True Christianity

This thread will consist of entries explaining true Christianity, what Christianity, really, is.

Glory be to God and to Jesus the holy one, the messiah.

Unfortunately, Christianity has been distorted in so many ways throughout the ages.
So many different denominations, so many misinterpretations, so much misunderstanding.
It was never supposed to be this way. God’s message is simple, yet profound: Love God with all your
heart, mind, and strength - and love your neighbor as yourself. What does it mean to love God?
First off, before answering that, we must understand who and what God is. So, what is God?
Contrary to modern depictions, God is not a human being, a male human being, who is sitting on
a throne in the clouds. Paintings of God, in this manner, are meant to be symbolic, not literal.
God, of course, is a literal being; he really does exist, but as previously mentioned, he is not a human being.
God is the ultimate, eternal reality - without beginning and without end. He is boundless, infinite.
He has not set form (visual), he can take on any form. His nature is benevolence, harmony, beauty, brilliant power, peace and love.
All things originate from him and all things flow to him. He is the source of all things.
Another common misconception is that God is a mere male or masculine being. God can appear as masculine or feminine energy,
or both combined. I will go into detail more about this at another time.
So, returning to the question “What does it mean to love God?”. To love God is to know God, to discover God, to commune with God
and to manifest his light to other people, who are lost, disconnected from the source of all things.
When you bring happiness to someone’s heart, that is the real action of life and the real action of worshipping.
When you make someone happy, you are worshipping God. To love God is NOT about harsh rules; God is NOT a tyrant.
God does NOT want people to fear him, nor is he trying to impose harsh rules and commands on us. It’s not about obedience,
behavior control, nor anything harsh like that, it’s about love and the love of God is something free-flowing, passionate, heart-felt and mystical. It’s not strenuous, it’s something that flows naturally and smoothly from our hearts.

(to be continued…)


The only consistency in peoples accounts of their gods (almost invariably they claim for their gods the entire world, all of existence) is that they are happy with their gods.

This is all I’ll take from another human about gods. That they’ve found them, that they’re now happy. Gods thus represent a supreme value: namely the unlocked capacity for total selfvaluing, meaning total acceptance of all around a center of love, the strength of which is the measure of ones will.

All Gods have their God-sphere, their Right Arm - their realm, which the kabbalah calls Chesed: Mercy. Its an inclusiveness that is also an exclusiveness.


To me God means the threshold of ones power, love, will, self-valuing.
Everything else in ones life pales or becomes innocent.

I prefer the Baptist over the Christ. It seems Jesus has been a bit of a primadonna, taking credit for the work of more humble men.

Hello Jakob, been awhile.

God, Yahweh, the great I AM, is the God of the whole world, we are all his children.
He is not just the God of the Jews; he loves all of us, and in many different cultures you
can find teachings that reflect his essence. But the ultimate manifestation of God is Jesus, the Christ.

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” - John 15:13

The most important aspect of God is love - he is love itself, the very essence and perfection of love.

Christ embodied this love with what he endured for us, for the whole world. He was a man with an other-worldy
empathy, compassion, and love for humanity. As he underwent the sacrifice, the scourging, the carrying of the cross, and
crucifixion, his heart was beating to a warrior’s rhythm. Jesus was and is the most epic warrior of all time.

He is the most well-known person in history, no other prophet, no other political figure can compare
with the Christ. There is a reason for this, it’s because he is the one, the holy one of God, who reunited us back with God, the source, and laid out a model of how one ought to live and treat the world. Yes, there have been other great moral teachers of the past, but none greater that Jesus.

And yes, people can feel happy with gods who don’t actually exist, that is possible. But there is a real God: Yahweh.

No, Christ was and is unique. He didn’t take credit for the work of other men. Some people, absurdly, claim that he was buddhist and things like this, but all that is simply untrue. Christ is the truth. And I plan on proving this more in future posts.

What can I say, I am a value philosopher, so what I value is valuing… and you’re doing that, but youve always done it, even when you were cursing me for remarking it.
Im going to go along with it for a moment, as I agree with your assessment of Jesus as warrior, and I like the warlike way you phrase it. Christianity can use some of this.

[tab]“I will tell you. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and myself have founded great empires. But our empires were founded on force. Jesus alone founded His empire on love, and to this day millions would die for Him. I think I understand something of human nature, and I tell you, all these were men, and I am a man. Jesus Christ was more than man.”

