Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ Paraliminals, Paraliminal Resets, Paraliminal Walkabouts, Natural Brilliance, Sonic Access a revelation

IMHO, it's a shame that some institutions and individuals are trying to downplay, negate or elliminate the impact that Jesus Christ has had on humanity throughout time as He has had more positive impact on humanity than any other individual in the history of mankind. This country (USA) was founded on the principles He espoused during His lifetime. The founding fathers stated as much through the federalist papers and other publications of the time.

I agree with you Brian, that a greeeaaat song that the Byrds did. There was another really good song that was popular around that time that I believe was called "Morning Has Broken" that was also based on some versus in the bible. I'm sure you have heard it and would recognize it if it was played for you .

With my humble regards,
Gregory

Yes. It's about time other cultures began being accepted, other than the christian one.

<<
IMHO, it's a shame that some institutions and individuals are trying to downplay, negate or elliminate the impact that Jesus Christ has had on humanity throughout time as He has had more positive impact on humanity than any other individual in the history of mankind.>>

Jesus himself was an ok bloke I suppose. However, Modern "Christianity" (Pauline) has caused more suffering, genocide, and murder than Communism and all the "terorrist" grouos combined.

<<This country (USA) was founded on the principles He espoused during His lifetime. The founding fathers stated as much through the federalist papers and other publications of the time.>>

Actually America was largeley founded by Freemason Deists, and a scattering of christians, and financed by a Jew.

I have no problems with moderate/liberal chistianity. My problems lie withing fundmentalism (yes, that includes my own Judaism) of any religion. And the Puritans were very fundie. As an Aussis friend says, "thank god we got the convicts and they got the puritans"

In the places that I saw the change to CE (common era) and BCE (before common era) only the labels were changed and the referance to the years stayed the same. The only puropse that I see in this change is to decrease or elliminate the referance to Jesus Christ. This referance has been used for centuries and I just don't see the need to change simply because a few people have decided that they don't like the referance point.

I think one should be very clear on the definitions of tolerance and acceptance. Acceptance is agreeing with and supporting something (religion in this case) while tolerance is allowing something to exist unmolested, independantly of how you may feel about it. Personally, I tolerate all of the other religions that I don't practice (no matter how silly or wrong I personally think they are) and I accept the teachings of the religion that I do actively participate in.

Other religions and cultures are more readily tolerated in the USA than most other countries due to the freedoms granted to the citizens of this country by the Founding Fathers in the documents that established this country. One of the freedoms is the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion. Unfortunately the meaning of the statement Fredom Of Religion has been so twisted by some individuals and courts that it has lead to an intolerance of Christianity in public places. This has then lead to students in public schools having Bibles and christian prayer books conficscated by school officials.

As far as "Modern Christianity" as espoused by Pauline is concerned, I am unfamiliar with him and as such can't respond to his acusations. I do suggest, however, that his figures MAY be incorrect. You might want to check his figures and definitions before parroting his charge that "Modern Christianity (Pauline) has caused more suffering, genocide, and murder than Communism and all the "terorrist" grouos combined." After all, the last I heard, communism throughout the world has, conservatively, lead to the deaths of over 41 million people in the 20th century. That doesn't include all of the people who were enslaved, imprisoned, and tortured in those countries by and for those communist governments. Perhaps one should investigate how communist governments treated their people before asserting that "Modern Christianity" was worse. Being fair, I must remind you that I don't know what is meant by "Modern Christianity" and with that qualifier your statements may be true.

"Actually America was largeley founded by Freemason Deists, and a scattering of christians, and financed by a Jew." This may be true, but as I stated in my last post, the principles that were used were Christian in nature. I never alluded to the religious practices of the Founding Fathers.

The only problem I have with other religions is when those followers insist by threat or force that I must follow their practices. As far as I am aware, INDIVIDUALS in every religion have at one time or another tried to force others to follow them. I don't know of any religion based on God or the teachings of Jesus Christ as outlined in the Bible, that actually condones or teaches doing harm to others.

Sincerely,
Gregory

This is a great question! I say we put it to a vote so that the entire sea of humanity can participate. All 6 Billion of them. My vote goes to the Atomic Bomb or the First Man in Space. The unleashing of the power of the atom in ’45 was the dawn of an era in which we, for the first time in the history of man, had the power to destroy ourselves and the world. The second represents the infancy of the ‘next big thing’ –interstellar migration, which we won’t see for some centuries yet. Leaving earth is leaving the cradle! It’s going to happen sooner or later. (later) Again, that was the beginning. The latter seems kind of flimsy now… but in a 1000 years?
Perhaps when the first colony pod leaves earth to strike out across the stars (spreading the virus of humanity), we should reset the odometer? We’d be starting over after all.

In the places that I saw the change to CE (common era) and BCE (before common era) only the labels were changed and the referance to the years stayed the same.

Personally, I don’t see what’s so ‘common’ about the ‘common era’. 1AD seems just as remote as 400AD or 1000AD or 1400AD. You’re right, I think they’re were just trying to take the Christ reference out in as painless a way as possible.

Personally, I tolerate all of the other religions that I don't practice (no matter how silly or wrong I personally think they are) and I accept the teachings of the religion that I do actively participate in.

From my pragmatic perspective, as long as you ...
a.) You know what you want from your beliefs.
b.) What you want is salutary for both yourself and others.
c.) Your beliefs provide you with what you want.
... then more power to you! I absolutely live by this. If someone is a devout anything, and his devoutness is serving him and the community he touches, then it is a right and good thing. If they’re getting good results, don’t knock it! Pragmatism in all things.

[This message has been edited by Pratibha (edited April 12, 2001).]

I have found, as another mentioned, that NLP knowledge actually interferes with listening to the paraliminal tapes, because I am too aware of the techniques Paul is using. So I have to de-focus and "play dumb" in order to listen to them uncritically.

Another point is that "mastering" NLP in order to apply it to oneself does NOT work for everyone. I have studied some of the (supposedly) most powerful and rapid NLP change techniques, and have so far had ZERO success applying them to myself. It is as though the whole idea of changing MYSELF sets off some sort of short-circuit, and some part of me ensures that it CANNOT work.

That is why I bought paraliminal tapes in the first place--to get more of the experience of "someone else" facilitating the change process. Guess what--those don't work for me either, if I approach the process with the attitude of "fixing," "reprogramming" or otherwise manipulating or coercing myself to change.

I have long suspected that this attitude/approach was my problem (please read my posts asking for "help w/resistant subconscious") but I only recently had a real breakthrough in this area.

Some element of inner integrity is violated when the approach is that of "correcting" a "faulty" inner self--and that inner element pushes BACK against such arrogant and ignorant attempts at coercion.

I would welcome pertinent comments on this. For those who CAN use conventional motivational strategies (such as goal-setting and other techniques), my opinion is that almost anything will work. For those of us who have a significant degree of psychological reversal (one way of expressing the phenomenon of motivational paradox which occurs in--I believe--a significant percentage of the population), almost NO conventional approach will work--at least until the underlying motivational difficulty is recognized and addressed. [And no--NLP techniques aimed at "reprogramming" my motivational strategy did not work either.]

My hope is that, rather than overlooking those of us who do not respond in a typical fashion, some of the leaders in change technology will make the effort to discover why this is the case--and perhaps come up with new strategies to address this.