Now, it only means freedom, to establish new norms and new institutions, and to tear them down and establish new ones again. I think the pseudo-skeptics are doing a disservice to atheists. Atheists should read more before coming to a faulty conclusion that is not supported by the evidence.

Hi Buffer Overflow,
Do you have the patience to evaluate the evidence? If so, then you will surely conclude that humanism is false. Now, if you are an atheist and have just seen that humanism is false, you will probably ask "What are the alternatives to humanism?" and "Will these alternatives satisfy a patient and thinking man?" To answer this, it is helpful to look back at the history of humanist and atheist thought...

I have edited my post above; please take a look before reading further.

Your claim is false because all atheists are humanists who lack an afterlife-concept, so no atheist can believe in a soul. An atheist who is not a humanist has rejected man as guarantor of knowledge, so this atheist has no knowledge, but since one cannot deny the experiences of others, it is still helpful to explore the objective phenomena of NDE, which often involves an experience of God.

Faithfulness must be directed to Man or God for it is Man that has usurped the place of God in the history of philosophy and humanism; Man has done so by declaring himself capable of answering the god-question as well as scientific questions, so Man took the place of God due to the acceptance of rationalism.

Atheism cannot be re-defined as "a way out of any and all ideological systems" because it is actually an answer to the god-question and it is defined in the context of rationalism; to re-define atheism in this way is to declare not only the death of God but also the death of Man. The change of definitions is very relevant when considering NDE, a uniquely personal experience which provides hard evidence for the afterlife; it is a fruitful field of study for those seeking to understand Man and God, as well as man's anxieties, sufferings, and revolts--none of which can be distanced from the reality-context in which he finds himself. Man must take responsibility for world events, but Man will not succeed in doing this by merely crucifying the ego. In making this post, I have read part of the Introduction to "An Atheism that Is Not Humanist Emerges in French Thought", and have concluded that the only way back to a rational philosophy is to resurrect God and responsibly acknowledge the evidence before us; since these non-humanist atheists do agree that man exists in a reality far greater and more complicated than he could understand, one can begin comprehending the higher realms by reading the evidence at near-death.com and Phoenix Journals, but only if one has faith in Man as guarantor of knowledge.

False. All atheists are humanists (since what else could they be??), and all humanists lack an afterlife-concept. Therefore, all atheists lack an afterlife-concept. Anyway, the point is that the afterlife has been proven by scientific methods, so this subject should be addressed as it is important for human life and our understanding of the higher realms.

Maybe I have answered this question below; if not, we can discuss, but ultimately it is up to you to find out for yourself how this all plays out; I have provided some resources which I feel are valid.

No, this presumption is invalidated because it pre-supposes a type of life-force or personality that persists (survives) and therefore is more fundamental than matter, which then immediately poses the question of what caused the rebirth to begin with. Since it is the life-force (soul) which is more fundamental than the body (matter), the atheist would invariably conclude (per Herbert Spencer's "First Principles") that his rebirth is self-caused, and this conclusion immediately elevates the atheist to the position of god, just as is explained in "The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are".

I have proven that all atheists are mistaken in that they lack an afterlife-concept even when that concept has been proven scientifically. Since there are only two possible answers to the God-question, I have just cast serious doubt upon one possible answer by showing that all people in the non-God camp are mistaken in some way. An atheist could only assert a mistaken position without some way to address the evidence, but as I have mentioned the evidence cannot really be refuted.

No, you would need to take the hypothesis further and evaluate your own afterlife-concept in order to reach a God-concept. I suggest the book "SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION AND PROOF OF GOD" (PDF is linked in the image below) along with the other volumes in this series:

Germain details more Cosmic information about the nature and structure of God and the Universe.
Topics include:

* Reincarnation cycling and immortality
* Inter-workings between the Divided and the Undivided Universe
* The illusion of disappearance and repetition
* God created ONE basic form
* The Light Wave Principle
* Desire based upon knowledge
* Why action/reaction are equal, opposite and simultaneous
* What is motion?
* What is time?
* The principles of manifestation
* How to control matter
* The Voidance Principle
* Senses vs. knowing
* Thought transference
* Compression and expansion
* Giving and receiving principles
* Soul-will vs. ego-will
* Radiation and generation
* More on cause and effect
* Perfection of God's Law
* Purpose of Creation
* The Power and meaning of decree vs. prayer

Consider this:
"Presumably all atheists are humanists, since what else could they be?" --Atheism and Secularity, Page 10 (2009)
Humanists do not have an afterlife-concept, they only recognize human life "here and now".
Even so-called "Buddhist atheists" lack an afterlife-concept, this is contrary to what Buddha taught.
I have never found an atheist with an afterlife-concept, and presumably this is impossible because then the atheist in question would not be a humanist, so therefore not an atheist.

Survival hypothesis.

Atheists lack a god-concept and they also lack an afterlife-concept, this is why all atheists are humanists.

The 52 points of evidence at near-death.com constitute a form of scientific proof; proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena unite in establishing it.
The evidence cannot be refuted because the skeptical arguments are flawed to the point that the burden of proof now rests upon skeptics; for example, since there is no reason to believe that NDEs are the result of brain dysfunction, skeptics are left without a mechanism to explain the objective phenomena of NDE. From this state of affairs comes the conclusion that there are no better hypotheses than Survival.

Scientific method:- Observe a phenomenon. Ask questions about it. Create an hypothesis. Conduct experiments on the hypothesis. Draw conclusion from results.
Proof:- Evidence(s) that cannot be refuted.

The Survival hypothesis has been proven by way of a refutation of the "brain dysfunction" hypothesis. To believe in this latter hypothesis is to be mistaken and ignorant of the evidence. Rarely, a skeptic will admit that s/he is prejudiced against the evidence presented, but this is really a form of ignorance held up by a desire to cling to one's existing Belief-System (B.S.)

As scientists, we should evaluate the best available hypothesis, and Survival stands up to all scrutiny while skeptical (humanist) arguments do not. Therefore, I have posted the scientific proof that discredits humanism (atheism) and develops an afterlife-concept with the Survival hypothesis as a starting point. Another good starting point for understanding rebirth is the "Pleiades Connection" series of Phoenix Journals.