“I have inspired multitudes with a devotion so enthusiastic that they would have died for me. But to do this it was necessary that I should be visibly present with the electric influence of my looks, my words, my voice. Who cares for me now removed as I am from the active scenes of life, and from the presence of men? Who would now die for me?”

“Christ alone across the chasm of eighteen centuries makes a demand which is beyond all others difficult to satisfy. He asks more than a father can demand of his child, or a bride of her spouse, or a man of his brother. He asks for the human heart. He will have it entirely to Himself. He demands it unconditionally, and forthwith His demand is granted.”

“Wonderful! In defiance of time and space, the soul of man with all its powers and faculties becomes an annexation to the empire of Christ. This phenomenon is unaccountable; it is altogether beyond the scope of man’s creative powers.”

“Time, the great destroyer, is powerless to extinguish this sacred flame. This is what strikes me most. This is what proves to me quite convincingly that Jesus Christ is God.” - Napoleon[/tab]
In Kabbablah, YHWH (Jahweh) is the name of God as he emerges out of the first potentiating and makes a first move.
It would indeed have been this spirit of which the Christ was possessed.

Ive made a video on the kabbbalistic sphere that pertains to Jahweh. Note that this is only the beginning of unfolding all this.


Below the Christ, an empire was formed, this can be placed in Chesed: El.

Jesus of Nazareth

Understanding, truly, the person of Christ is of utmost importance.
Jesus embodied the spirit of love, which is the spirit of God. He was a man with intense empathy, compassion, and love.
He could see how people were suffering on the inside and the outside in ways that most people over-look. He was a man
who felt so much sadness for people who were spiritually lost. Christ understood that people have free-will and make decisions that bring sin upon themselves, but he was keenly aware of how people, deep down inside, truly want to be reunited with God. From
the very foundations of our being, we are crying out to be reunited with the source of all things, with God. Jesus had so much
love for us, that he said to God that he was willing to take upon himself the consequences of our sin, so that we would be made pure and holy, so that we could be happy and at peace, so that we could be reunited with God. This sort of profound, sacrificial love
is the way of God. It is heroic, it is powerful, it is beautiful, it is divine, it is Godly.
Christ’s sacrifice did not render him weak and defenseless. No, not at all; he chose to undergo the torment. If he wanted to,
he could have destroyed all of the roman soldiers, Jewish religious figures, and people who were against him, in an instant.
But it was never about physical combat; it was about spiritual combat. And Christ was triumphant.
Jesus was and is the most epic warrior of all time. As previously mentioned, his heart was beating to a warrior’s rhythm as he went through the scourging, carrying of the cross, and crucifixion. I imagine that angels were singing to him, singing along to the warrior’s rhythm in his heart.
People mistakingly think that kindness and love are forms of weakness. This, however, is so far from the truth. What ultimately fuels the hero is the intense love pounding in his heart. That is what makes him mighty and powerful. Love is powerful, the most powerful force in the universe.
Christ was driven by this love, he embodied it. As he was carrying his cross, his heart was like a war drum, pounding, thundering - He was focused, in the moment. Tears of love streamed down his eyes, as he would let out loud roars. He was Holy fire and brilliant power.

Jesus was the greatest warrior of all time, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.

The Gospel according to Erik.

why the hell not.
the others rather suck.

One thing Ill agree on is that they didnt contain enough heart to make sense out of the story they told.

Our Purpose

The age old question: “What is the meaning of life?”.

The meaning of life is to know God and to manifest his light to other people.
To truly do these things are infinitely profound, infinitely beautiful; God’s beauty never ends.
To know God, to commune with God, is a mystical experience. He is the source of all beauty.
Knowing God is NOT about attending a church building once every Sunday for an hour and a half
and then returning to a mundane 9-5 work life. Knowing God is something daily, something done from
within - it is deeply spiritual, internal, and something you live out every day. It is not some strenuous, burdensome
chore; to worship God is free-flowing and heart-felt. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is what saves us and makes us holy, but
if one, truly, believes in Jesus, then that person will, naturally, do many good and kind things for other people.
When we die and stand before God, He is going to ask us what we did for our fellow human beings. He will then show us our entire
lives in an instant. God wants us to live a life that radiates light. We can do this by being a friend to orphans, by buying food for the homeless, by visiting cancer patients, by being a friend to people who are lonely, by giving people true peace, which is the knowledge of God. When you are kind and loving to other people, you are truly worshipping God - that is the real form of worship. It is very beautiful to devote yourself to the cause of benevolence, peace, love, to the cause of God; this is what we are here for, this is the meaning of life. There is nothing more beautiful, nothing more profound, than the love of God. God is the most beautiful - His beauty is eternal and infinite; it never ends.

