In reply to my "Lilac Cologne" post, Roger asked, among other things, that I  address the subject of the hidden agendas of channeling.  I will reserve my answers to his OBE questions for another post and merely address the channeling issue here.

Channeling is a diverse and contradictory phenomenon.  For example, mediums clash over issues like whether or not reincarnation occurs.  Channeling is often nothing more than a projection from the medium's subconscious.  But it can also present genuine spirit communication, though the true source of this communication can be called into question.  My analysis of hidden agendas cannot speak for all mediums.  So I will limit myself to the  channeling often discussed  on this site: ACIM and the entities, Seth, Elias, and Ramtha.  

In the interests of greater variety, I make one exception.  I will also discuss the Koran, though I recall no discussion of this book on this site.  Initially, Muhammad receives his revelation from an apparition identifying itself as the angel Gabriel.  But most of the Koran's revelations are received in 3 phases over 22 years through an audible voice in a manner analogous to the revelation of ACIM. So the Koran also qualifies as  channeled material.  

My analysis begins with this question: if the agendas of this channeling are deceptively evil, how might this fact be discovered?  This question will be addressed in 3 phases: (1) First, I will analyze two themes that thread their way through the materials channeled by the aforementioned sources--themes that, from a Christian perspective, have an evil impact.  (2) Then the link between these themes and the channeling manifested in cases of demonic possession will be briefly surveyed.  (3) Finally, the antagonistic nature of this link will be esplored through a discussion of the fate of mediums who embrace their gift as a loving and helpful blessing, but who nevertheless shift their focus to a conventional Christian faith.

(1) THE AGENDA OF CHANNELING: TWO THEMES

(a) The first theme that pervades the channeling sources in question can be summed up thus: There is no good and evil polarity.  4 quotes will suffice:  

(i) "Sin does not exist (ACIM 3:81)."
(ii) "Ultimately, there is no difference between right and wrong. . .There is no such thing as evil (Ramtha--quoted from Mahr's book, pp. 60, 241)."
(iii) "Engage widening your belief systems; for there is no right and wrong, and there is no good and evil (Elias, Session 94)."
(iv) "All existence was blessed and...evil did not exist in it. . .The devil idea is merely the mass projection of certain fears. . .Good and evil effects are basically illusions.  In your terms, all acts, regardless of their seeming nature, are part of the greater good (from "Seth Speaks"  13, 139, 342).

The second agenda theme that pervades these sources can be expressed thus: the claim that Jesus suffered and died for us on a cross is a lying travesty.  I will offer 7 quotes and provide commentary where it is needed.

(i) "{Divine] forgiveness is an illusion (ACIM 3:79),"
(ii) [Jesus:] "Do not make the pathetic error of clinging to the old rugged cross. . .This is not the Gospel...I intended to offer you (ACIM 1:47)."

Contrast this with just 2 of the many examples of Jesus' mission statements in our Gospels:

"The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many
(Mark 10:45)."  

"Then he [Jesus] took a loaf of bread...He broke it and gave it to them, saying,`This is my body, which is given for you.  Do this in remembrance of me.'  And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, `This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood (Luke 22:20).'"

The Jesus of ACIM not only contradicts the Jesus of history; he also once confuses what Paul did with what the earthly Jesus did! Notice too how the Jesus of ACIM contradicts Jesus' claims to a unique messianic identity:

(iii) "Christ waits for your acceptance of Him AS YOURSELF (ACIM 1:187)."  "Is [Jesus] the Christ?  O yes, ALONG WITH YOU (1:83)."

Then compare this with the Ramtha entity's claims:

(iv) "The Christian God is "an idiotic deity. . .You are God...We are equal with God and Christ."

The Koran's portait of Jesus is allegedly the product of dictation from Allah, but it is in fact largely the product of allusions drawn from several apocryphal infancy Gospels written between the late 2nd and 5th centuries.  These Gospels are obviously legendary in character and far too late to contain any historically valuable material.  The Koran, Elias, and Seth even deny that Jesus died by crucifixion.

(v) "I [Allah] will cause you [Jesus] to die a natural death. . . They did not slay Him, nor did they compass his death upon the cross, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified to death
(Koran 3:55f.; 1;158)."

(vi) In Elias Session 282 Vivien observes, "I understand that he [Jesus] did not die in the crucifixion, but did he go to India after that?"  In reply, Elias claims that Jesus moved to Macedonia and died there at age 51, apparently of natural causes.  On this point, Elias agrees with the Koran.

In Seth's claims to prior incarnations, he can be proven wrong whereever he can be checked.  Seth echoes the claims of the Koran and Elias that Jesus never died by crucifixion.  But Seth's account is closer to that of 2nd century Gnostic tradition:

(vii) "He [Jesus] had no intention of dying in this manner...There was a conspiracy in which Judas played a role. . .The man chosen was drugged--hence the necessity of helping him carry the cross (see Luke 23)--and he was told that he was the Christ.  his physical presence was no longer necessary, and was even an embarrassment under the circumstances.  He simply willed himself out of it ("Seth Speaks"  266, 368)."  

In the Gospels, of course, crucifixion is a self-conscious part of Jesus' mission.  Jesus is subject to savage torture that weakens Him to the point where he needs Simon of Cyrene's help in carrying His cross (Mark 15).  Seth's account is merely an implausible variation of a universally discredited 2nd century Gnostic legend.  Irenaeus express the legend thus in Against Heresies 1.24.4:  

"Simon of Cyrene was compelled to carry His cross for Him.   and this Simon was transformed through ignorance and error.  Jesus, however, took the form of Simon, and stood by laughing at them since He could not be held and was invisible to all."

This absurd legend was created to allow Gnostics to reconcile their Middle  Platonic belief that God transcended human emotions and could not suffer.  On this view, Jesus, a divine being, could not have been crucified.  

Our earliest Gospel, Mark, identifies "Alexander and Rufus" as Simon's two sons because these men were prominent figures in the early church and could verify Mark's account.  In fact, one of these sons, Rufus, shows up in Rome and is celebrated by Paul (Romans 15:13).  Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome where he could verify his account by talking to this son of Simon of Cyrene.  Paul even says that Rufus's mother, Simon's wife, had been like a mother to him as well.

(2) THE LINK BETWEEN BOTH THEMES AND DEMONIC CHANNELING IN POSSESSION CASES:

Jane Roberts's relationship with Seth began in 1963 while she was playing with a Ouija board.  Ouija boards can easily lead to demonic possession.
For example, in his diary-based book "Possessed" Tom Allen explains how a Ouija board was the vehicle for the possession of Robbie, the young boy whose dramatic exorcism was the basis of the horror movie, "The Exorcist."  As a spiritualist, Robbie's Aunt Harriet was well acquainted with channeling.   She taught Robbie how to use the Ouija board.  When Aunt Harriet died, Robbie tried to contact her through the board.   Finally, he and his mother received apparent verification that Harriet was in contact with them.   But this contact was deceptive and led to Robbie's violent possession.  Most Ouija board stories I've heard are similar.  An initially friendly entity ultimately  claims to be a demon or identifies Hell as its abode.  As Scott Peck puts it in "People of the Lie,"

"Possession appears to be a gradual process in which the possessed person repeatedly sells out for one reason or another.  Each was terribly lonely, and each, early in the process, adopted the demonic as a kind of imaginary friend (190)."

In this book, Peck offers a very general and often vague description of two genuine possession and exorcism cases.  This psychiatrist has just written a new book ("Glimpses of the Devil") in which he analyzes both cases in great detail.  One of the possessed women is Jersey Babcock, a mother of 2 daughters, who was heavily into spiritualism.  Like the channeling under discussion, her demon espoused its belief in moral relativism and insisted that Jesus never suffered on the cross!  Jesus used astral projection to avoid the pain (p. 40).

These thematic parallels between channeling and possession bring us back to the question of why this channeling agenda seems evil from a Christian perspective.  Elmira, NY is the base for both the Seth and the Elias mediums.  In key ways, both entities revive a reincarnational ideology that initially surfaces in 2nd century Gnosticism in which channeling thrives (so Irenaeus 1.25.3).  Seth and Elias share the Gnostic disdain for both the the reality of Christ's crucifixion and the polarity of good vs. evil with its supposed essential role in reincarnational karma.  In fact, 2nd century Gnosticism even acknowledges the role of Seth and Elias as cosmic entities governing the 3rd and 5th heavens respectively (so Epiphanius, Panarion 26.1.1-2)!  In fact, many Gnostics are even called "Sethians" by early church fathers.   These early Sethians brushed aside Christian claims about Jesus' uniqueness and insisted that Jesus is just another incarnation of Seth (3.1.5)!

If Elias, Seth, and the Gnostics are right, then tolerance cannot be a moral absolute.  So why be tolerant if it doesn't suit you?  To what such a philosophy can lead to, consider what happens at Gnostic love feasts.  Gnostics transform Holy Communion into wife-swapping sex orgies.  For Communion bread and wine, they substitute semen an menstual fluid and ritually consume them (Panarion 26.4.3-8).  Absent a belief in good and evil, society easily descends into moral chaos.  

wrote on Feb 1^st, 2005 at 11:22pm:

The Koran, Elias, and Seth even deny that Jesus died by crucifixion.

That is enough right there to know that these writings are definitely not coming from God or sources of spiritual truth.  There is overwhelming historical evidence for the death-by-crucifixion of Jesus.  Absolutely overwhelming and undeniable.

Freebird

wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2005 at 12:45am:

These thematic parallels between channeling and possession bring us back to the question of why this channeling agenda seems evil from a Christian perspective.  Elmira, NY is the base for both the Seth and the Elias mediums.  In key ways, both entities revive a reincarnational ideology that initially surfaces in 2nd century Gnosticism in which channeling thrives (so Irenaeus 1.25.3).

Belief in reincarnation is not evidence that a spiritual message or messenger is evil.  Reincarnation was a common belief among many ancient Jews, and arguably Jesus affirms its truth with his statement that John the Baptist is Elijah (Matthew 11:14).

On a different topic, I wonder why it is that some of these channeled entities spread falsehoods, such as denial of the cross of Christ, etc.  Fundamentalists would argue that their goal is to lead a person into the eternal torments of hell by believing incorrect doctrines.  I think it might be something different.  I think they seek to reduce a person's love for God by promoting a works-based model of salvation.  The idea of absolute free will and salvation through individual effort is poison to the soul, inherently tending to make us question God's unconditional love and exaling the self and its devices -- until we are consumed by distrust of God and a combination of arrogance and hopelessness (since we soon learn that our own efforts are never good enough, yet this often makes us become even more stubborn in trying to "earn" spiritual advancement through techniques and methods).  The result is a state of despair, which is exactly what "demonic" entities wish for us.  Despair, in and of itself, is hell.  There doesn't need to be any burning inferno where we are roasted in the flames.

That's just an idea that I have; I could be wrong.  I have not studied channeled stuff very much, but I've heard a lot about it from people who believe in it, so I have a general sense of what kind of teachings are promoted by these messengers.

One concern of mine is that if entities can pretend to be good when in fact they are evil, then how can we be sure that anything supposedly revealed by God was really coming from the Holy Spirit?  One might ask whether the Bible could have been coming from another spirit, and we really have no way of knowing.  It's all a matter of what you believe.

For example, if you specifically pray to Jesus and you hear a voice answering you, is there a chance it is not really Jesus, but a demon?  If so, then how are we to trust any spiritual experiences we ever have?

I think at some point we just have to stop worrying about Satan deceiving us, and start trusting God.  Would a good God really create a universe in which humans are constantly exposed to spiritual trickery from powerful evil entities, as if this life is some sick and twisted game to see how many of us are lucky enough to escape being deceived by the devil and avoid going to hell?  No, I think that's a very bleak vision of the universe.  It is a vision I refuse to accept, because it sucks the life right out of my heart.

My own policy is that I don't pay much attention to purported channelings, because we just don't know where this stuff is coming from, and I don't think it's really necessary.  Living in the Spirit is supposed to be simple and pure, not complicated and requiring lots of new texts and traditions and messengers constantly giving us some new doctrines to follow.  Doctrines usually lead nowhere except into the self, IMHO.  God is not a doctrine.

Freebird

wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2005 at 1:56am:

Mild doubt soon mushroomed into full-fledged disillusionment after he decided to become a conventional Christian.  Raphael fully expected that his conversion would only enhance his channeling.  Quite the opposite proved to be true: (snip) the controlling spirits attempted to take my life (10)."  Some time later, "several times they succeeded in using my own hands to attempt to strangle me (12)."  But Raphael's new faith ultimately freed him from this menace.

Does Raphael's new "conventional Christian" faith include the idea that God tortures people forever in a burning hell?  That's what most conventional Christians believe, contrary to the original Greek New Testament.

If Raphael adheres to this doctrine of conventional Christianity, is it possible that he has simply traded non-Christian demons for "Christian" ones?  I do not know, but I simply raise the question for consideration.  There is much within normal standard Christianity that is blasphemous against God, making God seem like a monster.

Not that I am promoting mediumship or channeling either.  I am not.


Quote:

Johanna Michaelsen documents her journey from medium to Christian in her riveting book, "The Beautiful Side of Evil."  Her career as a medium included a 15 month stint as a medium assistant to Hermanito, the spirit guide who healed the sick through Pachita, a Mexican trance medium:  "I had washed the blood of over 200 operations from my hands.  I had seen everything from the removal of brain tumors to the replacement of vertebrae and lung transplants (131)."  In trance, Pachita, or rather her spirit guide, Hermanito, performed this surgery with no anesthetic and generally with a rusty hunting knife!  The patients rarely felt any pain!   Like Raphael, Johanna believed she was doing God's work in bringing healing to many.

Does anybody have an explanation for why evil spirits would want to help people and do good deeds like this?  Just wondering, because it doesn't make sense to me.  Jesus said we are supposed to "know them by their fruits."  He said, "every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit." (Matthew 7:17).  Healing people of sickness certainly sounds like good fruit to me.  We have to trust Jesus's method of discernment, or else who can we trust?

We also must remember that the ONLY sin mentioned in the Bible that cannot be forgiven "either in this age or the age to come" is the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which Jesus defined in his discussion with the Pharisees as accusing someone of doing good works with the power of Satan.  So, if we erroneously decide that a particular being is doing good works through satanic powers, when in fact it is coming from God, then we are unforgiven even in the next age, which the Bible says is 1000 years (the millennial reign of Christ on earth).

I don't want to take that risk; does anyone else?  Therefore, I have decided not to be too quick about attributing good works to the work of the devil -- because what if I'm wrong in such attribution?  They said the same thing about Jesus too, remember?


Quote:

When she fully dedicated her life to Christ, she still thought she could work with Hermanito and Pachita.  That all changed during an evening walk: "A dense black fog was forming all around me, blotting out the path.  Within seconds I could see nothing.  The dark mist was swirling, alive, filled with the presence of something more monstrous than anything I had ever encountered.  Voices began whispering, hissing incoherent words and laughter in my right ear.  An ice-cold breath touched the back of my neck under my hair.  `Hermanito, help me!'  I gasped.  The voices shrieked in hideous laughter: `We're going to kill you!'  I panicked and broke into a run.  Something lie a giant fist slammed into my back...I pitched forward in the thick darkness and instinctively reached out to break my fall...I tried to scream out, `Jesus, Jesus, help me!'  `He can't help you!' the voices shrieked...I could see the faces of countless demons, contorted, twisted in indescribable rage (pp. 146-47)."   Johanna raced to her Christian friend Birdie who took command of the demons in Jesus' name and the torment permanently ended.  But so did her lifelong mediumistic talents.  Johanna is now a radiant Christian.

So here we have the purported case of demons from hell who came to earth to miraculously heal 200+ people of sicknesses including brain tumors, replacement of vertebrae, and lung transplants.  Plenty of good fruits there.  I ask again, can we trust Jesus when he said we will know them by their fruits?  If not, then can we trust any spiritual statements in the Bible at all? -- or are we to live our lives in constant terror, wondering whether anything in the Bible or any response we get to prayer or any vision we or our pastor has or whatever else, could in fact be incorrect or even, God forbid, a trick of the devil?

It is stuff like this that drives people away from spirituality and into atheism.  Make no mistake about it.  It is when a person decides there is no way to know what the truth is, because anything could be a trick of the devil, even something that seems good such as miraculous healing of brain tumors, that they are prone to reject God and the afterlife entirely and embrace the philosophy of materialism and scientism.

There are plenty of Christians out there who believe all near-death experiences are coming from Satan too, even the ones where people encounter God and Jesus.  They argue that Satan implanted false memories in the person's brain that they met Jesus when in fact they met Satan disguised as an angel of light.  They argue that NDEs are a trick designed specifically to lead people into eternal damnation, because they will start believing some incorrect religious doctrines due to the NDE, and this will send their soul to hell.

You see where this all leads?  It leads towards a total inability to trust anything of a spiritual nature, which I don't think is a good thing.

I guess I'm just venting some of my frustrations with all this business about "tricks of the devil disguised as Light."  We hear about this so often.  Yes, maybe it really happens, but when you start to think about its implications, it basically nullifies any ability to trust in God.  At least that's what it does to me.

I am in a discussion group where we were discussing NDEs and somebody recently posted that any NDE in which a person sees Jesus with long hair means it's actually Satan, because Jesus (supposedly) did not wear his hair long.  This was a real argument somebody made.  But the fact is, nobody knows how Jesus wore his hair!  And even if he appears to somebody with the "wrong" hairstyle, does that really prove anything about his authenticity?

Well, enough of my rambling.  But you see where speculation about tricks of the devil can lead?  It's a never ending slippery slope towards cynicism, atheism and despair, IMHO.

Freebird

Hi to all....

Let's see the other side of the coin..... regarding Seth, then Elias, and let the readers decide what reasonate with their own awareness, they own understanding.... it's about time to give people credit that they don't need anyone tell them what, why and how to think....and let them work with their own beliefs....



Quote:

Elmira, NY is the base for both the Seth and the Elias mediums.

Incorrect Mary Ennis does not and never lived in Elmira, matter of fact the time for her first connecting with Elias she lived in California....


Quote:

"All existence was blessed and...evil did not exist in it. . .The devil idea is merely the mass projection of certain fears. . .Good and evil effects are basically illusions.  In your terms, all acts, regardless of their seeming nature, are part of the greater good (from "Seth Speaks"  13, 139, 342).

Would be useful to use reference as session, or chapter, since in many book edition  13, 139, 342 have no meaning so  cannot be  find if someone would like to read the proper quote.  But related to the above "quote"

"Instead, the soul stand at the center of itself, exploring, extending its capacities in all directions at once, involved in issues of creativity, each one highly legitimate. The probable system of reality opens up the nature of the soul to you. It should change current religious ideas considerably. For this reason, the nature of good and evil is a highly important point.

On the other hand, quite simpy and in a way that you cannot presently understand, evil does not exist. However, you are obviously confronted with what seems to be quite evil effect Now it has been said often that there is a god, so there must be a devil- or if there is a good, there must be evil. This is like saying that because an apple has a top, it must have a bottoms - but without understanding of the fact that both are portion of the apple....
We go back to our fundamentals: you create reality through your feelings, thoughts and mental  actions
You must understand that each mental act is a reality which you are responsible. That is what you are in this particular system of reality for.,
As long as you believe in a devil for example you will create one that is real enough fro you, and for others who continue create him.
Because of the energy he is given by others, he will have a certain consciousness of his own, but such a mok devil has no power or reality to those who do not believe in his existence, and who do not give him energy through their beliefs. He is in other words, a superlative hallucination.,
Seth speak, chapter 17. session 568


Seth "agenda"

I'm primarly a teacher, but I have not been a man of letters per se. I am primarily a personality with a message: you create the world as you know You have been given perhaps the most awesome gift of all: the ability to project your thoughts outward into physical form.,

The gift bring a responsibility, and many of you are tempted to congratulate yourselves on the successes of your lives, and blame God, fate, and society for your failures, In like manner, mankind has a tendency to project his own guilt and his own errors upon a father god image,
who it seems must grow weary of so many complaint.
The fact is that each of you create your own physical reality: and en masse, you create both the glories and the terrors that exist within your earthly experience. Until you realize that you are the creators you will refuse to accept this responsibility Nor you can blame a devil fro the world's misfortunes. You have grown sophisticated enough to realize that the Devil is a projection of your own psyche, but you have not
grown wise enough how to use your creativity constructively...

Elias
Again would be useful to quote, not just what fit in a particular beliefs, but correctly what was expressed....

Elias Session 94
"Within your history collectively, you chose to be creating an expression which manifest as what you now view to be your Second World War. Your collective and individual views on this time period are in agreement, that this was a negative expression. Atrocities were committed. Individuals were seen as being evil. The times were seen as being “bad.”

Be remembering: Engage widening your belief systems; for there is no right and wrong, and there is no good or evil. You may view, within your perception, that one element may be righteous, and another may be base. In actuality, they are all expressions of experiences.

Within the manifestation of the mass event of which we now speak, the desire to be creating an expression of such magnitude was too great for you to efficiently create within a balance and harmony of physical focus. Therefore, you polarized. You created one side, the scientific, intellectual side; and the opposing side, the religious, emotional side. In this, you each, within consciousness, aligned yourselves either emotionally or intellectually. You aligned with the new scientific age, or the traditional religious beliefs. You may view the opposing elements of the forces of Hitler as the scientific intellect. You may view the forces of the Jewish community to be the religious, emotional element. Each side, so to speak, polarized; aligning individuals, who then also aligned collectively together to be expressing both elements equally; therefore allowing the totality of an expression, but not synchronized and within balance.

You view elements to be “right” or “not right.” If you are manifest as one of the individuals aligning with the scientific intellect, what is your right? (Pause) It is not the same as the right of the religious emotional expression! (Grinning) But, if you are viewing within the idea of right and wrong, both are right. Both are correct expressions.

I have expressed to you previously, hurtfulness to another essence is never acceptable; but I have also expressed that it may be beneficial. Within physical focus, you do not always follow essence, for you separate. Therefore, you do follow beneficial

On responsibility

“... I am not expressing to you that you hold responsibility for the choices of other individuals, for you do not. You DO hold responsibility for the choices that YOU create, knowing their affectingness in conjunction with other individuals. This is not to be expressing to you that you should be moving into assuming personal responsibility for other individuals, but merely to allow yourself the awareness of what you are creating, and in this, also hold the awareness that certain choices that you may be creating may be affecting of other individuals, and if you are choosing to move into certain areas, the efficient expression of essence is also to hold the awareness of no expectation with respect to other individuals.

“In quite blunt terminology, I express to you, the directions that you choose for yourself are your choices and shall be beneficial to you, but within the expression of essence, the expectation of pulling or dragging with you other individuals that become confused and are not necessarily in agreement with your choices IS your responsibility

On agenda

“You shall not betray you! You know within you which direction you wish to proceed within. You allow yourselves, as you do not trust yourselves, to be swayed by other individuals and circumstances and belief systems. It is quite difficult within physical focus to be trusting of self, and knowing that you shall not betray you. Individuals express, ‘Trust within the universe, and it shall provide for you.’ I shall express to you, this is not quite so far off. Trust self, and you shall provide for you"

“I do not preach to you to be believing Elias’ message, for I offer you information that you already know. I am not expressing to you to be building a temple, to be recruiting a new congregation, or to be establishing new belief systems that will be changing the world. I am explaining to you to believe yourself. Do not take me for face value and be believing within a new belief system, on what you term blind faith, Elias’ word. Believe Guin’s word. Believe yourself! This is why I speak to you, not to bring you conflict and not to establish anything. I speak to you to reincorporate and reconnect you with you, for your truth is what is important. This is the truth.”

If this quotes, material the representation of the "evil" then let be it...  ;D

Hi Dora,

Thanks for the breath of fresh air here.  :D
So good to see you here.  ;)

Much Love,
Mairlyn   ;D

I've been working for a long time on a response to Freebird and just noticed Dora's reply.  So I'll reply to that later.  

On a lighter note, while posting about the demonic, I heard several loud crashes that made the house shake violently for several seconds.  It sounded like several lightning strikes.  I was tired, so the thought of demonic attack immediately came to mind!  I just found out that several unliftably large blocks of ice dislodged from the roof, crashed down on a lower roof, and then crashed against a ladder and trash can before reaching the ground.  Phew!  The ice severed my TV cable.  :-(  

Freebird, you raise 8 profound issues for which I am grateful.  Your issues take my post in a direction it needs to go.   Here are my responses:

(1) Belief in reincarnation is no evidence that a spiritual message or messenger is evil.
______________________________________

I reject reincarnation for many evidential reasons, but I remain open to the possibility of being wrong on this point.  I agree; belief in reincarnation is not in itself evil and is not part of the hidden agenda of channeling under discussion.  My post only discusses reincarnation to flesh out the connection between modern channeling by the Seth and Elias entities and 2nd century Gnostic channeling which presumes that Seth and Elias are exalted entities in control of specific astral planes.

(2) Reincarnation is a common belief among many ancient Jews, and arguably Jesus affirms its truth with his statement that John the Baptist is Elijah.
_______________________________________

Would you be willing to consult relevant posts on Robert Bruce's website "Astralpulse.com" under the topical section "Judaism and Early Christianity?"  A moderator (Beth) created a post that defends your viewpoint in detail ("Reincarnation in Judaism and Christianity").  I rebut all her historical claims in a post (by "Berserk") entitled "Reincarnation in the Bible and the Early Church?"  I argue that reincarnation cannot be found in the Bible, the Palestinian Judaism of late antiquity, or the early church (aoart from 2nd century Gnosticism).  
After several months,  neither Beth nor her supporters have challenged any of my points.  So I'd appreciate your feedback.

(3) Does Raphael's new "conventional Christian" faith include the idea that God tortures people forever in a burning hell?  That's what most conventional Christians believe, contrary to the original Greek New Testament.
_________________________________________

I'm not sure about the theological details of Raphael's Christian commitment.  But you will not find anyone more passionate in his agreement with your last point.  Jesus, Paul, Revelation, and 2nd century Christian apocalyptic literature all teach  that God's love never permanently abandons anyone after death.  If you remain in a hellish plane, that's because you refuse to recognize that your confinement is based on the principle like attracts like.  Even in hellish planes, anyone who resolves to change their core values can be "retrieved" and rehabilitated in preparation for a more satisfying existence in the higher heavens.  I lay out the basics of my case in a post entitled "A Fresh Look at Heaven" in the same section of the "Astralpulse" site as my post on reincarnation.   I'd love to get your reaction.

(4) If entities can pretend to do good when in fact they are evil, then how can we be sure that anything supposedly revealed was really coming from the Holy Spirit?
_________________________________________

The New Testament answer?  Through the gift of spiritual discernment exercised in the context of the corporate body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:10; 14:29).   And how is this gift developed?  Two basic forms of divine inspiration are distinguished in Scripture--prophetic and wisdom inspiration.   Prophetic inspiration is activated by meditation on the question: do outward appearances reflect inner beauty and transformation in this case?  Inspired wisdom (not to be simply reduced to common sense) is prayerfully acquired by learning in the school of hard knocks.

But now let me stress the obvious: for a Christian the ultimate test of the gift of discernment is the question of whether an alleged revelation contradicts the central message of Jesus and the Gospel.   This question is is not always easy to answer.  The Bible is not an inerrant book and the message of Jesus and the Gospel can be perverted or misunderstood.  Discernment presumes that one has applied the biblical principles of prayer and meditation and that one has humbly allowed the corporate body of Christ to test one's insights.  But first one must find a compatible church where the atmosphere is electric with the presence of God and an overpowering spirit of love.  Sadly, of the 5 churches I've pastored, only one qualifies under this criterion.  I witnessed spectular miracles while pastoring that United Methodist church.  

(5) For example, if you pray to Jesus and you hear a voice answering you, is there a chance it is not really Jesus, but a demon?
___________________________________

As a medium, Johanna Michaelsen conjured Jesus as her spirit guide through Silva Mind Control techniques.  Negative psychic experiences soon taught her that this conjured Jesus was not what he seemed.  She soon realized that her attempt to manipulate Jesus created the problem.   Ancient magic can be distinguished from true spirituality in this way: magic assumes that if its rituals are properly performed, the divine contact sought must ordinarily manifest itself.  But neither Jesus nor God jump merely because we crack our whip!

Jesus is allegedly Helen Schucman's channeling source for ACIM.  The materials conflict with the historical jesus' teachings, but I'm not sure their source is actually demonic.  Nor am I prepared to claim that the Seth and Elias entities are demonic.  But their lurking agendas and historical errors demonstrate to my satisfaction that their materials conflict with truly divine revelation.

(6) Would a good God really create a universe in which humans are constantly exposed to spiritual trickery from powerful evil entities?
_________________________________________

Great question!  My answer must be philosophical and hence speculative.  God doesn't want robots.  To God the value of our free will is a function of the strength of our inclination to make choices that alienate us from Him.  This insight is the basis of the mystery of spiritual warfare.  Only God knows how strong this contrary inclination needs to be to maximize the value of our freely offered love.

Why didn't God create a world without pain, suffering, and hardship?  Because without these, there would be no pain-dependent virtues.   Courage requires danger and risk.  Compassion requires suffering.  Generosity requires want.  Patience requires frustration and nerve-wracking delays.  And who are we to say that a moral order would be better off without courage, compassion, generosity, and patience in God's eyes?

But, you say, why is pain so unfairly distributed?  Well, suppose pain were fairly distributed on the basis of merit.  No one would have any incentive to make selfish or evil choices because they would then pay the penalty.  Suppose instead that pain was evenly distributed.  Then no one would have a strong incentive to choose evil since it would make no difference in terms of pain avoidance.  In our world, choosing the good often involves great sacrifice (e.g. our troops in Iraq) and hence unfairly high amounts of risk and pain.  When pain is unfairly distributed, the inclination to make self-
serving choices is greater and so the value of freely offered love greatly increases.  Besides, if pain were fairly or evenly distributed, then God's existence would be most strongly confirmed.  We would worship and serve God more out of a sense fear and self-serving duty than out of love groping after God in the darkness of spiritual ambiguity.  

A Russian parable eloquently illustates this point.
An eccentric king wanted to get married.  So he disguised himself as a peasant and wandered the countryside searching for the right girl.  His troubles began when he thought he'd found her.
Her father wanted his daughter to live a good life with a financially secure husband.  He saw little in this peasant to command his respect.  But the peasant king was determined.  He worked as a farm hand for minimal wages and continued to woo both father and daughter.  Finally, his charms won both over and Dad agreed to the marriage.  

In making the marriage arrangements, the king was then forced to disclose his true identity.   Dad was incensed: "Why didn't you make your true majesty immediately apparent?  I would have deemed it a privilege to grant you my dauhter's hand."  The king replied, "Yes, and you would have been too intimidated to make a free decision.  You would have approved out of being overwhelmed by my rank and resources.  I wanted a family to love me for my character masked by poverty to make its core stand out in sharp relief.  So it is with the hiddenness of the courting God in this world.  

(7) Does anybody have an explanation for why evil spirits would want to help people and do good deeds like this (miraculous healiings)?
_________________________________________  
Jesus concedes the ability of evil people apparently to perform a variety of miracles: "Many will say to me on that day,  `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in our name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?  And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you.  Away from me, you evildoers (Matthew 7:22-23)!"

Why evil spirits help people can partly be explained in terms of the psychodynamics of evil analyzed by psychiatrist Scott Peck.  In "People of the Lie," Peck associates evil with "malignant narcissism."  He identifies several characteristics of this personality disorder from his analysis of the common denominators of individual evil, group evil (e.g the MyLai massacre), and the evil manfested by the  demonic in possession cases.  All the identified characteristics of evil are biblically sound, though Peck fails to demonstrate this fact.  One of these characteristics is "a pronounced concern with a public image and self-image of respectability,"  a trait that might explain why evil might at times seem helpful and altruistic--not out of love, but as part of the seduction process.  The long-range goal of evil is to compete with divine blessings in an effort to seduce people away from loving and serving God the right way.  This seduction might bond souls to lower spiritual planes or hells on the basis of affinities subtly developed between the evil entity and its human victims.  This insight is confirmed by Swedenborg's astral travels.  

Another psychodynamic is an intellectual deviousness that cleverly blends truth with error.  This implies that channeling, even when evil, would nevertheless include valuable information about the afterlife, information that might engender deceptive "resonance" with the victim.  Evil only employs the truth to set up a spiritually harmful lie.  This fact injects urgency into Roger's question about the hidden agendas of channeling.

(8) Can we trust Jesus when he said we will know them by their fruits?
__________________________________________
Yes, but to grasp His point, one must understand the whole verse: "You will know them by their fruits.  Grapes are not gathered from thorns, nor figs from thistles, are they (Matthew 7:16)?"  Native to Palestine is a certain thorn (a buckthorn) with small black berries that closely resemble little grapes.  There is also a thistle with a flower which, at least from a distance, might easily be mistaken for a fig.  The point is that, apart from close scrutiny, the genuine and the spurious are hard to distinguish in the spiritual realm.  Jesus makes the same point more clearly  in a widely circulated saying from early oral tradition: "Be wise money-
changers.  Keep the good (coins) and get rid of the bad (the counterfeit)."  Ancient money-changers had to examine each coin closely to detect subtle variations that might betray a counterfeit status.  

wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2005 at 8:06pm:

The ice severed my TV cable.  :-(

Was that the work of the devil?  Or God?  How can we know?

If it was my house and I believed in God, I'd think it was a message from Him for me to quit watching TV.  :)

Also, speaking of channeled messages, I reject the messages delived by the TV chanels.  Because of this, my TV is off.  (I'm not saying that TV is the work of the devil, but people shouldn't believe everything they're told on the TVs as if it were the word of God.)

Cheers,
Glen

Don-

Thank you so much for your insights on this subject.  It is greatly refreshing to be intellectually challenged, and you do so in a loving way that makes it even more valuable.

A couple of questions/comments.  Could you elaborate on the miracles you mention at the UMC?  Also your explanation of the consequences of a world without pain is beautiful.

The use of the truth in order to mislead by sources that may be nefarious in nature is right on target.  Yes, the writings of ACIM and Elias/Seth can sound spiritually profound and uplifiting.  Heck, what do we expect, that they will come across sounding like Satan?  Deceit is a tremendously strong trait among those who wish to mislead.

I'm not saying these sources are evil, I have no idea, but they DO seem to have a common theme (call it agenda) which is to promote a lack of acountability for our actions.  This is especially true with ACIM.  And when you think it through, that kind of message is very enticing and seductive.  It can easily convince at least some folks that the narrow path Jesus speaks of is really as wide as an 8 lane interstate with no violations no matter how irresponsible we might drive.

Those who seem to think that evil is an old fashioned concept would do well to read Scott Peck and Malachi Martin.

Thanks so much for your post!

Oh my gosh, Donald! :o

You wrote, " Absent a belief in good and evil, society easily descends into moral chaos." Uh, I'm pretty sure we're already there. Look around, could it get any worse? The expression, there's nowhere else to look but up, comes to mind, and I mean that literally, but in a metaphoric, spiritual sense.

I think that it is precisely the very belief in good and evil that is being mirrored and projected here in this world, by whomever accepts that idea as their reality. That will indeed bring moral chaos on the stage of life, and each one who holds to the belief in duality, good and evil, will have their own set of standards of just what that means to them,  in which to measure and judge everyone and everything on the planet. Now, what did Jesus mention quite often about judging? And judge we all do when in that belief, and we war, fight, bicker, and hate, from over the tiniest little thing that annoys us, bothers us, that we don't personally like or agree with, and on and on. Where's the peace, the brotherhood, the unconditional love in the belief in duality? It's impossible!

Donald, there is more, so much more! Many of us have sought long and hard for many years to find truth, wisdom, knowledge, peace, love, and happiness. I wish you'd give others more credit, and more respect, and really, more importantly, you need to give the Creator more credit than you do too.

Peace to you,
Debbie

If only everyone lived by The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz:

BE IMPECCABLE WITH YOUR WORD
Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your word in the direction of truth and love.

DON'T TAKE ANYTHING PERSONALLY
Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won't be the victim of needless suffering.

DON'T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS
Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want. Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid misunderstandings, sadness and drama. With just this one agreement, you can completely transform your life.

ALWAYS DO YOUR BEST
Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will be different when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply do your best and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse and regret.

wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2005 at 10:54am:

I'm not saying these sources are evil, I have no idea, but they DO seem to have a common theme (call it agenda) which is to promote a lack of acountability for our actions.  This is especially true with ACIM.

Hi Roger,

I can appreciate your criticism of ACIM if what you say about it is true ~ I have no idea if it is, since I've not read it ~ but I can assure you you're mistaken if you believe that either Seth or Elias teaches "lack of acountability."  Quite the contrary, actually, which I'm sure you'll find out for yourself if you take some time to read what they say.  Seth, for example, said repeatedly, "You create your own reality," and never encouraged people to feel that they're the victims of circumstances or of other people's actions.

I'm not telling you you ought to read Seth's or Elias's teachings; just that I'd prefer you not criticize them for things they've not done.

Best wishes,
Glen

The opening sentence of Allen Bloom's celebrated book "The Closing of the American Mind,"  states somewhat hyperbolically: "There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative."  Dora's reply misses the point: the point at issue is not the  duplicitous STATED purpose of the channelers, but their HIDDEN agendas, i.e., the dangerous lie embedded with their occasional truths.  

As already discussed, one of these lies is the rejection of the good vs evil polarity.  Dora and Glen try to rescue Seth from this charge by noting that Seth links accountability with the fact that "you create your own reality."  This absurd claim is decisively refuted by life experience, but that is a separate issue.  The salient point is that "accountability" is not "moral" accountability if the good vs. evil polarity is rejected.  The rejection of this polarity means that the only incentive to be moral is to preserve a pleasing self-image and life experience.  The spiritual trap is this:  moral relativists feel free to be immoral, even criminal, when it suits them, when it feels good, and when they imagine they can get away with it.  Dora's reply fails to demonstrate that any of my key points are undermined by lifting quotes out of their Sethian context.  

What Dora, Marilyn, Debbie, and Glen fail to realize and the Seth, Elias, and Ramtha entities perversely fail to acknowledge is this:  my critique is more than personal belief; it is established by excellent sociological research.  For example, a fairly recent sociological study indicates that when our youth reject moral absolutes and an objective standard of truth, they become:

36% more likely to lie to their parents
48% more likely to cheat on exams
twice as likely to try to physically hurt someone
2 1/4 times more likely to steal
6 times more likely to attempt suicide
twice as likely to lack purpose and be resentful and angry with life
twice as likely to get drunk and three times as likely to use illegal drugs
(see Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler, "Right from 'Wrong," p. 14 and throughout).  

Dora's reply misses the point about the exorcism and disillusioned channelers I discuss.  Prior to his possession, Robbie's New Age family saw no reason to doubt their "verification" that the late Aunt Harriet was communicating from the astral realm and that the Ouija board was a safe spiritual tool.  Raphael and Johanna initially embrace their channeling philosophy and have little concern about demonic intervention.  it is the intrusion of the demonic, not their fears and beliefs, that initiate their disillusionment with New Age assumptions.

if Dora, Marilyn, and Debbie would just read Malachi Martin's seminal book "Hostage to the Devil," I'm confident they would be convinced that demonic power is very real and cannot be reduced to the Sethian notion of the Devil as a hallucinatory projection of our fears and beliefs.  Why?  What is so convincing about genuine exorcisms?  Martin explains this clearly: what convinces the skeptic is not the sudden drop in temperature when a demon manifests, not the teleportation of objects around the room, not the victim's levitation, not the demon's disclosure of the most embarrassing secrets of members of the exorcist  team, not even the supernatural threat words scratched on the victim's flesh by an unseen hand.   These phenonema can be present, but what convinces that skeptic is the PRESENCE, the electrifyiing presence of seering and disorienting hatred, including (in Peck's phrase) the victim's "incredibly contemptuous grin of utter hostile malevolence."  

My cousin E was 2 or 3 when a demon tried to possess him.  Contrary to Dora's and Seth's assumptions, E was too young to believe in demons.  But his Dad, a pastor, had just finished an exorcism inside a house, and E was left with his Mom in the car outside until its completion.  The demon's attempt to possess young E coincided with the demon's expulsion from the lady in the house.  E's eyes rolled up in his head with only the whites of his eyes visible.  Of his deep trance, E can only remember being protected in Jesus' loving arms.  Only his parents' fervent prayers helped E fend off the evil entity.

In my 16-year-old brother's exorcism of IB, his TV revelry was literally interrupted by God.  As I watched, puzzled, God revealed to my brother (D), IB's possessed status, name, and location.  When D arrived at  the distant coffee shop, a stranger inexplicably approached him and oddly observed:
"You're here on a special mission, aren't you?"  IB's gang soon arrived and started challenging patrons to a fight.  D's courageous confrontation with IB and word of exorcism left IB writhing like a serpent on the pavement outside, frothing at the mouth, and finally able to quietly say, "Thank you."   I'm still haunted by that amazing night in my home town.  IB has since written an excellent book on Christian spirituality.  The evidence for the demonic is far more impressive that that for the contrary insights of channeling.

Berserk

P.S. Glen, are you Amish? Your TV aversion made me wonder.  :-)

This time to Donald,


Quote:

Dora's reply misses the point: the point at issue is not the  duplicitous STATED purpose of the channelers, but their HIDDEN agendas, i.e., the dangerous lie embedded with their occasional truths

Dora did not miss  the point  - Donald did -since Dora didn't reply to Donald  post, simply posted the other  side of the coin, and pointed out that IT IS  time for let people form their own opinion, without someone else tell them what and why and how to think...


