Posts by Nancy Wilson2

Ronald Nelson2 said:So, what defines Satan to you?

It is that specific condition where one is born entirely oblivious to their true origins within the higher spheres—born into a world saturated with individuals in much the same state. They are disconnected from the Source. From infancy, they are fed guilt and shame; they are indoctrinated with nonsense, essentially being conditioned to destroy the very life that is, on the highest scale, sovereign. One spends an entire lifetime in this particular state of consciousness, only to be cycled back here upon death because the necessary lessons were never truly mastered. Therefore, for me, Satan is simply the state of consciousness inhabited by any life force that has become severed from its own essence.

And it is thanks to that disconnection that we have everything you see surrounding you today.

Satan represents everything that people accept with open arms—both within themselves and in the world around them—only to die within that acceptance and be reborn, all because of things they were forced to embrace from birth. In my view, these patterns are quite obvious.

There was once a time when we were guided not by Satanic consciousness, but by the consciousness of the Creator. That is a state of being that almost none of us have ever actually experienced—love at its absolute highest level. Not the version of love we are taught from childhood, which is merely one of many manipulations and falsehoods introduced by the Lucifer Collective several millennia ago.

The primary manifestations of this Satanic consciousness are murder, suicide, hatred—everything you witness daily if you look closely enough, or even just read about it. Even the clothes you wear are products of that consciousness; the water you drink, the food you consume, the very thoughts you think... I suppose I needn't go any further.

Satan is truly the master of the human race.
A master who is worshipped through various religions and so-called "good" gods—deities who, curiously enough, possess all the hallmarks of Satanic consciousness: anger, hatred, killing, judgment, hierarchy, and so on. This serves as proof that these are all false, fabricated idols.

This is something we are all part of, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. You, as much as I, are part of Satan. The greatest resistance one can offer is to reject the ego and hatred, and instead cultivate a deeper understanding of oneself and others. Naturally, this also involves reducing our consumption of everything produced by that same system.

blueeagle22 said:You’re absolutely right about that. The scripture teaches us that truth isn't found out in the world, but deep within ourselves, because God lives inside us. That's why I hold the book in such high regard; the heart recognizes the truth immediately. It’s just like what the teachings say—once you read something, you feel that internal spark if it's real. Anyway, I'm heading out for a bit. I let my temper get the better of me, and I know I wasn't acting according to God's word, but damn it, I'm only human. I'm flesh and blood, not perfect. haha

👍

Goodnight.
I'm signing off as well.

Ronald Nelson2 said:You honestly have no clue what you're talking about. It's like you missed out on basic schooling entirely. Good grief. I'm sorry, but I really had to say it. ☕

nothing*—and you also forgot to put a space after your punctuation. Besides, try not to take everything so seriously. It was obviously a joke, for heaven's sake. (Honestly, one look at your signature tells me everything I need to know 😁). It isn't bad, per se. In fact, even Satan isn't quite what people imagine Him to be.

blueeagle22 said:Exactly. There’s a certain type of knowledge out there that simply doesn't originate from this world. Who knows? Maybe every religion just cherry-picked bits of it and twisted them to suit their own agendas. But you can't deny it—there is truth buried deep within those books.

I would personally swap out the term "supernatural" for something more precise—perhaps multiple or parallel spheres of existence. And yes, a significant amount of what we know did originate from there; even certain insights were never truly authored by humans. It is as clear as day that religions function through spiritual manipulation—there is no doubt about that. Naturally, they have cherry-picked fragments of "higher truth" and reorganized them however they saw fit, all to ensure they could mold people into an obedient flock. No single source is ever 100% accurate; lies and misinformation are ubiquitous. Think of the mind as a block of Swiss cheese—you consume all this information (the lies and the distortions), and they fill those holes, which eventually harden into dogmas. What happens when the actual truth arrives? Those very dogmas have programmed you to reject it. That is why the most vital task is to seek truth and knowledge within oneself. Memorized data has absolutely nothing to do with true knowledge—that is a profound delusion, and frankly, it baffles me that people haven't realized this yet. However, when you grant yourself moments of silence—when you engage in internal dialogue, reflect, and truly contemplate—that is when you begin digging for the knowledge residing in our core. When, through intuition, you suddenly experience a flood of insight, that is the result of seeking truth and knowledge internally. That is how the process works.

blueeagle22 said:Ever since I started reading the Quran, it’s been like an addiction I can't shake. It’s hit home because it validates everything I already believed. The text basically tells us that God wants us to study everything—that the universe is designed to be understood by the human mind. It warns against blind faith, urging us to think critically about everything so our belief actually comes from the heart. I've always stood for the truth, and there’s only one truth, so I’m right behind what you're saying. To me, God isn't some distant spirit floating in the clouds; He is everything. But honestly, reading this book is dangerous for people who aren't prepared. It'll wash your brain out if you aren't careful. That book is something else entirely.