Really, Jakob? Then why have many become atheists and agnostics and pagans, if people are so consistently happy with their gods or God?

We are only happy with them when they continue to serve our expectations and every whim or until that time comes when we finally wake up and begin to question our beliefs and how they do not make sense.

Hi Erik,

Was Christ the first angelic being created by God or was that Lucifer?

I’ve never given my attention to Jesus for the simple fact that he spoke on behalf of God as a middleman, I go directly to my source, God. In light of the OT, how do you explain away some of God’s more human-like attributes and emotions that cast doubt against his nature of manifesting love only, such as the jealous god, the angry god, the vengeful god, etc.?

I’m open to three interpretations of Christ’s being:

1.) That he is the second person of the trinity - God The Son

2.) That he is The Angel of The LORD, who appeared many times in the Old Testament.
The Angel of the Lord is a unique angel, something above the archangels. This Angel of the LORD
is the one who actually appeared to Moses in the burning bush and whom God spoke through. Yahweh, God,
said that this angel bears his name, the I AM name. Jesus, in the gospel of John, said "Before Abraham existed, I am. “I AM is God’s name that he declared to Moses in the bush of flames, through the angel of the LORD. It seems like Christ could have been referring to this angel of the LORD, who bears the name of God, when he said " Before Abraham existed, I am.” So, this angel of the LORD is not, actually, God; he is an angel, but a very unique kind of angel, something above the archangels. And God literally speaks through this angel; The Angel of the LORD said to Moses “I am the God of your father - The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” The angel spoke as if he was God, but really, it was God speaking through the angel. The angel simply repeated what God was saying, but Moses only heard the angel speak. So, as previously mentioned, this angel is not God, but bears the name of God and is the word of God, the one who God speaks through.

3.) That he was a man, but the greatest man of all time.

Options two and three seem to make the most sense, in my opinion. In the Gospel of John, there are many parts where Jesus said that he came down from heaven, that he pre-existed in Heaven prior to his incarnation on Earth. But even in the Gospel of John, he never said “pray to me”. In every gospel, he points to God the Father as being the superior being, the one who people should pray to and worship. There are parts in John’s Gospel where Christ said that one ought to honor him just as they honor the Father and that he is one with the Father and other things of this nature. The closest thing to him saying something that declares Godhood is when he said " Before Abraham existed, I am.". But this seems to make more sense in the context of the Angel of the LORD, who spoke to Moses in the flaming Bush, who bears the name of God.

You shouldn’t skip over Jesus; he is the ultimate manifestation of God. Yes, we are to worship God, The Highest, but God wants us to pray in the name of Jesus. One should never forget this.

The problem with the Old Testament is that there are so many misnomers, wrong terminology, and misrepresentations of God.
I plan on writing more about this in a separate post in the future, but be assured that God is not angry, nor distant, nor harsh. The Jews of the Old Testament lived in a time when there were many tyrants. The rulers of that time expected their subjects to submit to them in fear and trembling. The rulers were NOT royal kings, but rather tyrants, who instilled fear in the people. Unfortunately, the Jews projected this sort of relationship unto God - that’s why there is so much mention in the Old Testament of fearing God and trembling before God. This is a serious error; God does NOT want us to fear him. It’s beautifully stated in the Starwars movies by Yoda: “Fear is the path to the dark side - fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering”. God does NOT want us to fear him, he wants us to LOVE him

God is NOT a tyrant - God is a loving father; God is love itself.

I will write about this more in a future post.

Erik wrote

I agree that God is love, but not only love.

Erik four months ago you wrote in Angelic

now you write in True Christianity

One will have to cancel out the other. Why?

True Christianity rejects the theory of evolution.

I am totally confused by what you write. What’s going on?