Quote:

Dora and Glen try to rescue Seth from this charge by noting that Seth links accountability with the fact that "you create your own reality."

I cannot talk in Glen behalf only myself there is no need for "rescue" Seth material speaks for itself- according to the reader awareness ,beside I do not care about Donald or matter of fact anyone else opinion, I have my preferences in beliefs  and choices what I align with - same like Donald have, only without the repelling righteous attitude.


Quote:

What Dora, Marilyn, Debbie, and Glen fail to realize and the Seth, Elias, and Ramtha entities perversely fail to acknowledge is this:  my critique is more than personal belief; it is established by excellent sociological research.

Maybe Dora, Marilyn, Debbi and Glen relay on their own experiences, and don't give one iota about the so called "excellent" research what based on someone else beliefs system.. and maybe they adult and independent enough to  decide who's or what book they "should"  read...


Quote:

Dora's reply misses the point about the exorcism and disillusioned channelers I discuss.

Again Dora's reply not directed to Donald, and Dora didn't care less what Donald "discuss" Dora simply let the readers choose based on the correctly presented quotes, and material what they wish to align with or don't.

Regarding Donald cousin and brother experiences, that would be the biggest surprise to see if they WOULDN'T ENCOUNTER with the reinforced, pre-programmed beliefs and they wouldn't manifest exactly according to that....

Finally again - not now, not in the past, and not in the future I did or will  care what  Donald or anyone else believe, but every time when I find incorrectly twisted and turned information quotes  regarding Seth and Elias, I will continue to correct those informations, because of the  many reader who certainly getting the false information based on Donald bias opinion and beliefs...

There is a big difference between sharing understandings about Seth and Elias  material - or even lack of it- then twisting materials to fit to our ego driven personal agenda and beliefs.  

wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2005 at 7:11pm:

There is a big difference between sharing understandings about Seth and Elias  material - or even lack of it- then twisting materials to fit to our ego driven personal agenda and beliefs.

I never got the impression that Donald is motivated by ego.  I think he genuinely believes that people can be attacked by evil beings pretending to be good, and he wants to prevent this from happening.

I, for one, am grateful that he is raising this issue, because there is a whole lot of channeled material out there, all claiming to be coming from God or the Holy Spirit or angels or prophets or with good intentions, but which contradicts each other in many points and which contains elements which can lead people into self-absorbtion and despair as they become convinced that God is not saving us but that we must "earn" all our spiritual advancement through "free will."

I disagree with Donald's extensive focus (some might say excessive worry) about demonic attack and possession.  In fact, I think focusing on this stuff so much can actually bring it on, because demonic beings like nothing more than to be noticed and feared.

My own belief tends to be that there are a variety of beings out there in the spiritual world, on a spectrum from very good to very evil, with much in-between.  Some of the more evil beings like to scare people, gain credit for everything rather than giving glory to God, promote their own pet doctrines, and lead people down paths that will put them into bondage.  The most evil of the spirits may even enjoy full-blown sadism, and indulge in it constantly with humans as their playthings, like a cat tormenting a mouse.  But we must remember, God and the good spiritual beings such as Jesus, are actively working to limit the influence of the more evil beings, and have MUCH more power than them!  "Demonic" beings mostly gain their power from humans fearing and respecting them.  If we just stop being so afraid, and we put our trust in God, I think we will gain maturity and understanding to be able to see through the schemes of selfish spirits who want to use us for their own ends.

Freebird

wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2005 at 5:07pm:

My cousin E was 2 or 3 when a demon tried to possess him.  Contrary to Dora's and Seth's assumptions, E was too young to believe in demons.  But his Dad, a pastor, had just finished an exorcism inside a house, and E was left with his Mom in the car outside until its completion.  The demon's attempt to possess young E coincided with the demon's expulsion from the lady in the house.  E's eyes rolled up in his head with only the whites of his eyes visible.  Of his deep trance, E can only remember being protected in Jesus' loving arms.  Only his parents' fervent prayers helped E fend off the evil entity.

I have an open mind to the possibility that your cousin really was attacked by an evil spirit.  But couldn't it instead be related to the fact that his father was going around doing exorcisms, and he probably saw examples of this and heard his father talking about it at home?  Kids are very impressionable at that age, and they love to play "pretend."  Maybe your cousin wanted more attention from his father, and he saw him giving lots of attention to these demonically-possessed people, so he decided to pretend to be possessed by a demon himself.  It's a possibility.


Quote:

In my 16-year-old brother's exorcism of IB, his TV revelry was literally interrupted by God.  As I watched, puzzled, God revealed to my brother (D), IB's possessed status, name, and location.  When D arrived at  the distant coffee shop, a stranger inexplicably approached him and oddly observed: "You're here on a special mission, aren't you?"  IB's gang soon arrived and started challenging patrons to a fight.  D's courageous confrontation with IB and word of exorcism left IB writhing like a serpent on the pavement outside, frothing at the mouth, and finally able to quietly say, "Thank you."

First of all, I did not see this happen and therefore I cannot say whether or not it was a real case of exorcism.  I am open to the possibility.  However, there is another possibility.

It sounds to me like all of the people involved in this story probably had a belief in demons.  Your brother believed in casting them out, and the gang leader was probably into some weird satanic stuff (a lot of gangs are).  The writhing on the ground and foaming at the mouth could have been an act to get attention.  Yes, people do pretend to be possessed by the devil.  It happens a lot in pentecostal churches.  Notice that it is the people who believe strongly in demons who seem to have the most problems with them.  You don't hear about a lot of liberal Episcopalians or Unitarians writhing on the ground from demons.  It's usually the people who believe in demons, focus on them or worry about them all the time who seem to be the ones attacked by them.

Assuming your beliefs are correct, I would also like to ask a question:  If demon possession just happens to people all the time, like this guy in your town, what happens to all these people when they die?  Do they get dragged down to hell by the attached demons?  Or does Jesus save them?

I have a lot of undiagnosable, untreatable neurological problems.  Despite fervent prayers in Jesus' name, I have not received healing either from God or doctors or alternative medicine.  Does that mean I'm demon-possessed too?  Even though I have prayed many times to Jesus, asking him to protect me from evil spirits?  Even though I sincerely pledge the allegiance of my soul to Jesus as Lord?

Do I need to get an exorcism?  Multiple exorcisms?  Exorcisms going on and on until I'm perfectly healthy?  Is there any way to know if somebody is demon-possessed if the demon chooses not to reveal himself?  What about demons who simply do not come out, regardless of how many rituals of exorcism are performed?

I just think it's dangerous to be so focused on demons and the overwhelming powers of demons.  I don't think we have nearly so much to fear as you seem to think.  God is in control.  "I will never leave you nor forsake you." (Hebrews 13:5).

Freebird

wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2005 at 10:28pm:

Freebird, you raise 8 profound issues for which I am grateful.  Your issues take my post in a direction it needs to go.   Here are my responses:

Thank you for your excellent responses.  See my response about reincarnation in a thread entitled "Reincarnation in Christianity."


Quote:

Jesus, Paul, Revelation, and 2nd century Christian apocalyptic literature all teach  that God's love never permanently abandons anyone after death.

I'm glad to hear you believe this, as I do.


Quote:

I lay out the basics of my case in a post entitled "A Fresh Look at Heaven" in the same section of the "Astralpulse" site as my post on reincarnation.   I'd love to get your reaction.

I'll take a look.


Quote:

(4) If entities can pretend to do good when in fact they are evil, then how can we be sure that anything supposedly revealed was really coming from the Holy Spirit? _________________________________________ The New Testament answer?  Through the gift of spiritual discernment exercised in the context of the corporate body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:10; 14:29). ..... But now let me stress the obvious: for a Christian the ultimate test of the gift of discernment is the question of whether an alleged revelation contradicts the central message of Jesus and the Gospel.   This question is is not always easy to answer.  The Bible is not an inerrant book and the message of Jesus and the Gospel can be perverted or misunderstood.

Boy, do you have that right!  That's why there are thousands of different churches and denominations, all teaching totally different versions of Christianity.  I just think we should focus on the basics: stuff like Jesus's Messiahship, divine nature, death on the cross, resurrection and appearances after death, and of course his teachings.  All the other doctrines are of lesser importance, IMO.  Some doctrines actually detract from the true message of the Gospel, a major example being the doctrine of eternal torment held by the vast majority of Christians today.


Quote:

Discernment presumes that one has applied the biblical principles of prayer and meditation and that one has humbly allowed the corporate body of Christ to test one's insights.  But first one must find a compatible church where the atmosphere is electric with the presence of God and an overpowering spirit of love.

I think it's very, very, very hard to find such a church.  I have found that most churches are either focused on promoting certain pet doctrines, or they are like business enterprises focused on getting as many people in the door as possible, and providing facilities such as child care, youth groups, exercise rooms, etc.  I no longer attend church.  I simply do not find it inspiring.  Some churches actually give me a feeling of spiritual revulsion.


Quote:

God doesn't want robots.  To God the value of our free will is a function of the strength of our inclination to make choices that alienate us from Him.  This insight is the basis of the mystery of spiritual warfare.  Only God knows how strong this contrary inclination needs to be to maximize the value of our freely offered love. Why didn't God create a world without pain, suffering, and hardship?  Because without these, there would be no pain-dependent virtues.   Courage requires danger and risk.  Compassion requires suffering.  Generosity requires want.  Patience requires frustration and nerve-wracking delays.  And who are we to say that a moral order would be better off without courage, compassion, generosity, and patience in God's eyes?

Good points.


Quote:

Jesus concedes the ability of evil people apparently to perform a variety of miracles: "Many will say to me on that day,  `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in our name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?  And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you.  Away from me, you evildoers (Matthew 7:22-23)!"

Too bad it seems like a lot of the people doing the most miracle healing, exorcisms, and stuff like this, are actually the ones who have perverted the Gospel the most.  It's a matter of great frustration to me.  How often do you hear about a pastor who doesn't believe in eternal hell, doesn't promote legalism, doesn't obsessively focus on "tongues," and doesn't tell people they're supposed to get rich and successful and have a pleasant life if they are truly saved, who has the ability to heal people and cast out demons?  Almost never.  Actually, I've never heard of such a pastor.  Seems like good and loving understanding of the Gospel and miraculous gifts don't mix -- like oil and water, for some reason.


Quote:

Why evil spirits help people can partly be explained in terms of the psychodynamics of evil analyzed by psychiatrist Scott Peck.  In "People of the Lie," Peck associates evil with "malignant narcissism." ..... The long-range goal of evil is to compete with divine blessings in an effort to seduce people away from loving and serving God the right way.  This seduction might bond souls to lower spiritual planes or hells on the basis of affinities subtly developed between the evil entity and its human victims.

Makes sense.  I think that's a logical explanation.

Freebird

Freebird, check out Unity Church. I think you will be amazed and hopefully delighted as I am.  ;)

With Love,
Mairlyn   :D

Hi Berserk,

To answer your last question first, no, I'm not Amish, though I did live with a Mennonite family one summer.  I've abstained from watching TV most of my life, however, being so dissatisfied with all the commercials, canned laughter and generally degrading images of people presented there.

I realized after I posted my last message that I made the mistake of conflating accountability with responsibility.  I apologize.  The word accountability raises the question, however, of accountability to whom.  I suppose if a person believes in a God that passes judgement on us (which I don't, BTW), then that probably answers the question.  If not, I'm not sure where accountability comes into the picture.

You mention the idea of (some, not all?) chanelers having a hidden agenda.  How does one tell if there's a hidden agenda?  Jane Roberts (who chaneled Seth and was raised in Catholicism) was always afraid she might be leading people astray by spreading Seth's teachings.  She openly acknowledged this fear, and while she tried her best to apply Seth's teachings to her life, I think her upbringing and this fear often kept her from doing so.


wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2005 at 5:07pm:

As already discussed, one of these lies is the rejection of the good vs evil polarity.  Dora and Glen try to rescue Seth from this charge by noting that Seth links accountability with the fact that "you create your own reality."  This absurd claim is decisively refuted by life experience, but that is a separate issue.  The salient point is that "accountability" is not "moral" accountability if the good vs. evil polarity is rejected.  The rejection of this polarity means that the only incentive to be moral is to preserve a pleasing self-image and life experience.  The spiritual trap is this:  moral relativists feel free to be immoral, even criminal, when it suits them, when it feels good, and when they imagine they can get away with it.

I realize you may not agree with what I have to say, but I'll say it anyway.

Beliefs and reality are two different things.  For example, let's say there is a very definite reality which exists, which contains within it the Earth and all the people who live on it.  Amongst all these people there's you and me, and we each have our own beliefs about the nature of this reality.  That is, you have your beliefs about it and I have mine.  These are two different sets of beliefs, so even though we're talking about the same reality, your understanding of it is different from mine.  Either or both of us might be partially or totally incorrect in our understanding of this one reality.  Our personal understanding of reality is based upon our individual beliefs, however, and since beliefs are technically arbitrary ~ that is, any person may or may not believe in God, and could theoretically just flip a coin to decide ~ either one of us could be right or wrong in any particular part of our understanding.

Now, the question of whether or not evil exists in this reality is debatable.  You believe it does, while I don't.  You believe in some kind of "moral accountability," while I don't.  And you believe that the lack of belief in such moral accountability automatically leads to certain consequences.  It seems to me that one need not be a "moral relativist," however, "to be immoral, even criminal, when it suits them, when it feels good, and when they imagine they can get away with it."  A person could be a very religious, moral person and still be such a criminal (though they'd probably feel lots of guilt), and some "moral relativist" might live according to the strictest moral code without even being aware of such a code, and without having "the only incentive" of preserving a pleasing self-image and life experience.


Quote:

What Dora, Marilyn, Debbie, and Glen fail to realize and the Seth, Elias, and Ramtha entities perversely fail to acknowledge is this:  my critique is more than personal belief; it is established by excellent sociological research.

Research and statistics can usually be found to support most any argument.  In any case, research or not, your critique does reflect your personal beliefs.  It is your critique, after all.

All this talk of various chaneled entities being considered demonic, while perhaps helpful as a cautionary tale, in all fairness shouldn't be used to lead to the generalization that all chaneled entities are evil.  There might just be a few "bad apples."


Quote:

The evidence for the demonic is far more impressive that that for the contrary insights of channeling.

Different people are impressed by different evidence.

Best wishes,
Glen

Dear Glen,

Thanks for your response.  As I have tried to make clear, I do not assume all channeling is evil or even that Seth, Elias, Ramtha, and ACIM are demonic.  Even the dangeous Ouija board has, on occasion, generated some of the best verifications for an afterlife.  What I've tried to show is that these hidden agendas have evil effects.  As for your (and Dora's) claim that the sociological study cited reflects ideological bias, that comment in effect undermines the objective research of the social sciences.  The challenge you need to meet is this: if you reject the study's finding that moral relativism lincreases the likelihood of immoral and criminal behavior on a large variety of measures, then you bear the burden of producing other scientific studies that contradict these findings.  Otherwise, any absurd position can seek protection from its being unfalsifiable, even in principle.

OK, so you don't believe in evil and exorcisms of demons.   I have encountered no one who has read Malachi Martin's "Hostage to the Devil" and come away still unconvinced that the demonic is real.  I challenge you to read it and relay your reaction, if for no other reason, to stop me from making this bold claim.  You could be the first skeptic I know to retain his skepticism after reading that chilling survey of genuine American exorcisms.

Berserk

Hi Berserk,

Since my library doesn't have "Hostage to the Devil," I looked it up at Amazon.com to see what people who've read it had to say.  Most of them talked more about the subject than about the book itself, and it sounds like the book is mostly a group of cases and his discussion of them.  If he cites research studies that have been done, perhaps you could tell us what studies they were and where we can see reports of them.  I tend to be skeptical when it comes to any claims of scientific research and statistical analysis, not just the kind that resulted in the figures you gave us.

Would you be satisfied if I read some of M. Scott Peck's book instead?  I happen to have a copy of "People of the Lie," so I can look through it to learn more about this devil possession thing.  If you'd like to direct me to any particular pages, I would appreciate it.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I don't think there's any reality to things like God, the devil and good and evil.  I can see that they're real for the people who believe in them; that's the way 'personal reality' works.  They're just not real for me.

So I'm not doubting that the stories contained in Martin's book are honest accounts of people's experiences; I'm just saying that such dramas only occur for people who hold those beliefs.


Quote:

What I've tried to show is that these hidden agendas have evil effects.

So, what are these hidden agendas and what are their evil effects?

Cheers,
Glen

wrote on Feb 5^th, 2005 at 1:37am:

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I don't think there's any reality to things like God, the devil and good and evil.  I can see that they're real for the people who believe in them; that's the way 'personal reality' works.  They're just not real for me. So I'm not doubting that the stories contained in Martin's book are honest accounts of people's experiences; I'm just saying that such dramas only occur for people who hold those beliefs.

Reality is not merely personal.  It is also objective (true for all people simultaneously).  That is the difference between reality and fantasy.

It should be pointed out that there are plenty of documented cases of people who did not believe certain phenomena were real, but then experienced something that challenged their view of reality, and they were forced to change their mind.  Atheists, skeptical and scientifically minded people have had NDEs and OBEs, religious visions, seen miracles, encountered ghosts, UFOs and aliens, angels, and even demons -- things they rejected so totally that they would actually ridicule before it happened to them.

This proves three things: (1) that we are not completely in control of our own reality, because reality is trans-personal and objective rather than purely an outgrowth of the individual mind; (2) that our beliefs are subject to change at any time due to external forces that may impose themselves upon our preconceived notion of reality, perhaps precisely to break us out of the shackles of solipsistic thinking and into a broader perception and understanding of the greater reality which lies beyond us; (3) that beings such as angels, demons, ghosts, aliens, etc. exist in and of themselves or in the Universal Mind (God's absolute reality), not merely in our own mind.

Freebird

Dear Glen,

I admire your honest candor.  I highly recommend Peck's "People of the Lie" because it is the first book of its kind, a psychiatist's analysis of evil's psychodynamics manifested in individual case histories, group evil (the MyLai massacre in Vietnam), and two possession cases.  One Peckian theory embraces all 3 forms of evil.  Part of the book's fascination is that it makes one reflect on the question of whether one has encountered people that fit Peck's profile.  

I think the book would expand your horizons, but I doubt that it would convince a skeptic that evil exists.  If you just want a taste of it, read his chapter on exorcism.  The book does not go into a lot of specifics about exactly what happened in the exorcisms that made Peck a believer.  Peck's new book " Glimpses of the Devil" fills that vacuum, but I've only read a few parts of it so far.  Malachi Martin's "Hostage to the Devil" is unique because its case histories actually make the reader feel "evil energy."  

I was a college professor of Religious Studies for 12 years.  One very bright skeptic challenged me to convince him that evil exists; so I referred him to Martin's book.  A month later he came back to me somewhat shattered.  He agreed  with me that the book was absolutely convincing, but said he couldn't finsh it because it had made him an insomniac.  For that reason, I'll understand if you decide not to read it.  I don't want to be overbearing about this. I'm grateful that you were even willing to search for reviews.  Still, his book is by far the most persuasive on the subject.  


To Freebird I want to add this: My cousin E was just 2-3 when he was attacked by the entity that his Dad had just exorcised in the house.  E was too young to grasp what was involved in an exorcism and had no idea that his attack coincided with the expulsion.  As for my brother's esorcism, how did he know the name and location of the young thug needing an exorcism, and why would a stranger walk up to him and ask if he was at the coffee house on a special mission?  To me the psychic events that surround this incident support a supernatural interpretion of the exorcism's success.

wrote on Feb 5^th, 2005 at 4:27pm:

To Freebird I want to add this: My cousin E was just 2-3 when he was attacked by the entity that his Dad had just exorcised in the house.  E was too young to grasp what was involved in an exorcism and had no idea that his attack coincided with the expulsion.  As for my brother's esorcism, how did he know the name and location of the young thug needing an exorcism, and why would a stranger walk up to him and ask if he was at the coffee house on a special mission?  To me the psychic events that surround this incident support a supernatural interpretion of the exorcism's success.

You're probably right.  The way you describe these incidents does sound like there was some kind of supernatural activity involved.  I am very uncomfortable with the thought of "demonic attack" but I must admit I do believe things like this can occur.

Freebird

Quote:

"A dense black fog was forming all around me, blotting out the path.  Within seconds I could see nothing.  The dark mist was swirling, alive, filled with the presence of something more monstrous than anything I had ever encountered.  Voices began whispering, hissing incoherent words and laughter in my right ear.  An ice-cold breath touched the back of my neck under my hair.  `Hermanito, help me!'  I gasped.  The voices shrieked in hideous laughter: `We're going to kill you!'  I panicked and broke into a run.  Something lie a giant fist slammed into my back...I pitched forward in the thick darkness and instinctively reached out to break my fall...I tried to scream out, `Jesus, Jesus, help me!'  `He can't help you!' the voices shrieked...I could see the faces of countless demons, contorted, twisted in indescribable rage (pp. 146-47)."

Not meaning to discount this woman's experience...but I found myself wanting to try and look at this logically.  Let's assume for the sake of argument that this woman HAD contacted demons.  Let's also assume that said demons were wanting to use her for the purposes of also deceiving other people and leading them astray...for the purposes of cultivating their souls or whatever.  Given that, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to me that said demons would appear to her in this manner...because all that would serve to do is exactly what it did...Namely, it scared her away from her present activity and caused her to presumably adopt a more conventional form of Christianity.  If the demons' purpose was to use her to continue to deceive others, why would they want to do that?  It would mean that they would then have to go about finding someone else to further their agenda...which to me seems extremely self-defeating.  So it seems to me that we're looking at four possibilities here.

a)  The demons really aren't all that smart.

b)  The demons are so completely chaotic that their behaviour is incapable of following a coherent plan (i.e., although they might deceive people for a while into thinking they're all sweetness and light, they won't be able to help the above genuine manifestation of themselves from being made known)

c)  The vision wasn't a genuinely paranormal event, but instead was some kind of psychoactive/psychosomatic incident triggered by residual guilt that this woman may have had over leaving Christianity.

d)  She actually was doing good work, and because of that, evil spirits/demons wanted to try and scare her away from doing it so that she would cease to as effectively help people.  This is very possible, given what I myself have been reading at ascension2000.com.  One of the channels who produced that material apparently experienced fairly constant negative spiritual attack due to the material being positive.  The evil beings in question did not want people to have access to material that could aid their development.

The conventional Christian response would probably be some variation of b) here.  Mine would speculatively either be a combination of a) and b), or d) on its own.

[All quotations drawn from "People of the Lie."]  

Dear Petrus,

You have an excellent grasp of the issues raised by the apparenrtly demonic attack on Johanna.  My only quibble is your understandable vacilation between options (d) alone and a combination of (a) and (b).  What I didn't report was the fact that, though the entity Hermanito performed many marvellous psychic surgeries, a few later surgical procedures failed to work and caused unspeakable pain and injury.  With that additional information, you would probably agree with me that some combination of (a) and b) seems most likely:

(a) The demons aren't really that smart.
(b) The demons are so completely chaotic that their behavior is incapable of following a coherent plan.

Your line of questioniing implicitly solicits a clearer explanation of the nature of evil and the demonic.  Malachi Martin believes that no more than 1 in every 100 exorcisms performed by Charismatic Protestant ministers involves the genuinely demonic.  Peck reports that when he put out the word that he wanted to witness exorcisms,
"Referrals trickled in.  The first two cases turned out to be suffering from standard psychiatric disorders, as I had suspected, and I began making marks on my scientific pistol (183)."  But then he encountered 2 genuine cases which  reinforced his journey from "a vague identification with Buddhist and Islmaic mysticism" to a strong Christian faith:

"In both cases the major distinction in differential diagnosis was between possession and multiple personality disorder...In multiple personality disorder the core personality is vitually always unaware of the existence of the secondary personalities--al least until close to the very end of  prolonged successful treatment.  In these 2 cases, however, both patients were either aware from the beginning or were readily made aware...that part [of them now] had a distinct and alien personality ...The second differentiation is that...in multiple personality disorders the secondary personality may play the role of the `whore' or the `aggressive one' or the `independent one'...It has never been reported to my knowledge as frankly evil [192-193]."

You rightly ask, "If the demons' purpose was to use her to deceive others, why would they want to do that [terrorize Johanna.]"  My banal reply is that by the time of this attack, Johanna was already being discipled by evangelical Christians she respected.  She was aware  by then of the entity Hermanito's intolerance of her powerful new protective spirit, the Holy Spirit.   Her new Bible tutors would certainly have alerted her to the biblical warnings about mediumship.  The demons may have attacked in the certainty that her return to her career as a medium was now inconceivable.

Though this explanation is part of truth, you are right, I think, to point to some combination of (a) and (b) as even more germane.  Peck would agree:

"Although it has real power, Satan also has glaring weaknesses--the same weaknesses that caused its banishment from heaven.  Martin noted that exorcisms can reveal not only extraordinary demonic brilliance but also extraordinary demonic stupidity.  My observations confirm this.  Were it not for its extraordinary pride and narcissism, Satan would probably not reveal itself at all.  Its pride overcomes its intelligence, so that the demon of deceit is also a showoff.  If it had been thoroughly clever, it would have left the two patients long before their exorcisms.  But it could not allow itself to lose...so in both cases it hung in there until the bitter end--with the result that I and others today now know its reality (208)."

To underline Petrus's point it is useful here to delineate all 4 characteristics of evil, psychologically conceived as "malignant narcissism:"

(1) "consistent destructive scapegoating behavior, which often is quite subtle
(2) excessive, albeit usually covert intolerance of criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury
(3) pronounced concern with a public image and self-image of respectability, contributing to a stability of life-style but also to a pretentiousness and denial of hateful feelings and vengeful motives
(4) intellectual deviousness, with an increased likelihood of a mild schizophrenic-like disturbance of thinking in time of stress (129)."

The genius of the demonic is most evident in its manifestion of (1) and (4) and its stupidity in its manifestation of (2) and (3).  Its wildly chaotic behavior is implicit in  the schizophreniclike outbursts in times of stress.  Peck finds (1)-(4) in individual evil, group evil, and pessession cases.

In the presence of human or demonic evil, says Peck, the therapist or exorcist experiences confusion and revulsion--confusion because evil cleverly blends truth with error and revulsion because discerning people sense the evil energy even if they are not yet willing to label it as such.  Demons also promote confusion by exploiting the fact that they know the exorcist team better than they know themselves.  For example, Martin investigates an exorcism led by a saintly old priest who had been sexually active in his misspent youth.  As soon as he enters the room, the demon blurts out, "Well, if it isn't Peter the [bleep--a word that rhymes with Peter]!"  This unmentionable phrase was a former girlfriend's vulgar creation decades prior.  When the team heard it and saw the priest blanch, they were naturally curious about how it applied to him, and so the demon temporarily gained the initiative and control.

Your question about the apparent stupidity of demons also raises the question of whether they are nonhuman or discarnate humans.  This brings up the same question with respect to angelic beings in general.  Astral adepts are divided on this question.  Robert Bruce conceives of angels as nonhuman; Swedenborg conceives of them as discarnate humans.  In  the Bible "angel" simply means "messenger", and so, is no help in settling this question.  

But our general impression in Scripture that angels are nonhuman is in fact misleading.  The Bible recognizes various classes of angels (e.g. archangels, guardian angels, cherubim,  and seraphim)   But Acts 12 implies that discarnate humans can also be labelled angels.  Herod has just executed the apostle James, but Peter has been rescued from the same fate by an angelically induced earthquake.  After his jailbreak, Peter rushes to the house of Mark's mother where Christians are fervently praying for his deliverance.  When Peter knocks, Rhoda opens the door, freaks out, and leaves Peter to announce his presence.  The Christians initially don't believe her: "They said, `It must be his angel (Acts 12:15)."   This reaction implies their belief that the righteous dead can immediately become angels.  Since demons are a class of angels, then they too might include discarnate humans.  In the hereafter, souls are attracted to heavenly or hellish planes on the basis of the principle like attracts like.  Perhaps evil discarnate humans can function like a group soul which possesses the living as if it were a nonhuman demon.  Perhaps Satan is not a particular individual, but the personification of the united energies of evil humans cooperating for a destructive end.  I think we should focus on the dangers of Satan manifestations and leave the meatphysical questions open.

Berserk  




   

I've only read two-thirds of the chapter so far, but find it quite fascinating.  I agree with Peck's conclusion that we're not dealing with multiple personailty disorder here, but I do have another possible explanation (offered by Seth): that people who suppress a major area of idealism within themselves (because they're convinced they can't express it freely or adequately) sometimes develop a sort of dual personality, much like Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde.  Maybe Dora remembers where he talks about this, referring to a hypothetical person as having two personalities (something like Antonio I and Antonio II, though that's not the name he used).

I like what he says about people being inherently stronger than the entities which supposedly possess them, love being the main healing element, and the people themselves being the ones to decide in the end to expel these alleged demons (that it's not the exorcist's, or even God's, decision, ultimately).

Very interesting.

Glen

Glen,


Quote:

Maybe Dora remembers where he talks about this, referring to a hypothetical person as having two personalities (something like Antonio I and Antonio II, though that's not the name he used).

Nature of the personal reality, Chapter 8
Health, Good and Bad Thoughts, and the Birth of
the "Demon"

The hypotetical person is Augustus... I and II

"Demon of any kind are the result of your beliefs. They are born from a beliefs in "unnatural guilt. You may personify them. You may even meet them in your experience, but if so they are still the product of your immeasurable creativity, though formed by your guilt and your belief in it.
If you shed the distorted concept of unnatural quilt and accepted the wise aincient wisdom of natural guilt instead  there would be no wars. You would not kill each other mindlessly.

I believe that the "Nature of the personal reality" is a mandatory read to those who care to find out the core of the  beliefs, including our own.. But of course that is my choice and preference... ;)

Hello all,

My first post here - heard about it from 'freebird' on another forum. Even as Moses(if I recall) said.....'O that all of Gods people would be prophets!'.....how bout 'O that all people would be channels of God'? As long as we are tapped into the divine Spring......we shall give forth worthy issues.

Lets see.....some of my fave channelers/channellings - I havent read much of the Seth material. Some of Ramtha. Some of P'taah. Some of Immanuel. A bit of Hilarion. O I'm sure I'm forgetting some. We also note that they are different kinds of channeling data/transmissions. I have found some auto-writing very stimulating.

I never got much into ACIM....although a few precepts in the volume do ring true for me. Getting deeper into some of the chapters however was a bit complexitive with all its etherealism and versatilities, especially as it relates theological terms with its own twist. I have preferred the Urantia Book in the past over it,........perhaps my more cosmic-intellectual-philosophic leanings.  ;)

This is a wonderful field as it relates to higher consciousness and spirit-communications. Currently my studies have been in the spiritualist/spiritist traditions and their 'channeled' material. Their messages are born from a more antiquated mediumship style than our modern new-age genre mediums. The Allan Kardec material is interesting and offers wonderful spiritual priniciples/teachings that are in spiritual attunement with the Christ-ethic....yet this school holds strongly to reincarnation as standard protocol....and likewise a belief shared by its spirit-messengers. I know there is a thread on this particular topic...so will leave it as 'cosmetic' for the time being. Oh,...I like Bruces belief on 'optional reincarnation' for souls - sure extends our liberties! - some I would imagine would not want to come back to earth, if it wasnt necessary.

In summary,.....arent we all channeling something? Be it our delight and joy to channel the highest and best of spirit-energies.

Beserker - did u see my posts on the AtralPulse forum? Just curious. - about weejee boards (pardon the slang) - I would agree that its best not to play with such toys...but as you allude....there have been some communications thru this means that has been confirmed as real information transmissions and spirit-contact. In fact, I know of one medium who used a kind of weejee....and contacted a highly evolved teacher thru such means.....and later became a channel/medium/intermediary(whatever suits you)...for this spirit-teacher for decades. The teachings were always consistent of a pure and wise quality of spirituality/light. The guide goes by the name of Zodiac.

Other well known and consistently valid and sound teachers/teachings have come thru the likes of White Eagle and Silver Birch, some of our native american elder brethren. Its a wonderful universe we live in......of inter and transdimensional Beauty.

I continue to pioneer these fields with all souls, spirits, angels, etc.....availing what is given thru the Over-Soul...that is of course...only purest Love and Wisdom. If the fruit keeps coming up of good quality and taste.....we can keep our palates satisifed...and see that God is good.

I have recently been asking in prayer...to be a greater channel.....a more pure tributary.


paul

To Beserk:
Enjoying this whole thread & replies, until the discussion of evil re M. Scott Beck. The 4 characteristics of evil (malignant narcisism) in the context of demons, has me reeling; specifically:
1) destructive scapegoating behaviour
2) Intolerance of criticism
3) self image of respectability & denial of hateful feelings & vengeful motives
4) Increased liklihood of schizophrenic-like disturbance of thinking in times of stress.
I have ordered Scott's book from Amazon, to get the whole context of this, but in the meantime!  Is this definition not too narrow, maybe extreme.  My mother fit those criteria:  the blaming of specific groups for her problems, the frenzy if questioned or mild hint of criticism, never letting go of a grudge, the insistance that she had never been angry in her life, the paranoia, hearing voices through the walls, the sheer out-of-control hysteria over unpredictable issues.  English was not her first language, & when stressed she used her native tongue, & once when we were visiting  & she was having a meltdown my husbnad later said it was like a scene from the exorcist (although he didn't understand a word she was saying):  the change in facial expression & body language & the voice became like a man's.  All of which I was unaware of until he mentioned.  I didn't teach my children my mother tongue because I didn't want them to understand the kinds of things that came out of her mouth & I & my brothers always coped, & I set off on my own at 16 (always in control I thought) but the infrequent exposures my children had to her must have impacted them.  My mother died last year, in horrible circumstances, nobody except immediate family at her funeral, feelings of relief rather than grief, & not even feeling guilty about that.  But I never thought of her as evil & hoped she finally found peace.  Was I oblivious to evil, & did my daughter pay a price?  She died last June, a beautiful, loving & much loved girl (age 19), hordes of grief stricken people  at her funeral, but her diary showed after the fact that she was  a tortured soul, plagued by a demon she couldn't shake.  I accessed this website because I'm drawn to this concept of an afterlife.  I can see her there, but not my mother.  What happens to demonic people?  Are these things passed from generation to generation?  Do your children pay the price if you're oblivious to evil (Sins of the fathers, etc).  What direction should I move in now?  I think I could handle Beck, but not the other guy (Malachi Martin?).  Any other suggestions? P.S.  I still don't experience my mother as evil or demonic,(just a really bad nightmare); is it necessary to define as evil?

Dear Ellen,

On something this importent I wouldn't presume to pass judgment on someone I've never known.  I think you're instincts are correct: read Peck's "People of the Lie," but not "Malachi Martin's "Hostage to the Devil."   Peck is clearly on to something important, but his analysis is the first of its kind by a psychiatrist and hence is surely in need of fine tuning and qualifications.  Let me know what you think after reading it and perhaps his related follow-up book, "Glimpses of the Devil" (which I have only browsed).  

Keep certain facts in mind. All of us have probably manifested one or more of (1)-(4) at one time or another.  For Peck these traits profile an evil person only if they mirror that person's core.  
Secondly, according to Peck, evil parents impact their children in a particular way.    Because of the scapegoating the kids consider themselves evil losers.  The troubled children were brought to Peck for counseling, but Peck soon realized that the parents were the real problem.  His confrontations with them are most intriguing and revelatory.  Third, Peck asks his 8-your son how he conceives evil.  His son wisely replied, "Evil is live spelled backwards. "  Peck was impressed because victims of evil seem absolutely lifeless.  All their zest for life has been drained out of them.   When you read Peck's book, trust your instincts more than you trust Peck or anything I have said in this thread!

Best wishes,
Don

Hi Don:  I wasn't asking you pass judgment on my mother; I was wondering if the concept of "evil" was relevant to a spiritual understanding.  Those criteria struck me because they seemed to sum up my childhood.  I will read Peck to see what the purpose of the evil label is & how useful.  Ironically, now that you mentioned it, I grew up feeling I was evil & have always been a quiet & controlled person in an attempt not to impinge on people; that might have looked  like I had "the life sucked out of me".  If a psychiatrist back then had labelled my mother as evil, I don't know if would have made our lives better.  Those 2 deaths last year really shook me into re-evaluating everything.  I would prefer a world view that doesn't include evil, demons, etc.

wrote on Feb 8^th, 2005 at 12:32am:

Perhaps there is no powerful evil entity? Perhaps there are just entities with smaller or larger plans of their own (like us, humans) all of which are also in the knowledge and the good care of god. There is no trick. They have their own plans according to their own way of perception of universe and god(like us, humans).

I tend to agree with this view.  If there are "demons" I believe they are just beings in the spirit world (some could be humans or extraterrestrials or angels or whatever category) who have an excessive level of wickedness in their character.  God will eventually purge them of this, save them from themselves, and put an end to their hurtful behavior.  Everyone has some degree of evil/sin/wickedness within their heart, just not as much as a "demon" might have.  By focusing on the powers of demons, we only encourage the inflated ego of these beings and their perverse fantasies.  Some people on earth are cruel and sadistic and enjoy it when they can scare the crap out of people and make their lives miserable, so why should it be any different among spirit beings?  Some very good, some very evil, most somewhere in-between on a spectrum.

Freebird

wrote on Feb 8^th, 2005 at 5:09pm:

Hello all, My first post here - heard about it from 'freebird' on another forum. Even as Moses(if I recall) said.....'O that all of Gods people would be prophets!'.....how bout 'O that all people would be channels of God'? As long as we are tapped into the divine Spring......we shall give forth worthy issues.

Hi Paul, good to see you here!  This is an interesting forum with plenty of interesting people.

I agree with the idea you expressed above.  I think all people have the potential to be prophets or spiritual teachers, as long as we do so in the spirit of prayer and humility, recognizing that we are fallible creatures and that we can always grow further in our journey towards God.

Freebird

wrote on Feb 9^th, 2005 at 3:52pm:

To Beserk: Enjoying this whole thread & replies, until the discussion of evil re M. Scott Beck. The 4 characteristics of evil (malignant narcisism) in the context of demons, has me reeling; specifically: 1) destructive scapegoating behaviour 2) Intolerance of criticism 3) self image of respectability & denial of hateful feelings & vengeful motives 4) Increased liklihood of schizophrenic-like disturbance of thinking in times of stress. I have ordered Scott's book from Amazon, to get the whole context of this, but in the meantime!  Is this definition not too narrow, maybe extreme.  My mother fit those criteria:  the blaming of specific groups for her problems, the frenzy if questioned or mild hint of criticism, never letting go of a grudge, the insistance that she had never been angry in her life, the paranoia, hearing voices through the walls, the sheer out-of-control hysteria over unpredictable issues.

Ellen,

I'm sorry about your mother and your daughter.

I would like to offer the thought that most of your mother's problems could have been coming from her brain, not her soul or spiritual nature.  The way you describe her, it sounds like she might have been suffering from mental illness.  If that is the case, she may simply have been physically incapable of controlling her moods and behavior.

Many people wrongly assume that one's "character" comes entirely from the soul, when in reality there is a great influence from the condition of the brain.  If the brain isn't wired properly or doesn't have the right chemistry, it can produce a bad character that is largely beyond the person's voluntary control.

Did you know that Adolf Hitler was beaten so severely by his father when he was a child that he once went into a coma for two days?  This beating and coma probably resulted in brain damage, which could have caused Hitler to become a madman if particular parts of the brain were affected.  We might get to heaven and find out that most of what Hitler did was the result of a disturbed brain, and that he was little more evil in his soul than any of us.

King George III of England was an eccentric man who went crazy because of arsenic poisoning.  Tragically, he was "treated" for his outbursts with more and more arsenic, which was believed by doctors at the time to control insanity.  Eventually he ended up raving mad.  It is believed by historians that the American Revolutionary War occurred partly because of King George's mental illness.

Many violent criminals commit their crimes because of mental illness.  Are they "evil" or just victims of their own diseased brain?  We must remember that when the body dies, so does the brain -- and any negative character traits that were caused by that brain naturally should die with it.

Geneticists now know that the majority of human personality is passed on in the genes.  People are literally born with tendencies to be shy or extroverted, peaceful or forceful, confident or anxious, happy and optimistic or depressed and cynical.  The rest comes from childhood experiences which influence our mental and emotional development.  Only some of an individual's personality comes from the non-physical soul and free will.  (Of course materialistic scientists would argue that none of it does, but I think they go too far.)

The bottom line is, please don't worry about your mother being "evil."  Everyone is born with a propensity to sin -- everyone.  God knows this and He forgives us, and He is saving us and transforming us, either in this life or the next.  Some people get lucky and get genes and childhood experiences that promote a peaceful and pleasant personality, while others don't.  God is not judging us for things that are beyond our control.

Apostle Paul put it best when he said, "There is no one righteous, not even one." (Romans 3:10).  And "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (verses 23-24).  It doesn't matter whether we are Christians or not, God is saving us anyway through Jesus Christ.  All souls will eventually be saved, even the most "evil" among us.

JMHO.

Best wishes,
Freebird

I have already explained the biblical case for the possibility of possession by evil discarnate humans.
But if you read "Hostage to the Devil," you will no doubt be open to the possibility of possession by powerful nonhuman demons that vary greatly in their power and authority.  

Based on many years of astral exploration, Robert Bruce is adamant about the reality of nonhuman demons with highly varying degrees of power.   In "Psychic Self-Defense,"  he shares his acquaintance with a priest who was called to perform an exorcism for a tormented family, but was unable to prevent the powerful entity from causing the parents' sudden deaths.  