I haven't personally studied the Quran, though even what you’ve written doesn't stray far from the mark. I certainly agree with the necessity of critical thinking regarding all matters.

I also concur that God is not a "person," nor a spirit, or whatever else one might imagine—we aren't talking about some character here.

If this "He" is indeed the creator of everything—of the entire universe—then we must be discussing a form of energy. I would argue that at the very beginning, there existed an infinite nothingness—what I call 😁
. However, if its emergence wasn't accidental, then we must be looking at consciousness or a universal Mind.
Perhaps this whole reality is merely the dream of an infinite consciousness? If memory serves, the Vedas suggest that "the universe is the dream of God."
It is fascinating how certain indications seem to support that notion.
edit: Or perhaps "He" is precisely that infinite consciousness—meaning, all of us collectively😁—while religions exist primarily to distance us from ourselves, portraying God as something "out there," far removed from our reach. They aim to suggest that "He" maintains control over our lives, rather than we holding that agency ourselves.

But ultimately, we can only speculate. "The realization of infinity belongs only to the gods; we mortals can only gather bits of wisdom."😁

blueeagle22 said:I’ve gone through some of those books, and there's definitely a grain of truth in them. But I’m never walking away from my faith in God—He is everything. I do agree, though, that we need to ditch organized religion. We should just be natural. We are part of nature, even if we happen to be its most destructive element. In the wild, nothing kills because it wants to; they kill because they have to. Humans are different; we kill just because we have the capacity. Anything that cages the mind needs to be thrown out. Everything has a logical explanation.

Why settle for belief when you can have certainty? To believe in something is, quite simply, to admit a lack of knowledge.

God is everything? Nature? You sound a bit like a pantheist to me—though, I suppose I would argue that a pantheistic view of God is the closest anyone gets to the truth. It isn't perfectly accurate, but it's as close as it gets.

And I think you're mistaken in equating us entirely with these biological machines we currently inhabit. Those machines are actually destroying us; they are part of material nature, yes, but they possess a slight handicap that isn't our fault. The concept of "US" is far more expansive than you might imagine. Furthermore, we aren't the ones at fault—it is the ego, which is distinct from our true selves. In fact, we aren't even inherently responsible for our actions; there is another force at play entirely.

blueeagle22 said:I understand that life itself is beyond comprehension; if I truly understood it, I'd be God. I take things as they come. I admit I'm struggling because all of this gets under my skin. Part of me wants to just slap the atheists, but then I realize that would only leave me feeling worse. At the end of the day, they're just people—suffering, unhappy, and in desperate need of some compassion and love.

Take a look at what modern science tells us regarding the physical manifestation of life as we experience it in this dimension. That is merely the first piece of the puzzle.

Then, delve into spirituality—into the concept of the soul and such. This represents the "non-physical" aspect of life within higher dimensions—a realm that material science hasn't fully grasped yet, though they are slowly inching toward a higher level of understanding. That is your second piece. Together, these two elements form a complete picture, illustrating just how mysterious and infinite life truly is.

For anyone to actually grasp the truth, they have to cast aside religious dogma and its polar opposite—the rigid stance that there is no God, that no dimensions beyond the material exist, and that the soul is a myth. The idea that everything is just matter and what we see is all there is... that's the mindset one must move past. And once you do, you still have to shed the ego—that complex identification of mind and body. It is quite similar to saying "I am a car"—or more accurately, "I am the steering wheel," while ignoring the fact that someone is actually driving. In reality, consciousness (the soul) is the driver, the mind is the steering wheel—the tool—and the body is simply the vehicle. Honestly, one major reason the world is such a mess is that people lack this awareness. But, slowly, that is beginning to change.

