It's interesting that some of you have had these kinds of experiences too. Especially the water connection, which I really can't understand. I was
leery of admitting to the unusual nature of how the information arrived, due to the fact that there are some folks who've claimed things like Jesus
telling them to write stuff and automatic writing and other things. I went out and bought some of these books - mainly because I was trying to see if
they were coming up with the same counterintuitive stuff I was getting - but their stuff was like most other stuff that either had to do vaguely with
Christian theory or New Age ideas that show up in a lot of other people's books. I was trying to find anyone else that was thinking things like what I
was thinking, but I still haven't found any published work that I can associate my own with. It's been pretty frustrating. I was hoping to find
like-minded compatriots online.
I do have a theory, sort of, but to explain the source of the information, I'd have to figure a way to bridge about 60,000 words worth of background
information before that theory would make any sense at all. It's closely tied in with the traditional notion of Reincarnation, but only in that the
concept of past life memories is a misinterpretation of what actually causes those memories to become part of a living corporeal person's own memory
suite. It also has to do with the well-established part of the classic NDE, involving the appearance of passed friends and/or family members when the
dying person is preparing to pass. It's not God, or angels or any of that religious stuff. It's passed people, but a bit more - I don't know -
personal to each living person than some random contact with information that the passed individual is trying to get through the veil. Like I said, it
takes some serious background material.
I also have to keep in mind that this information may be incomplete, misinterpreted by the sender, misinterpreted by me, or any combination of each or
all of these possibilities. And this is why I showed up here to try and get someone with deep experience and knowledge to rip the easier-to-share
aspects of it apart. I haven't been able to find anyone with a theory that comes anywhere near it, and it just seems too unlikely that I could be the
only one with this whole completed premise that isn't anything like anyone else's notion of what God is, what we actually are, and why God initiated
the progressive development of this contextual environment. Just doesn't make sense, unless I'm completely nuts and simply haven't gotten the heads up
on how nuts I am yet.
The toughest part of this, and why I can't just walk off on it, is that the empirical aspects of it - where it actually touches what we already know
to be true - are impossibly accurate and obviously supported to a degree that I'd feel like I was doing something wrong if I were to ignore it as
It even explains the entire Christ narrative, and actually elevates it to a level that's a lot more significant than if one takes the gospel story as
a literal historical account, and makes it more explainable than if viewed as a simple hero-Godman fairytale, which most Atheists do. In fact, it kind
of sends chills through you when you approach the entire Judeo-Christian bible through this lens, and compare the Old and New Testaments in the way
that this premise suggests.
And I've really had difficulty dealing with that aspect of it. I spent some years in the mid-late 70s as what we used to call a "Jesus freak" - which
is what a born-again Christian was before the GOP got their hands on them. Sort of a hippy Christian. I really struggled, and still do at an
emotional level, with the idea that Jesus (the human teacher) probably never actually existed, and serves as a much larger allegory figure that
represents a much more critical aspect of the relationship between the corporeal human being and the reason why that human being exists as it does. I
miss how I viewed Jesus, and kind of resent knowing what I know about that narrative.
I did write the book, and I did publish it. And I did it on my own because it was really important, to me, to have it done and available in a complete
form, frankly because (and this may sound overly dramatic, but I recently lost a very dear friend of mine and it happened out-of-the-blue) I didn't
want to be responsible for having dropped the ball if I got hit by a bus or something. It takes a long time to get a manuscript published, and I
couldn't take that chance with this thing. It seems complete and the loose ends are tied up, so I figured a way to present it, (it took reading books
and articles on how to write a non-fiction book) I laid it out with Word, shot a pdf of the whole thing, uploaded it to CreateSpace and published it.
I hope it gets the information across. The upside is that I learned how to physically do the whole thing, and was able to help a buddy of mine get his
own memoir self-published. The downside is that by self-publishing, I've probably wrecked my writing career for good. Most traditional publishers
won't touch you if you ever self-publish. Whatever. This had to get published, and I knew it'd be at least a year's worth of shopping the manuscript
before it ever got bought by anyone.
So far, I've given a half dozen copies to some people who have been published with responsible work in the field of metaphysics and have expressed an
interest in vetting this premise. I have yet to hear back from any of them, which either means that they're examining it, or that they think I'm
completely nuts. Like I said, this thing is, on the one hand, extremely recognizable, while on the other hand, it's absolutely counterintuitive as an
explanation of things that have traditionally been separated away from what we know to be mundane and naturally part of everyday physical existence.
It's how this premise brings the "transcendent" together with the mundane, and details how it is all the same, that makes it either wonderful or
disturbing, depending on the person who's being presented with it.
My post history has tons of references to what I've discovered - if anyone is interested in reading large aspects of it. The principle reason for our
own version of corporeal human existence is a bit too (I don't know) tough to simply blurt out, for me to feel comfortable stating on a message board.
Not terribly hard to state, but extremely hard to defend without the 100,000 plus words of logical background and pages of empirical evidence it takes
to allow the average reader to seriously consider it as a viable option. It's true that this part is what ends up being the buzz saw in the doorway
for most people. Even if I was to get drunk some night and decide to toss it out there, it'd end up on page 3 before the end of the week, having been
politely (and completely) ignored. It's just that unlikely, while being just that unremarkable. And yet, it's absolutely predictable once you've taken
the time to establish the nature of physical existence itself, and what drives everything to be what it ultimately becomes.
Anyway, thanks for the positive responses. If anyone has an idea of a evenhanded, disinterested group of Metaphysics professionals who would be highly
qualified to review this premise, and vet its logical infrastructure, I'd love to get some contact information for them. Either here or U2U. I could
see if they'd be willing to tear into it and show me where I screwed up, or not. Either way, it'd be better than me trying to debunk it by myself, and
I don't have friends that are into this sort of thing that can help me. They just look at me like I'm crazy if I start in with it.
11/29/2010 by NorEaster because: typing too fast