Similarly, in "Hostage to the Devil,"  Malachi Martin reports the tragic demise of a young athletic priest.  This priest had already successfully performed an exorcism, and so, was called in to confront a particularly virulent possession case.  The evil entity took his life the moment he stood by the bed of the possessed person.  Apparently, he fell into the trap of taking credit for his initial success at exorcism and became less reliant on Christ's protection.   A more mature priest had to be summoned to complete the exorcism.

In the light of such demonic murders,  Seth's claim that demons are merely fear-based projections seems silly.  Or perhaps Seth is merely masking his complicity with demonic forces.

One can find some consolation in the pattern that the possessed generally have wittingly or unwittingly invited the entity in through Ouija boards or some form of mediumistic communication in which the entity initially masked its true identity
and came across as benign.  

But this pattern dees not apply to babies and young children.  But for his parents' fervent prayers in the car, my 2 or 3-year-old cousin E would have been possessed by the demon that my uncle had just expelled in the house.  Robert Bruce has learned from long astral experience that "babies and children are particularly vulnerable to negative atmosphere and energy transference."  

This is one of the many reasons why I am not convinced by reincarnation memories in young children.  In cases of possesssion by discarnate humans, the discarnate's memories merge with those of the child being possessed.  

"One can find some consolation in the pattern that the possessed generally have wittingly or unwittingly invited the entity in through Ouija boards or some form of mediumistic communication in which the entity initially masked its true identity and came across as benign"

Don- is there any explanation or theory as to how these entities pick and choose their victims aside from the Ouija conduit?   When it comes to young children, who are especially vulnerable (one would think), why isn't there an abundance of cases of evil possession?

As for Seth, one of the posters seems to think that there is nothing evil in his material because Seth sounds so high sounding and uplifting.  Well duhhh.  I mean, would a demon be so stupid as to come across as a fire breathing serpent?  I'm not saying Seth or Elias is evil, but I again pose the question as to whether their devotees find that the material enhances or detracts from their own relationship with God.

The answer, if honestly given, might in itself provide a clue as to their agendas.

wrote on Feb 12^th, 2005 at 2:05pm:

Based on many years of astral exploration, Robert Bruce is adamant about the reality of nonhuman demons with highly varying degrees of power.

One thing that doesn't make sense to me is why God would create beings to be this way, and allow them to continue in their morally/spiritually perverted state for (presumably) thousands of years, tormenting humans.

It is a known fact that human desires and proclivities have very little to do with free will.  An excellent example of this is homosexuals, who are attracted to the same gender but many of whom would prefer to be heterosexual and follow the normal pattern of human sexual relations.  They mostly find that no matter how hard they try, they cannot get rid of their homosexual desires.  They might be able to repress acting on the desire, but not the desire itself.  They did not choose to be gay.

Another good example is the way some people like or dislike certain foods from early childhood, while others have totally different tastes.  Even in the same family where they eat the same thing, one child might be repulsed by a food that his or her sibling craves and enjoys.  In my father's family, for example, he hates most vegetables, while his sister loves them.  He hates butter, while his sister puts globs of it on everything!

These things are God's work, not free will.  Therefore, demons also are that way because God made them that way -- to have evil inclinations.  Nobody voluntarily chooses to be inclined towards wickedness.  No good person wakes up one day and says, hmm, I guess I'll suddenly decide to start craving wickedness.  You don't decide on your own cravings; you can only decide whether to foster them or repress them.  Demons crave evil in the same way a person craves certain types of sex or food.  It is a God-determined character trait or inborn nature.  They might possibly have some degree of control over how much they indulge their desire to be evil, but the desire for evil follows them constantly.  In effect, demons themselves are demonized by character traits they did not choose.

I wonder, why would God have created some beings to have evil desires and inclinations, and therefore to be demons?  Why would God, after creating such beings, not reform them or transform them into good beings?  We know that God plans to do this with all humans in the afterlife.  Maybe God will eventually make the demons good, but why is He taking so long to do it?  It seems awfully unfair, both to humans who are persecuted by demons, and also to the demons themselves who have to be evil and loathsome creatures, the ultimate "vessels of dishonor."

Freebird

Freebird, I can only point to my earlier arguments that our free choice of the good is most valuable as a function of the strength of our inclination to choose contrary to God's values and will.    What applies to us may also apply to the angelic realm and hence to angels that have become demons.  

Roger, I know of no such theory, except that channeling abilities often seem to have a hereditary dimension.  Johanna, the disillusioned medium I've discussed in this thread, is one such example.  So young children born in such families might be more vulnerable to intruding entities.  

Of course what matters most is not my speculation, but the empirical evidence for the demonic.  Darwin, Freud, and Einstein are arguably the 3 most influential thinkers of the past two centuries.  Sigmund Freud MAY have been exposed to the demonic by his top pupil, Carl Jung.  I will describe the relevant chain of events in my next post.

Quote:

As for Seth, one of the posters seems to think that there is nothing evil in his material because Seth sounds so high sounding and uplifting.  Well duhhh.  I mean, would a demon be so stupid as to come across as a fire breathing serpent?  I'm not saying Seth or Elias is evil, but I again pose the question as to whether their devotees find that the material enhances or detracts from their own relationship with God.

While the following books dictated by the "evil" Seth ,Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul,The Nature of the Personal reality, The "Unknown" Reality, Volume 1 and 2, The Nature of the Psyche : It's Human Expression The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, Dreams, Evolution and Value Fulfillment, Volume 1 and 2,The Magical Approach, The Way toward Health,TheEarly Sessions, Book 1-9, translated  30 some language, and long years after Jane disengagement, still in demend and each one is 4-5 star review on Amazon.com...and literally read by millions,

Elias forum latest newsletter

Over 1 million webpages served!

Since opening our cyberdoors in February 2002, we have served over 1,151,000 webpages to more than 71,200 visitors in over 120 countries. We also served over 3,900 visitors last month.

There is not a single post, or reference, that any Seth or Elias reader ever encountered any kind of "demon'' or "evil' entity after reading and understood the material...

well Duhh... it might tell something about the beliefs... or at least should... :D

Elias:, For evil as an entity, no, does not exist. This is not an expression within your reality nor within consciousness. As a condition, evil does not exist.

As a perception, as an expression, yes, for evil may be defined as the absence of compassion, and compassion is defined in understanding. Therefore, the absence of understanding is the expression of evil.

FREUD AND JUNG ENCOUNTER THE DEMONIC?

I've shared the stories of how Raphael and Johanna initially believed in their mediumship as healing and beneficial, but eventually came to experience it as deceptive and demonic.  Carl Jung, one of the pioneers of the field of psychiatry, experienced a similar disillusionment with channeling.  But the paranormal phenomena that preceded his call to mediumship were witnessed by none other than the great atheist Sigmund Freud, one of the most infleuential thinkers of the past two centuries.

Jung recounts these paranormal experiences in his biography "Memories, Dreams, Reflections."  I'll share just 4 key incidents.  The first incident terrified Jung's mother who was sitting nearby:

(1) "Suddenly there sounded a pistol shot.  I jumped up and rushed into the room from which the noise of the explosion had come. . .The table top had split from the rim to beyond the center. . .The split ran through the solid wood.  I was thunderstruck.  How could such a thing happen?. . .If it had stood next to a heated stove..., then it might have been conceivable."  

(2) "Some two weeks later I came home at six o'clock in the evening and found the household--my
mother, my 14-year-old sister, and the maid--in a great state of agitation.  About an hour earlier there had been another deafening report...In the cupboard I found a loaf of bread, and beside it, the bread knife.  The greater part of the blade had snapped off in several places...One of the best cutlers in town examined the fractures with a magnifying glass, and shook his head, `...There is no fault in the steel.  Someone must have deliberately broken it piece by piece (105-106).'"
In fact, no one had touched it!

(3) Jung visited Freud in Vienna and listened as he ridiculed the occult and the paranormal.  Jung explains what happened next:  "While Freud was going on in this way, I had a curious sensation.  It was as if my diaphragm were made of iron and were becoming red-hot--a glowing vault.  And at that moment there was such a loud report in the bookcase, which stood right next to us, that we both started up in alarm, fearing that the thing was going to topple over on us.  I said to Freud, `There, that is an example of a so-called cataleptic exteriorization phenomenon.'  `O come,' he exclaimed, `That is sheer bosh.'  `It is not,' I replied.  `You are mistaken, Herr Professor.  And to prove my point I now predict that in a moment there will be another such loud report!'  Sure enough, no sooner had I said these words than the same detonation went off in the bookcase.  To this day I do not know what gave me this certainty
...Freud only stared, aghast, at me (155-56)."  At the end of Jung's biography is appended the letter that Freud wrote him in a sheepish attempt to explain away this paranormal manifestation.

(4) "Around five o'clock in the afternoon on Sunday the front doorbell began ringing frantically. . .  Everyone immediately looked to see who was there, but there was no one in sight.  I was sitting near the doorbell, and not only heard it, but saw it moving.  We all simply stared at one another.  The atmosphere was thick, believe me!. . .The whole house was filled as if there was a crowd present, crammed full of spirits...I was all aquiver with the question: `For God's sake, what in the world is this?'  Then THEY cried out in chorus, `We have come back from Jerusalem where we found not what we sought.'  Perhaps, the Jerusalem allusion implies that these entities are demons once exorcized by Jesus.  The upshot of this spirit infestation was Jung's willingness to become their mouthpiece and to channel a work entitled "Seven Sermons to the Dead (190-101)."  This channeled material is appended to Jung's biography (178-90).  Jung "later described it as a sin of his youth and regretted it (378)."  

yuck this thread is getting too long I may start another with one thought I have about all this.

I do wonder what the autopsy reports say about the people who died "at the hands of those demons." DIED OF DEMONIC POSSESSION ??? I doubt it. This is purely speculative and not accepted in the general population.

I do wonder what would happen if we could examine someone in this so-called state of being possessed by a demon. Does anyone know if anyone at TMI has had an opportunity to investigate this sort of thing in person and draw some conclusion?

anyway to me the real issue is ..how do you deal with the negativity when you encounter it?

I don't think evil exists in an absolute form but it is a condition here on earth (just as weather, report cards, taxes, eating, etc are). Maybe it can reside in a person and sometimes it seems to sit in a physical place or group.

And in those terms, I personally think the Roman Catholic Church is a force for evil in the world. So it is ironic that priests are the ones called to exorcise demons.

Donald, you get too focused on the details. What are your experiences? good bad indifferent. I don't want to hear your conjectures. I want to hear your experiences. I too have a PhD and I can get down with the BS. and the mental masturbation too. I want facts from your life. I don't mean your nephew's experiences, I mean your experiences. What do YOU experience when you pray? Do things happen? You get so tied up in speculation. The world is moving on from religion. Religion has served its purpose. (not that there aren't many growing pains to still experience...esp in Islamic world.) Religion doesn't explain all the things I experience. And that is why it is evil. It wants to control me and fit me into a box and limit me.

Hi Berserk,

Thanks for sending me back to my bookshelves.  I much prefer this Carl Jung book to Scott Peck's.   :)

I don't see him making any connection though between unexplained paranormal phenomena and any sort of demons.  Séances were a popular fad at the time, so it's not surprising that Jung attended some that were held by firends or relatives.

I might also point out that the meanings of words often change over time.  The word devil, for example, originally meant "a false accuser; a traducer or slanderer" (The Century Dictionary, p 1579, pub. 1889).  they give the example from John vi. 70, 71:

Quote:

Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?  He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

The dictionary goes on to say that the same Greek word "occurs several times in the New Testament (1 Timothy iii. 11; 2 Timothy iii. 3; Tit ii. 3), but this is the only instance in which, when so used, it is rendered devil in the English versions."  So translation from one language to another is also a factor here.

Looking at the development of the word demon can also be instructive.  Here's what the old dictionary says:

Quote:

1. In Greek mythology, a supernatural agent or intellignece, lower in rank than a god; a spirit holding a middle place between gods and men; one of a class of ministering spirits, sometimes regarded as including the souls of deceased persons . . . 2. An evil spirit; a devil: from the belief of the early Christian world that all the divinities of the pagans were devils.

If there was some point you were trying to make in your last message here, I missed it.

Cheers,
Glen

Greetings all,

On the topic of good/evil and the mediumship of such forces......it would appear that spirits could be judged by their will and intent as such springs naturally from their inherent nature, their essence.

I have recently been reminded that some highly spiritual and ethical teachings which have come thru spirit-teachers have emphasized that mediumship and other spiritual gifts ought to be secondary outflows from a humble life of service and right spiritual living. The life of service and living the law of love is the primary and essential aspiration to true spirits of higher spiritual evolution. Therefore.....seeking certain psychic/spiritual gifts/endowments just for the sake of themselves or less noble purposes is discouraged and in some cases dangerous.

I was skimming thru some White Eagle teaching on this as channelled thru Grace Cooke. It has some interesting tidbits on mediumship and its right use.

Another wonderful author{Stewart Edward White} penned some remarkable volumes of data on higher spiritual principles and laws thru the mediumship of 'Betty' - I have read his book "The Unobstructed Universe" and am just starting "The Betty Book". In this volume it looks like some info. is provided about mediumship and its place within spiritual life - its ethical use.

Another thorough rendering of mediumship and the dynamics of rapport involved is Allan Kardecs "The Mediums Book". Also...some interesting data on this in the volume "Towards the Light"(by a danish medium). All of these have to do with communications from the greater or transendental world of spirit(s).

My experience is that the heart of a spirit/entity and its true nature...is essential in discerning the 'spirit' of the spirit. Good and evil may be relative terms and assignments in our world of comparisons........but at last.....a tree is known by its fruit. Therefore I say that any spirit of God will truly manifest divine-nature character and be consistently true to its being.

It comes down to the will, intent, motive and the 'spirit' behind the spirits message. This guideline for entities works on all planes of existence.

paul

Glen,

My primary point was that Jung, like Raphael and Johanna, sensed something malevolent about the entities he channeled; and so,  Jung later regretted his channeled material.  My secondary point was that the entities MAY well have been demonic.  Their reference to being frustrated in Jerusalem seems to my mind to associate them with the demons exorcised by Jesus.  Also, their destructive behavior and inducement of fear may point in the same direction.  But I am not dogmatic about his because these entities never permanently possessed anyone.  

I'm glad you are enjoying "Memories, Dreams, and Reflections."  I made Jung's biography required reading in my college course on "Psychology and Religion."  I view it as one of the most personally relevant scholarly books one can hope to read.  It is more a biography of Jung's soul history than a biography of his life events.  Rightly understood, it might empower the reader to trace his own soul history.   But first one must grasp his priceless insights into the structure of the unconscious: the archetypes, the shadow self, the animus/ anima, the four functions, together with the collective unconscious.

I must qualify this endorsement. "Memories" is a tough read in spots and the average reader will not grasp many of its concepts. So I also recommend the evolutionary analysis of Jung's life and thought in Marie-Louise von Franz, "C. G. Jung: His Myth in Our Time" (1975).    This book clearly explains how Jung's seminal ideas derive from his experiences.  Those who understand both books will experience a dramatic upgrade in self-awareness.   Also, astral projection often perceives bewildering archetypes and symbols which might be more fully understood with a sound grasp of Jungian psychology.

Don

P.S. Paul, I have "The Unobstructed Universe" but can't remember it very well.  When I find time to read some of the books you mention, I hope to respond to your comments.

Quote:

Paul, I have "The Unobstructed Universe" but can't remember it very well.  When I find time to read some of the books you mention, I hope to respond to your comments.

Don,...........I found some sound workable principles in the Stewart White literature. Trying to follow these books chronologically. I believe he wrote at least 3 on the spirit-commincations thru the medium Betty. He refers to these intelligent spirits as the 'Invisibles'.

Also,....I havent read/studied much of Jung....but was interested in James Hillmans writings...who is a pioneer in his own right in the field of soul psychology. I actually have his book 'Suicide and the Soul'. I've only read a few chapters so far - the recent passing of my little sister to this 'manner' of passing inspired a further study in this area.


paul

this is my first time posting here. Since my husband passed away almost three months ago, I have contacted a bunch of mediums, two are very famous and one of those has been used by the FBI. But I can't seem to get the same story from all of them. I'm beginning to lose faith. Do they just pick up on my past, maybe, or my husbands life, and knowingly or not weave that into what they call "a reading" ? Also, they will say things that are so dead on accurate, but then throw in something completly wrong, so I don't know what to believe.
Does anyone have any ideas? I'd appreciate it!

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2005 at 2:48am:

this is my first time posting here. Since my husband passed away almost three months ago, I have contacted a bunch of mediums, two are very famous and one of those has been used by the FBI. But I can't seem to get the same story from all of them. I'm beginning to lose faith. Do they just pick up on my past, maybe, or my husbands life, and knowingly or not weave that into what they call "a reading" ? Also, they will say things that are so dead on accurate, but then throw in something completly wrong, so I don't know what to believe. Does anyone have any ideas? I'd appreciate it!

Having no experience with mediums, I can only offer my opinion.  I believe that what you describe indicates their skills in contacting the afterlife are not very good, and therefore these mediums cannot be trusted to provide you with accurate information.  It sounds to me like most of what they are "seeing" is just coming from their own mind, not objective reality.

We must always remember that truth is not always the same thing as what we want to believe.  Our beliefs do not create reality.  Reality transcends the individual human mind.  It is possible that these mediums are picking up on some real truths about your husband, but their perceptions are also cluttered with things from their own imagination, and they are unable to distinguish between the two.  I suspect there is a lot of this that goes on.  Probably the hardest thing is to separate the things of the personal mind from the things of objective reality, when we are exploring the spiritual realm.

In my view, the most important thing to believe is that God is good and God does not abandon any soul forever.  The afterlife is not just one big reflection of one's own mind.  If it were, the universe would be an extremely unjust place.  There is an objective reality out there, and it is good!  Thankfully, God is in control and God is saving all souls through a divine plan.  If I didn't believe this, I would not be able to live with all the terrible realities of this world.  Praise God, there is something better on the other side of the grave -- eventually, for all of us, even the most wicked souls like Adolf Hitler.  All are in a process of being saved and transformed into glorious spiritual beings who are co-creators with God.  JMHO.

Freebird

Dear  Meli,

I'm sorry to hear about your husband's passing.  You say you've contacted several famous mediums, but add: "I can't seem to get the same story from all of them."  A few years ago, a scientific study was done on psychics who did past life readings.  These psychics must obviously have impressed clients  to gain their reputation.  But researchers were concerned that their clients were told different stories by each of them.  When confronted about this, they claimed, "Oh, the other readers must be talking about a different past life."  So researchers tried an experiment.   They asked each psychic reader to tell them about their IMMEDIATE past life.  The results?  No two psychics told the same story!

You complain, "They [famous mediums] will say things that are so dead on accurate, but then throw in something completely wrong."  I've talked to several people who have visited mediums with the attitude, "I won't take this too seriously."  But then some of them are given minor predictions that come true.  This enslaves them to the expectation that the major predictions must also come true.  When the major predictions fail, they experience a troubling ordeal for nothing.  

You insightfully ask, "Do they just pick up on my past, maybe, or my husband's life, and knowingly or not, weave that into what they call `a reading'?"
Studies on ESP show that it is usually very erratic and sporadic.  So your suspicion may be correct. But perhaps we need to consider a more sinister possibility--that you and people like you are being victimized by a deceitful spirit.  In his brilliant analysis of the psychodynamics of evil, psychiatrist Scott Peck identifies this as one of evil's four characteristics: the clover blending of truth and error or the use of truth to set up a lie.  

I will entitle my next post "The Deceptive Revelations of Famous Mediums" and make the case for the possibility--not the certainty--that a deceptive entity may sometimes be involved.  
There is good reason to justify your statement, "I'm beginning to lose faith."

Stay tuned,
Don  

Don-

Wasn't your next post going to be on channeling agendas?

Roger

Roger, since the entities are not up front about their agendas, I think it advisable to first document good evidence that the entities deliberately deceive their clients.  Then I will try to formulate an overview of the channeling agendas that involves both what I've already said here and new material.
In the process, I hope to respond more directly to Meli's questions.

THE DECEPTIVE REVELATIONS OF FAMOUS MEDIUMS

In a sitting with medium Blanche Cooper in 1922, Dr. Sam Soal's deceased brother came through and said, "Sam, I've brought someone who knows you."  Then in a strong, familiar voice Gordon Davis began to speak through Blanche.  Davis was an old school buddy whom Soal had been told was killed in a military operation.   "Davis" confirmed this belief when he said, "My poor wife is my only concern now--and my kiddie."  He proceeded to refer correctly and unmistakably to persons, places, and events from their school days and to a chance later meeting.  The "communicator" used forms of expression commonly used by the real Gordon Davis (e.g. "old chap"' "confab").  At two later sittings in 1922, "Davis" gave a detailed description of external features of his house and also made some specific references to its pictures, ornaments, and furniture.

To his great surprise, Soal discovered in 1925 that Davis was in fact still alive and went to see him.  A great deal of the channeled information about the house, its contents, and the arrangement of its contents proved to be correct.  But Davis and "his wife and kiddie" had not moved into the house until over a year after the relevant sitting!   So some of the channeled material must be ascribed to precognition.   The entity channeled by Blanche exploited Soal's mistaken belief in Davis's demise to impressively deceive Soal into believing that he was indeed in contact with Gordon Davis.  If you ask why this type of refutation does not occur more often, I'd counter with this question: how often are you mistakenly told that a friend of yours has died?

Tribal shamans traditionally understand their channeling to put them in touch with spirits and demons as well as discarnate humans.  In earlier centuries Neoplatonists also practiced trance mediumship but ascribed it to the agency of gods or demons rather than to dead people.   Likewise, witches in the 17th and 18th centuries attributed to demons the information disclosed during their channeling sessions.  Perhaps the modern attempt to identify spirit controls with deceased people reflects the wishful thinking of modern prejudice.

But let us turn to a more modern example of channeling deception.  As already noted, Seth resurrects a discredited Gnostic claim from the 2nd century, i.e. that Jesus was never crucified, but instead simply willed himself out of earthly existence--a contention contradicted by Elias who insists Jesus died decades later in Macedonia.  But Seth's deception or self-delusion extends to his claims about his prior incarnations.  In "Seth Speaks 350-51 Seth claims a prior incarnation as Protonius Meglemanius III, a corrupt pope around 300 AD.  But here Jane Roberts falls into 7 traps:

(1) The Roman bishop in 300 AD was Marcellinus I.  There never was a pope or bishop named Protonius or Meglemanius.  Sensing that Seth's  ignorance might be exposed, Robert Butts waffles a little on the exact date, but even a date between 300-400 does not spare Seth from discreditation.

(2) Seth alleges that, as pope, "I wrote two church laws."  There is no evidence that any canonical laws were formulated by Marcellinus I.

There is a popular misconception that the papacy can be traced back to Peter.  Modern Catholic historians know that the papal lists are flawed by serious anachronisms.   Seth falls into this anachronistic trap in 3 ways:

(3) Seth distinguishes between his birth name and his "papal name."  But there was no distinction in this era between birth and papal names for a very simple reason: the term "pope" (Latin: "papa") was not used as the official title of the bishop of Rome until Leo the Great (446-461 AD) first staked his claim to this title.  Prior to Leo, the term "papa" was just used generically as a reference to bishops in the less lofty sense of "father".  Pope Seth never existed.

(4) Seth claims that, as pope, he "sent armies to the north (350-51)."  But around 300 AD the bishop was a spiritual leader of a small and persecuted church.  Only several centuries later could popes head up and send armies!   From 60-300 AD, only a couple of Christian women with little influence became part of Caesar's court.    

(5) Seth claims that his illegitimate daughters felt compelled to join nunneries.  In fact, there were no nunneries in this era.  St. Anthony, the founder of Christian monasticism, did not even organize the first all-male monastic order until after Marcellinus I and did so in Egypt, not Rome (around 305 AD).  Yet Seth claims, "I had two illegitimate children [class laughter], a mistress that sneaked into my private study, a magician that I kept in case I did not do too well on my own, a housekeeper who was pregnant every year that I had her; and three daughters who joined a nunnery because I would not have them."  Here Seth makes two additional absurd assumptions:  (6) that Roman bishops must be celibate in this era and must therefore gain sexual gratitification through clandestine means; (7) that a Christian pope would be permitted to keep a pagan magician on staff.  The anti-Christian agenda that surfaces elsewhere in Seth's ramblings manifests itself in Seth's degrading portrait of Pope Protonius's lifestyle.  

THE DECEPTIVE REVELATIONS OF
The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ
by Acharya S

Acharya S was classically educated at some of the finest schools, receiving an undergraduate degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin & Marshall College. She is a member of one of the world's most exclusive institutes for the study of Ancient Greek Civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece:

"Founded in 1881, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens is the most significant resource in Greece for American scholars in the fields of ancient and post-classical studies in Greek language, literature, history, archaeology, and art. It offers two major resource libraries: the Blegen, with 70,000 volumes dedicated to ancient Greece; and the Gennadius, with 100,000 volumes dedicated to post-classical Greece. The School also sponsors excavations and provides centers for advanced research in archaeological and related topics at its excavations in the Athenian Agora and Corinth, and houses an archaeological laboratory at the main building complex in Athens. By agreement with the Greek government, the School is authorized to serve as liaison with the Greek Ministry of Culture on behalf of American students and scholars for the acquisition of permits to excavate and to study museum collections."

Acharya S has served as a trench master on archaeological excavations in Corinth, Greece, and Connecticut, USA, as well as a teacher's assistant on the island of Crete.

Acharya S has traveled extensively around Europe, and she speaks, reads and/or writes English, Greek, French, Spanish, Italian, German, Portuguese and a smattering of other languages to varying degrees. She has read Euripides, Plato and Homer in ancient Greek, and Cicero in Latin, as well as Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales in Middle English.  She has also been compelled to cross-reference the Bible in the original Hebrew and ancient Greek.

Rev. Acharya S has gained mastery in several religions, as well other esoterica and the supernatural, and has a number of students and devotees.  She is also the author of several books, including The Christ Conspiracy, Paradise Found and The Aquarian Manifesto: A Handbook for Survival into and a Blueprint for the New Age. Her current book is Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled. Articles by Acharya S have been published in Exposure, Steamshovel Press, Paranoia, as well as other periodicals and ezines......................................................................

Introduction

Around the world over the centuries, much has been written about religion, its meaning, its relevance and contribution to humanity. In the West particularly, sizable tomes have been composed speculating upon the nature and historical background of the main character of Western religions, Jesus Christ. Many have tried to dig into the precious few clues as to Jesus's identity and come up with a biographical sketch that either bolsters faith or reveals a more human side of this godman to which we can all relate. Obviously, considering the time and energy spent on them, the subjects of Christianity and its legendary founder are very important to the Western mind and culture.

The Controversy

Despite all of this literature continuously being cranked out and the significance of the issue, in the public at large there is a serious lack of formal and broad education regarding religion and mythology, and most individuals are highly uninformed in this area. Concerning the issue of Christianity, for example, the majority of people are taught in most schools and churches that Jesus Christ was an actual historical figure and that the only controversy regarding him is that some people accept him as the Son of God and the Messiah, while others do not. However, whereas this is the raging debate most evident in this field today, it is not the most important. Shocking as it may seem to the general populace, the most enduring and profound controversy in this subject is whether or not a person named Jesus Christ ever really existed.

Although this debate may not be evident from publications readily found in popular bookstores1, when one examines this issue closely, one will find a tremendous volume of literature that demonstrates, logically and intelligently, time and again that Jesus Christ is a mythological character along the same lines as the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian or other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths rather than historical figures Delving deeply into this large body of work, one uncovers evidence that the Jesus character is based upon much older myths and heroes from around the globe. One discovers that this story is not, therefore, a historical representation of a Jewish rebel carpenter who had physical incarnation in the Levant 2,000 years ago. In other words, it has been demonstrated continually for centuries that this character, Jesus Christ, was invented and did not depict a real person who was either the "son of God" or was "evemeristically" made into a superhuman by enthusiastic followers3.

History and Positions of the Debate

This controversy has existed from the very beginning, and the writings of the "Church Fathers" themselves reveal that they were constantly forced by the pagan intelligentsia to defend what the non-Christians and other Christians ("heretics")4 alike saw as a preposterous and fabricated yarn with absolutely no evidence of it ever having taken place in history. As Rev. Robert Taylor says, "And from the apostolic age downwards, in a never interrupted succession, but never so strongly and emphatically as in the most primitive times, was the existence of Christ as a man most strenuously denied."5 Emperor Julian, who, coming after the reign of the fanatical and murderous "good Christian" Constantine, returned rights to pagan worshippers, stated, "If anyone should wish to know the truth with respect to you Christians, he will find your impiety to be made up partly of the Jewish audacity, and partly of the indifference and confusion of the Gentiles, and that you have put together not the best, but the worst characteristics of them both."6 According to these learned dissenters, the New Testament could rightly be called, "Gospel Fictions."7

A century ago, mythicist Albert Churchward said, "The canonical gospels can be shown to be a collection of sayings from the Egyptian Mythos and Eschatology." In Forgery in Christianity, Joseph Wheless states, "The gospels are all priestly forgeries over a century after their pretended dates."9 Those who concocted some of the hundreds of "alternative" gospels and epistles that were being kicked about during the first several centuries C.E. have even admitted that they had forged the documents.10 Forgery during the first centuries of the Church's existence was admittedly rampant, so common in fact that a new phrase was coined to describe it: "pious fraud."11 Such prevarication is confessed to repeatedly in the Catholic Encyclopedia.12 Some of the "great" church fathers, such as Eusebius13, were determined by their own peers to be unbelievable liars who regularly wrote their own fictions of what "the Lord" said and did during "his" alleged sojourn upon the earth.14

The Proof

The assertion that Jesus Christ is a myth can be proved not only through the works of dissenters and "pagans" who knew the truth - and who were viciously refuted or murdered for their battle against the Christian priests and "Church Fathers" fooling the masses with their fictions - but also through the very statements of the Christians themselves, who continuously disclose that they knew Jesus Christ was a myth founded upon more ancient deities located throughout the known ancient world. In fact, Pope Leo X, privy to the truth because of his high rank, made this curious declaration, "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"15 (Emphasis added.) As Wheless says, "The proofs of my indictment are marvellously easy."

The Gnostics

From their own admissions, the early Christians were incessantly under criticism by scholars of great repute who were impugned as "heathens" by their Christian adversaries. This group included many Gnostics, who strenuously objected to the carnalization of their deity, as the Christians can be shown to have taken many of the characteristics of their god and godman from the Gnostics, meaning "Ones who know," a loose designation applied to members of a variety of esoteric schools and brotherhoods. The refutations of the Christians against the Gnostics reveal that the Christian godman was an insult to the Gnostics, who held that their god could never take human form.16

Biblical Sources

It is very telling that the earliest Christian documents, the Epistles attributed to "Paul," never discuss a historical background of Jesus but deal exclusively with a spiritual being who was known to all gnostic sects for hundreds to thousands of years. The few "historical" references to an actual life of Jesus cited in the Epistles are demonstrably interpolations and forgeries, as are, according to Wheless, the Epistles themselves, as they were not written by "Paul."17 Aside from the brief reference to Pontius Pilate at 1 Timothy 6:13, an epistle dated ben Yehoshua to 144 CE and thus not written by Paul, the Pauline literature (as pointed out by Edouard Dujardin) "does not refer to Pilate18, or the Romans, or Caiaphas, or the Sanhedrin, or Herod19, or Judas, or the holy women, or any person in the gospel account of the Passion, and that it also never makes any allusion to them; lastly, that it mentions absolutely none of the events of the Passion, either directly or by way of allusion."20 Dujardin additionally relates that other early "Christian" writings such as Revelation do not mention any historical details or drama.21 Mangasarian notes that Paul also never quotes from Jesus's purported sermons and speeches, parables and prayers, nor does he mention Jesus's supernatural birth or any of his alleged wonders and miracles, all which one would presume would be very important to his followers, had such exploits and sayings been known prior to "Paul."22

Turning to the gospels themselves, which were composed between 170-180 C.E.22a, their pretended authors, the apostles, give sparse histories and genealogies of Jesus that contradict each other and themselves in numerous places. The birthdate of Jesus is depicted as having taken place at different times. His birth and childhood are not mentioned in "Mark," and although he is claimed in "Matthew" and "Luke" to have been "born of a virgin," his lineage is traced to the House of David through Joseph, such that he may "fulfill prophecy."23 He is said in the first three (Synoptic) gospels to have taught for one year before he died, while in "John" the number is three years. "Matthew" relates that Jesus delivered "The Sermon on the Mount"24 before "the multitudes," while "Luke" says it was a private talk given only to the disciples. The accounts of his Passion and Resurrection differ utterly from each other, and no one states how old he was when he died.25 Wheless says, "The so-called 'canonical' books of the New Testament, as of the Old, are a mess of contradictions and confusions of text, to the present estimate of 150,000 and more 'variant readings,' as is well known and admitted."26 In addition, of the dozens of gospels, ones that were once considered canonical or genuine were later rejected as "apocryphal" or spurious, and vice versa. So much for the "infallible Word of God" and "infallible" Church! The confusion exists because the Christian plagiarists over the centuries were attempting to amalgamate and fuse practically every myth, fairytale, legend, doctrine or bit of wisdom they could pilfer from the innumerable different mystery religions and philosophies that existed at the time. In doing so, they forged, interpolated, mutilated, changed, and rewrote these texts for centuries.27

Non-Biblical Sources

Basically, there are no non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any known historian of the time during and after Jesus's purported advent. Walker says, "No literate person of his own time mentioned him in any known writing." Eminent Hellenistic Jewish historian and philosopher Philo (20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.), alive at the purported time of Jesus, makes no mention of him. Nor do any of the some 40 other historians who wrote during the first one to two centuries of the Common Era. "Enough of the writings of [these] authors...remain to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."28 Their silence is deafening testimony against the historicizers.

In the entire works of the Jewish historian Josephus, which constitute many volumes, there are only two paragraphs that purport to refer to Jesus. Although much has been made of these "references," they have been dismissed by all scholars and even by Christian apologists as forgeries, as have been those referring to John the Baptist and James, "brother" of Jesus. Bishop Warburton labeled the Josephus interpolation regarding Jesus as "a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too."29 Wheless notes that, "The first mention ever made of this passage, and its text, are in the Church History of that 'very dishonest writer,' Bishop Eusebius, in the fourth century...CE [Catholic Encyclopedia] admits... the above cited passage was not known to Origen and the earlier patristic writers." Wheless, a lawyer, and Taylor, a minister, agree that it was Eusebius himself who forged the passage.

Regarding the letter to Trajan supposedly written by Pliny the Younger, which is one of the pitifully few "references" to Jesus or Christianity held up by Christians as evidence of the existence of Jesus, there is but one word that is applicable - "Christian" - and that has been demonstrated to be spurious, as is also suspected of the entire letter. Concerning the passage in the works of the historian Tacitus, who did not live during the purported time of Jesus but was born two decades after his purported death, this is also considered by competent scholars as an interpolation and forgery.30 Christian defenders also like to hold up the passage in Suetonius that refers to someone named "Chrestus" or "Chresto" as reference to their Savior; however, while some have speculated that there was a Roman man of that name at that time, the name "Chrestus" or "Chrestos," meaning "useful," was frequently held by freed slaves. Others opine that this passage is also an interpolation.

As to these references and their constant regurgitation by Christian apologists, Dr. Alvin Boyd Kuhn says:

"The average Christian minister who has not read outside the pale of accredited Church authorities will impart to any parishioner making the inquiry the information that no event in history iis better attested by witness than the occurences in the Gospel narrative of Christ's life. He will go over the usual citation of the historians who mention Jesus and the letters claiming to have been written about him. When the credulous questioner, putting trust in the intelligence and good faith of his pastor, gets this answer, he goes away assured on the point of the veracity of the Gospel story. The pastor does not qualify his data with the information that the practice of forgery, fictionizing and fable was rampant in the early Church. In the simple interest of truth, then, it is important to examine the body of alleged testimony from secular history and see what credibility and authority it possess.

"First, as to the historians whose works record the existence of Jesus, the list comprises but four. They are Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus. There are short paragraphs in the works of each of these, two in Josephus. The total quantity of this material is given by Harry Elmer Barnes in The Twilight of Christianity as some twenty-four lines. It may total a little more, perhaps twice that amount. This meager testimony constitutes the body or mass of the evidence of 'one of the best attested events in history.' Even if it could be accepted as indisputably authentic and reliable, it would be faltering support for an event that has dominated the thought of half the world for eighteen centuries.

"But what is the standing of this witness? Not even Catholic scholars of importance have dissented from a general agreement of academic investigators that these passages, one and all, must by put down as forgeries and interpolations by partisan Christian scribes who wished zealously to array the authority of these historians behind the historicity of the Gospel life of Jesus. A sum total of forty or fifty lines from secular history supporting the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, and they completely discredited

Dora, I want you to give me an honest answer  to a straight question:  if you were fundamentally wrong, would you even want  to find that out?   Because if you would, I'm confident that I can convince you that just about everything that your Acharya S says can be decisively refuted.  But why do I get the feeling that you are not interested in the truth?  Why do I experience you as a close-minded New Age fundamentalist, who cannot consider the merits of scientific research and  critical analysis of relevant case histories?  Oh how I wish you would prove me wrong!  I would explore every detail of your pasted article with you either onsite or in private communications.

Your pasted article of course has nothing to do with my critique of channeling.  Acharya S is almost universally considered a New Age kook, not a real scholar.  "Acharya" means "guru."  Her real name is D. Murdoch.  She appeared on "Sightings" hosted by John Rense and the transcript is available by Audio File.  In response to a caller's discussion of alien beings, she replies that she has been in "contact with strange entities" and admits that she is impressed with Tibetans who claim "ongoing contact with people who live inside Venus!"   She adds, "I've had beings around me and they are telling me to put this information out there. . .I've had many experiences in other dimensions."    

Her book "The Christ Conspiracy" has received NO attention from SECULAR scholarship, with the lone exception of a highly negative review by an ATHEIST scholar (Robert M. Price).   Just read Mike Licona's scathing review of her work in his online, "A Refutation of Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy" and the online critique entitled  "Acharya S. Refuted."   This is not a matter of Christian prejudice; it is a matter of the secular scholarly world with which she and you seem woefully out of touch.

Dora, I'm challenging to back up your claims and face my critique.  Are you up to the challenge?  Are you willing to consider that truth is more than citing chapter and verse from Seth and Elias?  If so, I think you'll find my dialogue courteous and accepting.  If not, I still welcome all reactions to my post, even those that don't plug in to the ongoing dialogue.

Don    

THE DECEPTIVE REVELATION CONTINUE

The Jesus story incorporated elements from the tales of other deities recorded in this widespread area, such as many of the following world saviors and "sons of God," most or all of whom predate the Christian myth, and a number of whom were crucified or executed.33a

Adad of Assyria
Adonis, Apollo, Heracles ("Hercules") and Zeus of Greece
Alcides of Thebes
Attis of Phrygia
Baal of Phoenicia
Bali of Afghanistan
Beddru of Japan
Buddha of India
Crite of Chaldea
Deva Tat of Siam
Hesus of the Druids
Horus, Osiris, and Serapis of Egypt, whose long-haired, bearded appearance was adopted for the Christ character34
Indra of Tibet/India
Jao of Nepal
Krishna of India
Mikado of the Sintoos
Mithra of Persia
Odin of the Scandinavians
Prometheus of Caucasus/Greece
Quetzalcoatl of Mexico
Salivahana of Bermuda
Tammuz of Syria (who was, in a typical mythmaking move, later turned into the disciple Thomas35)
Thor of the Gauls
Universal Monarch of the Sibyls36
Wittoba of the Bilingonese
Xamolxis of Thrace
Zarathustra/Zoroaster of Persia
Zoar of the Bonzes
The Major Players
Buddha
Although most people think of Buddha as being one person who lived around 500 B.C.E., the character commonly portrayed as Buddha can also be demonstrated to be a compilation of godmen, legends and sayings of various holy men both preceding and succeeding the period attributed to the Buddha.37

The Buddha character has the following in common with the Christ figure:

Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the "Queen of Heaven."38a
He was of royal descent.
He crushed a serpent's head.
Sakyamuni Buddha had 12 disciples.38b
He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a "small basket of cakes," and walked on water.38c
He abolished idolatry, was a "sower of the word," and preached "the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness."38d
He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all.
He was transfigured on a mount.
Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.38e
He ascended to Nirvana or "heaven."
Buddha was considered the "Good Shepherd"39, the "Carpenter"40, the "Infinite and Everlasting."40a
He was called the "Savior of the World" and the "Light of the World."