Live your life and let others live theirs. We are all "suffering" in our own way because we are all part of something we weren't meant to be—but that is becoming far too off-topic.

blueeagle22 said:Honestly, you people are so blinded by your own arrogance that even if God stood right in front of you, you wouldn't believe it. You need to shatter those egos that aren't built on anything solid and just embrace simplicity. Everything is actually quite straightforward, but you keep trying to overanalyze things that simply can't be understood—things that the greatest minds throughout history already figured out long ago.

We don't share your perspective, so we're supposedly "lost." It’s interesting, really—you lecture us about shedding our egos to embrace "simplicity," yet since you claim to have already embraced it, one would assume you dealt with your own ego ages ago. Hmm.

Furthermore, faith—or belief, if you prefer—is nothing more than a defensive mechanism employed by a fearful ego.

You argue that everything is simple, implying you understand it, but then you immediately follow up by stating that such things cannot be understood. I'm sorry, what?

And what exactly did these geniuses conclude?

Olivia Kern3 said:I have to admit, hardly anyone actually gets this... I've mentioned it here before, but if you really want to dig deep, don't just stop at the surface level of the Bible. You've got to dive much deeper into the mythology.

Unfortunately, most people simply lack the capacity for that kind of depth. At any rate, what I wrote is my honest take on the Bible. It’s a shame, really, that so many fail to realize how we are programmed from childhood to serve and bow down to Satan ("God").

It's all quite tragic, honestly.

Anthony Perez9 said:Wait, what? 60? I thought he only snatched 10—you know, Job's seven sons (whom the guy prayed for daily) and his three daughters (who he didn't give a damn about), all part of some high-stakes bet God made.

Where is this 60 from for the Devil's victims? 🤷

Besides, our dear God basically rigged it so Adam and Eve became mortal and started suffering on Earth. Honestly, God is the ultimate biblical monster. And it gets even darker in the parts written by the Greeks. It's not enough to just kill you there; you have to endure eternal torture. Man, those Greeks...

I honestly have no clue where that number 🤷 comes from.

Could it be that the Bible was simply fabricated to distance us from the true god—the "Satan"—only to place us under the control of the actual Satan, who kills whenever he's bored, judges us, imposes rules to strip away our freedom, and ultimately condemns us to a hell that he himself designed—since he created "everything"? ...? 😁 Judging by these colorful numbers, I'd say yes.
But I'm joking, of course; it's all just fiction.

Regarding the matter of divine casualties versus the concept of good and evil—and please forgive me if this feels slightly tangential to our main discussion—

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot....an-or-god.html

Who, strictly speaking, has caused more death: God or Satan?

When you actually sit down and tally the numbers found in the Bible, the data is quite striking. God is responsible for approximately 2,476,633 deaths—many of whom were entirely innocent—whereas Satan is credited with only 10. If we look at the broader cumulative estimates, we are talking about God being responsible for roughly 25 million deaths, compared to a mere 60 attributed to Satan.

By that metric, one has to ask: who is truly the force of good here, God or Satan? 🙂

Larry Young192 said:You wrote up there that the comment isn't yours. What do you mean it isn't yours?
Basically, I agree with the comment IN TOTAL. I would just add that Michael Newton himself thinks this way; he isn't making absolute claims, but rather sharing his thoughts and hypotheses, noting that he has only scratched the surface of something massive. In the end, he tells anyone who doubts him to just take what makes sense to them and discard the rest. He’s simply handed us the results of his work—his subjective conclusions and analyses. He isn't asking us to second-guess him, but rather to look at the experiences of his clients, of which there were many...

It isn't mine—not in the sense that I authored it myself. Rather, another user over on CNN wrote it; I simply took the liberty of copying their comment here into this thread.

For the most part, I find myself in complete agreement with that sentiment—truly, in its entirety—though I feel compelled to add one small point. It is worth noting that Michael Newton isn’t actually making definitive claims here—he is merely sharing his thoughts. He is offering hypotheses and suggesting certain possibilities, all while maintaining the humble stance that he has only scratched the surface of a much larger, more complex issue. In the end, he essentially tells anyone skeptical of his findings to simply take what resonates with them and discard the rest. Ultimately, what we have been presented with are nothing more than the results of his personal labor—his own subjective conclusions and individual analyses.Look, the point isn't that we need to sit here and second-guess his methods—that would be a waste of time. Rather, the focus should remain on the track record of his client base, which, by any reasonable measure, has been extensive.