God is a fraud *laughs.
But really, in my view, both creationists and to a lesser extent even evolutionists (and I’m talking about evolution in both its biological and abiological manifestations) are grasping at straws.
There are holes in both accounts of how things came to be, and I think ultimate reality may very well be more mysterious and profound than any explanation man has yet to conjure, or indeed, is capable of conjuring, or even conceiving of, were it revealed to him by another.
Life is a mysterious enigmatic riddle, we can come to know, or at least have a pretty good idea about some things, and others will probably forever remain out of reach.
Fortunately we don’t have to know everything, in order to live decently, I don’t think.
The mysterious is exciting thou, wonder is what drives, beckons much of science and philosophy, stirs our imagination and hypotheses.
It’s the quest that makes us who we are, very much so.

Hi Erik,

Please try to leave some mystery as to who or what this God of yours is.

I admire your passion. You are always the Knight Percival seeking the holy grail.


But you are basing this on your belief that he, Christ, is the son of God.
You worship him and believe in him as the son of God as people have been told and believe.

Without that, could you say that he was the greatest man of all time considering how very many there were – legions of them… who sacrificed their lives for others and for the missions which they believed in?
I’m just playing devil’s advocate here.
But, as Jakob says, you are still valuing. You are still seeking that holy grail which is actually different for everyone.

[b]There is then little indeed in common between Love and such tepid passions as regard, affection, or kindliness; it is the uninitiate, who, to his damnation in a hell of cabbage soup and soap-suds, confuses them.

Love is clear-sighted with the lust of deadly rage, anatomizing its victim with keen energy, seeking where best to strike home mortally to the heart; it becomes blind only when its fury has completely overpowered it, and thrust it into the red maw of the furnace of self-immolation.[/b]



blood is the goodness of the heart?

“Love may best be defined as the passion of Hatred inflamed to the point of madness, when it takes refuge in Self-destruction.”


I will respond to people’s questions and posts in more detail in the near future. I am using a cellphone to make these current entries, so it is somewhat tedious to make long responses.

I will make an entry tomorrow, when I have more time.

God bless.

We can intuitively sense the existence of God through the beauty and grandeur of the universe. The heavens declare the glory of God. This spiritual intuition I like to call “The mystic’s eye”. It is the sense that the universe is not an accident, that there is a cosmic purpose for it, and that there is a divine force of unimaginable scope and power responsible for it. These spiritual intuitions occur during clear nights, when you can see the stars, or during great sunsets, and from seeing images of outer-space. From beautiful experiences of the world and the sky, one realizes that this whole existence is truly divine, that the divine is real, that God is real. … tantia.htm


IN a notice in the JOURNAL (vol. iii p. 291) of my inquiry into the meaning of Homoousios in the ‘Constantinopolitan’ Creed (Texts and Studies vii i), Dr. Strong took exception to what I had written in regard to Tertullian’s usage of the words substantia, natura, and persona, and to my acceptance of the tradition that ὁμοούσιος was condemned at the Council of Antioch in 269.

As I am repeating the same statements in a Short history of the development of Christian Doctrine to the Council of Chalcedon, which is now in the press, it seems desirable to ask for a little space in the JOURNAL in which to consider the passages to which Dr. Strong refers; lest I should seem to ignore the criticism of one who has made a special study of the matter. My short history is intended as an introduction to the subject for students beginning their work, and therefore does not afford a suitable opportunity for such a discussion.

That Tertullian’s use of the words is ‘philosophical’ as well as ‘juristic’ I do not think any one would be inclined to deny. I stated clearly my own opinion that it was. Perhaps I should have said that he passed from the philosophical to the juristic, rather than from the juristic to the philosophical, sense of the terms. But I think Tertullian was a jurist first, and a philosopher second : so I do not conceive that I wronged him much, or really misrepresented the dominant bias of his thought.

With regard to the two passages to which appeal is made by Dr. Strong, |p441 I think that his criticism misses the true force of Tertullian’s argument, and that, if they are taken as a test, it will be found that Tertullian’s usage is clear and consistent, as I stated it.

(1) In the passage de Anima 9, he is definitely distinguishing 'substances ’ from their characteristics or attributes. He has argued that the soul must be corpus. Every corpus has, as one of its properties, ‘colour.’ The ‘colour’ of the soul must be aerial and bright (aerius and luridus). But this does not mean that the ‘substance’ of the soul is ‘air’ or ‘light.’ And he takes two examples of precious stones–the ‘ceraunia’ and the beryl–to illustrate the point. No one would say that the substantia of the ‘ceraunia’ is fire (substantia ignita), just because it gleams with a reddish glow of colour : nor that the materia of beryls is water (aquosa materia), because there are waves of pure lustre in them (quod fluctuent colato nitore). For there are any number of things that are associated together in colour, and dissociated from one another in natura (Quanta enim et alia color sociat, natura dissociat?).