Horus of Egypt
The stories of Jesus and Horus are very similar, with Horus even contributing the name of Jesus Christ. Horus and his once-and-future Father, Osiris, are frequently interchangeable in the mythos ("I and my Father are one").41 The legends of Horus go back thousands of years, and he shares the following in common with Jesus:

Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger42, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.43
He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he was 30 years old.44
Horus was also baptized by "Anup the Baptizer," who becomes "John the Baptist."
He had 12 disciples.
He performed miracles and raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead.
He walked on water.
Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God's Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word" etc.
He was "the Fisher," and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and Fish ("Ichthys").45
Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father."46
Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One," long before the Christians duplicated the story.47
In fact, in the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being held by the virgin mother Isis - the original "Madonna and Child"48 - and the Vatican itself is built upon the papacy of Mithra49, who shares many qualities with Jesus and who existed as a deity long before the Jesus character was formalized. The Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version it replaced50. Virtually all of the elements of the Catholic ritual, from miter to wafer to water to altar to doxology, are directly taken from earlier pagan mystery religions.51

Mithra, Sungod of Persia
The story of Mithra precedes the Christian fable by at least 600 years. According to Wheless, the cult of Mithra was, shortly before the Christian era, "the most popular and widely spread 'Pagan' religion of the times." Mithra has the following in common with the Christ character:

Mithra was born on December 25th.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or disciples.
He performed miracles.
He was buried in a tomb.
After three days he rose again.
His resurrection was celebrated every year.
Mithra was called "the Good Shepherd."
He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah."
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected.
His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."52

Krishna of India
The similarities between the Christian character and the Indian messiah are many. Indeed, Massey finds over 100 similarities between the Hindu and Christian saviors, and Graves, who includes the various noncanonical gospels in his analysis, lists over 300 likenesses. It should be noted that a common earlier English spelling of Krishna was "Christna," which reveals its relation to '"Christ." It should also be noted that, like the Jewish godman, many people have believed in a historical, carnalized Krishna.53

Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One") 53a
His father was a carpenter.54
His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh.54a
He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.55
He was of royal descent.
He was baptized in the River Ganges.55a
He worked miracles and wonders.
He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind.
Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.
"He lived poor and he loved the poor."56
He was transfigured in front of his disciples.57
In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.58
He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
Krishna is called the "Shepherd God" and "Lord of lords," and was considered "the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word."59
He is the second person of the Trinity,60 and proclaimed himself the "Resurrection" and the "way to the Father."60a
He was considered the "Beginning, the Middle and the End," ("Alpha and Omega"), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
His disciples bestowed upon him the title "Jezeus," meaning "pure essence."61
Krishna is to return to do battle with the "Prince of Evil," who will desolate the earth.62

Prometheus of Greece
The Greek god Prometheus has been claimed to have come from Egypt, but his drama took place in the Caucasus mountains. Prometheus shares a number of striking similarities with the Christ character.

Prometheus descended from heaven as God incarnate as man, to save mankind.
He was crucified, suffered and rose from the dead.
He was called the Logos or Word.62a
Five centuries before the Christian era, esteemed Greek poet Aeschylus wrote Prometheus Bound, which, according to Taylor, was presented in the theater in Athens. Taylor claims that in the play Prometheus is crucified "on a fatal tree" and the sky goes dark:

"The darkness which closed the scene on the suffering Prometheus, was easily exhibited on the stage, by putting out the lamps; but when the tragedy was to become history, and the fiction to be turned into fact, the lamp of day could not be so easily disposed of. Nor can it be denied that the miraculous darkness which the Evangelists so solemnly declare to have attended the crucifixion of Christ, labours under precisely the same fatality of an absolute and total want of evidence."63

Tradition holds that Prometheus was crucified on a rock, yet some sources have opined that legend also held he was crucified on a tree and that Christians muddled the story and/or mutilated the text, as they did with the works of so many ancient authors. In any case, the sun hiding in darkness parallels the Christian fable of the darkness descending when Jesus was crucified. This remarkable occurrence is not recorded in history but is only explainable within the Mythos and as part of a recurring play.

The Creation of a Myth
The Christians went on a censorship rampage that led to the virtual illiteracy of the ancient world and ensured that their secret would be hidden from the masses64, but the scholars of other schools/sects never gave up their arguments against the historicizing of a very ancient mythological creature. We have lost the arguments of these learned dissenters because the Christians destroyed any traces of their works. Nonetheless, the Christians preserved the contentions of their detractors through the Christians' own refutations.

For example, early Church Father Tertullian (@ 160-220 C.E.), an "ex-Pagan" and Bishop of Carthage, ironically admits the true origins of the Christ story and of all other such godmen by stating in refutation of his critics, "You say we worship the sun; so do you."65 Interestingly, a previously strident believer and defender of the faith, Tertullian later renounced Christianity66.

The "Son" of God is the "Sun" of God 67
The reason why all these narratives are so similar, with a godman who is crucified and resurrected, who does miracles and has 12 disciples, is that these stories were based on the movements of the sun through the heavens, an astrotheological development that can be found throughout the planet because the sun and the 12 zodiac signs can be observed around the globe. In other words, Jesus Christ and all the others upon whom this character is predicated are personifications of the sun, and the Gospel fable is merely a rehash of a mythological formula (the "Mythos," as mentioned above) revolving around the movements of the sun through the heavens.68

For instance, many of the world's crucified godmen have their traditional birthday on December 25th ("Christmas"69). This is because the ancients recognized that (from an earthcentric perspective) the sun makes an annual descent southward until December 21st or 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops moving southerly for three days and then starts to move northward again. During this time, the ancients declared that "God's sun" had "died" for three days and was "born again" on December 25th. The ancients realized quite abundantly that they needed the sun to return every day and that they would be in big trouble if the sun continued to move southward and did not stop and reverse its direction. Thus, these many different cultures celebrated the "sun of God's" birthday on December 25th.70 The following are the characteristics of the "sun of God":

The sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north.
In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the sun would therefore be "born of a Virgin."
The sun is the "Light of the World."
The sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him."
The sun rising in the morning is the "Savior of mankind."
The sun wears a corona, "crown of thorns" or halo.71
The sun "walks on water."
The sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples" are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass.
The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12.
The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30.
The sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected.72

Contrary to popular belief, the ancients were not an ignorant and superstitious lot who actually believed their deities to be literal characters. Indeed, this slanderous propaganda has been part of the conspiracy to make the ancients appear as if they were truly the dark and dumb rabble that was in need of the "light of Jesus."73 The reality is that the ancients were no less advanced in their morals and spiritual practices, and in many cases were far more advanced, than the Christians in their own supposed morality and ideology, which, in its very attempt at historicity, is in actuality a degradation of the ancient Mythos. Indeed, unlike the "superior" Christians, the true intelligentsia amongst the ancients were well aware that their gods were astronomical and atmospheric in nature. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle74 surely knew that Zeus, the sky god father figure who migrated to Greece from India and/or Egypt, was never a real person, despite the fact that the Greeks have designated on Crete both a birth cave and a death cave of Zeus. In addition, all over the world are to be found sites where this god or that allegedly was born, walked, suffered, died, etc., a common and unremarkable occurrence that is not monopolized by, and did not originate with, Christianity.74a

Etymology Tells the Story
Zeus, aka "Zeus Pateras," who we now automatically believe to be a myth and not a historical figure, takes his name from the Indian version, "Dyaus Pitar." Dyaus Pitar in turn is related to the Egyptian "Ptah," and from both Pitar and Ptah comes the word "pater," or "father." "Zeus" equals "Dyaus," which became "Deos," "Deus" and "Dios" - "God." "Zeus Pateras," like Dyaus Pitar, means, "God the Father," a very ancient concept that in no way originated with "Jesus" and Christianity. There is no question of Zeus being a historical character. Dyaus Pitar becomes "Jupiter" in Roman mythology, and likewise is not representative of an actual, historical character. In Egyptian mythology, Ptah, the Father, is the unseen god-force, and the sun was viewed as Ptah's visible proxy who brings everlasting life to the earth; hence, the "son of God" is really the "sun of God." Indeed, according to Hotema, the very name "Christ" comes from the Hindi word "Kris" (as in Krishna), which is a name for the sun.75

Furthermore, since Horus was called "Iusa/Iao/Iesu"76 the "KRST," and Krishna/Christna was called "Jezeus," centuries before any Jewish character similarly named, it would be safe to assume that Jesus Christ is just a repeat of Horus and Krishna, among the rest. According to Rev. Taylor, the title "Christ" in its Hebraic form meaning "Anointed" ("Masiah"77) was held by all kings of Israel, as well as being "so commonly assumed by all sorts of impostors, conjurers, and pretenders to supernatural communications, that the very claim to it is in the gospel itself considered as an indication of imposture . . ."78 Hotema states that the name "Jesus Christ" was not formally adopted in its present form until after the first Council of Nicea, i.e., in 325 C.E.79

In actuality, even the place names and the appellations of many other characters in the New Testament can be revealed to be Hebraicized renderings of the Egyptian texts.

As an example, in the fable of "Lazarus," the mummy raised from the dead by Jesus, the Christian copyists did not change his name much, "El-Azar-us" being the Egyptian mummy raised from the dead by Horus possibly 1,000 years or more before the Jewish version.80 This story is allegory for the sun reviving its old, dying self, or father, as in "El-Osiris."81 It is not a true story.

Horus's principal enemy - originally Horus's other face or "dark" aspect - was "Set" or "Sata," whence comes "Satan."82 Horus struggles with Set in the exact manner that Jesus battles with Satan, with 40 days in the wilderness, among other similarities.83 This is because this myth represents the triumph of light over dark, or the sun's return to relieve the terror of the night.

"Jerusalem" simply means "City of Peace," and the actual city in Israel was named after the holy city of peace in the Egyptian sacred texts that already existed at the time the city was founded. Likewise, "Bethany," site of the famous multiplying of the loaves, means "House of God," and is allegory for the "multiplication of the many out of the One."84 Any town of that designation was named for the allegorical place in the texts that existed before the town's foundation. The Egyptian predecessor and counterpart is "Bethanu."85

The Book of Revelation is Egyptian and Zoroastrian
One can find certain allegorical place names such as "Jerusalem" and "Israel" in the Book of Revelation. Massey has stated that Revelation, rather than having been written by any apostle called John during the 1st Century C.E., is a very ancient text that dates to the beginning of this era of history, i.e. possibly as early as 4,000 years ago.86 Massey asserts that Revelation relates the Mithraic legend of Zarathustra/Zoroaster.87 Hotema says of this mysterious book, which has baffled mankind for centuries: "It is expressed in terms of creative phenomena; its hero is not Jesus but the Sun of the Universe, its heroine is the Moon; and all its other characters are Planets, Stars and Constellations; while its stage-setting comprises the Sky, the Earth, the Rivers and the Sea." The common form of this text has been attributed by Churchward to Horus's scribe, Aan, whose name has been passed down to us as "John."88

The word Israel itself, far from being a Jewish appellation, probably comes from the combination of three different reigning deities: Isis, the Earth Mother Goddess revered throughout the ancient world; Ra, the Egyptian sungod; and El, the Semitic deity passed down in form as Saturn.90 El was one of the earliest names for the god of the ancient Hebrews (whence Emmanu-El, Micha-El, Gabri-El, Samu-El, etc.), and his worship is reflected in the fact that the Jews still consider Saturday as "God's Day."91

Indeed, that the Christians worship on Sunday betrays the genuine origins of their god and godman. Their "savior" is actually the sun, which is the "Light of the world that every eye can see." The sun has been viewed consistently throughout history as the savior of mankind for reasons that are obvious. Without the sun, the planet would scarcely last one day. So important was the sun to the ancients that they composed a "Sun Book," or "Helio Biblia," which became the "Holy Bible."91a

The "Patriarchs" and "Saints" are the Gods of Other Cultures
When one studies mythmaking, one can readily discern and delineate a pattern that is repeated throughout history. Whenever an invading culture takes over its predecessors, it either vilifies the preceding deities or makes them into lesser gods, "patriarchs" or, in the case of Christianity, "saints." This process is exemplified in the adoption of the Hindu god Brahma as the Hebrew patriarch Abraham.92 Another school of thought proposes that the patriarch Joshua was based on Horus as "Iusa," since the cult of Horus had migrated by this period to the Levant. In this theory, the cult of Joshua, which was situated in exactly the area where the Christ drama allegedly took place, then mutated into the Christian story, with Joshua becoming Jesus.93 As Robertson says, "The Book of Joshua leads us to think that he had several attributes of the Sun-god, and that, like Samson and Moses, he was an ancient deity reduced to human status."

Indeed, the legend of Moses, rather than being that of a historical Hebrew character, is found around the ancient Middle and Far East, with the character having different names and races, depending on the locale: "Manou" is the Indian legislator; "Nemo the lawgiver," who brought down the tablets from the Mountain of God, hails from Babylon; "Mises" is found in Syria and Egypt, where also "Manes the lawgiver" takes the stage; "Minos" is the Cretan reformer; and the Ten Commandments are simply a repetition of the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi and the Hindu Vedas, among others.94 Like Moses, Krishna was placed by his mother in a reed boat and set adrift in a river to be discovered by another woman.95 A century ago, Massey outlined, and Graham recently reiterated, that even the Exodus itself is not a historical event. That the historicity of the Exodus has been questioned is echoed by the lack of any archaeological record, as is reported in Biblical Archaeology Review ("BAR"), September/October 1994.96

Like many biblical characters, Noah is also a myth97, long ago appropriated from the Egyptians, the Sumerians and others, as any sophisticated scholar could demonstrate, and yet we find all sorts of books - some even presumably "channeling" the "ultimate truth" from a mystical, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal being such as Jesus himself - prattling on about a genuine, historical Noah, his extraordinary adventures, and the "Great Flood!"98

Additionally, the "Esther" of the Old Testament Book of Esther is a remake of the Goddess Ishtar, Astarte, Astoreth or Isis, from whom comes "Easter"99 and about whose long and ubiquitous reign little is said in "God's infallible Word."100 Per Harwood (Mythology's Last Gods, 230), "Esther" is best transliterated "Ishtar" and "Mordechai" is "Mardukay." The Virgin Mother/Goddess/Queen of Heaven motif is found around the globe, long before the Christian era, with Isis, for instance, also being called "Mata-Meri" ("Mother Mary"). As Walker says, "Mari" was the "basic name of the Goddess known to the Chaldeans as Marratu, to the Jews as Marah, to the Persians as Mariham, to the Christians as Mary . . . Semites worshipped an androgynous combination of Goddess and God called Mari-El (Mary-God), corresponding to the Egyptian Meri-Ra, which combined the feminine principle of water with the masculine principle of the sun."

Even the Hebraic name of God, "Yahweh," was taken from the Egyptian "IAO."101

In one of the most notorious of Christian deceptions, in order to convert followers of "Lord Buddha," the Church canonized him as "St. Josaphat," which represented a Christian corruption of the buddhistic title, "Bodhisat."102

The "Disciples" are the Signs of the Zodiac
Moreover, it is no accident that there are 12 patriarchs and 12 disciples, 12 being the number of the astrological signs, or months. Indeed, like the 12 Herculean tasks and the 12 "helpers" of Horus, Jesus's 12 disciples are symbolic for the zodiacal signs and do not depict any literal figures who played out a drama upon the earth circa 30 C.E. The disciples can be shown to have been an earlier deity/folkloric hero/constellation.103 Peter is easily revealed to be a mythological character104, while Judas has been said to represent Scorpio, "the backbiter," the time of year when the sun's rays are weakening and the sun appears to be dying.105 James, "brother of Jesus" and "brother of the Lord," is equivalent to Amset, brother of Osiris and brother of the Lord.106 Massey says "Taht-Matiu was the scribe of the gods, and in Christian art Matthew is depicted as the scribe of the gods, with an angel standing near him, to dictate the gospel."107 Even the apostle Paul is a compilation of several characters: The Old Testament Saul, Apollonius of Tyana and the Greek demigod Orpheus.108

Was Jesus an Essene Master? 109
As regards Jesus being an Essene according to "secret" Dead Sea Scrolls, even before the discovery of the scrolls, over the centuries there has been much speculation to this effect, but Massey skillfully argued that many of Jesus's presumed teachings were either in contradiction to or were non-existent in Essene philosophy.110 The Essenes did not believe in corporeal resurrection, nor did they believe in a carnalized messiah. They did not accept the historicity of Jesus. They were not followers of the Hebrew Bible, or its prophets, or the concept of the original fall that must produce a savior. Massey further points out that the Essenes were teetotalers and ate to live rather than the other way around. Compared to this, the assumed Essene Jesus appears to be a glutton and drunkard. Also, whereas according to Josephus the Essenes abhorred the swearing of oaths, Jesus was fond of "swearing unto" his disciples.111 While many Essenic doctrines are included in the New Testament, the list of disparities between the Dead Sea Scroll Essenes and their alleged great master Jesus goes on.112

Qumran is Not an Essene Community
It should also be noted that there is another debate as to whether or not Qumran, the site traditionally associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls, was an Essene community. In BAR, previously cited, it is reported that archaeological finds indicate Qumran was not an Essene community but was possibly a waystation for travelers and merchants crossing the Dead Sea. In BAR, it has also been hypothesized that the fervent tone and warrior-stance of some of the scrolls unearthed near Qumran belie any Essene origin and indicate a possible attribution to Jewish Zealots instead. In Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, Norman Golb makes a very good case that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not written by any Essene scribes but were a collection of tomes from various libraries that were secreted in caves throughout eastern Israel by Jews fleeing the Roman armies during the First Revolt of 70 A.D. Golb also hypothesizes that Qumran itself was a fortress, not a monastery. In any case, it is impossible to equate the "Teacher of Righteousness" found in any scrolls with Jesus Christ.

Was the New Testament Composed by Therapeuts?
In 1829 Rev. Taylor adeptly made the case that the entire Gospel story was already in existence long before the beginning of the Common Era and was probably composed by the monks at Alexandria called "Therapeuts" in Greek and "Essenes" in Egyptian, both names meaning "healers."113 This theory has stemmed in part from the statement of early church father Eusebius, who, in a rare moment of seeming honesty, "admitted . . . that the canonical Christian gospels and epistles were the ancient writings of the Essenes or Therapeutae reproduced in the name of Jesus."114 Taylor also opines that "the travelling Egyptian Therapeuts brought the whole story from India to their monasteries in Egypt, where, some time after the commencement of the Roman monarchy, it was transmuted in Christianity."115 In addition, Wheless evinces that one can find much of the fable of "Jesus Christ" in the Book of Enoch116, which predated the supposed advent of the Jewish master by hundreds of years.117 According to Massey, it was the "pagan" Gnostics - who included members of the Essene/Therapeut and Nazarene118 brotherhoods, among others - who actually carried to Rome the esoteric (gnostic) texts containing the Mythos, upon which the numerous gospels, including the canonical four, were based. Wheless says, "Obviously, the Gospels and other New Testament booklets, written in Greek and quoting 300 times the Greek Septuagint, and several Greek Pagan authors, as Aratus, and Cleanthes, were written, not by illiterate Jewish peasants, but by Greek-speaking ex-Pagan Fathers and priests far from the Holy Land of the Jews."119 Mead averred, "We thus conclude that the autographs of our four Gospels were most probably written in Egypt, in the reign of Hadrian."120

Conclusion
As Walker said, "Scholars' efforts to eliminate paganism from the Gospels in order to find a historical Jesus have proved as hopeless as searching for a core in an onion." The "gospel" story of Jesus is not a factual portrayal of a historical "master" who walked the earth 2,000 years ago. It is a myth built upon other myths and godmen, who in turn were personifications of the ubiquitous sungod mythos.

"The Christ of the gospels is in no sense an historical personage or a supreme model of humanity, a hero who strove, and suffered, and failed to save the world by his death. It is impossible to establish the existence of an historical character even as an impostor. For such an one the two witnesses, astronomical mythology and gnosticism, completely prove an alibi. The Christ is a popular lay-figure that never lived, and a lay-figure of Pagan origin; a lay-figure that was once the Ram and afterwards the Fish; a lay-figure that in human form was the portrait and image of a dozen different gods." Gerald Massey

© 2001 Acharya S

I  doubt it that anyone care to read it, but good pointers who is the real deceptive  ;D

OK, so instead of answering my questions, you choose to filibuster and paste more material that is refuted in the online articles I gave you.  You include your latest rant with the question, "Who is the real deceptive?"   I can demonstrate that your New Age Guru, Acharya S (real name: D. Murdoch) is!  Again, I ask you: if you were wrong, would you want to find that out?   Do you have the integrity to take responsibility for your positions and defend them beyond simply citing chapter and verse from Seth and Elias? Or are you just another example of the low vibratory level of New Age fundamentalism?

Quote:

Because if you would, I'm confident that I can convince you that just about everything that your Acharya S says can be decisively refuted

I didn't expected anything less then this from you..  but no thanks, I'm not in a need for your  wisdom or truth...

You keep yours, and I keep mine so are  those who have more then a limited awareness and think  themself? .
Of course the scholars, and everyone is wrong but you the one who knows the "truth" how pathetic is that... why not let  people decide themselves..what is correct for them or not based on the presented mythological and historical material...


Quote:

In response to a caller's discussion of alien beings, she replies that she has been in "contact with strange entities" and admits that she is impressed with Tibetans who claim "ongoing contact with people who live inside Venus!"   She adds, "I've had beings around me and they are telling me to put this information out there. . .I've had many experiences in other dimensions."

Oh really that is very interesting  ;) I don't think so...

" . . Some of [my] statements are certainly hypothetical. Most of them cannot be nailed down as absolute fact, but the evidence is profound . . .

"Statement no. 1:  Among the thousands of so-called UFO encounters reported around the world, primarily since the end of World War II, there exists a core group of authentic anomalous events connoting the presence on Earth of at least several distinct types of non-human, technically advanced beings that we'll term . . . aliens. . . .

"Statement no. 2:  This alien presence represents a monumental political dilemma of the type I will call . . . a 'metalever'; that is, an influence capable of disrupting the momentum of history on a global scale in completely unpredictable ways. . . .

"Statement no. 3:  The alien presence is the least understood, least recognized, but potentially most impactful of several metalevers currently pushing our world toward a state of extreme crisis. . . .

"Statement no. 5:  Without a doubt, the human future cannot be properly anticipated except with reference to the profound impact of the alien presence. In like manner, however, mounting evidence suggests that the human past, the deep antiquity of human origins, may also be rooted in the alien presence. In all likelihood, not only are we not presently alone, we have never been alone. . . .

"Statement no. 6:  The inescapable profundity of the alien presence has become a source of social pathology in our time. As a culture, we have not yet learned how to tell the truth about something so huge, so strange and so unexpected. . . .

"Basic premise no. 2:  Real UFOs exist.  Again, don't take my word for it - ask the government!  Believe me, they know! . . So, who says UFOs exist?  The Air Force, plain and simple. . . . The Belgian Air Force - Generals of the Belgian Air Force - just within the last few years have admitted, they've got UFOs flying around in Belgian air space.  They've chased them them with F-16 jets. They've sighted them on as many as four radar simultaneously.  They've seen them do things aircraft can't do and humans can't survive.  And they've said, 'Hey, that isn't us.' So, UFOs do exist . . . There's no question about it. . . .

"Now, some of those UFOs are things we DID build. . . . This question of alien spacecraft, though, is a nagging one, and you know something - we've got alien spacecraft. . . . Now, are there aliens?  Yes, there are aliens.  But again, don't take my word for it - ask the government.  They know there are aliens. . . . Public interest in UFOs definitely posed a national security threat. . . . And what did they do as a consequence?  They said, 'We recommend' - this is the CIA talking to the president . . . and they did this in writing - 'a policy of debunking.'  That was their word.  'Make it seem as if this is a ridiculous subject.  Make it seem as if anyone who believes in UFOs must be a lunatic, must be socially marginal, low IQ - all that kind of stuff. Make people feel that only turkeys and gonzos believe in UFOs.' . . . This is policy, to make you think this subject is stupid.  And you know what?  It really worked. . . .

"Ultimately we have to ask the question, what is so important, what is at stake?  And the bottom line obviously is the future is at stake.  How predictable it will be, and whether or not we will see the survival of the status quo. . . . There is only one real reason that the UFO metalever is unique, and that is this: [the authorities] already know they can't fix it.  Does that scare them?  No kidding.  You see, they really do think they can fix the nuclear problem.  They even think they can fix population, ozone, global warming, pollution.  They really do - they think they're gonna fix it!  No problem!  We'll fix it.  Aliens?  UFOs?  Oh no, we're not gonna fix that!  Unh-unh. That's gonna fix us! Big problem."

Michael Lindemann, "UFOs and the Global Situation"

Legends and artifacts dating back thousands of  years have ignited man's attention and imagination for centuries with theories of ancient astronauts and alien beings from other planets.  Sightings of UFOs of varying sizes, shapes and other characteristics have been recorded all around the world since this era of history began, some 6,000 years ago.  "Sky people" were purportedly recorded as having brought advanced culture to the hominids who live on this planet.  According to these legends, supposedly, this "first contact" had occurred previously, following cataclysm.  In fact, some stories relate this civilizing event to have happened several times during Earth's history.  Geological, paleontological, anthropological and archaeological data reveal that there have indeed been many cataclysms on this earth, several on a global level, with climate change and mass extinction.  The tales allegedly recount that after such a catastrophe, many surviving humans were reduced to the Stone Age but that more advanced humanoids descended from spacecraft and reestablished civilization.  Were these "sky people" aliens?  Have there been "aliens" amongst us all along?

In investigating the traditions, it becomes clear that there are a number of different types that now are compiled under the heading of legendary "sky people":  humans, gods and, possibly, aliens.  In our quest to discover the truth about this planet's history we find that "the gods" in general are not people or aliens but planetary bodies, such as the sun, moon, earth, planets, stars, etc., as well as elements in nature.  In addition, it is obvious from the legends that at least some of the "spacecraft" were of the probable previous earthly civilization, the "vimanas" and "flying machines" of lore.  Other legends say that when the chaos descended these manmade "spacecraft" transported a number of inhabitants to elsewhere, which is speculated to be the moon, Mars, Venus or other destination, including inside the earth or under the sea.  In inspecting these legends of "sky people," then, it would be most prudent to assume that, if they are true and not mythical, most if not all of these high-fliers were humans who had developed the capacity to fly.  However, there have also allegedly been found the skeletal remains of a number of bizarre humanoid and hominid races now unknown and extinct, indicating unexplained phenomena, if not necessarily "aliens" from another planet.

Recently, sightings of UFOs have been dismissed as the planet Venus or "swamp gas."  Many sightings are explainable by natural or manmade phenomena, but some are not, and millions of people in the past few decades have reported seeing something that is clearly unidentifiable.  Abduction by aliens has been ridiculed as hallucination, which, no doubt, it often is.  But is it necessarily always?

Over the past few decades, several excellent researchers have followed the lead of the fringe element and produced superb insights into the potential reality behind the tales and the sightings.  Despite being ignored by mainstream media, these credentialed and credible experts have managed to evince effectively that UFOs are real, extraterrestrials are here and abductions are occurring, among other "alien" behavior. Some of these "experts," however, may be disinfo agents, and this field is rampant with fraud and hoaxes, so, again, caution must be taken.

The "Experts" Speak
In 1997, White House correspondent Sarah McClendon released an article about a group of government-employed scientists and technicians who state definitively that UFOs and aliens are real and are from other worlds.  This group claims that intimidation is still rampant and people are afraid to come forward with evidence that the phenomenon is genuine.  McClendon states that the Clinton administration has had "many briefings on the subject."  Laurance Rockefeller, well known for his comments on visitors from outer space, was the Clinton advisor on the subject.  A number of other government officials, including Al Gore, have been privy to these briefings and documents.

To force the issue, McClendon reports, the Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence ("CSETI") is collecting a million signatures on a petition for a congressional hearing.

McClendon also relates the experience of Lt. Col. Philip Corso, who claimed to have worked on the back-engineering of alien ship parts from the Roswell crash, stating definitively that this work led to the development of a number of high tech creations of the past 50 years.  "Corso and hundreds of others who work or have worked in secret defense and scientific agencies, are willing to swear under oath that alien craft are repeatedly penetrating our airspace," McClendon reports. Now deceased, Corso has been the subject of extensive debunking by skeptics.

In another stunning statement, University of New Hampshire professor of chemical oceanography, Ted Loder, PhD, stated definitively that the government is engaged with aliens, that there is "an interstellar war" going on and that this is all being covered up by the brainwashing of the masses.  "And hoaxers who build crop circles and debunk UFO sightings are actually paid off by the covert organization," Loder says.  Loder also opines that the aliens are making themselves more known to try to wake up the populace because, "We're polluting ourselves to death."  He claims that the U.S. government, using "Star Wars" and, presumably, other methods, has been able to shoot down UFOs.  Loder also points out that by the government keeping this information secret, humanity is prevented from using alien technology that is free and clean, such that the environment is also suffering from this cover-up.  He further declares that humankind is going to have to evolve in order to join any cosmic community, and that its attitudes towards religion, race, etc., will have to change.

In addition, after centuries of being occupied by "aliens," the Vatican, represented by insider Monsignor Balducci, has appeared on national television in Italy to state that extraterrestrial contact is real.  Balducci has said that extraterrestrials "are NOT demonic, they are NOT due to psychological impairment, they are NOT a case of entity attachment, but these encounters deserve to be studied carefully."  Various researchers over the decades have claimed that the Vatican has been quite aware of alien presences for many centuries, so this "admission" is not exactly a surprise.  What also is not a surprise is that, despite the probability of extraterrestrial life somewhere in the universe, the Catholic Church will cling to its ridiculous claim that a Jewish carpenter "always remains the center of the Universe. . . "  No worries at all for those who were concerned that the revelation of the existence of alien life in the cosmos would somehow affect Earth's religions in a detrimental way!  Humans will always find a way to remain entrenched in their conditioning, no matter how strong the evidence against it.

Yet, until human beings reject their silly, egocentric interpretations of the cosmos as found in myopic religions, they will not be viewed as "intelligent life" by any extraterrestrials. As Lloyd Graham says, in Deceptions and Myths of the Bible:

"Recently I heard a religious group discussing this, and one of them said if ever space travel became a possibility they would carry the Gospel message to the other planets - some of which may be billions of years in advance of us.  What would the beings there think of it?  Would they not be surprised to learn the mother of their Creator was a Jewish girl by the name of Mary, and that their world was created by her Son saying Let it be?  No, if ever we go visiting cosmically we had better leave our provincialisms at home.

"Since this was written, cosmic visiting is underway. Men can now go to the moon, and yet believe in Genesic Creation; they can transplant hearts but only 'with the help of God,' as one stated.  Can we not see that this is but our way of thinking, and that the beings on other worlds never heard of this God, His mother, or His word-of-mouth creation?"

This comment about stubbornness applies to the hardcore skeptics as well.  "I don't believe in UFOs," they say with great smugness, as if that proves they are very wise and strong people who can resist such incredible but seductive tales.  The facts are that UFOS--i.e., unidentified flying objects--do exist, and that chances are there is life elsewhere in the universe.  The questions are:  Are any UFOs "spacecraft" powered by "aliens?" And, has alien life thus found its way here, to this dinky little speck of space dust in the middle of nowhere?

Forget About Worshipping Aliens
It sounds great at first to think that there are aliens among us, at least in the New Age arena, where the "aliens" always claim to be trying to help but never do much of anything.  If such good guy aliens are around, they certainly should not be worshipped as gods, any more than cultures with advanced technology should be worshipped by inhabitants of jungles or remote islands.  Any "aliens" who may be lurking about on this planet must also be questioned as to why, if they are so advanced and evolved, they have allowed such a despicable scenario as what has been happening on Earth for the past several thousand years.  They should not be easily let off the hook, not even if they claim "prime directive of non-interference."  Who makes up such rules anyway?  There is no such god person who will frown upon helpful interference to pull humankind out its squabbling, puerile state.  So why not interfere?  Why not assist?  Why allow people to crash into mountaintops and then eat each other to survive?

If we were visiting another culture upon Earth and happened to stumble into internecine warfare, where children were being killed or some other atrocity being committed, would we stand back and say, "Oh, I can only watch as that young girl is burned by Napalm, because I'm under the order of prime directive?" That lazy and callous attitude of non-interference is one of the major problems on this planet, so why should we consider "aliens" who would behave in the same manner to be "advanced gods" worthy of worship?

While we may never need to castigate any alleged good-guy ETs who may eventually make themselves publicly known, we must also not revere them more highly than ourselves; for, it is we who have suffered as spiritual soldiers on this madcap planet, with little if any of their assistance.  We will not recognize them as saviors, although we will certainly graciously welcome their assistance.  Yet, if it is true that they have been engaged in stellar wars to keep this or any other planet safe from the bad guys, then we will certainly hail them as heroes, just as we would any human who puts her or his life on the line for the greater good. And then we will incorporate them into our lives as guests and members of the cosmic family.  We will also express our gratitude that they have finally revealed themselves to be real, such that humankind will at last be freed from its intense "island madness" and now know that it is NOT alone and is NOT responsible for the maintenance of the entire universe.

Caution is Necessary
In addition, it is very wise to keep in mind that, while it appears the various world's governments are covering up the UFO/alien phenomenon, it is also clear that someone in "the government" is using the phenomenon to manipulate the masses in some bizarre and ungainly manner.  Within this mind control operation are "UFO cults," such as URANTIA and others that espouse mystical mumbo-jumbo.  In Messengers of Deception, French scientist Jacques Vallee, who, legend holds, served in part at least as the inspiration for the French scientist in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," cautions against the problems with the UFO paradigm:

"Racist philosophy.  The pernicious suggestion that some of us on the Earth are of extraterrestrial descent and therefore constitute a 'higher race.'  The dangers inherent in this belief should be obvious to anybody who hasn't forgotten the genocides of World War II, executed on the premise that some races were somehow 'purer' and better than others.  (Let us note in passing that Adamski's Venusian . . . and many other alleged extreterrestrials were all tall Aryan types with long blond hair.)

"Technical impotence.  The statement that the birth of civilization on this planet resulted not from the genius and ability of mankind, but from repeated assistance by higher beings.  Archaeologists and anthropologists are constantly aware of the marvelous skill with which the 'Ancient Engineers' (to use L. Sprague de Camp's phrase) developed the tools of civilization on all continents.  No appeal to superior powers is necessary to explain the achievements of early culture.  The belief expressed by the contactees reveals a tragic lack of trust on their part in human ability.

"Social utopia.  Fantastic economic theories, including the belief that a 'world economy' can be created overnight, and that democracy should be abolished in favor of utopian systems, usually dictatorial in their overlook."

Vallee's book also asks, "Is there an international UFO conspiracy?  Are human programmers manipulating the UFO phenomenon?"  To these questions, the late, great Jim Keith answers "yes," in his book Saucers of the Illuminati, which reveals that, indeed, human puppetmasters are behind much of the phenomenon.  Keith recounts Vallee's work:

"A remarkable UFO group was contacted by Jacques Vallee in Paris, France.  The group is called the Order of Melchizedek, and it uses the Star of David for its emblem, and for its program espouses a one world government and the doing away with money and religion - except for the UFO-oriented sort of religion, I would imagine.  The Order is cabalistic in its mystical practices, the Qabalah being an ancient form of Jewish mystical cosmology, a philosophy also employed by other occult groups such as the OTO and the Freemasons.  Vallee notes the curious number of organizations that the head of the French Order of Melchizedek fronts, including the Front for Christian Liberation, Jesus People Europe, Jesus Revolution, the Charismatic Christian, the Christian Socialist Party, and Jew and Arab movements.  Here revelant cross-currents include cabalism, the Order of Melchizedek, and the Star of David."

In this case, it is obvious that the same old terrestrial powerbrokers are up to their old tricks.  The Order of Melchizedek, in fact, is named in the Bible as the highest priesthood, of which Abraham and Jesus are made priests under Melchizedek.  Therefore, "Melchizedek" or "Righteous Molech" is the highest figure in the universe under God.  Melchizedek is in reality a mythical character, being the Molech or Moloch of the Old Testament, the god to whom children were sacrificed in burnt offering or holocaust by Phoenicians, Canaanites and Israelites.  The Order of Melchizedek, then, represents a very ancient esoteric cult that has as its central practice, one that disguises it in fact as the Order of Melchizedek, the sacrifice by fire, whether human or animal.  Melchizedek, of course, also figures quite prominently in the URANTIA cult, whose book is one of the most clever and insidious brainwashing devices ever devised.

What Does It All Mean?
What all this means is that there is some unexplained phenomenon going on. Despite the theories put forth by a number of individuals, the "evidence" of extraterrestrial contact dating back many thousands of years, including legends and bizarre artifacts, is very slippery and uncertain. The legends, in fact, are highly mythologized and in general cannot serve as "history." In more modern times, such stories become more straightforward and do seem to reflect encounters with actual, third-dimensional entities who could be termed "aliens." Whether or not this phenomenon is real--and the many thousands of reports every year indicate that at least UFOs are "real," in the sense that a certain percentage of them are indeed unidentified flying objects--it has most definitely been seized upon by terrestrial beings, i.e., humans, within the government or private sector who have used it to manipulate and play with the masses. Such behavior, no doubt, will continue, and the alleged reality of aliens will not be definite until they make themselves known, concretely, without all the shadowy nonsense. In the meantime, and if such an event ever occurs, these entities do not deserve worship of any sort, or even an amiable nod, until they prove they are friends of humankind.

© 2004 Acharya S.

You ask: "Why not let people decide themselves what is correct for them or not based on the presented mythological or historical material?"

Why not?   I fear I must be blunt here.   Because you are simply accepting claims that you are not qualifed to assess.   I on the other hand, have spent most of my life studying the primary sources and what the acknowledged experts have learned about them.   I can prove that much of your quoted material is wrong.  So for the third time I pose the question you've ducked 3 times now:  if you were fundamentally wrong, would you want to discover this?  If not, your spiritual quest is bogus and I guess you just need to hide behind your unverifiable Seth and Elias and this discredited New Age maverick you refuse to subject to critical scrutiny.  How sad!

Greetings all,

I had written a longer original post....but while trying to submit it....my computer blipped out and the post was lost  :'(

So...will summarize. First,...I have flipped thru 'The Christ Conspiracy' before....and am open to critical research on all aspects of the person of Jesus. I am also open to accepting various aspects of Jesus personified as 1) the historical Christ; 2) the mythic Christ; and the 3) mystical Christ. I believe that the Christ embodies all 3 aspects. When one is focused primarily on one aspect.....there is imbalance and lack of wholistic vision of Christ. I embrace the Christos in all aspects as the Light/Logos of the Living Father/Mother God. Even if the Christ-story is mythos only.....it still carries within it parable-truths and potential metaphors relevant to the consciousness of Soul.

Dora,.....it is nice that you wish to enlighten us about this authors(and her schools) interpretations...in response to traditional beliefs held about Jesus....but cutting and pasting all that here is not really appropriate here and it is off topic. (no offense hun,....just my first reaction to the pastings  ;)  ) I understand your reactive impulse at the suggestion that some forms of mediumship might be in some ways deceptive. I happen to believe mediumship is a neutral function.......and truth or falsehood that is conveyed thru its transmissions will be relative to interpretation and at last....objective and subjective analysis.

One of my recent investigations has been on John of God in Brazil. A recent ABC special on him has inspired a closer inspection by this entity  :)
This flows coincidentally with my recent exploration into spiritualism/spiritism......and the ministry of healing. John of God is world renown for being a 'man of miracles'....as he channels or is the medium thru which spirit-doctors operate....doing visible and invisible surgeries/healings on the thousands that come to him from all over the world. (hes been doing healings for over 25 years).

In our more traditional/pentecostal/charismatic circles......we attribute healings (the gifts of healing and miracles) to the Holy Spirit. I have had many wonderful experiences of being anointed by the Spirit in the ministry of healing and have always sensed/understood the spirit-power being of Gods Spirit. In my growing studies....I am more open to the possibility of angels of healing working with ministers. However,...the idea of disincarnate human spirits(doctors, saints, prophets, etc.) working thru an incarnate medium is unusual....but certainly more common in certain spiritualist sectors of the religious spectrum. I have recently wondered if in our traditional/charismatic healing ministries if angels of healing are present in ministering to the sick. I used to assist a lady-evangelist friend in her prayer and healing meetings...and she would always invite the Holy Spirit and the angels to attend and assist in the meetings. I am sure however that she never incorporated spirit-doctors in her physical body (as a medium)...as this is contrary to conventional christianity. So....you may see my keen interest in John of Gods methods of healing as compared to the churches methods of ministry.

In covering these subjects.....and the afterlife in general......we are faced with the notion that mediumship is possible....and we fathom if such could be employed for good purposes....in the service of Man and God. While there appears to be some dangers in the practice of mediumship of various kinds....there also appears to be consistent and successful examples.....in the area of healing and teaching.....which are good and apparently fruitful. So.....we see that proper, careful and wise appropriation of this function can serve ethically as such is used rightly with continual discernment and validation.

I read channelled works with carefulness.....just as I would read any other supposed inspired writings. At last....we realize that divine Spirit and good spirits(angels)[and maybe even human spirits] are sent to minister to the heirs of salvation. I am convinced God and his spirit-helpers do assist in our ministries - however,...the practice of disincarnate human spirits working thru mediums(particularly in healing) is still in my 'research' file.

Worthy comments welcome.


paul

Dora,

You are correct that UFOs and aliens are real.  I don't believe all claims in this area, but undoubtedly solid evidence does exist in some cases.

On the other hand, you are very wrong about Jesus being merely a mythological character.  There is overwhelming evidence for Jesus's real existence as a historical man, Yeshua of Nazareth, who started a ministry of miracle working and teaching against the religious corruption of first century Judaism, and who claimed to be the Messiah of Israel and was executed on a Roman cross.  Hardly any credible scholars deny this anymore.  I have a degree in religious studies and I have read all kinds of scholarly books and articles on Christianity, so I know this as a fact.

Donald a.k.a. Berserk has a doctorate and taught theology.  He knows what he's talking about when it comes to issues like, "Did Jesus exist?" and "Who was the historical Jesus?"  You should be more willing to listen to him on topics he is expert in, if you seek to discover objective reality rather than mere personal opinion.