👍

One comment found online regarding this matter—not my own, mind you.

"I suspect this critique misses the mark slightly.
The denial of possession or demonization—which bothered me at first as well—is actually quite understandable once you realize that Newton draws his conclusions strictly from the specific cases he handled. He didn't encounter cases of possession and he states that explicitly. It isn't even logical to expect someone experiencing possession to seek him out, given that such an entity wouldn't want itself exposed.
His flaw lies in projecting his personal experience as a universal rule for everyone, but if one looks through the lens of the soul, no possession could ever be intense enough to overwrite the soul itself. From that perspective, possession can be viewed as a sort of dream. That isn't necessarily an incorrect assessment.
Other criticisms suggesting he uses suggestion or programs his clients miss the point entirely. It is simply impossible to avoid some level of suggestion during these sessions, particularly if the client is already inclined toward it. Despite certain suggestions, the primary objective—obtaining objective, unbiased information—remains uncompromised. Newton certainly wasn't perfect, and it's unreasonable to expect zero errors; therefore, it is unjustified to frame those mistakes as an abuse of regression therapy. Besides, he was a pioneer in this field; he had no predecessors to model himself after, making the influence of the unknown an inevitable factor in his work.
I believe he made a wise choice by avoiding the depiction and explanation of negativity and possession, as doing so would have dragged him into the murky waters of moralizing and religious programming. He would have lost sight of the goal: presenting life's outcome as a positive thing, because it truly is. This underlying positivity permeates the entire work, and that is its greatest value.
...
One might fault him for drawing universal conclusions based solely on what he knows: that possession does not exist. But if you understand the mechanics, as it seems this critic does not, the soul can never be possessed. Only the body and the mind—which is derived from the body—can be. The soul acts merely as the user and the witness. If the body is possessed by an entity, it has no impact on the soul other than acting as a peripheral disturbance, much like any other distraction. Humans are 'possessed' by various things and beliefs throughout their lives; entities are the smallest and rarest of these issues.
Since Newton was receiving information directly from the souls themselves, it stands to reason that he wouldn't pay much attention to or emphasize problems like possession, which aren't even that common.
Furthermore, dwelling too heavily on the issue of possession diverts energy away from far more significant matters: the transcendental nature of the soul, its original freedom, and its unconditional state.
...
As far as I am aware, Newton was the first to present this material so directly, offering the information he gathered in a remarkably objective and impartial manner. It is frankly absurd to accuse him of fundamentalism or programming. Minor errors are always possible in this kind of work, and they undoubtedly exist—he himself noted his efforts to avoid leading the client—but such errors are certainly not significant enough to overshadow his entire body of work. Which, as I mentioned, concerns the very life of the soul."

Whoever wrote this, I think they've said all that needs to be said.

This text appears in a PDF version of the book *Soul Plan* available online;

"Beyond this appropriate conclusion, it might be even more fitting to suggest a mandatory reading
of the Tibetan Book of the Dead (*Bardo Thodol*) following this book. Even for those who have
already read it, it will be useful to be reminded that it clearly explains that everything a deceased person experiences is a projection of their own mind within a higher astral and mental realm. All the cases described in the books of Dr. Michael Newton are precisely such descriptions. This doesn't mean they aren't true—they certainly are—it just means they demonstrate the full depth and power of a subconscious mind shaped by life's impressions (samskaras). Consequently, souls describe environments and events tailored to them, modeled after earthly concepts (libraries, study rooms, recreation areas, the appearance and clothing of other beings, etc.)."Everything we have discussed here regarding near-death experiences is essentially a collection of projections—mental constructs formed by a buildup of subconscious impressions and their subsequent reactions (what one might call *vasanas* and *samskaras*). Through Hypnosis, these accumulated memories are unlocked. One cannot achieve anything beyond this via Hypnosis; it serves merely as a tool for scrutinizing the subconscious mind, which acts as a reservoir for everything we have carried since our existence as souls began. Consequently, while the information presented here is accurate, it remains inherently colored and conditioned by the mind’s unique mechanics and its activity within the astral and higher mental realms once the body is vacated.