I feel no burning need to prove anything to anyone - I suspect much of such desire for proof is due to inner doubt anyway, but I also have a view which is based on an acceptance of survival after physical death, and reincarnation. That means that people don't HAVE to desperately attain perfection in one lifetime, or necessarily even get all their lessons completed successfully in one go: we have all eternity before us.
Of course, neo-Christians would probably say they have all eternity in hell or heaven, but I still consider that they should allow others their choices and their free will - which they attribute to being a gift from Deity, after all.
In fact, Christianity is the only path I've ever been on (and that was only because of my parents expectations when I was a child) that had any expectation of converting others - Wicca and paganism generally don't ... Buddhism doesn't in the way neo-Christian fundamentalists do ... No, I think leave people to their free will choice.
Of course, if someone genuinely wants to discuss something, that is fine. But I have a few tests and conditions on this.
Firstly, discussing and - if it is appropriate - challenging, is OK: attacking is not. I recall many years ago someone I knew asked if she could discuss my faith with me and then said "right - well, prove it!" That is not discussing a matter - that is attacking.
Secondly, I expect people not to get emotional: if they become angry, or upset, they are clearly not ready to have a discussion, and - once again - I will not allow a situation of psychic attack, as is usually the case in such circumstances.
Now, if people are sceptical, there is probably a good reason for that - for instance, they may have been too gullible in past life and are trying to compensate now (and over-compensating, but that is a trap we all can fall into), or they may have incarnated for the noble (I mean that genuinely, not sarcastically - I've seen too many people played for being a sucker) purpose of trying to get others to be less gullible (note that this point does NOT necessarily imply that they have themselves been too gullible: as indicated, it may be a task they have taken on themselves), or they may have been charlatans in a past life and have to balance things out karmically.
So, I don't try to prove psychism or anything else. People's concept of what is adequate "proof" vary, and I simply cannot be bothered these days. What I DO do, however, is make sure I don't create situations where I am putting myself in a corner. I qualify statements, I never gush, and I think about what is happening in situations and with regard to people's motivations - I'm wary.
There are too many important things in life to get hooked up in a battle with sceptics (or "Skeptics"). Leave 'em be - they have the right to be what and who they choose to be, just as we do. If they're influencing someone unduly, you can present a counterview, but do dispassionately and FULLY, GENUINELY AND ABSOLUTELY prepared to have the person you are talking to choose to disbelieve you. That is their free will choice, just as it is your free will choice to have the beliefs (well, knowledge :) ) that you do. We all have to get along with each other in this world, and fighting over proof of psychism is just contributing to the energy of conflict that afflicts this planet. Let it go.
Love, light, hugs and blessings
Gnwmythr
(pronounced "new-MYTH-ear")
Tags: attitudes, Psychic attack, scepticism, gullibility, emotions,
First published: Tysdagr, 22nd November, 2011
Last edited: Tuesday, 22nd November, 2011