If you are genuinely interested in learning about the other side of your current beliefs, to try to determine the truth for yourself, I would like to suggest you read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.  This book presents interviews with university professors and scholars on various topics related to the authenticity of the New Testament, who was Jesus and what did he teach, was he really crucified and resurrected, etc.  The author is a former atheist who became a Christian after thoroughly studying the issues and questioning scholars.

-----

Paul a.k.a. Freelight,

I agree with you that mediumship is neutral.  It can be used for good and truth, or evil and falsehood.  Just like any other function or faculty can be variably used, depending on the substance being generated or disseminated through it.  That's why I am careful about believing in channeled materials or statements of mediums, because it is difficult (sometimes impossible) to determine validity.  I prefer to keep an open mind about these things rather than seek them out and profess belief in any particular channel or medium.

Blessings to all in the Spirit of Truth,
Freebird

Paul aka Freebird


Quote:

Dora,.....it is nice that you wish to enlighten us about this authors(and her schools) interpretations...in response to traditional beliefs held about Jesus....but cutting and pasting all that here is not really appropriate here and it is off topic. (no offense hun,....just my first reaction to the pasting

I believe it  is up  to every individual if they recognize the similarities between the mythological gods, and think-  and this  informations not Acharya's  invention - butdocumented  mythological history -or they keep expressing  their beliefs in the Jesus figure. This are always was and will be subject to individual awareness and beliefs, and not matter of cutting and pasting.... - by the way I'm not your hon


Quote:

Donald a.k.a. Berserk has a doctorate and taught theology.  He knows what he's talking about when it comes to issues like, "Did Jesus exist?" and "Who was the historical Jesus?"  You should be more willing to listen to him on topics he is expert in, if you seek to discover objective reality rather than mere personal opinion.

That is merely you opinion, and the only thing you have to care about  what you should do, and not what I should or shouldn't.


Quote:

That's why I am careful about believing in channeled materials or statements of mediums, because it is difficult (sometimes impossible) to determine validity.  I prefer to keep an open mind about these things rather than seek them out and profess belief in any particular channel or medium.

I'm so happy that you agree with me...  ;D..... and I prefer to keep open mind myself as well....and I'm perfectly aware what are my preferences and choices in beliefs.


Quote:

Do you have the integrity to take responsibility for your positions and defend them beyond simply citing chapter and verse from Seth and Elias? Or are you just another example of the low vibratory level of New Age fundamentalism

But certainly refuse to even respond to the angry rampage from who have no other weapon then a personal attack because someone not aligning with his truth and actually as usual turning  the board to a "sunday school" where everyone have to behave accordingly....

There is a difference between disagree with someone else beliefs, or attacking and making false allegations about others, just to be right... and that is the question of integrity

So long from  the subject in  my part...

Dear Paul,

You and I disagree on some basics, but your posts are very rational and worthy of further probing.  It's sters like you that keep me returning to this site. You've read the repeatedly ignored challenge I've directed to Dora: "If you were fundamentally wrong, would you even want to discover this?"   I pose this challenge because she always ignores the evidence I present and simply attacks in an irrelevant direction.   But, of course,  I also feel an obligation to apply this same challenge to myself.  Even if decisive, my unanswered critiique of some channelers does not impugn all channeling.  For example, Ouija boards are conducive to  channeling the worst types of entities, and yet, some of the most compelling channeled communications are transmitted through this vehicle.  I have taken note of the sources you cite and hope to investigate them as I find time.

Thanks,
Don

Don-

Anyone can find material on the web and then cut and paste it.  Few people, however, have had the kind of personal, life changing experiences that you have shared and that are so profoundly inspirational.

And your question is right on target-folks who are devotees of Seth and Elias are not open to even the slightest possibility that they are being misled.  

As to the agenda question, I once again have to wonder how many of those people who seem to think Elias and Seth are infallible communicators of the afterlife are worshippers of God.  I know myself I found it impossible to worship an entity that is so impersonal that it's called "all that is".  The most important thing in my own life is to re-establish a relationship with the Creator, and for sure Seth or Elias is not the route for that objective.

It's ironic that these followers are on Bruce's website, since it is Bruce himself who often warns of the dangers of embracing a belief system so airtight that no other beliefs are allowed.  All that does is set themselves for the big crash that is bound to come.

wrote on Feb 17^th, 2005 at 10:30am:

Paul aka Freebird

Paul is FreeLIGHT.  My name is Eric and I go by FreeBIRD.


Quote:

I prefer to keep open mind myself as well....and I'm perfectly aware what are my preferences and choices in beliefs.

Are you open minded to the possibility that Jesus was a real man and spiritual teacher, and that your current preferences and choices in beliefs may not be accurate?  It seems to me like you are more interested in pushing an agenda of discrediting Christianity.  While I can understand where you're coming from (I'm a former fundamentalist), I think it's unfortunate to completely reject Jesus when there is so much evidence -- historical as well as personal experiences -- in support of his existence and spiritual power.


Quote:

But certainly refuse to even respond to the angry rampage from who have no other weapon then a personal attack because someone not aligning with his truth and actually as usual turning  the board to a "sunday school" where everyone have to behave accordingly....

You don't consider it an angry rampage to copy and paste huge articles attacking the idea that Jesus even existed, when there are people on this board (including myself) who have had personal spiritual experiences with Jesus?  I have had two dreams in which Jesus appeared to me and helped me progress on my spiritual journey.  I have also heard an auditory response to prayer to Jesus which answered a question I was concerned about.

Millions of people all over the world, and throughout history for 2000 years, have had experiences of encountering Jesus.  We also have several texts written within one generation of his life on earth attesting to his existence and the fact that he was a spiritual leader, where he was born, names of his family members, his geneology, and names and biographical sketches of people who knew him and followed his teachings.  And you have the audacity to claim he didn't even exist except in people's mythological imagination?  Gee, it seems like you're pretty quick to write off people's experiences and testimonies when it doesn't agree with your preferred personal beliefs.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I hope you understand that your opinion is the equivalent of laughing in the face of those who sincerely believe in Jesus and have had spiritual experiences in which he appeared, including NDEs, OBEs, dreams and visions, responses to prayers, soul retrievals, etc.  Is that the stance you really wish to take?

Freebird

Hi all,

Yes,......its good to keep an open mind. I have found that much channelled material can/does offer to the spiritual seeker a platform for the expansion of consciousness. Each spirit-teacher and channeled message will have to be examined in the light of its own worth/validity in light of the Whole.

Also...we might realize that spirits from the other side may be of varying calibers of spiritual evolution and refinement. Some promote the idea of reincarnation...while others do not or interpret such on a spiritual level - so we see that there are varying degrees of perception from dimension to dimension. However,...many sound spirit-teachings do all have in common the ethic and essential understanding of the law of love, universal undestandings of karma and other aspects of soul-growth that appear quite rational.

I dont really know if there is an agenda of deception going on in the New Age venue as a whole....but in the conflux of spiritual teachings and expansion of consciousness...there may inherently be mechanisms within that may lead one deceptively relative to their own subjective perceptions of reality. And that is where things can get tricky. But we do have a conscience, and some grant of intelligence (an inner monitor) that can help us discern what is true and what is false at any moment during our souls evolution and progress towards greater Light which is in true accord with divine Will.

The very idea of transdimensional commication is wonderful...and so much more when such dialogues can be of service to mans own understanding and enlightment as to his true purpose and destiny in the Universe. Not ALL spiritual truth is contained in a collection of 66 books neither can be. (this does not discount the truth and benefit that such a collection may afford).

----------------------


I think reviews of Jesus are healthy...and that some orthodoxy has painted a less than perfect portrayal of Jesus. Christ as Myth and the mystical understanding of 'the Christ' have their place within our heritage. We all need the Christ of God.(the logos, light, anointing of our Great Source and Parent God).


paul

Quote:

You don't consider it an angry rampage to copy and paste huge articles attacking the idea that Jesus even existed, when there are people on this board (including myself) who have had personal spiritual experiences with Jesus?  I

So????? And I have personal experiences with Elias, so why your experience more real then mine?
Just because?? Why my beliefs and experiences is different then yours or anyone else?
The copy and paste is reflecting my alignments in beliefs and perfectly point out the Encyclopedic mythological data in the similarities... would you care to challenge those?

Other then that IT IS SUBJECT TO BELIEFS mine as well as yours...


Quote:

You are entitled to your opinion, but I hope you understand that your opinion is the equivalent of laughing in the face of those who sincerely believe in Jesus and have had spiritual experiences in which he appeared, including NDEs, OBEs, dreams and visions, responses to prayers, soul retrievals, etc.  Is that the stance you really wish to take?

So as laughing in my face, and insulting personally regarding my beliefs, and many of my personal experiences in retrievals, which obviously you not aware of.  The only difference is that I don't try to convince anyone year after year that someone should and must believe my truth...

Quote:

, I once again have to wonder how many of those people who seem to think Elias and Seth are infallible communicators of the afterlife are worshippers of God.

I any given time I rather align with and not worship the following then  other source...because my experiences, support it and made many thing possible, what previously was limited by my own beliefs...  

ELIAS: “It is unnecessary to be creating of destruction and doom and trauma. It is more efficient to be creating of ease, and the manner in which you create ease is to be listening to self and not accepting all of what is offered by what you perceive to be outside of self.

“In like manner, I express to all individuals to not be following of this essence. I do not require disciples. I do not solicit followers. I am encouraging of every individual to be following of themselves, to be acknowledging of themselves, and to be recognizing that it is unnecessary for you to be continuing within your belief systems of authorities and other individuals that shall direct you.

“YOU hold the ability to direct YOU! You do not need any other individual or essence to be directing your movement. You may direct your own movement, and create wondrous experiences in your own direction!”



And by the way if somewhere in the way you lost interest  to understand Seth and Elias material as you requested from me privately that is your choice, but that is certainly not  base to your assumption that myself or anyone worship Seth and Elias or not...

wrote on Feb 17^th, 2005 at 3:33pm:

I have personal experiences with Elias, so why your experience more real then mine? Just because??

I'm not saying your experiences are less real.  I don't think I ever said that.  I certainly didn't intend to give that impression.  I don't know enough about your experiences to attempt to analyze them, and I don't know enough about Elias to form a judgment about how real he is.  So please don't think I am denigrating your experiences; I am not.  :)


Quote:

The copy and paste is reflecting my alignments in beliefs and perfectly point out the Encyclopedic mythological data in the similarities... would you care to challenge those?

Just because the story of Jesus is similar to mythological figures and legends does not prove, or in any way imply, that the Jesus Christ described in the Gospels is a myth.

I once wrote a 25-page term paper for a graduate level course in Buddhism, entitled "Jesus and Buddha: Brothers in Spirit."  In the paper, I argued for the thesis that if Yeshua of Nazareth had been born in the time and place of Buddha, he would have ended up being Buddha, and if Siddhartha Gautama had been born in the time and place of Christ, he would have ended up being Christ.  There are a lot of fundamental similarities in their philosophies and teachings, and most of the differences are in my opinion attributable to the different cultures and religious traditions they were operating in.  (I got an "A" on the paper, by the way.)

My point is, if Jesus is similar to some other figures, either historical or mythological, that doesn't mean he was not a real person.  I definitely agree with you that there are important similarities between the story of Christ and some other stories and legends.  I just don't see how this in any way undermines the truth of Jesus Christ as a real being.


Quote:

So as laughing in my face, and insulting personally regarding my beliefs, and many of my personal experiences in retrievals, which obviously you not aware of.  The only difference is that I don't try to convince anyone year after year that someone should and must believe my truth...

When did I do any of these things?  I am not laughing at you, personally insulting you, or denying your retrieval experiences.  I am not trying to tell you or anyone else that they should and must believe my truth; I am only encouraging people to think critically and open their mind to other perspectives, and it's up to them to decide what to believe.  I happen to be coming from a Universalist Christian perspective, which makes me a whole lot more open minded than most Christians, in any case.  I am not quick to tell anyone their experiences and beliefs are bogus, unless it goes against objective facts, in which case I will point it out.  I have never said that your beliefs are wrong except that I believe you are wrong to deny the historical existence of Jesus, and there is ample factual evidence backing up my belief on this issue.  But perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree.

Peace  :)
Freebird

Hi Freebird-

This whole dialogue (well it's really not a dialogue) reminds me of the frustration I have with a very close friend who is a Jehovah Witness.  Discussions get nowhere with him because he refuses to acknowledge even the possibility that his beliefs just might be wrong.  I am the one in the wrong and therefore I am the one who needs to be converted to his religion or else I am doomed.  There is no mid point, no compromise.  It's all or nothing.

When a person becomes that captive to a dogma or a cult or a religion or entities such as Seth or Elias, there is really no point in trying to have a productive discussion.  It gets nowhere.  It's a solid wall that simply can't be penetrated.

I'll say it again....I don't know if Seth/Elias is right or wrong.  I don't know if Jane Roberts fooled lots of folks by pretending to be a channeler for Seth or whether Seth really is a discarnate entity.  And even if he is, I don't know what his agenda is.  It might be totally innocent and he might be an educator, or there might be another agenda at work.

The point is, I don't know and no one else knows either.  That's why it's important to keep an open mind when you read that material, and avoid the temptation of swallowing it hook, line and sinker.

Because once you do that, you effectively close off any other possibility, including the possibility that the whole thing might...just might...be bogus.

I value the contribution of Don (Berserk) because he forces me to consider other possibilities.  The reason some folks on this board find him to be objectionable is because he challenges their own belief systems.  And belief systems, once they have become internalized, are impossible to change unless or until there is what Bruce calls a belief system crash.  

Those crashes can be extremely traumatic so, as far as I'm concerned, I try to avoid locking myself into beliefs that allow no possibility of other explanations.

" The reason some folks on this board find him to be objectionable is because he challenges their own belief systems.  And belief systems, once they have become internalized, are impossible to change unless or until there is what Bruce calls a belief system crash."  


Hi Roger,  It's probably more accurate to say  'I believe the reason some folks on this board find him to be objectionable is because he challenges their own belief systems.'      At least that's my belief.      Tim

Hi Tim-

Yes, you're right.  I should have qualified that statement!

The other thing I should have qualified is that while I don't have dogmatic beliefs, I didn't mean to imply that I have no beliefs whatsoever.

For instance, I do believe in the existence of a Creator and I'm reasonably certain there's an afterlife of some sort.  That's about as much as I can say, at least for the time being.

I don't believe in the existence of the historical Christ becuase I don't know anyone who can walk on water. If one was really a Christian, he/she would be Christ-like, and if he/she were Christ-like, that person could walk on water. After 2 thousand years, this sort of thing should be old hat to the Christians.

  Hey Lucy,  I understand a little about the function of faith in a religious practice. Many historical figures in tantric buddhism are said to have performed 'miracles'. Certain phenomena have been documented somewhat. One can see where some buddhist saints left the imprint of their hands in solid rock. Contemporary cases of the Rainbow Body ( a style of dying that could be described as 'ascension') have been documented. I believe these things. I believe Jesus Christ did exist historically. I believe that some fully realized Beings have led human lives in order to provide demonstrations of what is possible for humankind. Just because no one's been seen walking on water in the last 2000 years doesn't mean it's not possible. Perhaps some people do it now and keep silent about it. (If I could walk on water, I know I wouldn't want to be hounded by the attention of the world...) In these matters, there is a distinction between what I know for sure and what I believe. There is precious little that I know for sure. I  believe some religious figures existed historically and also still exist, non-historically. I  appreciate your "show me" attitude Lucy. That IS a useful thing. But I  relate to christians with their faith in a deity.  I have my own faith , that runs as a current in my  buddhist practice. It's like trusting in your guides and feeling gratitude that they're there.   Best, Tim  

[quote author=Dora link=board=afterlife_knowledge;num=1107318877;start=30#32 date=02/08/05 at 09:09:12]Glen,


Nature of the personal reality, Chapter 8
Health, Good and Bad Thoughts, and the Birth of
the "Demon"

The hypotetical person is Augustus... I and II

"Demon of any kind are the result of your beliefs. They are born from a beliefs in "unnatural guilt. You may personify them. You may even meet them in your experience, but if so they are still the product of your immeasurable creativity, though formed by your guilt and your belief in it.

I think that Malachi Martin's blunt testimony makes it perfectly clear that demons are NOT the result of one's beliefs.   They are an alternative life form.  

I know angels exist, but so do elves.   And so do the Norse gods, Odin and Frey.  

I'm puzzled that humans would find the existence of alternative life forms so threatening that they would deny their existence.   Interesting.

Is our fear of alternative life forms so great that we must deny their existence?  Or must we only accept loving angels and spirit guides who craddle us in their arms with love and acceptance.   How naive.  

Celticprince

Tim
Thanks for your message and I appreciate your open loving attitude. I have met wonderful people who are Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Orthodox and nonorthodox Jew, some varieties of Muslim, Buddhist, ect, and I have met schmucks in all those groups, and I don't think religion in the end has much to do with who is decent and who isn't.

Maybe I should talk about my own personal "gods" including the belief in logic and the scientific method (not in science! but the method...there is a difference).

There is a level of earth without the humans, and then there is the humans. I see that as two layers. When someone uses the phrase "create your own reality", to which level does that refer? (and I just mean that as a rhetorical question; sometimes in a discussion you have to raise questions in order to better illustrate other points).

Everyone thinks he or she is describing the world when talking about religion, but I think you have to go to a deeper level to understand what religion really describes. Humans use language, and no one knows how language arose, so there is always some question as to what we are doing when we use language.

But using language, you move from a purely descriptive level into a level in which you do create things. There are many different cultures. These were all invented. The people who created them created their own reality. I like some better than others, but they have al proved self-sufficient and self-perpetuating at some point. (If you want to read some intersting stuff that illustrates this Jared Diamond in one of his books describes the multitude of cultures that co-existed in..Borneo I think it is...before Westerners arrived. To me this is an excellent example of people creating their own realities.)

In logic and the mathematics, systems are created by assuming premises and allowing rules of inference. I think all our systems follow this pattern, rather more roughly than logic does! but it probably reflects something about how the human mind works or some very deeply species-held assumptions/agreements about time and space and what-not.

So you can build up unlimeted systems by changing the assumptions. What assumptions do you have to make to get into an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? what assumptions do you have tomake to wage a war over weapons of mass destruction? What assumptions do you have to make to assume the baptists have a better version of christ than the Methodists do?

But at some point you are going to assume things that you can't prove. We like to think our assumptions are things we KNOW, but that isn't true. We don't have good short-term mechanisms for determining the difference. The scientific method has been useful for determining certain of these things (and it has limitations on what can be proved within its system).

I think religions are certainly created, invented systems. Trees are a given, religions are derived from something in the human mind. Religion goes a long way to exerting what I call crowd control. That is one of its main purposes. Religion's goal is to control what you think. I know it says all that nice stuff about heaven and what not, but I think it has a duplicitous role to play in culture.

In the end, I only know what I experience, and even that is highly colored by culture. If my experiences take me beyond the bounds of my religion, I will probably gravitate towards a system that, while probably not precise and correct the way the mathematics is, provides me with a better description of what I have experienced. It makes no difference to me if someone presents highly consistent arguments about something, if they start from premises that don't reflect my experiences then I don't care what their conclusion is. As an intellectual structure, Christianity is limited and confining. If you experience it as a vehicle of PUL, then I don't have any grounds for arguing against that because that is your experience. And I'm glad that it is because you are then likely to share that love with me! But I have found that the people who cling to Christianity on the intellectual level are likely to use it as a weapon against me and things that are more consistent with my experiences. That probably represents fear on their part but that is another issue.

What is bothersome to me is that I see this attack being created here in the name of openmindedness or something like that. This is for me a safe haven to discuss things that happen to people and that aren't accounted for in the general scheme of things. I don't see how allowing attacking Seth or other channeled entities keeps this a safe haven. I don't agree with everthing that is channeled and I find some of it inconsistent with my experiences but I want people to feel free to discuss the alternative stuff.

I really do wish I could invent a world without Christianity in it. Surely there is another way to get PUL into the culture...

Excellent post, Lucy!


Quote:

It makes no difference to me if someone presents highly consistent arguments about something, if they start from premises that don't reflect my experiences then I don't care what their conclusion is.

Most people say that seeing is believing, but then there are others who claim that we're only able to see what we already believe to be true.  (That's the believing is seeing camp.)  You seem to have a pretty good understanding of the role of belief in people's lives, so my question is, "Which camp are you in, and wouldn't your past experiences prejudice you against accepting a set of premises which are contrary to your old ones?"

What I'm saying is, if your experiences reflect your existing beliefs about how life and reality work, and you evaluate alternative beliefs based upon your experiences, how can you be open to accepting a different set of core beliefs?

I might also mention that when someone makes the statement, "you create your own reality," what they're saying is, you create your own experience of reality.  While many claim that there is really only one reality, I think even they have to admit that each person's experience of reality is different (and that's the main issue here, imo).

Since you seem to be a very logical person, perhaps you can appreciate the idea of the social construction of reality.  That was (is?) a very obscure area of study within the slightly less obscure sociology of knowledge.  I have found a determined unwillingness on the part of professional philosophers and other academicians to consider the things we can learn from it, which is basically the crucial role played by beliefs in determining our experiences.


Quote:

In logic and the mathematics, systems are created by assuming premises and allowing rules of inference. I think all our systems follow this pattern, rather more roughly than logic does!

I would delete that last phrase.  I think logic can be applied quite precisely for comprehending human thinking and activity.

Cheers,
Glen

Hi Lucy,   Boy, do I appreciate your intelligent and thoughtful post! For me, religion is a vehicle that is useful as a mode of transportation, it's not like when I'm on dry land I'm gonna carry that boat on my back because it's "my religion". That would just weigh me  down and make it hard to keep going on. I will leave Buddhism behind. (It's actually what the Buddha suggests.) I'm gonna leave the boat in the water where it served it's purpose...  I also see this site as a safe haven to discuss experiences and ideas that can't be aired elsewhere. I think the value of the site is for anyone drawn here with real questions, regardless of belief-system. This site is about gaining knowledge, not gaining or switching a set of beliefs. I also think that religion is created by the human mind.... I have to run to a rehearsal, no more time, but you and I are on the same page. I agree with your post, have felt the same things. I dislike beliefs being used as weapons. That seems to be the tone of this particular thread... I would like to encourage anyone, regardless of belief-system, christians too, to explore what is offered at this site. But this site is not religious, it's not belief-oriented, it's about gaining direct knowledge.... Lucy, you are an inspiration! Thank you!   Tim

Quote:

I really do wish I could invent a world without Christianity in it.

And Amen to that  ;D matter of fact without any organize religion would be better, there is not much difference when comes to the limiting awareness and choices...


Quote:

I might also mention that when someone makes the statement, "you create your own reality," what they're saying is, you create your own experience of reality.

We saying who believe in  that, we all create our reality regardless if we believe it or not the only difference is that some willing to accept that The real reality is the reality that  each individually create. That IS real.  not the ultimate truth but certainly true  who experience it...

THE HIDDEN AGENDAS OF CHANNELING:
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The sheer length of this thread has attracted the inevitable detours.    So it seems prudent to draw my posts together and clarify exactly what I identify as channeling's 4 HIDDEN agendas.  To  shorten this, I'ill summarize my earlier posts.

A. Channeling is deceptive for a sinister reason.
(1) The Channeling Entity's Impersonation of  
     Deceased Humans:
a. The entity channeled by Blanche Cooper impersonates Gordon Davis with verifications that rival the best of modern mediumship: i.e. characteristic speaking style, details about places, possessions, and events, and even precognition of Gordon's future home.  This entity is able to exploit client Sam Soal's false belief in the  death of Davis to con Soal into believing this ruse.

b. Mrs. Piper channels several of Richard Hodgson's deceased friends with many stunningly accurate details.  Yet it is later proven that her spirit control,  
Jean Scliville Phinuit, never was the French doctor he claimed to have been.

c. The Seth entity's deception can be unmasked in several ways.  For example, Seth claims to have once incarnated as Protonius Meglemanius III, a minor pope from around 300 AD.  But, as I have shown, this claim can be refuted on 7 historical grounds.  Jane Roberts's attraction of a deceptive entity should come as no surprise.  Jane initially encounters Seth through a Ouija board, a device which routinely attracts seemingly benign entities that ultimately prove malevolent.

d. It is not always obvious whether the entity channeled is actively deceptive or whether the medium is projecting misconceptions from his own imagination.  This uncertainty applies to "The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ,"  channeled by Levi Dowling.  This book is supposedly transcribed from the flawless "Akashic records" of Universal Mind, but it is riddled with errors, beginning with the first verse which claims, "Herod Antipas was the ruler of Jerusalem" at the time of Jesus' birth.  In fact, Herod the Great was Jerusalem's ruler, not Herod Antipas.  It portrays Jesus as visiting India and Lahore, Pakistan (31:1).  The myth of Jesus' visit to India is traceable to the 3rd century legend that the apostle Thomas evangelized India.  In fact, Lehore didn't even exist until 600 years after Christ.  The Aquarian Gospel depicts Jesus visiting magicians in Persepolis (39:1).   But Persepolis was destroyed by Alexander the Great in 330 BC and was never rebuilt.

e. Why do channeled entities lie about who they are and whom they channel?  The history of channeling is instructive.  Until the 19th century, channeled entities were often widely regarded as "gods" or "demons."  So our identification of these entities as discarnate humans may be nothing more than the wishful thinking of needy souls trapped in a New Age belief system.

(2) The channeling experiences of Raphael Gasson and Johanna Michaelsen suggest that deceptive entities want to be channeled to establish an "energetic" bond with the medium that might trap her in a lower astral plane after death.

a. Raphael finds abundant reassurance from his spirit guides that theirs is a loving ministry quite compatible with Christian values.  Yet their deception is unmasked by 2 events: (i) Raphael conducts a joint seance with a medium who admits his spirit guides are evil.  But  these guides prove totally compatible with Raphael's "good Christian" guides.  (ii) When Raphael tries to convert to conventional Christianity, his guides repeatedly force him into a trance and try to make him strangle himself with his own hands.

b. The Hermanito entity performs many miraculous cures through the medium/ healer Pachita with Johanna Michaelsen serving as her assistant.   Johanna is initially impressed by the symbols from many religious traditions that surround Pachita and believes that she is doing God's work.  But when Johanna decides to convert to conventional Christianity, Hermanito psychically detects this.  Johanna is horrified by the sudden hatred in Pachita's [Hermanito's] expression and becomes the target of demonic attacks fit for a horror movie.

B. In my view, the moral relativism embraced by
   much of channeling has character sabotage as
   its hidden agenda.
(1) The channeling under discussion denies the existence of right and wrong, good and evil: e.g. "Sin does not exist (ACIM)."  "Ultimately there is no difference between right and wrong...There is no such thing as evil (Ramtha)."  "There is no right and wrong, and there is no good and evil (Elias)."  "All existence is blessed and...evil did not exist in it...The devil idea is merely the mass projection of certain fears... Good and evil effects are basically illusions.  In your terms, all acts, regardless of their seeming nature, are part of the greater good (Seth)."  More ominous is Scott Peck's point that moral relativism also surfaces in the value systems espoused by destructively demonic entities.   So if our channeled entities are not themselves evil, they are evil's handmaidens.

Modern New Agers seem totally unaware of another menacing parallel.  In a sense the modern Seth and Elias craze is recycled 2nd century Gnosticism.  Gnosticism teaches moral relativism, rejects the good vs. evil polarity, acknowledges Seth and Elias as important high entities, practices channeling, and, like the modern Seth and Elias, implies that Simon of Cyrene was crucified instead of Jesus and became confused with Him.

(2) The consequences of moral relativism can be morally catastrophic.  2nd century Gnosticism eloquently illustrates the degrading behavior promoted by this perspective.  The Gnostics transform Holy Communion into wife-swapping sex orgies.  For communion bread and wine, they substitute their orgiastic semen and menstrual fluid and ritually consume them.

The sinister impact of moral relativism is also confirmed by modern sociological research.  An excellent study demonstrated that when modern youth reject moral absolutes and an objective standard of truth, they become:

36% more likely to lie to their parents
48% more likely to cheat on exams
twice as likely to try to physically hurt someone
2 1/4 time more likely to steal
6 times more likely to attempt suicide
twice as likely to lack purpose and be resentful and angry with life
twice as likely to get drunk and three times as likely to use illegal drugs

According to Seth, a young child that spends its life being, say, urinated and defecated upon, or beaten for crying, or burnt with cigarettes, or sexually violated, or locked in a closet actually chose to experience this ghastly existence.   Indeed, the child's experience is only one facet of its `multidimensional' personality.  Other facet selves in alternate worlds or in `prior' lives may be victimizers.  But for Seth this pathetic existence is not the result of any Karmic law. Rather, the abused child's higher self thought itself into this fine mess just for the experience.  The absence of any good vs. evil polarity deprives us of the need to express shock and disgust at the child's burn marks, broken bones, mangled emotions, and scarred personality.  Neither Seth's perspective on accountability nor his incongruous rule "Thou shalt not violate" has the moral teeth to be meaningful apart from this polarity and postmortem judgment.

Seth's counterintuitive bromide that "we create our own reality" is morally repulsive in a way analogous to a harmful Pentecostal heresy that insists that we create our own health.  This heresy argues tht faith and prayer work miracles; so if you're not healed, it's your own fault.  You could have chosen miracle-working faith.  As if the sick don't have enough problems without feeling guilty for failing to create their own healing!

C. Much of channeling attacks the reality of Christ's suffering and death on the cross just as demonic entites do during possession.  In Scott Peck's encounters with possession, a demon insists that Jesus employed astral projection to avoid any suffering during His crucifixion.  This slander serves the hidden channeling agenda of undermining our prospect of establishing a loving relationship with a transcendent personal God.

Consider the attacks launched by the channeling of ACIM, Ramtha, the Aquarian Gospel, the Koran, Elias, and Seth:
(1) [Jesus in ACIM:] "[Divine] forgiveness is an illusion...Do not make the pathetic error of clinging to the old rugged cross...This is not the Gospel I intended for you...Christ waits for your acceptance of Him AS YOURSELF...Is Jesus the Christ?  O yes, ALONG WITH YOU."  (This is of course contradicted by the historical Jesus in Mark 10:45.)

(2) Similarly, according to Ramtha, the Christian God is "an idiotic deity...You are God...We are equal with God and Christ."

(3) The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ perpetuates the easily discredited nonsense that the doctrine that Jesus was God incarnate "is wholly at variance with the teachings of both Jesus himself and the apostles (13)."  This claim is refuted both by the biblical Gospels (e.g. John 1:1, 14; 20:28-29) and Paul's epistles (e.g. Philippians 2:6-11).  In the Aquarian Gospel, a 12-year-old Jesus is repulsed by the Temple sacrifices and refuses to celebrate the Passover because of its religious symbolism of sin and atonement.  In fact, Jesus assumes the ongoing legitimacy of sacrifices until His atoning death, which serves as the sacrifice to end all sacrifices (John 4:20-24; Hebrews 10:18).  

(4) The Koran's portrait of Jesus is allegedly the product of dictation from Allah, but it is in fact largely the product of allusions drawn from several apocryphal infancy Gospels written between the late 2nd and 5th centuries.  These Gospels are universally considered legendary in character and are far too late to contain any historically valuable material.

(5) The Koran, Elias, and Seth, even deny that Jesus died by crucifixion.  they explain away the Gospel story in basically the same way with a few contradictory details.  

D. And what is the hidden agenda here? At one level, this channeling nullifies the role of Jesus' death as an example of self-giving love.  At a deeper level, it seeks to undermine the redemptive significance of Jesus' crucifixion.  Put differently, this channeling seeks to deprive people of the ability to advance to the vibratory level of higher heavens.

(1) From God's perspective, the value of our free will is a function of the strength of our inclination to choose contrary to the divine will. So God created us with the idea that our fragile constitution would often induce us to sin and fail.  In the story of Adam and Eve, the humans become godlike precisely because their transgression and its consequences teach them the difference between good and evil (Genesis 3:22).  Their "fall" was part of the divine plan from the beginning: "For God has imprisoned all people in their disobedience precisely so that He could have mercy on everyone (Romans 11:32)."  So in a sense God takes responsibility for our sinful nature.

This insight is the key to grasping the significance
of Christ's atoning death.  God incarnated in the person of Jesus to show by His death that the God responsible for our fallen nature will not hold our guilt against us.  This is the true meaning of the doctrine of Christ "dying for our sins."  Through Jeremiah (7:22-23) and other prophets, God makes it clear that He never really authorized Jewish sacrifice rituals in the first place, but that He used these rituals as the moral framework for His progressive revelation.  Christ' atoning death functions as the sacrifice to end all sacrifices (Hebrews 10:18).  Jesus' crucifixion (30 AD) is perfectly timed to coincide with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple  (70 AD) that served as the center of the sacrifice cult.

(2) This revelation has profound implications for the nature of the Christian heaven.  Jesus' atoning death means that salvation is attained "by grace through faith,...not by works, lest anyone should boast (Ephesians 2:8-9)."  The only proper response to God's grace is a life based on gratitude (1 Thessalonians 5:18; Ephesians 5:20).  This means that there is a better motivation for service than a sense of duty.  A sense of duty often prompts a sense of burden that promotes self-righteousness because we collect applause in our minds for putting up with each other.  Thus, a duty-based spirituality can foster a dense spiritual vibration and lead to consignment to what Bruce calls a "hollow heaven."  True Christian spirituality implies that we serve each other out of a sense of privilege, not duty.  We count it a privilege to overlook the shortcomings and inconsiderate acts of others to make our gratitude to God real for His willingness to overlook our shortcomings.  We are forgiven precisely because we are willing to forgive (Matthew 6:14-15).  

One's afterlife predicament is based on the principle like attracts like or, as Jesus puts it, "The measure you put out will be the measure you get back (Matthew 7:2)."  A spiritual plane in which everyone displays PUL and relates to others out of a sense of privilege (not duty) is free of egotism and must operate at a very high spiritual vibration.  Channeling is either evil or at least compatible with evil when it seeks to undermine the Gospel principles that promote this Utopia.  

"But," you say, "I've known many Christians who fall far short of that ideal." I reply, "That's why hollow heavens exist.   But blaming Christianity for the inadequacies of a few is like blaming hospitals for polluting their atmosphere by admitting sick patients."

Hello all,

I would recommend looking into Allan Kardecs research and codices on spirit-communication/mediumship. He compiled and researched much on the subject that can be found in his books. I read 'The Spirits Book' some years ago - Kardec was the pioneer of what became known as 'Spiritism' which while such can be considered in the genre of 'Spiritualism'...has its own distinctions.

In my correspondence with spiritists....I am finding out that like any vocation/ministry...there may be good mediums and bad mediums. Also...in the realm of spirits....there are good and bad. Kardecs books go in length on the whole operation/ethic/guidelines on spirit-communications and all the phenomena related to such. Spiritism upholds the ethical teachings of Jesus and is very societal/community oriented. The choicest spirits have given messages to man and have been collected by Kardec into volumes. I may read 'The Mediums Book' next. The intelligence, reason, logic of the messages are of high quality philosophically....and only tending towards the goodness of morality, love and service.

Researching about the Witch of Endor was interesting relative to mediumship/familiar spirits, the OT forbiddence of spiritism, etc. One spiritist shared that indeed all are to test the spirits to see whether they are of God. So, there are many  mediums who serve/minister with careful discernment...and use thier powers of perception as much as they can.....only being used as an intermediary for good or high spirits. Here is a short biography on Allan Kardec and links to his books -

http://spiritwritings.com/kardec.html



paul

Dear Paul,

One of the mediums I refer to in my post, Johanna Michaelsen, was a devotee of Allen Kardec as well as Edgar Cayce.  This devotion didn't spare her from demonic attack after she decided to become a Christian.  She shares her haunting story in her  book "The Beautiful Side of Evil."  

The best book I've ever read on mediumship is Paul Beard's book "Living On: How Consiciousness Continues and Evolves after Death."  Beard synthesizes the insights of the best mediums of the early and mid-twentieth century.  I myself have never read Kardec.  I'll check out the site you suggest.  Remember, despite my scathing critique, I do not claim that it applies to all mediumship.  I still have more to learn on this controversial subject.

Thanks for your reply,
Don  

Hi Don,

I've heard of Michaelsen and read her book years back. Unfortunately her experience was bad,....however this does not mean all mediumship or even spirit-healers/surgeons are bad. Some appear to be doing good and there is authentic healings occurring. The special on John of God recently brought some light on this. Sure, some of his procedures are strange and he is a medium for spirit-doctors from the spirit-world which is amazing in itself.

When I am in the Spirit....I am also  energized and filled with Holy Spirit...and possibly holy spirits - its all Gods divine energy and anointing. I attribute healing in the ministry I have experienced to Christ and the Holy Spirit....and believe that angels of healing are also present in some services. I am always learning to.

A true medium must prepare his vessel and by divine guidance intuit and discern the spirits. Also laws of attunement and rapport play a great part. Much has also come by way of psychography or automatic writing. This really is a huge field with much to explore. Will share more as it comes.


paul

I read an interesting book recently called "The Afterlife Experiments."  Have any of you read it?  There's some pretty strong evidence in there that mediums really can do what they say.  Any thoughts?

Polly, if you Google by typing "Gary Schwartz" and "critique", you'll find find some quite devastating critiques of Schwartz's experimental design.  I suspect that if he corrected these flaws, his results would be less impressive, but still significant.  My own critique is quite different: I think it is likely that these mediums do not actually communicate with the professed discarnate spirits, but rather glean their information from either ESP or deceptive spirits impersonating these people.  

What else can I conclude, given the channeling cases of Blanche Cooper and Mrs. Piper that I present in reply #84 above and in much more detail in reply #56 on p. 4 of this long post?  Blanche's channeling was as rich in verifiable detail as any modern medium's performance, and yet, the man she channeled (Gordon Davis) was alive the whole time and knew nothing about "his" counterfeit false persona conjured up by Blanche.  Mrs. Piper's performance was equally impressive, and yet, it was later proven that her spirit guide, Jean Scliville Phinuit, was a fraud.

But Polly, just occasionally genuine channeling does seem to occur.  Two eminent professors, William James of Harvard (1842-1910) and James Hyslop of Columbia (1854-1920) promised each other that whoever died first would try to give the survivor evidence of his postmortem survival.  James died first and Hyslop waited for months, apparently in vain.  But one day he received a letter from Ireland, a place he had never visited.  It was from a married couple whose experiments with a Ouija board had become dominated by a certain William James who insisted that they contact a Prof. James Hyslop and deliver this very odd message: "Remember the red pyjamas!"  At first, Hyslop could recall no red pyjamas and dismissed the mesage.  But as time passed, he suddenly recalled that on a trip to Paris he and James had arrived ahead of their luggage and had to shop for necessities.  Looking for sleepware, Hyslop could only find some "really fancy red pyjamas," and James teased him for days about his dubious taste.  Does the Irish couple read the mind of Hyslop, a man unknown to them whom they therefore find difficult to locate?  I think not.  Isn't it ironic that the Ouja board, which so often channels demonic entities, should be the vehicle for such an impressive verification of life after death?

Hey Don,

Speaking of William James, have you read Jane Roberts' The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher?  She says it was channeled to her from William James.  Excellent book, excellent philosophy, imo.  There's another woman, by the name of Susan Smith I believe, who also claims to have written a book channeled from William James.  I guess you just can't keep a good writer/philosopher down, even with death.  :)

Cheers,
Glen

Hi Glen!

You're right!  William James used to be claimed as the source for a lot of channeling.  I own Susie Smith's book, "The Book of James," and it made quite an impression on me.  I haven't read Jane Robert's "The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher."  It  would be interesting to compare the two, since they both purport to channel William James.  I've heard that Jane Roberts claims to channel "the essence" of James, but not James himself.  If so, the significance of this distinction eludes me.  Of greater concern is the fact that Susie Smith's version of James adamantly repudiates reincarnation in favor of evolutionary soul progression through many astral realms.   I gather that Jane's version affirms reincarnation.  

Sigh!  
Don  

Hi Don-

Is it possible that our DNA contains a "memory" gene?  For instance, if my great grandfather experienced a traumatic death by drowning, would that possibly account for my own fear of water?

In other words, if I have an irrational fear of water that can't be traced to an experience I had during childhood, some folks might conclude that I am being affected by a past life experience....i.e. reincarnation.  

But maybe there's another explanation involving DNA transmitted memories?  

The thing is, none of us come into this world as blank slates.  We come with talents, abilities, predispositions to various interests or hobbies, phobias or fears of one thing or another.......even if we exclude all experiences we have after birth, we still arrive with these attributes.

The bottom line question seems to be, are these the result of past lives, or are they maybe genetically based instead?

I wonder if there's been any research in this regard.

Hi rog and all,

Excellent inquiry - I have tended more towards the concept of evolutionary soul progression which may not necessarily require reincarnation on earth.
There may be a genetic or familial connection to certain 'past-life' experiences or tendencies. I like to refer to these simply as 'past experience' reflections (this term would include such to mean 'past-experiences' as to exclude any concept of reincarnation) - they present themselves as memories - these may be coming from both soulic and genetic memories....as there is a co-mingling and interaction between soul and body (soul emotions/experiences impress the dna in the blood and this may be passed down generationally in families).

On the spiritual level.....we may have access to a Group-Soul that is like a spiritual family group we belong to in a pre-existence...and that we may spiritually progress with indefinitely into eternity. Also...souls may be tapping into the Akashic records or Collective Consciousness retreiving certain memories.

