James Randi crosses over

Here is an excerpt from Ziewe’s book ‘Vistas of Infinity’ in which he describes the situation of the suicide bomber I mentioned in post #18 of this thread. 

“With the next powerful thunderbolt I began to regret my decision of having come here, but curiosity made me urge myself further into the region until I finally discovered that the evil billowing smoke came from piles of slowly burning human bodies who were wriggling in agony. In the very first pile I encountered, these twisting, charred and convulsing bodies were stretching their hands and clamouring towards a person who was trapped right in the centre of the pile, who himself reached towards the bleak sky, desperately praying for help. The person was surrounded by the very real thought forms of his victims and the representation of their pain. However hard he pleaded, his voice never reached past the heavy curtain of smoke that shielded and surrounded him like an impregnable bastion. I quickly noticed that this impenetrable layer was made of regret and the realisation that the fate of his victims and their suffering could never ever be reversed or erased. It was a wall of absolute impossibility built from his victims’ pain and unbearable suffering and the overbearing realisation that this was a deed that could never be undone.”

Is this a self imposed state? 

I don't know Stan. Is this report an experience that Ziewe had ? Presumably it can't be from the suicide bomber.

Any links?

This is where I found out about Peter Popoff and it also shows Uri Geller having a sneaky peak at the hosts drawing that he is supposed to be psychically reproducing.

The only explanation that actually fits the data and works, is the only one that they will not even consider.

For me, Faith is probably the word that fits best.
We have seen that ‘data and evidence’ often don’t mean that much, so what’s really left? 

In any case. I have faith! 

For me, Faith is probably the word that fits best.
We have seen that ‘data and evidence’ often don’t mean that much, so what’s really left? 

In any case. I have faith! 

That's fine, Stan ! I think many scientists have such an instinct (faith) that there's something else. In order to move the debate along scientifically though, we need irrefutable evidence because that's all that the bastards will accept...sh*t, sorry, didn't mean to say that (just kidding).

For me, Faith is probably the word that fits best.
We have seen that ‘data and evidence’ often don’t mean that much, so what’s really left? 

In any case. I have faith! 

In my view, "faith" is a misnomer for volition. What we "believe" in is something, it means we will it to be true.

And, if the individual will is exceptionally strong - or if there is a persistent convergence of a lot of weaker individual wills - what is willed to be true, may actually become true.

BTW, I think it is a very persistent convergence of countless individual wills of conscious beings is what creates physical realm and maintains its apparent stability and regularity... except the cases when some unusually stong individual or communal wills disrupt this appearance of stability, and thus paranormal phenomena are manifested.

I don't know Stan. Is this report an experience that Ziewe had ? Presumably it can't be from the suicide bomber.

I very much distrust the projections of the current state of moralism among some - but not all - human groupings in the physical realm on the extraphysical planes of existence.

And I would like to ask Ziewe some questions. For example:

- would a prison ward feel the inmates' (some of them being thrown in prison for victimless crimes like pot-smoking) suffering after death? would a judge who put them behind bars feel it? or a cop who caught them with brutal force? or a government official who maintains the whole system?

- would a bomber pilot serving in some state's army and bombing people to death (including some unlucky civilians who just haapened to be nearby) at his commander's behest feel their pain? would his commander who gave him orders to kill will? or the rulers of the state who organised the war in the first place? or the state propagandists singing praise to the war?

- would a psychiatrist tormenting his patients and breaking their personhood with forced drugging and electroshock feel their pain? or the one from the older times who erased their personhood completely via lobotomy and other similar forms of psychosurgery?

- at last: would an armed rebel fighting against the first three cathegories or suffering-inflictors with arms in hand - and, as any participant of any armed stuggle, occasionally unwillingly inflicting suffering and death on the unlucky bystanders himself - feel the pain of all whom he had hurt?

P.S. And, BTW: most people who lived through the course of mankind's history lived in societies in which violence, cruelty and brutality of all kinds were deemed much more morally acceptable than in the modern Western(ised) ones; in many societies, they were actually prescribed and deemed necessary, even laudable. Would the innumerable people who performed violent acts that were acceptable, or even mandatory, according to their own tribal moralisms, feel the pain of the ones harmed and hurt by them?

In this case, most souls of deceased humans must be in effectively hellish state after death...

I am a member of another forum completely divorced from anything we discuss here (it is a computer oriented discussion). Someone posted an RIP message claiming that Randi was a hero for the rationalists. I disagreed, pointing out that, far from being a hero, he was at least as much of a charlatan as those he debunked, making lots of money from those "rationalists" as he honed his various enterprises. 

