Anita Speaks to Wayne Dyer on Hay House Radio

Anita doesn't start her interview until the second recording, so we should perhaps let folks know that in order to avoid the new age ramble.

Anita's experience was truly amazing, but I have a question for you personally Sis, do you feel pressured to use the word "God"? Do you use it to give some sense of understanding to people that do believe that there's a god?

I really feel that it's important for us not to align our experiences with these types of people:

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/john_of_god_healings_by_entities/

Geneticists are currently working with the p21 gene. It normally inhibits regeneration in order to curtail the growth of abnormal cells such as cancer. If it didn't exist then we could by reason regrow our limbs, and it may in fact be doing too good a job in regrowth and when it no longer is capable of doing its job, we at that point may experience spontaneous regeneration, and that may include the full body experiencing regeneration as the p21 is also being blamed for aging to an extent.

I think that at this point we should consider children and even infants and the biological connections of the human body that can generate such diseases?

http://genep21.com/

You'll probably be hit with questions like these, Sis. We can indeed help our bodies fight and recover, and we also can by choice deteriorate ourselves to the point of death, just that I'm not too sure if it can be linked fully to our minds?

But I do however see beliefs in a God as being a source of hypnosis or the power of suggestion that can benefit those that believe in such, but it can also generate guilt and destruction, even toward others.

Hi sis, if I use the term god, I always ensure that I am able to define what I mean when I use the term, because I certainly don't believe in a religious, external "being". I believe that the NDE is a state, which allows us access to who we are beyond our bodies, and I think that when people think they are experiencing god, they are actually experiencing that state.

It was in that state that I was connected to everyone and everything. I became everything.

Dostoevsky wrote an entire epic to get the point across "God" was not an entity or a person or a thing. God was the lingo in which he was best understood at the time.

I agree with that. To me, god is not a deity, it is just a word that can describe a state, which the English language has no perfect word to describe.

I agree with what you say, biker chic.

If there was a "like" button, I would have clicked it on your post, Don!

and what about the last lot of bologna courtesy of Mary B

Mary Baker wrote:The original sin,. I believe, is to not believe in God and his unconditional love for us. It is the basis of all wrong doing.

BC, over time, I've listened to many people on the forums, and read many (most)
of the published NDEs and I see people reference "this energy" that they met
and the great percentage simply wind up calling it God, simply because they
lack a more proper name (their words).

I've even referenced that our language is woefully inadequate to describe
many of the things that we experience during an NDE or even an STE.


I find that most resort to using symbols when referring to their experience
but far too many make the mistake of taking the symbol for what it represents.
Like those who call "the light" God, instead of realizing that it is simply
a part, and not even a major part.

Admin wrote:and what about the last lot of bologna courtesy of Mary B

Mary Baker wrote:The original sin,. I believe, is to not believe in God and his unconditional love for us. It is the basis of all wrong doing.

That's the problem when religion is the focus instead of the experience.
You get talk of original sin, the fall, the matrix, and on and on.

DonO wrote:BC, over time, I've listened to many people on the forums, and read many (most)
of the published NDEs and I see people reference "this energy" that they met
and the great percentage simply wind up calling it God, simply because they
lack a more proper name (their words).

I've even referenced that our language is woefully inadequate to describe
many of the things that we experience during an NDE or even an STE.


I find that most resort to using symbols when referring to their experience
but far too many make the mistake of taking the symbol for what it represents.
Like those who call "the light" God, instead of realizing that it is simply
a part, and not even a major part.

Exactly, Don. It's all symbolism, and even words are just symbols. We run into problems when people get really attached to both the words and the symbols they represent, and take them literally. That's when we get accusations like: any one whose experience doesn't have the "popular" symbols "didn't go deep enough" or "didn't have a transcendent" experience, and stuff like that.

Actually I think that was part of the Muslim faith, which is why they didn't want people to depict the prophet Mohammad, because they didn't want people idolizing a symbol and depriving the prophet of his meaning by everyone having their own version of him. And ironically even that has been misinterpreted by modern day Muslims, now anybody who even dare depict the prophet Mohammad will receive a death threat because it is a sin!!!

When I was invited to the United Arab Emirates (Dubai) to share my experience, there was press in attendance, and they were fascinated, and the journalists even asked me a lot of questions. But they didn't dare to print my story, because it didn't conform to their religion, and even though the journos believed me, they were afraid they would get fired, or worse, in trouble with the government, if they published my experience!

I find that incredibly sad, BC.

NDEs of whatever kind could bring hope and maybe answers to many that are searching,
especially those who don't find what they need in their religion(s).

DonO wrote:I find that incredibly sad, BC.

NDEs of whatever kind could bring hope and maybe answers to many that are searching,
especially those who don't find what they need in their religion(s).

Religion does a great job at repressing information and has done so for centuries.

Mary Baker wrote:
The original sin,. I believe, is to not believe in God and his unconditional love for us. It is the basis of all wrong doing.

I like Ricky Gervais answer: "Then why did god make me an atheist?"


A determiner is just that, the determiner. A determiner cannot give free will as then it's determined and isn't free at all.

I guess that I can understand trying to explain to people that believe in a god what their god may actually be. Just that when we use the term, some may mis-interpret our experiences and I certainly don't want that in regard to my own.

When I had lived in Dallas, Don, I had made quite a few Muslim friends and one of them told me to be "careful" because their fundamentalists would take my nde as a threat. That particular young man definately talked outside of his religious box and wanted to know everything about my experience. So, we should be able to reach them as individuals depending on their levels of fear toward their god.

I have no idea how they could follow a man that married a seven year old child when he was in his fifties,... yuck!

Admin wrote:Dostoevsky wrote an entire epic to get the point across "God" was not an entity or a person or a thing. God was the lingo in which he was best understood at the time.

The problem with using the term "God" is that it is a specific brand name that is used generically. Like Aspirin, Escalator, Kleenex, Thermos, Heroin, Yo-yo and Zipper, the term God has been so successfully marketed and advertised that it is seen as synonymous with the one true god of monotheism, when in fact, it is the proper name for the supreme deity of Christianity. It's a proper name, hence the capitalization. It is not to be confused with the other supreme deities of monotheism such as YHWH or Allah...neither of which is really the same deity as God, anymore than Jesus should be confused with Mohammed or Buddha with Moses.

Confusion arises because there is no specific term for the one true god of monotheism. Hence, the followers of each specific monotheistic religion use their particularly branded deity to refer to that supreme, monotheistic god.

The whole notion of a single, over-arching, supreme god is a concept that isn't part of non-monotheistic religions or cultures. In non-monotheistic cultures, they don't have a term for it because the notion simply doesn't exist. And, as I said, there isn't even a term for it within monotheistic cultures, either. So using the specific, name-brand "God" to refer to the idea of the Whole of Infinity or Oneness, simply perpetuates the successful branding of the term and helps promulgate it to the rest of the world...unless it is highly qualified or redefined...something Anita always does, as well as other thoughtful experiencers I have read on the various forums.

I personally prefer the term "oneness" when describing what NDErs experience because, as Anita pointed out, it is a state, not a thing. It is a state of oneness where everything is connected and everything is everything else.

My, Anita is a busy woman!! Similar content as before, but I will post it anyway. Nice to have a video for a change