Another possibility for what is supposed to be 'past-life' memories are simply familiar spirits who impress their memories into the mind of the incarnate. (these are memories of the informing spirit - which the incarnate mistakes as being his/her own memories of a 'past-life')

The idea of every spirit having a record of all its past-experience in what is called the souls 'medallion' is a wonderful concept. (this was taught by Ann Ree Colton of the Niscience school, who by the way...taught reincarnation). While our genes may have memory-impressions....so our soul must bear a record of some kind of its sojournal experience. The wonder of it all....is discovering how the soul interacts/coordinates with the matter-ial body/blood/genes in its spiritual evolution. Here we plunge into 'soul-science' and metaphysics.

This is a wonderful field of study. In the arena of healing it must be vital knowledge in assisting us towards wholeness and spiritual recovery. As spiritual scientists and soul-pioneers this is our frontier.


paul

Hi Don,

Just a question here.  What would happen if I took, say, one of your informational posts and "edited" it.  What if I took out any comments that might shed negative light on an issue I felt should be left viewed more positively. And perhaps added a word or two somewhere here or there that might "soften" things up or make an innocent comment seem more ponted or directed. Or say I just didn't LIKE a thought and decided to toss it out.  Tell me then, would it still be your "word" in print?  When you quote and make comparisons to The Bible, exactly which version are you referring to?  And Roger, please, to say that "other" ideas are somehow evil disguised as love, acceptance, forgiveness and light is a stretch I did not think even you were capable of.  How desperate are you to continue to punish yourself in this life?  I am sorry for this directness but sometimes tiptoeing around things for days on end is the limit.  There are so many people here with so much to share, who want to give and recieve insight and love, and you two just want to tear things down over and over again.  I simply do not understand why you feel so threatened by such  a simple thing as love.  

[Cheryl to Don:]  "When you quote and make comparisons to the Bible, exactly which versions are you referring to?"
_________________________________________

You like "directness"; so I will be direct.  We learn by comparisons.  It's called critical thinking.  If you think any of my comparisons are invalid, then make your case.  Otherwise, why bother even saying this?  Since I know both Hebrew and Greek, I don't need to consult any versions.  But I usually consult several to save time.  None of my points here are affected by the versions I use.  

[Cheryl:]  "And Roger, please, to say that "other" ideas are somehow evil disguised as love, acceptance, forgiveness, and light is a stretch I did not think even you were capable of.  
_________________________________

Roger is just posing the question.  You give the impression there is no such thing as deception.  In this thread I have documented the great harm done through channeling.   No one, certainly not you, has tried to refute my case by critiquing my arguments head on.  It is a loving act to try to protect people from harm.  Do you see me rebuking others on this site for presenting ideas I find offensive?  No, I welcome them in the spirit of honest and open inquiry.  

[Cheryl to Roger:] "How desperate are you to continue to punish yourself in this life?"  
_____________________________________

What a cheap shot against Roger!  You assume that it is masochistic to disagree with you and to bear the exhilarating burden of the quest for truth.  

[Cheryl:]  "There are so many people here with so much to share, who want to give and receive insight and love, . . ."
_________________________________________

During my "Lliac Cologne" post on Jan. 25, Roger asked me a series of questions of deep personal relevance to him and I am simply trying to answer them.  In so doing, I too am trying "to give and receive insight and love."  How unkind of you to insinuate otherwise!  Everyone else is free to create and reply to posts that suit their tastes.  But you'll notice that my "Channeling Agenda" and "God and Destiny" posts have more views than any other posts.  So there is interest in the dialogue on those posts.  

[Cheryl:] ".. .and you two just want to tear things down over and over again."
________________________

Roger has taken Bruce's workshop and read all his books.  But he still has some loose ends and burning questions which he wishes to explore.  To this end, he wants key afterlife ideas to be subjected to closer scrutiny.  His quest is a deeply personal and he is always courteous to others on this site.  How dare you try to stifle his honest spiritual quest!

As for me, my "Channeling Agendas" is my only topic that is often negative in tone, But it is so by necessity.  Roger asked me what I  would identify as channeling's hidden agendas.  If some channeling can lead to demonic attack, opposition to Jesus and the Christian God, and an undermining of morality, then it needs to be exposed and confronted.  If you disagree, then by all means lay out your case in detail.   But don't blame Roger for simply posing his own questions.

My "God and Destiny" and "OBE" posts are both positive over all.  I explain why I  reject Robert Monroe's OBE reincarnation memories, but am sufficiently positive about several of his other OBEs to spend over $500 on TMI's Gateway tapes and, beginning Monday, to leave this site to devote myself to their use.  The evidence for an Afterlife is very important to me and most others on this site.  The issue deserves more than mindless sweeping acceptance.  With the many contradictory insights of astral explorers,  it is loving to try to sort out what is genuine from what is spurious to help people find an anchor for their spiritual quest.    

"I simply do not understand why you feel so threatened by such a simple thing as love."
___________________________________

What a cheap shot!  Neither of us are "threatened" by love.  On the contrary, we are awed by it and want to protect it from gross distortions and channel more of it to ourselves and others.  Hence, our exploration of the threats to love.

Anyway, Cheryl, you'll be rid of me effective Monday,
Don

wrote on Mar 11^th, 2005 at 12:17am:

[Cheryl to Don:]  Anyway, Cheryl, you'll be rid of me effective Monday, Don

Don,

What do you mean?  You're leaving the board?!?!  Please don't go!!  I love your posts and I've learned so much!   :'(

Don,
I am so sorry to hear that you are leaving the board. I've never seen such deep and thoughtful ideas and questions and information. I loved reading your posts.  It was like a open window with clean, cool envigorating air coming into a hot room.  I wish you well and hope you drop in sometimes in the future.  John

John,

Thanks for your support.  I'm leaving the board until summer for 3 reasons.  (1) I've experienced just about everything there is to experience in the supernatural realm, but none of my OBEs and retrievals seem genuine.  Before giving up, I want to devote myself to the pursuit of a genuine OBE in a more disciplined way.  Posting on this board keeps me too left-brain oriented--a no-no if you want to experience OBEs.  (2) This site does reflect a kind of New Age cultic orthodoxy that gets to me after a while.  I need a change of pace.  (3) I have been a bit of a board hog these past weeks.  But I enjoy interacting with several people here and will hopefully be back this summer to report actual OBE experiences and what they reveal.  

Don

P.S.  I hope to create 3 more posts before Monday.

THERE IS INDEED A GOOD VS. EVIL POLARITY

The existence of a good vs. evil polarity is clearly relevant to my case for the hidden agendas of channeling.  This post replies to the responses to Lucy's post "There is no good vs. evil polarity."

A. The Reality of Evil:
1. One poster views evil as an illusion "in the grand scheme of things."  I challenge him to explain the difference that would be created in our earthly experience if evil were real rather than illusory.  If there is no difference, then the word "illusion" becomes a vacuous concept.  "Evil" can be defined as "an act intended to harm without adequately compensating the victim with a positive benefit."

2. Of ciourse, one can opt for a counterintuitive ploy and insist that if one's life stinks, we chose to create it that way.  This ploy seems absurd when we consider child abuse cases that mangle the child's emotions to the point of making him psychotic, suicidal, or criminal in mentality.  It seems even more absurd when we consider the fixation at the age of onset that afflicted the two victims of demonic possession investigated by Peck:

"During the exorcism, one patient, when the healthy self was free to speak, gave the most poignant expression of fixation I have ever heard:  'I haven't learned anything these past 20 years.  I'm really just 12 years old.  How can I possibly function after the exorcism?  I'm way too young to be married and have children.  How can I have sex and be a parent when I'm only 12?'  After the exorcism, the other patient, whose possession began at age 5, had to deal in intensive psychotherapy  with all manner of 5-year-old fears, misconceptions, issues, and transferences ("People of the Lie," 191)."  

It seems highly contrived to try to fit such pointless suffering within the channeling scheme that only good exists (e.g. as per Seth and ACIM).

3. Other posters embrace the view channeled by Elias and shared by Monroe that there is no good or evil, right or wrong; there is only experience.  Thse posters argue that evil is merely the product of earthly belief systems.  If this is so, then why not view love as nothing more than a culturally conditioned restraint created by the human herd instinct?  Why not harm others if this makes you feel fulfilled, unique, powerful, and happy, and you think you can get away with it?  No wonder there is solid sociological research that is devastating to moral relativism.  By several statistically measurable criteria, people who reject absolute truth and embrace moral relativism are much more likely to harm others and engage in criminal behavior (For more details see p. 2 of this post.)

4. The view that evil is merely the product of earthly belief systems is refuted by the fact that the beliefs of victims (especially young children) often play no role in their possession by gradual demonic stealth.   This view is also refuted by the lethal nature of demonic evil.  Robert Bruce is as New Age as they come.  Based on much experience with exorcism, he insists on the reality of nonhuman demons with varying degrees of malevolent power.  In "Psychic Self-Defense," he shares his acquaintance with a Catholic priest who was called to perform an exorcism for a tormented family, but was unable to prevent the powerful entity from causing the parents' sudden deaths.

Similarly, in "Hostage to the Devil," Malachi Martin reports the tragic demise of a young athletic priest.  This priest had already performed an exorcism, and so, was called in to handle a particularly virulent possession case.  The demon took his life the moment he stood at the victim's bed.  A more mature and experienced exorcist had to be summoned to complete the exorcism.

5. According to Martin, what convinces the skeptic at an exorcism is not the supernaturally lowered temperature in the room, the entity's unnerving clairvoyance, the teleportation of objects, or even the scratching of hellish messages by an unseen hand on the victim's skin.  No, what convinces the skeptic is the palpable searing presence of pure hatred.  To define "evil" as "the absence of love" is short-sighted because it ignores the destructive energy that makes evil present.

B. As applied to morals, the term "absolute"
   means "definitely real, not relative."

1. The assumption that there are no moral absolutes often leads to contradictory positions.  Many argue that ethical relativism is good because it promotes tolerance of certain cultural practices that Americans deem strange.  But this argument is inconsistent with relativism because it assume that there is at least one absolute--tolerance.  Besides, in the ordinary language of the real world, to tolerate the conflicting viewpoints of others implies that they have a right to their values, despite the fact that some of them are wrong.  Real tolerance presumes that someone is right and someone is wrong, and this implicitly denies moral relativism.  

2. Several months ago, one poster offered this argument against the reality of evil.  All of us have been reincarnated countless times.  During these incarnations, we have all committed every imaginable sin or crime at one time or another.  Therefore, there is no evil.  This argument concedes that evil might exist if just a few of us occasionally committed crimes or other hurtful acts.  To get rid of evil, all we have to do is expand our resume of cruelty over several lives and get everyone else to develop a similar dastardly resume!  We're all guilty; so none of us are guilty.  This is absurd.  If one act of cruelty is wrong, then countless acts of cruelty are even more heinous.

3.  Bruce Moen offers a more intriguing defense of moral relativism.  He suggests that the relativity of evil may make it illegitimate to think in terms of a good vs. evil polarity.  Bruce offers this example of cultural relativism:

"If a young woman is walking down the street, not excorted by a male family member, wearing her hugger jeans and a tank top, [a western] observer..will have a different view of the good/ evil polarity than an observer in some middle eastern cultures.  In western culture, she may attract smiles, in some middle eastern cultures she may attract rocks."    

But the fact that cultures and individuals differ in certain moral PRACTICES does not imply that different cultures do not share common moral VALUES.  For example, unlike most American women, some female South Sea islanders do not cover their breasts in public.  But this hardly means that the latter do not value modesty.  Doe to the climate, environmental conditions, and certain religious beliefs, they have in fact developed certain unique practices by which to manifest the transcultural value of modesty.  Similarly, though cultures may differ about how they manifest such values as honesty, courage, and the preservation of life, they do not promote dishonesty, cowardice, or arbitrary killing.  

4. In Bruce's FAQ section, some of  his statements about hellish confinement might, if true, imply that there is no evil.  He claims that in the Afterlife, "I, as a portion of The Consciousness, judge myself based on my beliefs and understanding of what is right and wrong," and adds, "No one forces anyone into such a `Hell' as punishment for their horrific acts...They are free to make a new choice and leave their Hell at any time."  Graduation to Focus 27 seems possible as long as one obeys one rule:
"No imposition of one will upon another (so Monroe in UJ 242)."  Sp just imagine this rationalization for David Rader's BTK lifestyle of mass murder:

"Torturing and killing women give me an exhilarating sense of adventure and sexual gratification.  When I die, I will dwell in a spirit plane where I can continue to torture women.  I know how to beat the postmortem system.  When I start to get victimized myself, I can leave this plane and relocate to Focus 27.   All I have to do to stay there is refrain from imposing my will on others.  I can view it as a kind of vacation until my next reincarnation.  Then it's back to work--a fresh incarnation in which I can find more creative ways of torturing and killing women.  But next time I won't get caught!"  

D. This grotesque vision of life is impossible if the Christian view is correct that Pure Unconditional Love (PUL) operates as a moral absolute, indeed, the only absolute.

1. To grasp how this absolute establishes the good vs. evil polarity, we must first define "polarity."
According to Webster, a polarity is "the condition of being positive or negative with respect to some reference point."  Rightly understood, all virtues manifest love and are on the positive side of PUL because their opposites are on the negative side of PUL.  Let me explain.  Modesty, courage, and preservation of life can all be manifestations of PUL.  The opposite of modesty is immodesty, which involves an egotism that is incompatible with PUL.  Courage is another aspect of PUL.  The opposite of courage is cowardice, which is caused by fear.  But fear and love cannot coexist at the same time.  The opposite of preservation of life is arbitrary killing, which cannot coexist with life-nurturing PUL.  

2. Another aspect of the good/evil polarity emerges from a closer analysis of Pure Unconditional Love.  The purity of this love implies a contrast with all the ways love can be contaminated by impurities.  Love can be contaminated by manipulation, sexual exploitation, selfish agendas, and jealous vindictiveness.  The unconditional dimension of PUL contrasts with all the conditions most of us attach to our love--the exclusion of our enemies from love's embrace, the presumption of mutual payoffs, the limited scope of our love, etc.  How many of us live out Jesus' principle: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse yuu, pray for those who abuse you (Luke 6:28)?"  These impurities and conditions that infect our love dwell on the "left" side of the PUL polarity.

3. More egregious acts must be located still further to the left of the PUL polarity.  One poster believes in right and wrong, but not in good and evil.  But human experience exposes a line that gets horribly crossed and cries out for a stronger term than "wrong."  We need a word to distinguish mass murderers from someone who tries to be "nice" by lying about his opinion of a guy's ghastly tie!

Viewed this way, PUL is a state of being rather than an astral emotion that can be tapped by flawed people and projected out to those in need of retrieval.  Not that strong positive emotion cannot be projected in the astral realm.  It should rather be labelled "ecstasy", its normal designation in the academic analysis of spiritual experience.

4. It only makes sense to label PUL a moral absolute if it governs our postmortem progress. In my view, what this means is implicit in Bruce's observations in his online "Christianity" article:

"Some in these Hells are able to change their energetic make-up as a result of being in their Hell.  That is what happened to the tour guide who was showing me around.  He'd been living in a Thief's Hell for a very long time and had been stuck in several others throughout his existence."  

These observations hint at the way PUL can serve as the only moral absolute that serves the good/ evil polarity.  If graduation from lower planes is contingent on progress towards PUL, then PUL is the absolute that governs soul evolution.  The retrieved souls are not simply busted out of their astral jail without regard to their progress.  Unknown to the astral explorer, his guides have first identified who has made the most progress towards PUL.  The principle of like attracts like governs the astral planes.  Someone who remains a sadist at heart cannot simply play the game to survive in Focus 27 and beyond.  His energetic make-up must first be transformed to the point of being spiritually compatible with his new associates on a higher plane.  At least that is my perspective on how the universe works.

Don

wrote on Mar 12^th, 2005 at 12:58pm:

John, Thanks for your support.  I'm leaving the board until summer for 3 reasons.  (1) I've experienced just about everything there is to experience in the supernatural realm, but none of my OBEs and retrievals seem genuine.  Before giving up, I want to devote myself to the pursuit of a genuine OBE in a more disciplined way.  Posting on this board keeps me too left-brain oriented--a no-no if you want to experience OBEs.  (2) This site does reflect a kind of New Age cultic orthodoxy that gets to me after a while.  I need a change of pace.  (3) I have been a bit of a board hog these past weeks.  But I enjoy interacting with several people here and will hopefully be back this summer to report actual OBE experiences and what they reveal.   Don P.S.  I hope to create 3 more posts before Monday.

Don, I hope you are successful in your pursuit of an OBE.  I am anxious to hear how it turns out.  I've always been a bit skeptical of the whole thing, to be honest.  I tend to think it's just a very deep meditative state.

Roger B & everybody:  There has been a "behind the scenes e-mail campaign"?? I'm feeling a little disillusioned about the good will I thought existed on this board.  Say it isn't true, somebody.  I've always enjoyed Don's courteous & reasoned posts.  Has he really been hounded off this board & behind the scenes to boot?

Ellen-

Please disregard that e-mail reference in my post.  I deleted it anyway.  And certainly Cheryl was not part of it in any event.

Hopefully the Board will return to its normal status soon.  It seems as tho Don and I are considered to be people who want to "tear things down over and over again."  Altho that couldn't be further from the truth, if that's a perception that's held by even a few folks, it's best that I leave the Board as well.  This will be my last post.

I've enjoyed the comaraderie on this Board and there are many fine people.  I'll miss a lot of you, and wish you all the very best.

I know this topic has died but I felt a need to respond anyway.

I was a member here under a different name (i can't tell you which name because i can't remember which is why i had to re-register) and had a long discussion with Don about Seth and the pope thing.  This was before the boards conversion.  Then low and behold I find that he is still here talking the same stuff.

I guess he's taken a vacation or something so our conversation can't start up again.

It justs annoys me to someone telling the same crap expecially when they admit they have very little knowledge of the Seth material, and then do it under the guise of some sort of search for knowledge.

hope to hae more conversations about seth and other things in the future.

Dear Legolas,

You're being comically ridiculous.  
(1) In the first place, I was content to let this thread go quite long ago and it is you who are resurrectiing it.  

(2) Secondly,  I created this topic in response to Roger who asked me to share my perspective on hidden channeling agendas in my "Lilac Cologne" post.  True I've read only one of Bruce's books, but I've browsed others, and read all his online articles.  Roger has read all his books and even taken his course. He is now disillusioned and so has abandoned the site. But I continue a regular dialogue with Roger, along with several other ex-site members, via private-mail.  

(3) In the third place, scan this thread and my threads on "God and Destiny" and "OBE and Phasing Evidence for an Afterlife" and you'll see that almost none of my arguments are engaged head on.  This fact has contributed to the disillusionment of several with whom I now maintain a warm E-mail dialogue.  

(4) Fourth, the site still contains undaunted Seth groupies.  For example, no matter what the question for Doris Seth seems to be the answer.  So you still have your cult with this New Age cult to continue to dispense your New Age Fundamentalism.

Don

Quote:

Fourth, the site still contains undaunted Seth groupies.  For example, no matter what the question for Doris Seth seems to be the answer.  So you still have your cult with this New Age cult to continue to dispense your New Age Fundamentalism.

Bezerk, no you're incorrect, Seth or Elias is NOT the answer to me. The answer is that based on my own awareness, I can apply their material to my everyday life, I'm freely able to explore, and experience many other areas of consciousness without fear also I'm able to avoid, traumas, turmoils, illness, from my reality  I'm able to eliminate the limiting  brainwashing, illogical  ridicilious dogmas.

Far as what Legoles have here or don't I wouldn't know because the only reason I check the board lately  to read my private messages, other then that I only interact with people on my own board, where you and similar wouldn't last more then one post... NOT BECAUSE what you believe, but because your hatred, your anger and attitude toward anyone who not willing to buy into your fundamentalist limited beliefs.  

That's the trouble with so many New Agers.  They can't distinguish "hatred" from honest diagreement.  But you're right about my being angry.  Bruce Moen is delinquent in his duties as a moderator.  Some of the comments directed at JD Howes are appalling violations of the site's code of conduct.  But he's a conversative Christian, so I guess no insult is too vile for him.  What is especially appalling to me and others are those astral projectors here who sign their posts "love", and profess to liberate souls by projecting "Pure Unconditional Love", and yet, prove themselves here to be as vicious as any guttersnipe.  Of course, this contradiction is widely recognized by many on this site too.  And the contradiction is a convincing refutation of their retrieval pretensions.

My policy here is that people teach you how to treat them.  Legolas was rude to me, so I am blunt with him.  Here at least I think it is good to give people a taste of their own medicine.  You are always quoting Seth and Elias and never willing to defend them against honest criticism, no doubt because they are just indefensible, though you would give your steretypical alternative explanation.  

Another thing that makes you New Agers worthy of the Fundamentalist label is your need to create crude caricatures of people and positions that threaten you rather than embrace the hard work of a loving critical engagement.  I assure you that if the tone were even close to civil here, you would find me excruciatingly polite to all.  As hard as it is for you to believe, I loathe pidgeon-holing people.  By the way, there are delightful exceptions here too and not everyone here is a New Ager.

As for your charge that I am a Christian Fundamentalist, nothing could be further from the truth.  I am far from a biblical inerrantist, though I have a high respect for Scripture.  And I actively seek ways to incorporate New Age insights into my theology, something a Fundamentalist would never do.  

Don

Quote:

What is especially appalling to me and others are those astral projectors here who sign their posts "love", and profess to liberate souls by projecting "Pure Unconditional Love", and yet, prove themselves here to be as vicious as any guttersnipe.  Of course, this contradiction is widely recognized by many on this site too.  And the contradiction is a convincing refutation of their retrieval pretensions.

It's not because someone can love that they will be albe to do it non stop. It would require perfection. I did know some christians that were wuite horrible to have around even though they were Jesus loving fellow (you know ? The kind that have bumper stickers and all that stuff to show their faith). So I would say it's a human trait but humans can still love.


Quote:

My policy here is that people teach you how to treat them.

That's my policy everywhere  8)
But I tend to try being nice anyway (at first) when when the other is bad tempered because most of the time it tends to change them.

It works both ways...

Quote:

Bruce Moen is delinquent in his duties as a moderator.

You got that right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By now he should be sick and tired of YOUR ungoing implication about HIM personally for years  that he is lying, your constant insult toward anyone who don't agree with you and your like... your periodic  dramatic "grand exit" and reappearence to continue your agenda and patronizing "sunday school teachings".

Regarding my quotes from Seth and Elias... I use them mostly when someone like you intentionally twist their material to justify they own purpose beside if quotes not allowed to be used, then it is apply for the" manual"  how to be more limited, what you never fail to quote or reffering to.  

The bottom line is for like you and like mr.author is that only bigger thing then your ignorance is your arrogance.


Quote:

By the way, there are delightful exceptions here too and not everyone here is a New Ager.

And even more delightful that there is more who are  dispute all of  your many years effort to discredit, still continue their own individual experiences  and explorations without limitation and fear whatever maybe their  experiences interpreted based on their own beliefs.


Quote:

Bruce Moen is delinquent in his duties as a moderator.

YES, he should force the board rules more stricly especially when his own board turning to preaching play-ground and not related to the subject what the board created for.

Again it's not about discussion who believe what and why, it is about the righteous arrogance about that anyone can force their own beliefs and truths to anyone else.

J.D. Howes was doing two unforgivable things...
#1. Plugging his book, using Mr. Moen's limited bandwidth in an attempt to fatten his wallet. (I'd like this to remain a free forum, wouldn't you? Or would you rather have to pay for it? Sure it's a drop in the bucket, but drops add up...)
#2. Attempting to scare people silly with that godawful "Hell" doctrine. (I dumped Christianity when I was 13 years old, but how do you get over the aftereffects of a nasty, vicious threat like the traditional concept of "Hell"? It ought to be considered child abuse to indoctrinate kids with this vile crap. As adults, I think quite a few of us (myself anyway) don't want to think about "Hell" while we're here... and if we do, we can always go googling for a site which WILL remind us of it. Fundie sites are all over the Web for us to visit. That is, if we're emotional masochists...)
So, where's the hatred? (Though I myself will cop to a bit of contempt...)

wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2005 at 2:32pm:

Dear Legolas, You're being comically ridiculous.   (1) In the first place, I was content to let this thread go quite long ago and it is you who are resurrectiing it.

Yes of course I am the one resurrecting it.  When did I say otherwise??  In fact I made it quite clear that I was resurrecting it by saying:  

"I know this topic has died but I felt a need to respond anyway. "


So your first point makes no sense.




Quote:

(2) Secondly,  I created this topic in response to Roger who asked me to share my perspective on hidden channeling agendas in my "Lilac Cologne" post.  True I've read only one of Bruce's books, but I've browsed others, and read all his online articles.

I got no problem with someone asking you your opinion BUT I do not accept that you are an authority on the matter which is how you come off and which is how you came off when we were discussing seth long ago.

That was one of my problems with you because you blasted seth while having no real knowledge of it.  That is dishonest and unacademic.



Quote:

(4) Fourth, the site still contains undaunted Seth groupies.

You say this as if this site should contain no "Seth groupies" with the connotation that Seth has been proven wrong and is widely accepted as being false.

I also take issue with the phrase "Seth Groupie" as it implies people who study the seth material do so blindly and without any critical thinking.

Should I call you a christ groupie??



Quote:

For example, no matter what the question for Doris Seth seems to be the answer.

One, I don't know Doris.

Two, Seth covers A LOT.  I mean a whole lot so it is not uncommon or a bad thing to quote him on a given subject especially if you have come to experience it as being true.


Quote:

So you still have your cult with this New Age cult to continue to dispense your New Age Fundamentalism.

Please respond to me by what I post and not by what group you think I am affiliated with.

Honestly, you have idiots who read seth.  You will find these idiots within just about any organization or framework.

Seth called these people idiots (or maybe the word he used was moron) and Jane hated them.  She was SO worried that people would start to view seth as some sort of god and seth always discouraged people from looking at him in that way.  He always tried to turn people back towards themselves.

There is even an idea out there that Jane died when she did because she didn't want people to do what they started to do.

What I take issue with is people who aren't that familar with the Seth material but they still feel a need to trash it.  How can you do this?  YOU do this.  It is dishonest.

Do not speak about something with authority unless you know what you are talking about.

wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2005 at 9:49pm:

That's the trouble with so many New Agers.  They can't distinguish "hatred" from honest diagreement.

There you go again with the lumping.


Quote:

My policy here is that people teach you how to treat them.  Legolas was rude to me, so I am blunt with him.  Here at least I think it is good to give people a taste of their own medicine.

I wasn't rude to you.  Just blunt.


Quote:

You are always quoting Seth and Elias and never willing to defend them against honest criticism

,

I doubt you give honest criticism ......


Quote:

no doubt because they are just indefensible,

when you say something like this.



Quote:

I loathe pidgeon-holing people.

you do it alot though.  you did it when we were discussing seth and the pope.


Quote:

By the way, there are delightful exceptions here too and not everyone here is a New Ager.

I understand now.   You are a self-hating New Ager.   Lol.

Anyone who tries to astraly project is a new ager.

Dora, is it really possible that you can't distinguish a reasoned critique from accusing someone of "lying"?  Bruce claims to be a parallel incarnation of Robert Monroe and thus that he and Monroe are part of the same Disc.  I think Bruce is deluded in that claim.  But his claim is based on his astral experiences.  So how does my critique imply that he's lying?  I pointed out that Monroe himself is informed in the astral that he has only one parallel incarnation--a female one.  Somebody's mistaken here, but this has nothing to do with lying. I must test the claims of others the best way I know how since I know that my own OBEs and retrievals are bogus.  

Legolas, as a Seth admirer, it is you who recalled this thread, which critiques Seth as just one part of its multiple focus.  You duck the obvious fact that you could of course have merely created your own post on Seth.  By recalling the post you create the expectation that you might actually have something worthwhile to offer in reply my multi-faceted critique of channeling.  But no, you choose instead to expose your ignorance by opting for ad hominen attacks.  You accuse me of something I've never claimed--that I am an authority on channeling.  As you point out, I've only read the Seth book I frequently quote and have just browsed the other Seth books.  But you are too dense to realize that by admitting this to you I am
denying expertise in Seth's philosophy.  

However, with my Harvard doctorate in New Testament, Judaism, and early church history, I do have some expertise on Seth's claims about that historical era and it is that area that I critique in this thread.  So season your penchant for bluster with a modicum of rigor and address your critique to the specific historical arguments I offer in this thread.   During my posts here, I sometimes critique aspects of Seth's thought as found in posters' quotes.  I'm confident of my criticisms there as well, though I wouldn't pretend to be an expert in those areas.  

By the way, I wouldn't mind being called a "Christ groupie" if there were a group of Christ defenders here.  But there is not, so the label would be inappropriate.  

Quote:

Legolas, as a Seth admirer, it is you who recalled this thread, which critiques Seth as just one part of its multiple focus.  You duck the obvious fact that you could of course have merely created your own post on Seth.  By recalling the post you create the expectation that you might actually have something worthwhile to offer in reply my multi-faceted critique of channeling.  But no, you choose instead to expose your ignorance by opting for ad hominen attacks.  You accuse me of something I've never claimed--that I am an authority on channeling.  As you point out, I've only read the Seth book I frequently quote and have just browsed the other Seth books.  But you are too dense to realize that by admitting this to you I am denying expertise in Seth's philosophy.

What ignorance did I expose?  We've had this conversation before and I've finally found the posts.  Do you remember having this discussion with "Eric" or "Errecx"?

If you deny expertise is Seth's philosophy then you cannot speak on it nor can you include it in your critique of channeled material.

Also, how can you offer any legitimate, multifacted critique on something when you aren't an authority on it or have full knowledge of it??  Imagine a movie reviewer giving his opinion on a movie he has not seen, or worse, critiquing the directors style when he has no knowledge of it.




Quote:

However, with my Harvard doctorate in New Testament, Judaism, and early church history, I do have some expertise on Seth's claims about that historical era and it is that area that I critique in this thread.  So season your penchant for bluster with a modicum of rigor and address your critique to the specific historical arguments I offer in this thread.   During my posts here, I sometimes critique aspects of Seth's thought as found in posters' quotes.  I'm confident of my criticisms there as well, though I wouldn't pretend to be an expert in those areas.

Do you remember calling Jane Roberts a fraud??  This is a very serious accusation and someone with a doctorate from harvard should know better and had better be able to back it up.   When I called you on it, you couldn't.   Your sole reason for calling her a fraud was that something seth said was similar to what gnosticism teaches.   You then backtracked and stated that the spirit that came to the gnostics might have been the same spirit that came to jane via Seth.

That's very poor academic work.  Not worthy of someone from harvard.



here is the link to the thread in which we had our conversation

[url]  http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-afterlife-knowledge/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=afterlife_knowledge;action=display;num=50030;start=21#21  [/url]

Legolas,

You're really unbelievable.  Almost none of the posters here would claim to be experts on what they discuss.  Yet they rightly express their opinions on a variety of subjects and often display great wisdom in doing so.  To call oneself an expert on Jane Roberts, one should not only have read all her books, but should also ideally have attended some of her sessions.  I haven't done that and wouldn't dream of doing so.  Of course, she has passed away now.  Nor did I call her a fraud.  I think Seth is either a lying spirit or an unconscious projection of Roberts's personality.  Roberts's unacknowledged use of Gnosticism is either deliberate or unconscious, perhaps mediated to her by Seth.  I've read a review of one of her latest books, "The God of Jane: A Psychic Manifesto."  The reviewer noted that she herself often doubted the genuineness of the Seth entity and wondered if Seth were merely a psychological projection.  Frequnt self-doubt  speaks well of her or anyone involved with a controversial academic pursuit.  I'm sure she was a brilliant and remarkable woman.  It's just that on the points  I discuss on this thread I happen to think she's deluded.  

By the way, I'm sure I'm deluded on some important issues as well. I'm far, far from the last man who knew everything and have learned much from this site's New Agers.  And by conservative Christian standards I'd probably be deemed a New Ager myself.  I don't think either the "New Age" or "the Fundamentalist" labels are necessarily bad.  There are very bright New Agers and very bright Fundamentalists.  I myself just have too many doubts and questions to qualify as a Fundamentalist.  And if I could finally experience an OBE I deemed genuine, I'd practice OBEs regularly.  That would really make me a New Ager and I'd proudly bear the label, if I must be labelled.  But as I said, so far all my OBEs and retrievals seem bogus in retrospect.

Don

Hello Don,

Just wanted to jump into this discussion for a moment as I just realized something that I must have apparently missed previously.  If I understand your last paragraph correctly, when you use the label “New Agers” what you are perhaps meaning is New Age philosophy.  Guess I don’t care for labels because each individual is unique and their philosophy is dependent on their beliefs and life experience.  I think new age philosophy, like Christian philosophy or any other philosophy can mean different things to different people.  A label can mean one thing to one person and something quite different to another.  Labels are convenient, but they can also be easily misunderstood and cause confusion if someone doesn’t know the meaning being implied.  So that’s why I try not to label others or myself… I learned that it is too easy for people to misunderstand my honest intention.

I only have time to scan long posts, but from what I’ve read of the research you’ve done and presented here, I like the way you think and get down to the root of a concept.  And for those of us who sign posts with love… in essence I think the meaning behind that is understanding and acceptance for someone… just the way they are… no matter what way that may be... even with differing opinions where emotions become involved.  The person (perhaps even unconsciously) remembers that it is they who are angry and that their anger is really their feeling and in actuality doesn’t have anything to do with the person they are directing their anger towards. I think that’s a good thing because to me it means love at least has some presence in all things.

Love and peace,
Kathy

Kathy, you are so very right. We are all mirrors for each other. When I see intolerance in Don, what I am seeing is intolerance in myself. That's the same with all of us. We each need to look at ourselves. :o  Thanks for the wakeup call. ;-)

Much Love Kathy,
Mairlyn

wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2005 at 10:33pm:

Legolas, You're really unbelievable.

I'm completely believable.



Quote:

Almost none of the posters here would claim to be experts on what they discuss.

Yes.


Quote:

Nor did I call her a fraud.

Yes you did.  The implication is in your original posts here and other places:

 
Quote:

Sensing that her ignorance might be exposed, Roberts waffles a little on the exact date.

You are implying treachery on her part.   It is only later (when i called you on it) that YOU waffle and come up with that it was her unconcious or the same lying spirit that visited the gnostics.


Quote:

Roberts's unacknowledged use of Gnosticism is either deliberate or unconscious, perhaps mediated to her by Seth.

Why do you assume it is gnosticism just because something seth says might be similar to what gnosticism teaches?
I can throw the same claim at xianity and say it is false because of it's similarities to mithraism.  But I wouldn't be correct would I?


Quote:

I've read a review of one of her latest books, "The God of Jane: A Psychic Manifesto."  The reviewer noted that she herself often doubted the genuineness of the Seth entity and wondered if Seth were merely a psychological projection.  Frequnt self-doubt  speaks well of her or anyone involved with a controversial academic pursuit.  I'm sure she was a brilliant and remarkable woman.  It's just that on the points  I discuss on this thread I happen to think she's deluded.

Jane, in the beginning, questioned the validity of seth not because what he was saying was false but because that's who she was.  That is why the seth material is so good because in the beginning she just doesn't fall in line.  She'd  follows seth's advice and then sometimes she wouldn't.   Hell, for a time she engaged in scientific tests of seth with dr. g.h. estabrooks.

Jane stopped doing that as time went on and she began to trust seth as she started to explore and experiment with what he was saying.

But how would you know all of this?  You would have to do a bit more digging than reading through a book and a review.

An opinion that is given out of IGNORANCE of the subject is not a valid opinion.  Hell, my opinion could be that the sun revolves around the earth but I would be wrong.

wrote on Apr 24^th, 2005 at 7:11am:

Kathy, you are so very right. We are all mirrors for each other. When I see intolerance in Don, what I am seeing is intolerance in myself. That's the same with all of us. We each need to look at ourselves. :o  Thanks for the wakeup call. ;-) Much Love Kathy, Mairlyn

If I may, I think that's true but only up to a certain point.  Sometimes people are just intolerant.  

You wouldn't go up to a nazi and say "the intolerance I am seeing in you is a reflection of the intolerance in me" would you?

I appreciate everyone's recent comments--except the childish carping of Legolas, to whom this post is addressed.

Legolas, I repeat: I did not call Roberts a fraud and you are wrong to insist that I implied as much.  Her waffling implies uncertainty where it is warranted and this can be a sign of intelligence.  She may sense where her material is vulnerable to criticism.  That does not make her a fraud.  We all convey our opinions with varying degrees of certitude.  

Seth's discredited use of Gnosticism is not motivated by the standard Gnostics concerns.  Gnosticism is influenced by Middle Platonism, which would preclude the possibility of a suffering god.  I doubt that Roberts shares that Gnostic motivation.  So once again you are wrong when you allege that I assume "it is Gnosticism."It is merely adapted from Gnostic ideas.  

IMHO Seth, not Roberts, is the deceptive one.  If Seth is merely an extension of Roberts's personality, then her error is not CONSCIOUS fraud.  Besides, even if AI did rethink my position (which, in this case, I did not), so what?  People revise and nuance their views over time.  So stop being so petty and engage my arguments head on, if you must.  I repeat: it is you who recalled this thread, not me.

Or again, why don't you merely create your own post on Seth.  I wouldn't dream of interfering with it.  

Don

Legolas, I stand by what I said. No, I wouldn't go up to a nazi and say anything. I would already know what they were going to say and wouldn't want to get into an arguement. I'm the peaceful kind myself.

I've had plenty of chance to talk to nazi's/white supremacists as I lived quite close to one when I lived in the town before. They're still living up there on the mountain close to my family.

I don't know if you've ever heard of Bob Matthews who was the head of a group called The Order back in the '80's. It was an offshoot of the Hayden Lake, ID group.  Do a search on google if you want to know more. Anyway, he was killed on Whidby Island, WA in 1984 by the ATF, FBI, etc.  His training group for the group was at their place and on my property before I moved there. Then later his wife married a man who ended up shooting several people at a Jewish center in L.A.

I used to do craft fairs and set up close to Debbie Matthews, his widow. I never once mentioned anything and she never once spouted her philosophies to me.  We would talk about things in general.  

Anyway I stand by what I said. WE ARE ALL MIRRORS FOR EACH OTHER.  We are all ONE. ;-)

Love, Mairlyn ;-)

Legolas, I tend to think of mirrors in terms of degrees and also in terms of energy.  For example, to the degree that you are able to love yourself, it is to that exact same degree in which you will be able to love another.  The same goes for intolerance… you will have intolerance for someone else to the exact same degree you have intolerance for yourself.  I think the key is having an understanding of the energies at work here.  The term Nazi is a label and can be interpreted differently by different people, but I think all would agree that this label could stand for the desire to overpower which is a result of the fear of powerlessness.  

To look at this in another way…it is the desire to the exact same degree that one would have to overpower someone else, would be the exact same degree that they feel powerlessness within their self.  It shows them where they are not loving and understanding their self.  Does this make some sense?

Love and peace,
Kathy    

wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2005 at 1:20am:

That is enough right there to know that these writings are definitely not coming from God or sources of spiritual truth.  There is overwhelming historical evidence for the death-by-crucifixion of Jesus.  Absolutely overwhelming and undeniable. Freebird

Freebird, can you show us this "overwhelming and undeniable" evidence? Thanks.

I ask not because I don't believe Jesus existes nor necessarily that he was crucified. It's just that when talking about events some 2000 years ago and someone says it's a fact with "undeniable and overwhelming" evidence, well...

As for Seth, I beleive he stated not that a cricifixion didn't take place nor that Jesus didn't exist, but the contrary, that Jesus did indeed exist and a crucifixion took place but it wasn't jesus who was crucifed, it was another person.  I mean how can one know for sure, such circumstances didn't occure some 2000 years ago? That another was crucified in jesus' place? So I'm curious what "overwhelming and undeniable" evidence eixsts. And I'm certain it would be such evidence worthy of todays' trials and evaluation.

Thanks. And Excuse thsi question if this has already been asked. I haven't read through the entire thread.

Chris,

I'm sympathetic with your reluctance to read my thread all the way through.  I never intended it to become the longest thread ever developed on this site.  You're essentially correct about what you say about Seth.  The relevant post is reply #1 on p. 1 of this thread.  

I agree with Firebird that the evidence for Christ's crucifixion is verified by "overwhelming" evidence.  But one's assessment of evidence regarding a controversial figure is in the eye of the beholder.  There are groups who insist that the Apollo moon landing has little evidence to support it and that the moon landing was faked in a New Mexico hangar.  As for Jesus' crucifixion, Firebird can capably speak for himself.  

I would make three claims about this question:
(1) The Gospels can be connected with eyewitness testimony.  But of course eyewitnesses can be misinformed and can be deceptive.  However, I think the Gospel witness is basically reliable.  There is an overwhelming SECULAR  scholarly consensus that Jesus was in fact crucified. But I concede that "overwhelming" is perhaps too leaded a term for arguments about ancient events.

(2) We can even piece together the negative version of Jesus' life circulated by His first and second century detractors.  This version is substantially a tissue of lies, but even it concedes that Jesus was in fact crucified.  If you  wish, I can develop (1) and (2) in detail.  I hesitate to do so because this does not really advance the purpose of Bruce's site.  

(3) I will take the liberty of refuting one false claim made recently on this site.  Posters clamed that Josephus is the only early non-Christian witness to Jesus' crucifixion and that his references to Jesus can be dismissed as later Christian interpolations.  These posters are wrong on both counts.