Of course, my response was immediately removed by the moderators. Computer geeks are notoriously aggressive atheists.

As for what we experience after death, from what I have read it does seem to be conditional upon the attitudes, beliefs and spiritual awareness that we carry over with us. So it does not follow that someone who was a jailbird or "sinner" in this life will automatically find him/herself in some dire and dismal environment. Nor does it mean that the pious and Godfearing will have their ticket to heavenly bliss stamped either. Generally, consistently selfish motives and intent to do harm to others seem to be the common denominators for those who find themselves in such ghastly circumstances.

I found an old book online which describes the experience in detail, for anyone interested. It is written in Victorian English but is pretty easy to follow if not very comfortable to read.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/wsl/index.htm

Will Storr's 'The Heretics'

Robert McLuhan

When we come to Randi, it's clear that Storr is sceptical about his status as 'truth's war dog', and that it's he, not scientists like Sheldrake, who are in the dock. Like the other extremists, Randi seems completely unaware of glaring inconsistencies in his position: one the one hand he abuses psi believers in the most offensive terms imaginable, yet he wants to be taken seriously as an investigator and rejects the term 'debunker'.

Storr also exposes the way that Randi ducks and dives to get out of actually having to test people for the Million Dollar Challenge. One case he describes in some detail is that of the Greek homeopath George Vithoulkas, who seems to have been deadly earnest about applying for the Challenge, and spent a lot of time and money arranging for a suitable hospital clinic to arrange the trial. To Vithoulkas's consternation he was blocked at the last minute by Randi, who went back on the arrangement he had previously agreed to, and demanded that Vithoulkas go back and start the whole process again. By this time Vithoulkas had had enough and threw in the towel. (One of Randi's team told Storr that this showed clearly that Vithoulkas was 'trying to find an excuse and quit the test'.)

Storr also manages to confirm the unreliability of notorious claims made by Randi with regard to Uri Geller, and also to Professor Gary Schwartz's investigation of mediums, when he pretended that psi researcher Stanley Krippner had agreed to be involved in judging Schwartz's data for the Challenge. Krippner told Storr he had not agreed to anything such thing.

The interview itself is a rather sad affair, but if you're interested in Randi it's probably worth the price of the book. This is a man at the end of his life, still sharp and malicious, but surprisingly frank about a troubled upbringing (although Storr does not comment explicitly, there's a Walter Mitty sheen about claims of extraordinary brilliance Randi is supposed to have displayed as a child.) Storr is mainly interested in his debunking career: he confronts him about various contradictions and makes him defend his various lies, overstatements and exaggerations, including the notorious claim, which he admitted to Sheldrake was untrue, that he had tested the 'psychic dogs' claims and 'they fail'.

I very much distrust the projections of the current state of moralism among some - but not all - human groupings in the physical realm on the extraphysical planes of existence.

And I would like to ask Ziewe some questions. For example:

- would a prison ward feel the inmates' (some of them being thrown in prison for victimless crimes like pot-smoking) suffering after death? would a judge who put them behind bars feel it? or a cop who caught them with brutal force? or a government official who maintains the whole system?

- would a bomber pilot serving in some state's army and bombing people to death (including some unlucky civilians who just haapened to be nearby) at his commander's behest feel their pain? would his commander who gave him orders to kill will? or the rulers of the state who organised the war in the first place? or the state propagandists singing praise to the war?

- would a psychiatrist tormenting his patients and breaking their personhood with forced drugging and electroshock feel their pain? or the one from the older times who erased their personhood completely via lobotomy and other similar forms of psychosurgery?

- at last: would an armed rebel fighting against the first three cathegories or suffering-inflictors with arms in hand - and, as any participant of any armed stuggle, occasionally unwillingly inflicting suffering and death on the unlucky bystanders himself - feel the pain of all whom he had hurt?

P.S. And, BTW: most people who lived through the course of mankind's history lived in societies in which violence, cruelty and brutality of all kinds were deemed much more morally acceptable than in the modern Western(ised) ones; in many societies, they were actually prescribed and deemed necessary, even laudable. Would the innumerable people who performed violent acts that were acceptable, or even mandatory, according to their own tribal moralisms, feel the pain of the ones harmed and hurt by them?

In this case, most souls of deceased humans must be in effectively hellish state after death...

You've raised some interesting points there, Vortex. I don't think we can understand how it all works from this side personally but others will think differently.