The resemblance of these last words to the expression in ch. 32 ’ duritia communicat, substantia discordat’ is merely superficial, and the apparent interchange of natura and substantia is illusory. It is not the case that in ch. 9 natura is used as substantia is used in ch. 32. There is no dispute as to the meaning of substantia in either place. And the context shows that natura here is used in the same general sense as in ch. 32, though here it is found in its widest and most inclusive usage-- of the sum total of the attributes or properties of a thing, and is contrasted with a particular attribute or property which is comprised in it.

The soul is a substantia with certain properties, some of which it shares with other substantiae. One of its properties is to be ‘aerial,’ but its substance is not air. And then comes the illustration. There is fire, and water, and precious stone. Each is itself a substantia; each has its own natura. Viewed absolutely in its fullness, the natura of each of the three distinguishes it from the others. But one precious stone has some of the characteristics of fire, and another precious stone has some of the characteristics of water. Substances, so far as they share in the same characteristics, are associated together by this similarity of nature, relatively, so far as it goes; but at the same time the difference of nature, absolutely, as a whole, dissociates them. They are alike in one attribute, but in the sum total of attributes they are not alike.

The argument is only intelligible if the distinction between substantia and natura is kept clear, and if the contrast between the relative likeness and the absolute unlikeness of the things which are compared is recognized.

(2) In the passage adv. Praxean ch. 7, the confusion between substantia and persona, of which Dr. Strong speaks, is not Tertullian’s. |p442 Tertullian is quite clear. He is discussing the Scriptural and theological use of the term sermo, and is only concerned to maintain that it is no mere appellation or personification that is meant by it; it is nothing airy and meaningless and unsubstantial; but, on the contrary, it is a real existence, a substantia. ‘This substantia of the Word,’ he says, ‘whatever it is, I say is a person (persona), and I claim for him the name of Son.’ That is to say, the Word, to which reference is made in Scripture, is a real existence : one and the same with the person of Jesus Christ the Son of God. If there were no substantia, there could be no persona. The use of terms is strict, and in keeping with Tertullian’s use elsewhere.

With regard to the other question which Dr. Strong raises, my argument does not depend on the accuracy of the tradition that the word ὁμοούσιος was condemned at Antioch. (All that I am concerned to maintain is that it was generally distrusted in the East, while its Latin equivalent was as generally approved and used in the West. That this was so does not require argument.) But the matter is of antiquarian interest, at all events. What Dr. Strong says about the evidence is of course true. The statement that the Council of Antioch recommended that the word be withdrawn from use comes to us from Arian sources. It would not be likely to come from Nicenes. But the Nicenes accepted the Arian statement, and only argued that it did not matter. The term was rejected by the former Council in one sense, and used by the later Council and themselves in another sense. Now these references do not amount to positive proof that the term was considered at the Council of Antioch and–for whatever reason–condemned. But, if it were not so, how could the belief that it was so ever have originated ? Not even Arian ingenuity and daring would have been capable of such an invention, in the absence of justification for it; and there is prima fade probability that Paul of Samosata did use the term in a sense inconsistent with the Catholic interpretation of the Person of Christ. Against this evidence there can only be set the fact that the extant Acts of the Council contain no reference to the matter. It is easy to see why the reference should have been omitted.

Finally, though the purpose of this note is fulfilled, I may perhaps be allowed to say that I much regret the slip of the pen which led me to cite a passage from the de Mundo as one from the Metaphysics of Aristotle. But so far as concerns my statement of the history of ὑπόστασις, if Aristotle did not use the term as I said he did, so much the better for my argument. The fact that the exposure by Dr. Strong of what he styles ‘a somewhat serious inaccuracy’ strengthens my argument is to me at least a satisfaction. [/paste]