(a) Josephus was born a few years after Jesus' death.  The Greek version of his fullest allusion to Jesus seems too sympathetic for a Pharisee like Josephus and has apparently been revised by a later Christian hand.  But the Arabic version of this allusion reflects Josephus's style and lacks the bias of the Greek version.  It seems to preserve the original wording.   It reads:

"At that time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and he was known to be virtuous.  And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples.  Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.  And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship.  THEY REPORTED that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive.  Accordingly, he was PERHAPS the Messiah concerning whom the prophets hav recounted  wonders (Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.3)."  

Note that Jpsephus is positive, tentative, and  yet ultimately neutral about Jesus.  

(b) Modern scholarship accepts the other allusion to Jesus in Josephus is beyond dispute:

"He [the high priest Annas] assembled the sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them JAMES, THE BROTHER OF JESUS THE SO-CALLED CHRIST, and some of his companions, and when he had levelled an accusation against them as breakers of the Law, he delivered them to be stoned (Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1)."

(c) It is wrong to claim that no other ancient non-Christian historian referred to Jesus.  Two non-Christian first century historians bear independent witness to the awesome events described in Matthew 27, but interpret this bizarre phenomenon as a 3-hour solar eclipse:

"From noon on, darkness came over the whole land, until 3 in the afternoon...At that moment [Jesus' death], the curtain of the Temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.  The earth shook and the rocks were split (Matthew 27:45, 51)."  

Both Thalles (52 AD) and Phlegon (also first century) were freedmen of Tiberius, the emperor at the time of Jesus' crucifixion.  Both of their histories are now lost, but are quoted by the Christian historian Julius Africanus in 220 AD.  Julius takes issue wth their interpretation of the darkness as a 3-hour solar eclipse from noon till 3 PM during Jesus' crucifixion.  Others apparently dismissed this event as a mass 3-hour hallucination.  Julius Afircanus feels strongly that they are underestimating the supernatural character of what actually happened that day in Jerusalem:

"On the whole world there passed a most fearful darkness, and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, an many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down.  This darkness, THALLES, IN THE THIRD BOOK OF HIS HISTORY, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.  For the Hebrews celebrated the Passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the Passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun...But let opinion pass and carry the majority with it, and let the portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun, like others, a portent only to the eye (i.e., a hallucination).  PHLEGON RECORDS THAT, in the time of Tiberias Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the 6th hour to the 9th (i.e. noon to 3 PM)--manifestly that one of which we speak.  But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending of rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe?  Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long time (18:1)."  

A Roman inscription in Greek from time of Emperor Claudius (40 AD) has been found near Jesus' home town, Nazareth.  The inscription warns the residents against grave-robbing and apparently reflects the Roman belief that Jesus' disciples stole Jesus' body and then claimed that He had risen from the dead.

In the early 2nd century, two other Roman historians, Tacitus (115 AD) and Suetonius (120 AD) refer to Christ.  Suetonius refers to Christ as "Chrestus" and Tacitus refers to Christians as "Chrestians,"  but it is clear that Christ is intended.  "Chrestus" is a common name in Latin, whereas "Christus" is unprecedented.  So the spelling is altered to make it more familiar to Romans.  Tacitus refers to Jesus' execution by Pontius Pilate (Annals 15:44).  Lucian, another 2nd century pagan dismisses Jesus as "a crucified idiot."  

Don

I was the one who brought Flavius so you are referring to me. but I never claimed he was a witness. I claimed he was the only historian that mentioned Jesus near his era.

Also I claimed that since Jesus was so Important and did all these miracles he should have been reported by the historians of his time while he was alive and that didn't happen.

Also I am very curious to know what are the overwhelming proofs that Jesus ever existed and was crucified. Would you be kind enough to elaborate ?

Edit: Just so you know, I tend to believe there was a Jesus even if there are no "overwhelming" proofs. I also tend to think the whole story around him is just a big myth made on purpose to give more "punch" to his religion. Like Raël and many others are doing.

wrote on Apr 25^th, 2005 at 2:41pm:

I would make three claims about this question: (1) The Gospels can be connected with eyewitness testimony.  But of course eyewitnesses can be misinformed and can be deceptive.  However, I think the Gospel witness is basically reliable.

Hey Don, nice to chat with you again.
Thanks for your opinion.
Reliable? is that the same as infalible or inerrant.
Reliability when relying on second or third hand account of events and then written down many many years after the fact, and relying on those documents to remain unchanged, unedited, un 'picked-a-part' in archaic time seems to me highly unreliable in my OPINION.

As for the matter of Jesus being cruicified, no one has yet put forth any reliable overwhelming evidence that a switcharoo didn't take place.

Raphael, my prior post was crafted in response to the following quotes from yourself and Brendan:

Raphael: "If [Jesus] was THAT important, he should have been in historic records and he isn't.  The only historian that talked about him was Flavius Josepus."  

Brendan: "Flavius Josephus' commentary about "the Christ" may be entirely a fabrication at that."

I've just discussed 3 first century and 2 second century historians who refer to Jesus' crucifixion.   But Raphael, I gather that you'd like me to address the question of why the historians alive during Jesus' ministry don't discuss Jesus?

Name one Jewish or Romans historian who was alive during Jesus' public ministry (27-30 AD).  You create the impression that you imagine historians were plentiful in late antiquity.  Philo of Alexandria lived and wrote in Jesus' day.  But he was a Jewish philospher, not a historian.  And he died around ten years after Jesus' crucifixion.  There is no evidence that Christians arrived in Alexandria in Philo's lifetime.  So how would he even have known about Jesus. lry alone had good info on him?  

In Jesus' day there were many Jewish messianic pretenders who promised miracles.  So reports that Jesus too claimed to be the Messiah would not have created much buzz.  Besides, Jewish propaganda would have dampened any pagan interest in Jesus.  It was widely circulated that Jesus taught cannibalism because His followers ate the body and blood of Christ.  Jewish polemicists portrayed Jesus' birth as illegitimate.  They depicted him as a magician whose miracles were either performed through demonic power or were faked as a magical con job.  Interestingly, the skeptics conceded that if you were there, you would have seen what looked like miracles.  Also, they hated him for hanging out with marginal types like seedy sailors, prostitutes, tax collectors, and Gentiles.  These are only some of the reasons that explain why no historians from Jesus' lifetime mention him.

Tomorrow night, I'll address the other issue you raise, the claim that the Jesus story is basically one big myth.

Don

P.S. Chris, by "reliable" I don't mean "inerrant' or "infallible."  I mean 'capable of being connected with eyewitness testimony from credible sources."

Well I never learnt so much about christianity before the whole debate started about Jesus on this forum lol

I can't find any historian right now :( But realying on later historians is rather problematic for sure...

Anyhow I discovered this that could give me more credibility.

source : http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm


Quote:

Robert M Price 4 writes: "In broad outline and in detail, the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels corresponds to the worldwide Mythic Hero Archetype in which a divine hero's birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, the infant hero escapes attempts to kill him, demonstrates his precocious wisdom already as a child, receives a divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed, often on a hilltop, and is vindicated and taken up to heaven." He asserts that there are a number of historical and mythical figures whose life stories contain these elements, including Jesus. But just as we do not regard Hercules as a historical figure, a case can be made that Jesus was also a mythical character. Some theologians and historians believe that many of the details of Jesus' life were "borrowed" from a competing, contemporary religion, Mithraism. Mithra was a fictional character who was worshipped as a Good Shepherd, the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, and the Messiah. A religion in his name was founded in the 6th century BCE. 5 Mithraism one of the most popular of religions in the Roman Empire, particularly among its soldiers and civil servants. It was Christianity's leading rival. 19 Mithra was also believed to have been born of a virgin. Like Jesus, their births were celebrated yearly on DEC-25. Mithra was also visited by shepherds and by Magi. He traveled through the countryside, taught, and performed miracles with his 12 disciples. He cast out devils, returned sight to the blind, healed the lame, etc. Symbols associated with Mithra were a Lion and a Lamb. He held a last supper, was killed, buried in a rock tomb. He rose again after three days later, at the time of the spring equinox, circa MAR-21. He later ascended into heaven. Mithraism celebrated the anniversary of his resurrection, similar to the Christian Easter. They held services on Sunday. Rituals included a Eucharist and six other sacraments that corresponded to the rituals of the Catholic church. Some individuals who are skeptical about stories of Jesus' life suspect that Christianity may have appropriated many details of Mithraism in order to make their religion more acceptable to Pagans. St. Augustine even stated that the priests of Mithra worshipped the same God as he did. 19 Other early Christians believed that Satan invented Mithraism and that he made Mithra's life and the practices of the religion identical to what Christianity would become centuries later. They felt that Satan's purpose was to confuse believers.

Well,i think it is very hard to know if Jesus really existed or not,and debating about it is useless because nobody really holds the evidence that he really did exist. However,why not ask some of the great "projecters" of this board to go up there and ask them what they can find about Jesus?
My view about religions(in general) is that they are more and more corrupted,and often based on lies.
The muslim religion was one of them,Mahomet copied the christian religion and his "visions" came from hallucination,or maybe he didnt digest his wine easily. Isn't that amazing that religious people always try to convince other people to "follow" their faith? Probably because they have doubts themselves.
About Elias and Seth,everyone here who knows me know that i am not a follower,but i know BY EXPERIENCE that what Elias says is true. I had myself doubts before but not anymore. When a concept becomes reality,then doubts disappear. That is what happened for me.

                                            Thanks

                                                          Axel

Axel, I KNOW that Yeshua is/was real as I was there in the body of Peter but there is no way that I can prove it so the debate will go on and on and on. Only when people stop arguing and debating this and go within where all answers lie will the debate end.  We have all answers to every single thing within each of us.

Peace,
Mairlyn ;-)

Raphael,

I'm glad you want to discuss this, though I realize that this topic might cause us to stray beyond the purpose of Bruce's site.  But if it's OK with him, I'm delighted.  Of course, the issue of Christ's resurrection makes this topic somewhat relevant.
I also agree that a separate thread should be started because we have strayed way beyond the issue of "channeling agendas."  So I will instead respond to your new Jesus post.

Don

I want to mention a form of channeling that is rarely discussed on this board.  A few weeks ago, I attended a talk by the local owner of a well drilling company.  He mentioned that his dowsers are 90% accurate in their location of underground water.  Their accuracy is important because it can cost $10,000 per drilled hole!  He then told the story of how one of his dowsers went off the deep end and started asking his rod questions about his personal life.  Should he divorce his wife, etc.?  The rod "just jumped" in his hand as it provided clearcut answers.  But the psychic answers soon started deceiving him and messed up his personal life to the point where a well drilling co-worker suspected demonic deception!  The thought occurred to me that this misuse of dowsing rods probably operates on the same principles as a Ouija board.  The dangers of Ouija boards have often been discussed on this site.  Both dowsing rods and Ouija bards can channel both spirits and, more mundanely, the hidden recesses of the unconscious.

Don
 

It is interesting, Don, in another thread, I noted that for Jane Roberts, her initial contacts with the Seth entity were via Ouija board experimentation.  Her final ill health and suffering were well documented, and was similar to another channelling - possibly the person from ACIM?   These entities both dictated volumes of information, yet the toll on the person doing the channeling was great, possibly severe, and not in their best interest.

The idea, which I rebel against,  is that all channeling must be giving answers from a more evolved, more in tune, more loving spiritual source than we know while we are incarnate.  As has been noted on this board previously, contact with lower level, possibly deceptive or unloving entities has become common place via Ouija board.  Everyone is not who they say they are, and the discerning abilities of the incarnate (us) may not be particularly great.


Matthew

I wonder if this is a possibility. A person starts out by pretending to channel some entity. A person does this partly because he or she has tendencies that are dishonest, manipulative and greedy. Without knowing it, this person attracts an unfriendly spirit to his or herself, this unfriendly spirit feeds a person misleading thoughts without this person being aware that he or she is being fed misleading thoughts. Or in other words, a misleading spirit finds a person who unknowingly becomes the misleading spirit's voice piece.

I have communicated with friendly spirits many times, yet a number of times an unfriendly spirit has come along. Sometimes unfriendly spirits make their presence obvious. Sometimes they'll try to mislead me by sending me a message with the hope that I'll believe it comes from a being who represents the light. It can become confusing at times.

I know about the like attracts like principle, but there are other factors.  I once had a dream which basically said that if you don't do what they (unfriendly spirits) do, don't go where they go, and don't mess with them, they won't mess with you. I didn't let this message deter me from getting involved with light oriented spirit work that made it possible for some unfriendly spirits to become aware of me.

There have been a few occasions where I was in contact with a friendly spirit while feeling love, peace, and divinity, and an unfriendly spirit still managed to get its peanut gallery comments into the conversation. The nature of such random occurences was easy to read, because the unfriendly spirits presented themselves with a lot of anger, hate and maliciousness.

Perhaps because lower realm spirits are located somewhere between this physical World and higher realms, it is possible for an unfriendly spirit to find its way into the conversation, even while one is connected to a higher level of consciousness.

THE SAD TESTIMONY OF CLOSE FRIENDS OF HELEN SCHUCMAN (ACIM CHANNELER) AND SETH'S VICTIM, JANE ROBERTS:

I have already discussed how the "Jesus" of ACIM perverts the real Jesus' teachings in such a way as to prey on the biblical illiteracy of a gullible New Age readership.  ACIM repeatedly implies that it promotes true sanity.  But not long after the completion of ACIM, its channeler, Helen Schucman, was victimized by the worst case of depression psychosis her good friend, Benedict Groeschel had ever seen.  As the real Jesus taught, "By their fruits you shall know them,"  i. e. know the difference between true spirituality and its various seductive counterfeits.      

Few people are more qualified than Dr. Benedict Groeschel to assess Helen Schucman’s 7-year odyssey in which ACIM was dictated to her by a spirit impersonator passing itself off as Jesus Christ.  Groeschel had been one of Helen Schucman’s grad students.  He later became a good friend, and so, was asked to conduct her funeral service and deliver her eulogy.  

Helen Schucman had briefly become a Catholic after visiting Lourdes.  She then asked to be baptized, attended Mass regularly, and prayed the Rosary.  Then she left the church. Grosechel reports:

“Schucman’s mother had been a Christian Scientist, one who read the girl from the writings of Mary Baker Eddy all during her childhood…I decided that A Course in Miracles was a fascinating blend of poorly understood Christianity inspired by her visit to Lourdes and poorly understood Christian Science inspired by the memory of Mary Baker Eddy’s writings, ALL FILTERED THROUGH SOME PROFOUND PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS AND PROCESSES.”

Helen's friend Benedict was shocked by the contradiction between Helen's stated convictions and the content of ACIM.  She often complained to him, "I hate that dam-n book," and she regularly disavowed its teachings.  “She became frightening to be with, Groeschel recalled, “spewing psychotic hatred not only for A Course in Miracles, but “for all things spiritual.”  When he sat at Schucman’s bedside as she lay dying, she cursed in the coarsest barroom language you could imagine, “That book, that goddarn book."  She said it was the worst thing that ever happened to her.  I mean, she raised the hair on the back of my head.  It was truly terrible to witness.”  As a psychologist, Greoschel debunks most alleged cases of demonic possession.  Helen's Schucman's case is not one of them!

This thread has already exposed the crucial errors made by Jane Roberts about Seth's prior lives and her easily refuted claims about  the historical Jesus.  Anyone interested in an honest and open inquiry into the Seth material should read the memoir of Jane's close friend, Susan M. Watkins, "Speaking of Jane Roberts."  This book exposes just how vacuous is Seth's oft repeated claim that "we create our own reality."  For example, the Seth material has a great deal to say about how we can create our own physical healing.  Yet Jane Roberts herself experienced a long, lingering premature death which in itself seems to mock her tired Sethian bromides.  Jane Roberts talked the talk, but didn't not walk the walk.  Like Helen Schucman, she seems to have been possessed and duped by the evil entity she channeled.  Jane's career as a medium began with a Ouija board dabbling.  Her life is another nail in the coffin of the claim that Ouija boards are generally safe and valid sources of information about the afterlife.

Remember, as psychiatric Scott Peck so eloquently demonstrates, evil deception tells fascinating truths to set up devastating lies!

Don

Don:

In the past a couple of people on this forum contended that Groeschel isn't a good witness to Schuchman's fate. Going by how Mark Cuneo speaks of Groeschel in his book Exorcism in America, Groeschel was an honest man who wouldn't exagerate Schuchman's state of mind.

Schuchman's ACIM's collaborator William Tetford had parents who were also into Christian Science. He was also a mind control expert who worked for the CIA.  Both ACIM and Christian Science speak of this World with a Vendantic interpretation, it is nothing but an illusion.

It is hard to believe that a person who supposedly received information from Christ for a number of years, would end up in the state of mind Helen ended up in.

It is also hard to believe that Christ would chose a lady who was closely associated with a man who was involved with mind control projects.

I tend to be pretty good at interpreting what I read, and many of the paragraph's that can be found within ACIM just don't make sense. The course takes the stance that you should assume it is your own error when you don't understand something. I don't agree.

I find it really hard to believe that Christ would choose a means of communication that matches the ACIM format. For example, a 365 day affirmation course that suits the needs of all people? This is really hard to believe.

I can see how the course has a brainwashing effect.

Don,

Hi there

I have a deep dislike for channeling in all its forms at  best it is silly nonsense and at worst it is evil delusion by demon spirits

These fraudulent channelers rake in the money from their gullible victims and none of them have  come up with anything positive or practical to the advancement of humanity

Silly nonsense

Alan

I was in contact with spirit guidance this morning and I received some messages about ACIM. I received symbolic visual images.

One message seemed to state that an unfriendly influence played a part in Helen Schuchman receiving the course.

I don't expect people to take my word for it. All I can say is that this is the message I received. The source of the information Helen received wasn't a former human spirit. The source sought to vere people away from what Christ actually taught and represents. If a source is going to try mislead people, it will try to find a way that will work, even if it has to include a lot of words that seem positive.  The question is, what is the overall effect?

Remember recoverer...  Focusing on negative, unfriendly influences tends to open one to them and attract them into one's consciousness.

Dude:

I wasn't focusing on unfriendly influences at the time.  I was in contact with friendly guidance and received the information in a manner that wasn't mere hallucination.

People can try to spin this anyway they want.  If they don't have ears to hear, they don't do anybody including themselves a favor.



I Am Dude wrote on Mar 20^th, 2009 at 1:25pm:

Remember recoverer...  Focusing on negative, unfriendly influences tends to open one to them and attract them into one's consciousness.

The quality of any book or other material is relative to the person reading it and should be judged on the practical value of what it contributes to your personal understanding in ways that help attain spiritual growth.

It is always wise to look for the significance of concepts that lie beneath the words. Interpretation is always personal to the individual and may or may not be significant to others. Take what is useful for your own personal growth. Absolutes in communication are reflections of ego.

Albert, guides and helpers with a high quality of consciousness in the non-physical couldn’t care less about anyone’s ego needs and therefore wouldn’t bother to communicate whether or not a book or other source of material is good or bad, unless of course you’re communicating with a being that has a low quality of consciousness themselves. In that case they are either playing with you by feeding your fears and ego or you are getting this stuff from within your own consciousness. Probably the latter since speaking out against certain sources seems to be a constant past time of yours. I know you don’t see it, but doing that is all about fear and ego.

I say this because it is rare that I receive any type of guidance about issues which I am not focusing on.  Some things may be lingering in the back of my mind, almost unconsciously, and when they come to light I realize a part of my consciousness has been holding onto the issue the entire time.  

I have come to realize that if any source is a positive influence in a persons life, then it should be let go at that and they should be wished well on their journey for further truth and knowledge.  I doubt ACIM has influence anyone here negatively, if it has it has not been made known.  

It is very possible that other individuals have received just the opposite information from their guidance regarding this source, and others as well.  Our guidance has been different regarding another source in the past, and nothing constructive came of the attempt to show that source was a negative influence, for it is strictly a matter of perception, and being that everyone has different perceptions, it is a battle that cannot be won, for everyone will have their own truth.

It is true though, these sources may or may not have been negative influences on the individuals who they were being channelled through.    However, if someone can read the material produced by them and be inspired to live more according to love, then it is not constructive to try to take that away from them by making the source seem evil.

Agreed, Lights.

Kathy:

I believe you are quite wrong about this.  You are engaging in apologetics. I believe this is because you have too passive of an approach to life. I believe it is fine to be loving, but because misleading influences exist, we have no choice but to take a strong stance when misleading influences try to mislead us.

The problem with a source such as ACIM is that quite often people don't just pick and choose. Without their knowing it they get brainwashed by the course and pick up erroneous concepts. Early on my spirit guidance tried to warn me that the course has a brainwashing effect. Yet, I allowed myself to get brainwashed by it for a while. Eventually, after I decided to listen, my guidance let me know that the course doesn't come from Christ and has negative effects.

I believe it is no small infraction that a course claims to come from Christ when it doesn't. If a person doesn't see why it isn't right for a source to make such a claim, and instead a person is irresponsible and makes excuses for such a source, perhaps he or she needs to meditate a bit.

Before I saved my first post I meditated a bit and asked if what I wrote was okay. I experienced a lot of vastness, love and light.  At times I receive silent support in this way. I did not receive a messsage to delete what I wrote.

Sometimes standing up for the light means having the courage to stand up to those who oppose the light.

Recoverer

I have not read the course.  Perhaps you can fill me in to the erroneous concepts which are provided by the course and it's negative effects?  

Dude:

 
1. The course says that this World wasn't created by God, because everything God creates is perfect.  This can lead people to believe that the World is separate from God. It also leads to the assumption that something other than God exists, because it contends that something other than God created this World.

2. Related to number one, when you look at the big picture, despite the problems that can be found within this World, the World isn't imperfect. It is just that we have to go through some growing pains. Unfortunately, it seems like we're going through more than we need to go through. This doesn't mean that God created something imperfect. It just means that as a part of his plan he provided us with free will.

3. The course speaks of how nothing you see is real; therefore, you don't have to be concerned about the troubles in the World. It is true that what we go through isn't permanent and not the ultimate end, but while people and other forms of life live in this World their life is real, therefore, they do indeed suffer. Also, the story of this World doesn't come to an end, until we bring it to an end in a hopefully positive way.

4. The course places too much of an emphasis on the ego. To an extent where a person might end up creating an ego like aspect of mind that is beyond what they are already have. We do exist as individual Souls, and even when we become aware of the oneness again our individuality doesn't go away. The bodies we make use of include a self-defense instinct. If we give this instinct more credit than it deserves by creating an ego like aspect of mind, we give our self-defense instinct too much power. If we place too much emphasis on trying to see that we aren't here, we lose track of the goal of developing ourselves as much as possible.

5. ACIM states things such as we are afraid of God, we have guilt because we separated from him, and that we "hate" God. There is actually a statement within the course that says we hate God. I don't buy this. Regarding guilt, why should we feel guilty about taking part in a growth process that is a part of the divine plan? How are we supposed to learn what existence is about and develop and uniqueness and capabilities, if we don't go through some sort of growth process? I believe the course causes people to create a guilt they didn't have to begin with.

6. The course relies on affirmations too much. Spiritual growth doesn't take place by making a bunch of affirmations. It comes by letting go of limitations. If one takes a path that involves making a bunch of affirmations, one will end up encasing one's self in a belief system. This is true regardless of how positive the ingredients of a belief system seem to be. The fact of this can be seen when one becomes defensive when one's belief system is questioned. True knowledge doesn't need to be defended. True knowledge doesn't need to express it self through the words of a course.

7. The course has many words yet there are things it doesn't talk about one would think a course from Christ would talk about. One way in which people try to brainwash people, is by having a person read basically the same thing over and over again. If you get them to read it enough, chances are they will take on a belief system they will be afraid to question. When I read the course for a while I could tell that it has a brainwashing effect. In the past I've posted an article where course teacher Hugh Prather spoke about how most of the course members he met years after they started the course were very narrow minded.

8. If the course doesn't actually come from Christ, then to the extent it disagrees with the truth Christ represents, it will mislead a person.

Albert,

Yes, of course you think I’m wrong. Your ego won’t let you see that what I said is reasonable. The quality of any book or other material is relative to the person reading it. Only that person can decide if it is of practical value to their spiritual growth. That statement is not only reasonable. It is the truth.

Any pervasive attempt to force or strongly insist that you are correct and someone else is wrong for finding value in something that you do not is an attempt to interfere with the other person’s free will choice. If you do not allow other people the freedom to make their own subjective decisions regardless of whether or not you think their decisions are correct, then you are imposing your will on the freewill of another. That is all about ego, being a bully, which is all about fear. It is also spiritually wrong and will not benefit you or anyone else. No spiritual being with a high quality of consciousness would participate in any type of egotistical behavior, nor would they encourage someone else to do so. That is only logical.

Kathy

Kathy:

I did not feel like I'm a bully within my heart chakra when I wrote my posts.  I was careful to look into this when I wrote them. In fact, my state of being felt very positive.

It isn't a matter of being egotistical. It is a matter of my caring enough about deceptive sources not having their way, that I'm willing to speak truthfully about them even though people such as your self throw stones.

If you were balanced on this matter you would've spoken against a false source of information at least once. But you never do so. Instead you defend them, even when you don't know what a source is about.

You claim that I am trying to infringe upon the free will of other people, yet you never complain about misleading sources that try to do so. Not once have I told a person that you have to believe as I do. I simply share what I have found about sources that infringe upon the free will of people by misleading and brainwashing them.

It is a very sad day indeed if people can't speak out against false sources of information, with out people making accusations against them as you have. Perhaps a book such as Mein Kamf would not had been successful, if more people would've spoken against it.  Some people might say it's not the same thing, partly because they don't understand how insidious it is for books such as ACIM to represent themselves in the way they do.

My belief is that there are light beings that don't just stand by passively while unfriendly beings have their way. I believe this partly because I have helped deal with unfriendly spirits, so they'd stop messing with people. If eveybody just sits around and sings "kay sara sara whatever will be will be" nothing will ever be done to take care of the deceptive forces that try to mislead people.

I don't believe it is good to step on people's toes. But such an indiscretion rates about a 2 or 3 on a scale of one to ten, when compared to the indiscretion of not doing anything.  I rate that indiscretion a 10.

I doubt that Christ wants himself to continue to be misrepresented by ACIM. If you don't care about this that's your choice. But please don't tell me that I can't care enough to speak out.

I re-read my posts, and believe that I went along with the flow. I started with one post, and then responded to responses and in one case a question. Is there something wrong with responding?

I do admit that there have been times that I have been pushy.  To tell you the truth, I'd rather be pushy than not do anything at all. To just sit by and do nothing...

If more people put effort into discriminating false sources of information and spoke up against them, they'd have a hard time thriving as much as they do.

Recoverer

Thanks for the overview.

Now I am interested in learning what truth is contained within ACIM.  Maybe someone on the other side of the argument can give an overview of the concepts which resonate with love and truth.  

I suppose the question here is do the false statements within the course outway the truth contained in it, and what is the overall message of the book?  What is the purpose of the dictator?

Dude:

As I stated earlier, you can probably find a number of statements within ACIM that resonate with love and truth. If a source is going to try to mislead people, it has no choice but to come up with some lines that are positive. The question is, how many things are stated that are misleading, and what is the overall effect. There is also the matter of what is left out.  In various ways I have found that the course can have a brainwashing effect.  Certainly this isn't a postive thing. There is also the already stated matter of how inappropriate it is to misrepresent a light being such as Christ. I won't bend on this point no matter how large my ego supposedly becomes.



I Am Dude wrote on Mar 20^th, 2009 at 6:56pm:

Recoverer Thanks for the overview. Now I am interested in learning what truth is contained within ACIM.  Maybe someone on the other side of the argument can give an overview of the concepts which resonate with love and truth.   I suppose the question here is do the false statements within the course outway the truth contained in it, and what is the overall message of the book?  What is the purpose of the dictator?

I think that Recoverer has a good point that he is entitled to his beliefs about the matter. I think there are also some other very good points being raised about interpretation.

Recently I read through all of the ACIM basic series of statements, which build upon themselves, and do put a person into a meditative state, simply because of the language used. Some people might consider that a 'brainwashing' effect, but I found it simply meditative.

I could not find a single thing said which was not true. It flowed perfectly, from my point of view. As a matter of fact, the whole way through I was waiting for the 'whammy' of the 'bad' information there. And it never happened, not for me.

At the time I looked through it, several months ago, I found it helpful, not so much as something to memorize. Just as a way of expanding, of looking at the world a little differently, of opening the heart to love in a different way.

I could feel it.

However, I completely understand why someone else might not feel it.

I agree with the comments that a persistent 'mission' to stand 'against' any particular idea does tend to put one in opposition to others, automatically, and will bring this kind of feedback if it is repeated quite often in a 'small' venue.

Of course, that is all I will say about this matter.... :)

Moonsandjunes:

Perhaps the fact of how people accept the course so readilly, is a statement of how brilliantly misleading it is. People I respect such as Bruce Moen and Dannion Brinkley have referred to the course. I don't get the feeling that Bruce and Dannion have been effected by it to a large degree. They have written things that differ from what the course states. The concern is when people get overly effected by it. Sure there are lots of belief systems that people get misled by. However, the existence of many misleading belief systems doesn't negate the need of scrutinizing any particular system. Going by what you wrote, I figure you understand this.

I see and hear you, my friend. You are all my friends. Thank you for that.

Here's a question: is it wrong to have a long in depth conversation about something? I never suggested that alternative viewpoints can't be made.

I don't believe the World will become a better place by the inaction of sweeping its problems under the carpet and trying to imagine that they aren't there. They will only be taken care of if people are willing to get a little dirty and talk about them.  I just happen to believe that false sources of information such as ACIM is one the problems that need to be taken care of.  If other people can speak about causes that are dear to them, perhaps I can speak about this issue. If it makes me egotistical, so be it.

Get a little 'dirty' and talk about them............. ?

Sorry, my mind is going all over the place with that one... :)

My statement reminds me of something.  I had a day that was one of those difficult spiritual growth days. While meditating my spirit guidance showed me an image of a row boat on water, and the boat wasn't getting anywhere because there weren't any waves. I understood this to mean that if you don't exerience any waves in your life, you don't grow.

Therefore, I figure that in order to make this World a better place, we're going to have to experience some waves, get a little dirty. If we try to pretend as if eveything is okay when everything isn't, where will we get the motivation to make things better? One of the things I don't like about ACIM is that it can breed indifference.  There are various misleading sources that do this is different ways. I don't believe it is good to count your chickens before they hatch.




wrote on Mar 20^th, 2009 at 7:49pm:

Get a little 'dirty' and talk about them............. ? Sorry, my mind is going all over the place with that one... :)

Recoverer

Everything we come into contact with is filitered through our belief systems.  Your interpretations of the statements made in the course are probably vastly different from others interpretations.  I tend to be on the side of seeing the positive in things, rather than the negative.  This does not mean I am being misled.  It simply is a matter of my focus being on love and light.  I can discard a statement if it does not resonate with me without having it negatively affect what I read next.  It seems you read somthing that does not resonate with you, and automattically believe the source is misleading and the entire work is a body of negativity and delusion in an attempt to bring people away from love and light.  But then how can so many people read this work and receive nothing but positive effects from it?  Doesnt add up...

Dude:

I didn't decide this all on my own.  I received spirit messages that "didn't" reflect the course in a positive way.

Regarding seeing the good rather than the bad, it is fine if a person is able to find the good in what they read. However, I have already stated in various ways that unfortunately, people do pick up false information from the course, get brainwashed by it at times, and become indifferent.

If a person ever decided that he or she wants to receive guidance from Christ or a light being like Christ, and a person's mind has been programmed by ACIM or another limiting belief system, right from the start this person's guidance will have to work through the barriers that such a belief system represent.

Recall what I've shared before on another thread.  I had a dream where I was at the meditation center of the cult I used to belong to.  At the end of the dream a man shook me vigorously and asked me, "Why did you do it, why did you do it, why did you allow yourself to become brainwashed again?"  He was refering to ACIM.  It took some time to undue the cobwebs that were created.

If there is one thing has helped me grow spiritually, it is a lack of indifference. I seek to do grow not only for myself, but so I can help out in any way I can.  I understand that help is needed.  If it wasn't for the fact that I understand that help is needed, I would not had grown as much as I have.  I would've been complacent. If a person contends that everything is rosey before things are rosey, a big impetus for growth is lost.  Sometimes people grow in love because they make sacrifices for a greater good.



I Am Dude wrote on Mar 20^th, 2009 at 8:02pm:

Recoverer Everything we come into contact with is filitered through our belief systems.  Your interpretations of the statements made in the course are probably vastly different from others interpretations.  I tend to be on the side of seeing the positive in things, rather than the negative.  This does not mean I am being misled.  It simply is a matter of my focus being on love and light.  I can discard a statement if it does not resonate with me without having it negatively affect what I read next.  It seems you read somthing that does not resonate with you, and automattically believe the source is misleading and the entire work is a body of negativity and delusion in an attempt to bring people away from love and light.  But then how can so many people read this work and receive nothing but positive effects from it?  Doesnt add up...

Chickadees.....cobwebs......it's all coming together now....

Albert,

Ok lets try to work with what you have said to me.


Quote:

I did not feel like I'm a bully within my heart chakra when I wrote my posts.  I was careful to look into this when I wrote them. In fact, my state of being felt very positive.

Egotism can be deceptive. The ego can make you feel good or bad. Whenever someone is fixated on something as you are with ACIM and or gurus, etc. this is a reflection of your own consciousness, your own experiences. Just because you feel you were deceived in your own experience does not mean that the author of ACIM or the author any other material intentionally set out to deceive people. What an author says may or may not reflect ultimate truth. However that decision should be left to the person reading the material. You truly can trust that each individual is guided throughout their lifetime and presented with experiences that are the most beneficial for the point of development they are in. Sure sometimes people make the wrong choices, but that is how we learn. To know is to experience. However, anyone’s experience is only relative to his/her self.

Quote:

It isn't a matter of being egotistical. It is a matter of my caring enough about deceptive sources not having their way, that I'm willing to speak truthfully about them even though people such as your self throw stones.

Albert, as I have stated numerous times before, I do not oppose you expressing your opinion. It is the way you go about doing it. In this instance you claim that “spirit guidance” told you ACIM was bad. That is not only ridiculous. It is absurd. Any spiritual being of a high quality consciousness would do no such thing.

Quote:

If you were balanced on this matter you would've spoken against a false source of information at least once. But you never do so. Instead you defend them, even when you don't know what a source is about. You claim that I am trying to infringe upon the free will of other people, yet you never complain about misleading sources that try to do so. Not once have I told a person that you have to believe as I do. I simply share what I have found about sources that infringe upon the free will of people by misleading and brainwashing them. It is a very sad day indeed if people can't speak out against false sources of information, with out people making accusations against them as you have. Perhaps a book such as Mein Kamf would not had been successful, if more people would've spoken against it.  Some people might say it's not the same thing, partly because they don't understand how insidious it is for books such as ACIM to represent themselves in the way they do. My belief is that there are light beings that don't just stand by passively while unfriendly beings have their way. I believe this partly because I have helped deal with unfriendly spirits, so they'd stop messing with people. If eveybody just sits around and sings "kay sara sara whatever will be will be" nothing will ever be done to take care of the deceptive forces that try to mislead people.

Actually I neither favor nor condemn any written material, unless I am judging it on the basis of whether or not it is helpful to myself. This is because I have had enough spiritual contact with high quality spiritual beings and understanding of how the entire system works to know that everyone is guided to have the experiences they need to have. What is helpful for one person is not necessarily helpful to another, but that is not for either you or I or anyone else to decide. Everyone has the freewill to choose. I trust the system because I know without a doubt that everyone is led and encouraged to grow spiritually by the entire system.

Quote:

I don't believe it is good to step on people's toes. But such an indiscretion rates about a 2 or 3 on a scale of one to ten, when compared to the indiscretion of not doing anything.  I rate that indiscretion a 10. I doubt that Christ wants himself to continue to be misrepresented by ACIM. If you don't care about this that's your choice. But please don't tell me that I can't care enough to speak out.

Do you really think Christ needs you to intercede on his behalf? If so this might indicate you are operating from an egotistical attitude. If Christ objected to ACIM or anything else as misrepresenting him or not being beneficial to the evolution of consciousness then no doubt he could simply delete it from existence. Indeed the system itself would eliminate it. Whatever is not beneficial to the whole of consciousness sooner or later becomes extinct.

Quote:

I re-read my posts, and believe that I went along with the flow. I started with one post, and then responded to responses and in one case a question. Is there something wrong with responding?

Again, I have never objected to you expressing your opinion about any subject including ACIM. Only the way you go about it by insisting that you are correct because “spirit guidance” told you so. Perhaps you would like it better if I were even more passive than what you think I am. Ha! If your answer is yes… that is your ego talking.  ;)

If you were to consider making it clear in your posts that each individual does have the freewill right to choose to evaluate the usefulness of any material for themselves, then this passive person may remain passive and refrain from interjecting her opinion. ;)

Kathy

Recoverer

Quote:

I was in contact with spirit guidance this morning and I received some messages about ACIM. I received symbolic visual images. One message seemed to state that an unfriendly influence played a part in Helen Schuchman receiving the course. I don't expect people to take my word for it. All I can say is that this is the message I received. The source of the information Helen received wasn't a former human spirit. The source sought to vere people away from what Christ actually taught and represents. If a source is going to try mislead people, it will try to find a way that will work, even if it has to include a lot of words that seem positive.  The question is, what is the overall effect?

I tend to agree with you, why must we trust some source of truth obtained through another source?, when we can all go to the "GREAT SOURCE" all on our own, Source is available to everyone all the time anyone

Is second hand , third hand information the best?

Alan

Recoverer

You're right, it is important to be able to distinguish what is true and what is not.  This can be said about all sources of information.  Following any line of teaching blindly can be unhealthy.  

My purpose in poking my head into this thread is to express my opinion that it is generally unconstructive to try to falsify a source that brings love and light into an individuals life, because what you are basically doing is putting down what that individual stands for.  

I learned this when I was at a point in my life when I believed the story of Christ was a fairy tale.  I went out of my way to try to convince others that Jesus and Christianity was false.  I felt I was doing them a service, for I believed they were holding on to these limiting beliefs and were being held back from having any experiences outside of the religion.  What I really ended up doing was hurting people, for I was trying to falsify what they believed in, I was trying to take away their crutch of support and faith, although this was not my intention.  I was only trying to help, but I did not succeed.  You cannot succeed this way.  It is not the righteous path.  

I find common ground with both Albert and Kathy, however I have to weigh in on this subject; that is the notion of truth being relative, and every individual's perception being "right for them."

This is the notion that there is no truth - that we all simply filter things through our own belief systems.  This is moral relativism - and initially, a liberal minded person may think that it seems very reasonable.  Hey, it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you aren't hurting anybody, right?  

The problem with moral relativism is that in a society that believes in it, nothing truly matters.  Nothiing.  Moral relativism also does not hold up to the scrutiny of the logic of the universe and consciousness.  Those who like the idea of moral relativism do not believe in right or wrong, good or evil - whatever you are into, that's fine.  However, exploration from many afterlife sources suggests that the universe is based around indeed our very existence is geared around PUL (pure unconditional love).  

If we take PUL as our reason for being, it becomes the equivalent of the highest good.  It necessarily implies that thought and actions that take us away from PUL are, by definition "wrong" thinking, and thereby the opposite of good.  So starting with the concept of PUL in consciousness, we see that the notion of moral relativism collapses.
In fact, concepts such as "good" "just" and "divine," end up correlating to PUL.  So for the moral relativists, who deny the existence of evil, or wrong, there system does not hold up with the concept of PUL found in afterlife/consciousness exploration.

Now, back to the Albert/Kathy throwdown.   I agree that belittling a system, guru, etc. usually is not going in the direction of PUL.  And yet, there is deception in the world, and much that has come out about ACIM has shown that while it is a coherent work, there may be troubling aspects to it.  Why is it important to discuss this, rather than to let people make up their own minds?

Simply put, because there is truth, beauty, and PUL in the world and consciousness.  And every text or source that claims to represent it may or may not.  If something comes from an unloving source, or with a hidden agenda, not all of us will have the discernment to pick up on it.  

So I would encourage anyone interested in ACIM to read it and decide for themselves, but, to take what Albert says and keep it in mind.  I do not take it for granted that because ACIM has positive affirmations that it is divinely inspired (as presented).  The author herself clearly did not, in the end think so (as on her death bed she was quoted as cursing and saying "that book, that damned book!"  

Keep in mind people that the notion of PUL sets up an order to a universe which filters down to us, and implies that every thought and action is not necessarily just or true.


M

I'm not keen on getting involved in the discussion as all these issues have been brought up before, and have been talked ad infinitum without any movement whatsoever. It's surely best to simply let it be.

What I would like to say though is that I've been working through ACIM for months now, and can only speak highly of it. It's incredibly well written, incredibly precise in its logic, and in my experience has definite positive effects on the mind - in that it somehow leads one into a much more positive frame of mind.

My experience is that it works at a level deeper than the conscious intellect, that for sure it has a remarkably uplifting and transformative effect....

Hi Mathew,

Yes I agree with the points you make regarding moral relativisms. I don’t think anyone is subscribing to that point of view though its been discussed on previous threads. I’ve never read ACIM and would neither encourage nor discourage anyone from reading it. For those that have read it, if it was helpful to their spiritual growth, that’s great, if not that’s fine, too.

Finding something that is not helpful is useful to a person’s growth as well, at least in the long run. I know Albert has said this about some of his experiences. To know is to experience. And each of us gives meaning to our experiences based on our beliefs, which is why I encourage people to have a mind that is open enough to allow change and skeptical enough to not get stuck in yet another belief system.

