On the contrary, most of what "God" says in Conversations, seemed quite believable to me.

However, the Hitler claim set off alarm bells.

I am not a Christian, but I was raised as one, and when I was a child I always thought a lot about being careful of the Devil's lies and tricks.

I'm not so sure that Conversations with God isn't one of them.

I think that anyone who pursues this type of material will ultimately come to understand that good and evil don't exist. The devil is symbolic and doesn't exist in the terms that most believe. Nor does heaven and hel_l. Which explains why Hiltler, or any other "abominable" personage, is in "heaven." The source of the material is "good," though.

I understand the concept, but I can't conceive that scumbags like Leonard Lake and Charles Ng -who tortured, raped and killed women while videotaping them in a torture chamber - were anything but EVIL!

There's much too much I could say here. I'd be turning this into another Tippaporn's Philosophical Korner. Try reading some Jane Roberts - Seth Speaks - The Nature of Personal Reality - The Nature of the Psyche: Its Human Expression - The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events - The "Unknown" Reality, Volumes I & II - Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment, Volumes I & II - The Magical Approach. In short, it takes effort and a sincere desire to want to know. It takes time to reconstruct the picture of reality; especially when the present picture is based on so many fallicies that most are so unwilling to let go of, even to the point of dying for them.

I have read a lot of the same books as you and lots of simular material.

All I can say is that we have come to very different conclusions about the validity of these ideas.

I have read a lot of the same books as you and lots of simular material.

All I can say is that we have come to very different conclusions about the validity of these ideas.

Fair enough, UG. Just one last personal observation, which I believe is a logical truism: there isn't a single ideology which can be proven in physical terms, period. Which means that the intellect by itself is insufficient for gaining a true understanding of the nature of reality and the nature of the individual. True understanding must, therefore, require direct experience.

there isn't a single ideology which can be proven in physical terms, period. Which means that the intellect by itself is insufficient for gaining a true understanding of the nature of reality and the nature of the individual. True understanding must, therefore, require direct experience.

Agreed!

there isn't a single ideology which can be proven in physical terms, period. Which means that the intellect by itself is insufficient for gaining a true understanding of the nature of reality and the nature of the individual. True understanding must, therefore, require direct experience.

Agreed!

Second that.

there isn't a single ideology which can be proven in physical terms, period. Which means that the intellect by itself is insufficient for gaining a true understanding of the nature of reality and the nature of the individual. True understanding must, therefore, require direct experience.

Agreed!

Second that.

Good . . . all in agreement. Now on to experiencing. Which of us has the best drugs?

there isn't a single ideology which can be proven in physical terms, period. Which means that the intellect by itself is insufficient for gaining a true understanding of the nature of reality and the nature of the individual. True understanding must, therefore, require direct experience.

Agreed!

Second that.

Good . . . all in agreement. Now on to experiencing. Which of us has the best drugs?

Ulysses.

there isn't a single ideology which can be proven in physical terms, period. Which means that the intellect by itself is insufficient for gaining a true understanding of the nature of reality and the nature of the individual. True understanding must, therefore, require direct experience.

Agreed!

Second that.

Good . . . all in agreement. Now on to experiencing. Which of us has the best drugs?

Ulysses.

Second that.

there isn't a single ideology which can be proven in physical terms, period. Which means that the intellect by itself is insufficient for gaining a true understanding of the nature of reality and the nature of the individual. True understanding must, therefore, require direct experience.

Agreed!

Second that.

Good . . . all in agreement. Now on to experiencing. Which of us has the best drugs?

Ulysses.

Second that.

I think that you mean, "has, had", and that would be correct!

I think that you mean, "has, had", and that would be correct!

Should we compare notes?

I think that you mean, "has, had", and that would be correct!

Should we compare notes?

I'm sure that it will come up on TV, sooner, or later!

I think that you mean, "has, had", and that would be correct!

Should we compare notes?

Someone was sober enough to take notes?