Adversus Praxean

The Stoic Concept of the City (discusses God = Love) … f-the-City

Numenius of Apamea

Bishop Nemesius wrote a theory on evolution in 6th century

Obviously Christ was not the first angle created, as Christ was born during the Roman Empire. Creation linearly involves Ex Nihilo linearity, of mundane matter that can be doubted and empirically verified, Christ’s body was created. Angels are not created nor do they coexist with nature. Fundamental misunderstandings in this thread about the nature of Jewish, Greek, and Roman philosophical and theological terminology. Can’t be rectified in a single thread, as this would require a few years studying Greek, Hebrew, and Latin philosophical concepts as well as First and Second Order Logic, and most people here on this site post as if they have been educated at a ignorant nazi rally. Obviously the blame must be laid on the feet of the site administrator for creating a second Stormfront website. If people are interested in the questions posed, those links will send you to a solution, in every author, but you have to back it up with actual reading and actually trying to learn something about philosophy. I don’t intend to post again on this site, I hope this helps. Tried to PM Erik this, but the site forbids PMing unless I post a bunch of Social Nationalist garbage apparently. Sad what philosophy sites have come to, very very sad.

The Seriphot obviously are inherent in everyone, it was a Alexandrian school of philosophy that mixed the ideals of the cult of the muses from Greece with that of the Egyptian Thrice Great Hermes, and further inducted both Pagan and Christian Neo-Platonic concepts, until it reached it’s final form in 11th Century Spain. It presumes God would have every element of it’s consciousness (seriphot are supposed to be literal nodes of consciousness). God in the Old Testament testified he was conscious just like us, but no individual is conscious in exactly the same way. Seriphot merely tries to map out the variation. You can’t by default map out branches of a trinity as a trinity doesn’t branch observed qualities of god into types, see my very first link. It is a description of a basic typology of God, that predates Christianity and Plato, but has obviously been much informed by platonic leaning theologians ever sense. Even Numenius of Apamea admitted this, and he was a great Pagan philosopher who wrote on Pagan trinities. A Trinitarian system does not break down into a Kabbalistic system, and Kabbalistic systems are archaic psychology at best, using very antiquated presumptions that aren’t based on anatomical or behavioralist verification. Christians also were early pioneers of evolutionary theory, we also discovered DNA, walked on the moon (only Christians have so far) and developed the idea of black holes in the 20th century. We are hardly incompatible with intellectual pursuits. After all, we defeated the Nazi Empire and broke the back of Marxism. We must know something to of done all that. I’m not opposed to the exploration of Jewish mysticism, but also encourage people to be aware of the limitations of aspects of it as well.

First and last post. Really sad to see a philosophy site so rotten and single minded oh devoted to hatred and ignorance like this one is. Clearly is a sick administrator and some bad moderators. All my years and I’ve never seen a site so far gone down the drain. I hope the best for you Erik.

Is that you, Ferguson? Thank you for the excerpt.

I hope you decide to return to the site. God bless and Jesus be with you.

One of forms of evidence for the existence of God, that I like pointing people to, is the overwhelming number of near death experience accounts. They are very consistent with each other and very beautiful and profound. Skeptics will claim that it is just hallucinations from a dying brain, but if that were the case, one would expect random hallucinations that don"t really make any sense. It is illogical to think that a brain, which is dying, becoming weaker and not at full capacity, could produce profound, intricate and vivid life changing experiences of being in the presence of a being of infinite beauty and love. Also, many of the people report observing their dead bodies, as a point of awareness in the room. They report being outside of their body and witnessing what occurs in the ER room, seeing that they flatlined and passed away.

The accounts are very consistent with each other. They report encountering a being of profound, infinite love, who radiates brilliant light and power. They report seeing angels. They report going through a life review, where everything they ever did was shown to them. And many of them report meeting Jesus, being embraced by him.

People describe their experiences as being extremely vivid and life-changing. They are not mere dreams - people recognize dreams for what they are, already being familiar with them. But, no, these near death experiences are different; they penetrate to the very core of the person’s soul and completely change their lives. This is because they are real, because God is real.

I recommend that you guys watch some NDE testimonies on youtube. They are very beautiful.

Jesus bless you all.


I wish you’d visit us more. O:)

Why not astral project to Heaven yourself? Why be stuck with someone else’s NDE word for it?

On my astral travels, I have visited Peace, I have visited Hopelessness, I have visited the etheric realm but not long enough to really investigate any of them as I would have liked to.

Souls appeared ghostlike in the realm of Hopelessness. Didn’t see any souls in the Peace realm and I wasn’t able to stay long in the etheric realm, however it looks like the Earth realm while your soul is out of your animal body.

Don’t stay away for so long, Mister!