ACIM will be around as long as people keep it in the public eye regardless of whether comments about it are positive or negative. That’s true for just about any book. Take the Bible for example. It has been around for over two thousand years and has been spoken about in both positive and negative ways. The reason it has been around that long is because large groups of people have kept it in the public eye for all these years. And as long as groups of people continue to talk about and find it useful, even if that usefulness is negative, it will remain in existence.

The same goes for ACIM or any other written material. When a book, or even a concept is no longer discussed or held in front of the public eye regardless of what people say about it, but just the fact that they quit talking or thinking about it will lead it to its extinction. If no one is talking about it, it's usefulness is no longer of value. That is how the system works and evolves.

Kathy

Hey People

It is all about receiving and applying to ones life all that is good, loving and truthful.

Discernment is the key

Love Ya ALL

Alan

I don't agree with Kathy's (Lights of Love) contention that light beings wouldn't warn people about misleading influences. If fact, as far as I'm concerned, it makes perfect sense that light beings would warn people of misleading influences.

Below is what ACIM has to say about misleading influences:

"The devil is a frightening concept because he seems to be extremely powerful and extremely active. He is perceived as a force in combat with God, battling Him for possession of his creations. The devil deceives by lies, and builds kingdoms in which everything is in direct opposition to God. Yet he attracts men rather than repels them, and they are willing to sell him their souls in return for gifts on no real worth. This makes absolutely no sense (49-50,2).:

I don't believe in a being referred to as the devil. However, this doesn't mean that unfriendly beings don't exist at all. I figure that if Christ shared enough words so that almost 1,200 pages of text came to be, he would've said more than the above when it comes to unfriendly influences. I figure he would've tried to clear things up. Instead, the above adds to the confusion that exists, because it doesn't address the matter in an accurate manner.  For the most part, people don't get involved with unfriendly influences for the reason ACIM suggests. They usually do so because they live their life in a negative way, and this causes them to make energetic connections to unfriendly influences. ACIM could lead a person to believe that there aren't any unfriendly influences people need to concerned about, including the course.

One of the main things the course does is try to get people to believe that they don't have to worry about guilt, sin and the problems of this World, because the only thing that is real is what God created. The World that they see doesn't exist. I believe that if the energy with which this World was created comes from God, and if the awareness we use to be aware of the World comes from God, then what we experience is real, because whatever comes from God is real. It doesn't matter if what we experience isn't permanent and isn't the only way in which we can experience existence, because when we experience what we experience, we do in fact experience it.

The course contends that when you see the World according to what it teaches, you no longer remain concerned about the problems of the World, because your way of seeing will negate its existence. The course has been around since 1972 and many people have read it, yet, "tick tock," "tick tock," the last time I checked, this World and its many problems still exist. Below is an example of how the course addresses the problems of the World:

"With eyes closed, think of the horrors in the world that cross your mind. Name each one as it occurs to you, and then deny its reality. God did not create it, and so it is not real. Say for example:

God did not create that war, and so it is not real.
God did not create that airplane crash, and so it is not real.
God did not create that disaster [specify], and so it is not real. (Lesson 14, pg. 23)"

Perhaps the course should be called: "A course in denials and assertions," rather than A course in miracles.

It's approach reminds me of Advaita Vedanta. I know of a number of gurus who have told their followers that they don't have to worry about the problems of this World, because this World doesn't exist. I've known of many followers of such gurus that believed it was ignorant to be concerned about the problems of the World. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, many people do suffer in this World. Indifferent attitudes do us no good whatsoever. What we do effects not only our generation, but future generations. This is a point that near death experiences are really good at making. It does make a difference how we live our life. Even though near death experiencers find that there is an existence beyond this World, they don't become indifferent to fate of this world.

When it comes to sin, the course contends that it isn't real because in God's world there is no sin and only what takes place in God's World is real.  When the word "sin" is thought of in a non-dogmatic way, it simply means to do wrong. Certainly many people do things that are wrong. It isn't right to do things that are harmful to other people. Many people do negative things to other people while they know that they are doing so. For example, the San Francisco Chronicle recently had an article about the ten worst dictators in the World.  In Zimbabwe people who supported Mugabe's campaign raped and tortured people in order to intimidate people. There is one case where his soldiers raped a 13-year-old girl in front of her parents in order to intimidate her parents. They must've known that they were partaking in a negative action, because how else would what they did be a form of intimidation? Certainly such action is wrong. Therefore it can be referred to as sin. Certainly the people who lived through this episode experienced it and suffered accordingly. Therefore, the activity did exist. The same is true for any negative experience that takes place within this World.

I'm not suggesting that there's no such thing as a grand future that awaits us. But that doesn't mean that our World of problems don't exist while they exist. Therefore, I figure that a light being like Christ would tell us to try to make this World a better to live in, rather than tell us to deny its existence.

The course also contends that there is no reason for having guilt. I don't believe that people should wallow in guilt. Especially not when they do so for reasons that aren't legitimate. But sometimes people feel guilt because they listen to their conscience. Consider spirits that don't move on to the light right after their body died because they feel guilty about how they harmed other people. This is their conscience speaking. Our conscience is one of the things that keeps us on track. When ACIM miracle denies sin, guilt, and the problems of this World to the extreme it does, it strives to make its followers conscience inert. If our conscience becomes too inert, we might believe that it is okay for a course to claim that it comes from Christ when it doesn't.

Quote:

Albert said: I don't agree with Kathy's (Lights of Love) contention that light beings wouldn't warn people about misleading influences. If fact, as far as I'm concerned, it makes perfect sense that light beings would warn people of misleading influences.

Naw Albert I don’t contend that light beings wouldn’t warn people about misleading influences. That is your interpretation of what I said, which is wrong.

What I said was: No spiritual being with a high quality of consciousness would participate in any type of egotistical behavior, nor would they encourage someone else to do so. It is absurd that you think spirit guidance told you to speak out against ACIM.

Egotism can be deceptive. Whenever someone is fixated on something as you are with ACIM and or gurus, etc. this is a reflection of your own consciousness, your own experiences. Just because you feel you were deceived in your own experience does not mean that the author of ACIM or the author any other material intentionally set out to deceive people. What an author says may or may not reflect ultimate truth. However as others and I have said, that decision should be left to the person reading the material.

You truly can trust that each individual is guided throughout their lifetime and presented with experiences that are the most beneficial for the point of development they are in. In addition each individual can be nudged by spiritual guidance in ways that promote their growth. Sure sometimes people make the wrong choices, but that is how we learn. To know is to experience.

There’s no point in discussing this with you, so carry on as you wish. Your ego will only continue to defend itself. Not beneficial to anyone.

Kathy

Kathy:

It sounds like you've read ACIM and Eckart Tolle with all that ego talk. "The ego this, the ego that." It is no wonder that I received a message to drop ACIM, because it makes the ego bigger. The course talks about the ego over and over again. If a person asssumes the course comes from a divine source, how can he or she possibly question the course's huge belief in ego? The more a person reads about the ego in a source such as ACIM, the more he or she will create an aspect of mind that is ego like in nature. I'm not suggesting that we don't have any ego like attributes, but sources like ACIM and Eckart Tolle blow this ego business way out of proportion.

It isn't an all or nothing matter like ACIM contends. It isn't either you're completely "attonened," or you aren't.  The fact of how people manifest differing levels of loving behavior versus unloving behavior without it coming down to whether they are enlightened or not, whatever that means, shows that it isn't an all or nothing affair. But that's what sources like false gurus and ACIM do, they get people into this all or nothing mode so that they neglect growth in a piecemeal fashion. They come up with elaborate paradigms on how the ego works, rather than dealing with aspects of mind on a one by one basis.

Don (Berserk) started this thread. He asked people to engage in a conversation about misleading channeled sources. If he tells me he doesn't want me to partake in this conversation I'll stop doing so. If you believe it should be illegal for him to question whether some channeled sources are deceptive, you should tell him.

Don and I don't always agree with each other, but we do agree that is completely inappropriate for a source to misrepresent Christ, and when a source does so, it is more than appropriate to speak up against this source, even if you have to step on some toes along the way. There are priorities.

Albert and his incredibly huge ego. :)
 

Recoverer


Quote:

I don't believe in a being referred to as the devil. However, this doesn't mean that unfriendly beings don't exist at all. I figure that if Christ shared enough words so that almost 1,200 pages of text came to be, he would've said more than the above when it comes to unfriendly influences. I figure he would've tried to clear things up. Instead, the above adds to the confusion that exists, because it doesn't address the matter in an accurate manner.  For the most part, people don't get involved with unfriendly influences for the reason ACIM suggests. They usually do so because they live their life in a negative way, and this causes them to make energetic connections to unfriendly influences. ACIM could lead a person to believe that there aren't any unfriendly influences people need to concerned about, including the course.

A really great thought out post. What perplexes me is this shying away from the real term about unfriendly or negative influences

There is good and there is evil

Yes the only word for really depraved entities be they earthly or etherial is EVIL

Alan

Alan:

I use that terminology because I believe that all beings are innately divine; however, some go astray for however long and manifest in an evil way. For example, Adol...no, I won't go there. ;)


Alan McDougall wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2009 at 6:24pm:

Recoverer Quote: I don't believe in a being referred to as the devil. However, this doesn't mean that unfriendly beings don't exist at all. I figure that if Christ shared enough words so that almost 1,200 pages of text came to be, he would've said more than the above when it comes to unfriendly influences. I figure he would've tried to clear things up. Instead, the above adds to the confusion that exists, because it doesn't address the matter in an accurate manner.  For the most part, people don't get involved with unfriendly influences for the reason ACIM suggests. They usually do so because they live their life in a negative way, and this causes them to make energetic connections to unfriendly influences. ACIM could lead a person to believe that there aren't any unfriendly influences people need to concerned about, including the course. A really great thought out post. What perplexes me is this shying away from the real term about unfriendly or negative influences There is good and there is evil Yes the only word for really depraved entities be they earthly or etherial is EVIL Alan

I find it interesting that people are so preoccupied with words such as 'ego' and 'evil'.

I think it is very easy to take a label, such as the word 'evil', and to tack it onto another human being who may function cognitively quite differently from other people. Even if we claim that a person has 'control' over their actions, that they are 'knowingly' doing 'evil' things, do we have the right to say that that person 'should' have been able to correct themselves?

There are certainly people in this world who have a much larger need for 'control' or 'attention' than some others.

Does this make them evil? Perhaps not. Does this make them incapable of receiving love in a healthy way? Possibly. Does this make them incapable of behaving in moral ways? Possibly.

I don't excuse morally reprehensible behavior, but I also feel that there are reasons why people develop abnormal fixations and power issues, and it's a good idea to learn about these so that we can be prepared for them when they show up in our lives. Because they will.



Alan McDougall wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2009 at 6:24pm:

Recoverer Quote: I don't believe in a being referred to as the devil. However, this doesn't mean that unfriendly beings don't exist at all. I figure that if Christ shared enough words so that almost 1,200 pages of text came to be, he would've said more than the above when it comes to unfriendly influences. I figure he would've tried to clear things up. Instead, the above adds to the confusion that exists, because it doesn't address the matter in an accurate manner.  For the most part, people don't get involved with unfriendly influences for the reason ACIM suggests. They usually do so because they live their life in a negative way, and this causes them to make energetic connections to unfriendly influences. ACIM could lead a person to believe that there aren't any unfriendly influences people need to concerned about, including the course. A really great thought out post. What perplexes me is this shying away from the real term about unfriendly or negative influences There is good and there is evil Yes the only word for really depraved entities be they earthly or etherial is EVIL Alan

That's why I like to say that all souls are innately divine. Some just happen to go astray for whatever reasons.  The free will issue can go on for quite a bit, so I won't get started.



wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2009 at 6:47pm:

I find it interesting that people are so preoccupied with words such as 'ego' and 'evil'. I think it is very easy to take a label, such as the word 'evil', and to tack it onto another human being who may function cognitively quite differently from other people. Even if we claim that a person has 'control' over their actions, that they are 'knowingly' doing 'evil' things, do we have the right to say that that person 'should' have been able to correct themselves? There are certainly people in this world who have a much larger need for 'control' or 'attention' than some others. Does this make them evil? Perhaps not. Does this make them incapable of receiving love in a healthy way? Possibly. Does this make them incapable of behaving in moral ways? Possibly. I don't excuse morally reprehensible behavior, but I also feel that there are reasons why people develop abnormal fixations and power issues, and it's a good idea to learn about these so that we can be prepared for them when they show up in our lives. Because they will. Alan McDougall wrote on Mar 23rd, 2009 at 6:24pm: Recoverer Quote: I don't believe in a being referred to as the devil. However, this doesn't mean that unfriendly beings don't exist at all. I figure that if Christ shared enough words so that almost 1,200 pages of text came to be, he would've said more than the above when it comes to unfriendly influences. I figure he would've tried to clear things up. Instead, the above adds to the confusion that exists, because it doesn't address the matter in an accurate manner.  For the most part, people don't get involved with unfriendly influences for the reason ACIM suggests. They usually do so because they live their life in a negative way, and this causes them to make energetic connections to unfriendly influences. ACIM could lead a person to believe that there aren't any unfriendly influences people need to concerned about, including the course. A really great thought out post. What perplexes me is this shying away from the real term about unfriendly or negative influences There is good and there is evil Yes the only word for really depraved entities be they earthly or etherial is EVIL Alan

I so agree with you, Recoverer, and I love the way that was said, innately divine. That is the recognition that carries within it the seed of love which each person deserves, simply for existing, simply for being here with us, no matter how difficult life can become at times. So, from my perspective, of course we can set limits on what is acceptable to ourselves, and to our communities, but always recognizing that we are each part of the whole, with each person taking his/her own step, on his/her own journey. That is sometimes difficult to do. I certainly find myself lacking such openness quite a lot of the time, especially if I have some kind of emotional 'investment' in seeing things the way I would like to see them, or having an outcome that I would prefer.

But, happiness always follows letting go, letting go of our own need to see things one way. It just seems to be the way it works.

Recoverer


Quote:

That's why I like to say that all souls are innately divine. Some just happen to go astray for whatever reasons.  The free will issue can go on for quite a bit, so I won't get started

Some psychophaths are intrincially evil, they are dark entities and there is no light in them

Do you mean that Hitler was born innocent and potentially good, but the curve balls of life led him into the realms of evil?

I can accept that

Alan

Hi,


1) Are some people born intrinsically evil?      (My answer is I am not sure)

2) Most Christian fundamentalist believe we are all born evil and we all need to be saved from the fires of hell.  (I do not believe this, Jesus said “blessed are the little children for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”)

3) They go as far as to say a new born baby is born with a sin (the fall of man due to Adams unbelief)

3) Can God annihilate a soul, (I would say yes he can but I remain unsure if he does)

4) Are we accountable to God for all our acts during earthly life (I say yes we are?)

There is more guys add to the thread please

Alan

My thread on mediumship has been hijacked.  So I feel entitled to resurrect this thread that contains a thorough discussion of the relevant issues.

Don, Kathy, Uno, Matthew, cb-

I suggest we ignore those two disrupters. Let them entertain each other. Trying to have a respectful discussion with them is pointless.
Maybe Vicky can create a new place for them to carry on.

And we can post or create our own threads without having their being hijacked. In return we will commit not to post on their threads.

R

Don, this is my post from the other thread.

I agree with you that ESP does seem a more plausible explanation of channeling where most contacts are made with records or memory held within a database of consciousness rather than an actual entity that's been "summoned" to provide direct interaction, though direct contact is a possibility, just an unlikely one, especially after a year or so has passed.

I think many times what a person "sees" in the non-physical realm is a "representation" or image of the person they are trying to contact, not the actual deceased person because that person has likely moved on, especially if some time has passed since their death.  When we interact with stored information of a person's life, it makes sense that an image of that person would appear to us as a means for interaction.  The idea that this is what occurs need not take anything away from one being reassured their loved one is just fine.  God is benevolent after all.  His ways are not necessarily what we may think.

ES spoke a great deal about symbols, representations and correspondences.  Since the non-physical realm has no objects, it makes sense that what we see there is a representation or is symbolic of the information we desire as a means of communication.  In Arcana Coelestia 4044 ES says, "Representations are nothing else than images of spiritual things manifested in natural ones, and when the former are accurately represented in the latter they correspond."  He goes on to say if we want to understand a symbol or representation that we should look to what is inside of us.  "But if he will reflect on the things taking place every moment within himself he will be able to gain some concept of them… These actions are able to provide some idea of representations and correspondences."

Kathy

I agree, Roger.

Yes Roger, ignoring the troublemakers is the way to go. I suggest that we keep each other in check by reminding one another if we fall for their bait. If we leave their posts alone, threads will not be able to be derailed, as it takes two to tango. Of course, if they are able to be respectful and on topic, I am not against having a discussion.

When I was heavily into channeled material, I was convinced that the information these sources were bringing was genuine because a lot of it was in agreement with the others. It now seems more likely that it is in agreement because it is coming from the same deceptive source pushing one particular agenda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6sSdlCbWe0

Dude-

Same here. I at one time eagerly soaked up channeled material. Ruth Montgomery, ACIM, Seth, etc.  I'll repeat what I pointed out before.. entities that are able to communicate with us are by definition those whose vibrations are closest to us in the physical. The reason we can accomplish retrievals in the first place is because it's easier for us to get their attention and try to help them. Our vibrations are closer than those who have moved on in the spiritual plane.

It stands to reason that spiritually advanced folks would not be engaged in deceptive practices. That leaves the afterlife population who have not moved on. And no doubt there is a reason why they remain.

When we play around with a ouija board we are inviting them in. We wouldn't let any stranger into our house and yet we leave ourselves wide open when we seek to make contact with the afterlife.

Bottom line... there is no "One Afterlife" anymore than there's just one neighborhood in a big city. We exercise caution before we venture into a dicey part of town. Just common sense.

R

I think one part of the deception is the propagation of the idea that deceased loved ones can hear us any and every time we think about them or try to communicate with them. It's just not very logical, especially from a biblical perspective. I don't think we are endowed with the power to hear and answer prayers upon death, this is something I would think only God can do. I imagine there being hoards of deceptive spirits just waiting for the chance to impersonate a friend or family member who has passed, thus giving these entities an open invitation into our lives.

Matthew: "What if the information tapped into by mediums is the equivalent of the "Akashic records" or quantum mind or library of all events and thought.  In other words, we are used to thinking of ourselves as separate individuals, yet in a deeper level, we know that we are all part of a greater unity.  Many forms of Eastern and Western thought believe that it is only our false "ego" which causes us to separate ourselves into perceived isolated entities - which in turn often accounts for much of the suffering we encounter on the earthly plane.  Don, you may say that this discussion brings up my "monist" tendencies (and you would be correct)."

So what if the medium tapped into the mind or circumstance of a still living person in the future (Don's example of Gordon Davis)?  Well we do know that means it was not a communication with a deceased loved one.  So in that sense, it is fraudulent.  But the accuracy of the communication leads one to believe that there was a direct communication of factual data through a connection with a larger consciousness or mind.  To me, this is no less of an amazing or transcendent experience than an after death communication.  It tells us that there is a realm of thought that can be accessed that contains information about our earthly experiences, past present and future. 

The point against putting faith in mediums is well taken.  Very often, people receive comforting information that they want to hear; their loved one is safe, happy or that they should move on."   

Matthew, I'm only addressing this issue from the perspective of the survival of the individual, not from the perspective of whether channeling might tap a "universal mind" which may have nothing to do with individual survival.   Another question is this: might the best mediums retrieve information from the deceased without the deceased even knowing that they are being contacted, even in Q and A sessions?  I agree that research on channeling might yield important insights apart from the survival question and is worthy of study in its own right.

My main concern is the tendency of many on this site to get excited if a medium channels verifiable information about their loved ones.  I understand the need for a comforting leap of faith, whether in religion or New Age philosophy.   What I object to is the need of many to  suppress contrary evidence as if it does not exist. 

Let me now present a rare case of channeling that strikes me as genuine contact before I repost my original OP to the mothballed thread.  A few years ago, I was listening to Coast to Coast.  The guest was medium Hans King.  He traced his channeling ability to general psychic abilities demonstrated at a young age.  I was reminded of how often mediums are psychically gifted in ways that suggest their channeling is more likely derived from ESP than from genuine contact with the deceased.  I'm more impressed by mediums who otherwise lack any psychic talent.  But Hans shared one experience that amazed me, and so, I thought I'd share it as best I can recall the details.

Hans was getting annoyed by constant contacts from his deceased mother.  Finally, he mentioned another gifted medium he knew and urged his mother to channel through her instead.    Then while attending a convention for mediums, he was approached by a female medium he did not know.   She asked him, "Are you Hans?"  He replied, "Yes."  "Well, your mother has been communicating with me.  Really, Hans, you must never order your own mother to stop communicating with you!"  A chastened Hans reflected on the significance of his mother selecting a stranger to "come through" instead of the medium he suggested.   He theorized that his mother might have used  this ploy to make the genuineness of her manifestation more convincing to him.  But I wonder if this stranger was simply a better fit for his Mom than the medium he suggested.  Or was his Mom simply doing this as a signal not to order her around?  This episode might still be due to ESP rather than genuine contact.  But I consider it one of the more impressive stories of channeling I have ever encountered.

With these caveats, I now repost my original OP:
Several years ago, Bruce Moen made this claim in response to my thread:  "We could each cite historical examples to support real contact or false contact by mediums in the past to support our own hypothesis."  This thread reposts my reply.  I'm resurrecting this thread as a counterpart to my thread on issue of spiritual self-deception vs. an honest quest for spiritual truth.
______________

I don’t believe the distinction between “real contact” and “false contact” is as clear-cut as Bruce seems to feel.  In my view, the answers to the ensuing 4 questions cast a pall of suspicion over ALL channeling. It is not impossible that mediums like Gordon Smith channel deceased souls.  For that matter, it is not impossible that the Apollo moon landing was faked in a New Mexico hangar to gain a propaganda advantage over the Soviet Union.   But mere ESP or clairvoyance seems a more plausible explanation of the best of channeling in view of the evidence cited in my replies to (1)-(4):

(1) What if sitters request contact with fake deceased relatives and the mediums still oblige with a very impressive channeling?               

(2) Bruce seems to imagine that channeled materials unknown to anyone living provide convincing evidence of contact with the dead.  But what if a drop-in communicator could provide amazing verifications even involving precognition of the future, and yet, be later proven a fraud?

(3) What if the spirit control of mediums with impressive verifications can be proven to be a fraud?   What conclusion would that warrant about other spirit controls whose self-professed identity cannot be verified?            

(4) What if it can be shown that the attribution of channeled materials to discarnate friends and relatives reflects a culturally conditioned bias?   

Channeling can be significantly called into question on all 4 grounds.

(1) Leonore Piper is one of the most impressive mediums ever.   She seemed to have the uncanny ability to channel two entities at the same time, one through automatic writing and the other through entranced speech.   Psychologist G. Stanley Hall had a trick up his sleeve when he went for a sitting with her.    She was currently using the spirit of Richard Hodgson as her control.   Hodgson had formerly investigated her, but had recently died of a massive heart attack.  Hall asked Hodgson's spirit to contact Hall’s niece, “Bessie Beals,” so that he might speak with her.  Miss Beals was duly introduced and proceeded to communicate with Hall through Mrs. Piper.  Actually Bessie Beals did not exist.  She was a figment of Hall’s mind.  “Hodgson,” in embarrassment tried to wriggle out of the situation, saying that he had been mistaken about the name.  He said that the person brought was a Jessie Beals, related to another sitter.  Dr. Samuel Soal visualized incidents with an imaginary friend, John Ferguson.  He then went for a sitting with the medium, Blanche Cooper.  The incidents he visualized came forth as though communicated by John from beyond death! 

(2) At a sitting with medium Blanche Cooper on Jan. 4 ,1922, Dr. Samuel Soal’s deceased brother unexpectedly said, “Sam, I’ve brought someone who knows you.”  Then in a very clear, strong, and familiar voice, Gordon Davis began to speak through Cooper.  Davis was an old school acquaintance whom Soal believed to have been killed during World War I.  Davis seemed to verify this when he said, “My poor wife is my only concern now--and my kiddie.”  Soal thought he recognized Davis' tone of voice with its fastidious accent.  The communicator used forms of expression that typified the real Gordon Davis' speech  (e.g. “old chap”; “confab” instead of “meeting”).  Davis spoke of the school they had attended, Rochford, and provided details of their last conversation.  He proceeded to refer correctly to persons, places, and events from their school days.  At two ensuing sittings on Jan. 9 and 30, 1922, Davis gave a detailed description of his house, its contents, and the arrangement of its contents.   

To his great surprise, Soal learned in 1925 that Davis was still alive after all and went to visit him.  A great deal of the channeled material about the house proved to be correct.  But Davis and his "wife and kiddie” had not moved into the house until over a year after the relevant sitting!  Davis' diary showed that during Soal’s sittings he had been seeing real estate clients.  Only around the  time of the sittings did Davis even inspect this house for the first time.   But Davis did not move into the house until a year later.  More importantly, the furnishings of the house had not been planned in advance!  Yet the details channeled earlier turned out to be correct: a large mirror, lots of paintings, glorious mountain and sea scenes, very big vases with funny saucers, two brass candlesticks, and a black dickie bird.  Two of the paintings were only done after the sittings!  So much of the material channeled in the later sittings about the house must be ascribed to precognitive telepathy (John Heaney, 176-177). 

Why is channeling not discredited in this way more often?  Well, ask yourself how often you are mistakenly informed that your friend has died.   Was the medium able to exploit Soal’s mistaken faith in Davis’ death as an aid in the process of reconstructing Davis’ personality and future by precognitive telepathy?  Or were the medium (Blanche Cooper) and sitter (Sam Soal) duped by an impersonating spirit?

If you ask what sort of test might favor spirit contact over ESP and clairvoyance as an explanation of channeled material, the answer is the demonstration of a skill lacked by the medium (e. g. xenoglossy).  That is, if a channeled entity can respond to questions posed to the medium in a language unknown to that medium, then mere ESP cannot adequately explain this.  Research has shown that ESP does not extend to a full-blown new skill.  But it must be remembered that xenoglossy is a prime criterion for demonic possession.   So the possibility of an impersonating spirit must be taken into account in such cases.  My reply to question (3) and (4) are important here.

(3) Some spirit controls seem clearly fraudulent.  While Richard Hodgson was still alive, he thoroughly investigated one of Leonore Piper's spirit controls named Phinuit in 1892.  The Phinuit persona claimed to be the spirit of a French doctor whose full name was Jean Phinuit Scliville and who had lived in the early 1800s and had practiced medicine in London, France, and Belgium.  But he was unable to speak more than a few French phrases, displayed no more knowledge of medicine than the average layman, and had never (according to medical records) attended the medical schools at which he claimed to have studied and practiced.  Hodgson initially concluded that Phinuit was just a secondary personality of Mrs. Piper which either erroneously believed itself to be or falsely pretended to be the spirit of a deceased French doctor.   But Hodgson later changed his mind and now concluded that some of the material produced in a trance by Mrs. Piper seemd to go beyond what might be obtained by thought transference from the sitters and thus seemed to suggest real contact with the dead. In his words, “Among these (comunicators) are more than half-a-dozen intimate friends of my own, who have produced upon me the impression...that they are the personalities I knew, with characteristic intelligence and emotion, questioning me and conversing with me under difficulties.”  It seems doubtful that Hodgson would have changed his mind if he had lived to discover the Gordon Davis case.

(4) Shamans understand their mediumship to put them in contact with spirits and demons as well as with deceased people.  In earlier centuries Neoplatonists also practiced trance mediumship, but attributed it to the agency of gods or demons rather than to discarnate humans.   Likewise, witches from the 17th and 18th centuries ascribed their channeled material to demons.  Perhaps the modern attempt to identify spirit controls with deceased personalities reflects the wishful thinking of modern cultural prejudice.  Why is Leonora Piper’s spirit control (Phinuit) lying about his true identity?  Why did Sam Soal’s alleged brother lie about bringing Gordon Davis’ spirit through?   Or were these people simply deceived?

Don




 






Don
   

I Am Dude wrote on Jun 4^th, 2017 at 1:44pm:

I think one part of the deception is the propagation of the idea that deceased loved ones can hear us any and every time we think about them or try to communicate with them. It's just not very logical, especially from a biblical perspective. I don't think we are endowed with the power to hear and answer prayers upon death, this is something I would think only God can do. I imagine there being hoards of deceptive spirits just waiting for the chance to impersonate a friend or family member who has passed, thus giving these entities an open invitation into our lives.

In 2001/2002 a familiar person died, and for some reason I pictured this person in my mind and said my goodbyes along with a basic overview, a sort of an assumed map of the astral. While I engaged in the one way conversation I sensed movement, sort of like a growing and shrinking mass of confetti moving about within me. Since then I have done this a number of times and the movement has always happened except with one person. I have wondered if the sensation of moving "confetti" is of my own making, and it might very well be. I suppose what really matters is wishing somebody well on their journey onward. I don't know if they can hear me, but with some people it has basically been a relief to say goodbye at least for my part.

Quote:

Hans was getting annoyed by constant contacts from his deceased mother.  Finally, he mentioned another gifted medium he knew and urged his mother to channel through her instead.    Then while attending a convention for mediums, he was approached by a female medium he did not know.   She asked him, "Are you Hans?"  He replied, "Yes."  "Well, your mother has been communicating with me.  Really, Hans, you must never order your own mother to stop communicating with you!"  A chastened Hans reflected on the significance of his mother selecting a stranger to "come through" instead of the medium he suggested.   He theorized that his mother might have used  this ploy to make the genuineness of her manifestation more convincing to him.  But I wonder if this stranger was simply a better fit for his Mom than the medium he suggested.  Or was his Mom simply doing this as a signal not to order her around?  This episode might still be due to ESP rather than genuine contact.  But I consider it one of the more impressive stories of channeling I have ever encountered.

Perhaps we shouldn't overlook the possibility that this spirit wasn't actually his mother?

Of course, Vince,  I just offer that case as my best example of POTENTIALLY authentic mediumistic contact. 

Don, I know when Jesus said "let the dead bury the dead" he meant forget earthly concerns and follow him instead.

I can't help but think he also would not want us to devote so much time and energy trying to explore the afterlife. Wouldn't he say, in effect, put down your computer and follow me?

How does any of this effort correspond to Jesus' teachings? That thought keeps gnawing away at me.

R

TheDonald wrote on Jun 4^th, 2017 at 4:58pm:

Of course, Vince,  I just offer that case as my best example of POTENTIALLY authentic mediumistic contact.

For sure, it absolutely points to spirit contact as opposed to run of the mill ESP.

What's interesting is that NDEs don't usually involve the person hanging around near the physical world. They generally involve ascending (or descending) to a realm far removed from us here on Earth. Do you know of any cases of NDEs which give credence to this ghost phenomenon?

rondele wrote on Jun 4^th, 2017 at 5:34pm:

Don, I know when Jesus said "let the dead bury the dead" he meant forget earthly concerns and follow him instead. I can't help but think he also would not want us to devote so much time and energy trying to explore the afterlife. Wouldn't he say, in effect, put down your computer and follow me? How does any of this effort correspond to Jesus' teachings? That thought keeps gnawing away at me. R

As a Christian, one must consider if what we are doing is in an effort to better know God and be more like Christ, after considering, of course, if it is in alignment with God's word in the first place.

     I'm asking you Rondele, Lights of Love, and I Am Dude to not make backhanded personal comments about two posters who are not even posting on this thread. 

  If it's not ok for others to make personal comments to you or others, then it should not be ok for you do to the same.  Just because you don't mention names, doesn't mean anything.  Everyone knows the people you are referring to in a negative, judgmental manner.   

   I'm referring to this page:
http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1107318877/165#165
and replies 176 on. 

   Thank you for considering the same respect you ask of others. 

Justin: "I'm asking you Rondele, Lights of Love, and I Am Dude to not make backhanded personal comments about two posters who are not even posting on this thread." 

 Duh, on the contrary, Albert is one of the most frequent posters on this thread! 

I want to see if you are capable of following through on any agreement.  You claimed you would leave this site, and then returned shortly thereafter.  We didn't ask you to leave.  But dammit, if you must announce you were leaving, then leave!  Let's make a deal: you refrain from posting on my threads and I will resist posting on yours. 

TheDonald wrote on Jun 4^th, 2017 at 8:04pm:

Justin: "I'm asking you Rondele, Lights of Love, and I Am Dude to not make backhanded personal comments about two posters who are not even posting on this thread."   Duh, on the contrary, Albert is one of the most frequent posters on this thread!

   Don, you know what I meant. The last time that Albert posted on this thread was Mar 23rd, 2009 at 6:54pm.  You know I meant recently, as it was necromanced from being dead for 8+ years.


Quote:

I want to see if you are capable of following through on any agreement.  You claimed you would leave this site, and then returned shortly thereafter.  We didn't ask you to leave.  But dammit, if you must announce you were leaving, then leave!  Let's make a deal: you refrain from posting on my threads and I will resist posting on yours.

   Don, I'll remind you that I already tried to make this deal with you, after Kathy specifically asked me as a personal favor to do just that.  I followed her wishes until it became clear that you and others weren't going to abide by the same rules/deal. 

   So, no deal.  Also, since I am so badly wanted to be gone, I think I prefer to stay. I have lot's of opinions about the nonphysical and afterlife.   :)

In light of accounts such as the one I have linked below, it is irresponsible to downplay the potential dangers of channeling.

https://youtu.be/Ag4Ox4qVSbc?t=6m6s

I agree that there are some cases when people channel deceptive beings. In fact, a number of channeled sources seem questionable to me. This doesn't mean that all contact with the spirit world is negative.

Just as their are both negative and friendly people in this world, there are both negative and friendly spirits in the spirit world.

Just as a person needs to use discernment while interacting with people, people need to use discernment while interacting with spirits. For example, Bruce didn't think it was a good idea to hang out with Max, but found that it was okay to hang out with his Disk members including Robert Monroe.

If a pair of parents would never allow their child to leave their house so he or she could develop discernment, that child would never develop discernment. Eventually this child's parents will die, and discernment will become necessary.

Eventually people die, they have no choice but to interact with the spirit world, and they have to use their discernment at that time.

I don't meant to suggest that conscious spirit world contact is for everybody, but for some people it is okay. Fairly well known People such as Bruce Moen, Robert Monroe, William Buhlman, Jurgen Ziewe and Tom Campbell have interacted with the spirit world for years without experiencing negative effects or becoming possessed.

There are people on this forum that have done the same. 

I know this thread is about channeling, sometimes people communicate with the spirits they interact with during NDEs, OBEs and other times.

I'll go with you this far, if a person is thinking of channeling a spirit, it is best that they become clear of who this being is. For the most part, I prefer to not learn from channeled sources. Especially not when an audience is involved. Perhaps it is significant that Rosalind McKnight didn't have an audience when she did the below channeling, just Robert Monroe was present. I specifically mean, session number 17, "A Rescue Mission."

https://www.monroeinstitute.org/explorer-series





I Am Dude wrote on Jun 5^th, 2017 at 11:26am:

In light of accounts such as the one I have linked below, it is irresponsible to downplay the potential dangers of channeling. https://youtu.be/Ag4Ox4qVSbc?t=6m6s

I wouldn't confuse the fact that many individuals involved in the spirit world don't show indications of possession with the idea that they are not being deceived. Look at it from the point of the deceptive spirit. If these deceptive spirits were involved in a mass agenda to, say, distort and degenerate the beliefs and values of humanity and to encourage occult practices, which would logically open up more individuals to their influence and give them more "food" if we consider that they feed off us in certain ways, it would be counterproductive to discredit valuable sources of propaganda by tainting their image. I believe most demonic entities are smarter and more deceptive than that. They're playing the long game.

I Am Dude wrote on Jun 5^th, 2017 at 11:26am:

In light of accounts such as the one I have linked below, it is irresponsible to downplay the potential dangers of channeling. https://youtu.be/Ag4Ox4qVSbc?t=6m6s

Vince, it was worth reposting my old thread just so people could watch this chilling, but informative video.  Obviously, Albert did not watch it through.  The video also helps make it clear how and why Helen Schucman's channeling of a bogus Jesus in for "A Course in Miracles" soon seduced her into a fatal depression psychosis that prompted her funeral eulogizer later to suggest that she had become demonically possessed!

Translation, you believe that Bruce Moen, Robert Monroe, Zurgen Ziewe, William Buhlman, Tom Campbell, and some people on this forum of being deceived by demonic beings.

You believe that none of these people are smart enough to figure out what has taken place for themselves.

When you conclude this, you do so according to a belief system that just won't allow for the possibility that it is possible for people to make contact with actual friendly, love-based beings that have good intentions.

If I am wrong about the above please correct me and let me know that you believe that none of the people I named have been deceived.



I Am Dude wrote on Jun 5^th, 2017 at 1:44pm:

I wouldn't confused the fact that many individuals involved in the spirit world don't show indications of possession with the idea that they are not being deceived. Look at it from the point of the deceptive spirit. If these deceptive spirits were involved in a mass agenda to, say, distort and degenerate the beliefs and values of humanity and to encourage occult practices, which would logically open up more individuals to their influence and give them more "food" if we consider that they feed off us in certain ways, it would be counterproductive to discredit valuable sources of propaganda by tainting their image. I believe most demonic entities are smarter and more deceptive than that. They're playing the long game.

Don:

You know that I have spoken extensively about how I believe that Helen was deceived by a deceptive being and that ACIM does not come from Jesus.

I have read a lot of things about people becoming possessed including the book "The Devil in Massachusetts," and have watched exorcism videos. On more than one occasion I have posted on this site about Joey Fischer's book, "The Siren Call of Hungry Ghosts," which speaks of channelers  that have been deceived by deceptive, ill meaning beings. Therefore, it is inaccurate to suggest that I haven't allowed myself to consider the possibility of deceptive spirits.

Heck, even the being Rosalind McKnight channeled (the recording I referred to on this thread) referred to possession cases.

Why would a being, as intelligent as God is, set things up so it isn't possible for people in this world to make conscious contact with bonafide love-based beings?  I bet you he understands that some people are smart enough to do so without getting influenced in a negative way.





TheDonald wrote on Jun 5^th, 2017 at 2:05pm:

I Am Dude wrote on Jun 5th, 2017 at 11:26am: In light of accounts such as the one I have linked below, it is irresponsible to downplay the potential dangers of channeling. https://youtu.be/Ag4Ox4qVSbc?t=6m6s Vince, it was worth reposting my old thread just so people could watch this chilling, but informative video.  Obviously, Albert did not watch it through.  The video also helps make it clear how and why Helen Schucman's channeling of a bogus Jesus in for "A Course in Miracles" soon seduced her into a fatal depression psychosis that prompted her funeral eulogizer later to suggest that she had become demonically possessed!

Albert, that's another straw man argument. You miss the point. Maybe all of the people you cite were deceived, maybe none. Maybe half.

The point is, there is no possible way of knowing. There's no way to prove either possibility.

I know you reject ACIM as do I. But neither of us can prove it wasn't Jesus who was the source of the material. I will say this: whoever the source was, it was extraordinarily clever. It was highly seductive and on the surface seemed very compelling. It fooled many people who should have known better. I'm reasonably intelligent and ordinarily very skeptical about things, but it sucked me in at first. It's that good.

So, not to take anything away from the people you cite, but yes they could have been fooled. Any of us can. That doesn't add or subtract from the basic point. That's why I say, it's a straw man argument.

R

No Albert, you have drawn a conclusion that does not logically follow the premise I have put forth. I don't believe they are all being deceived by demons. Perhaps they are. I don't know. I am simply stating the fact that demonic influence does not necessitate full-blown possession symptoms.

Roger:

As you know, on a number of occasions, I prayed to God and Christ and asked them if ACIM comes from Christ, and was told "no" in some way.

If I allowed myself to be a complete skeptic, I would not of had the faith to believe that God and Christ would answer my questions about ACIM.  I chose to have faith in them, and I believe they answered according to what is so.  After receiving such answers I reconsidered what ACIM is about, and found that it is misleading.

Some person, especially a person who is intent on not believing what I say, without really knowing, might claim that some demon responded to my queries, even though I was told that ACIM doesn't come from Jesus. If a person were to suggest that a demon wouldn't tell me that ACIM doesn't come from Jesus, another person--a skeptic might say, "They're playing the long game."

How do you know if you aren't being deceived by demons now, without being aware of it? If a person goes with your straw man argument, perhaps there isn't a way for you to know if you are being deceived.

If you believe it isn't possible to know something, and if you died and Jesus appeared to you, how would you know if this being actually is Jesus?

In the end, the only thing we can do is consider all of the evidence presented to ourselves, and use our discrimination as best as possible. If I consider all of my interactions with what I refer to as guidance, it seems quite compelling that such guidance is positive, because everything such guidance has shared with me serves a positive purpose, and has led to positive results. In order for a person's discrimination to work well, he or she can't have an overly strong emotional attachment to a specific way of thinking.

If a person isn't capable of knowing, then a person isn't capable of knowing if the Bible is an accurate source of information. How does a person know if the Bible isn't a part of a long game? If demons are that clever, who knows what extremes they will go to in order to mislead people.

Perhaps on the other hand, God has provided us with the ability to develop enough discrimination to understand whether we are dealing withe something positive or something negative. When it comes to developing the ability to discern spirits, we won't develop the ability to discern them if we stick our head in the sand and don't allow ourselves to learn how.






rondele wrote on Jun 5^th, 2017 at 3:17pm:

Albert, that's another straw man argument. You miss the point. Maybe all of the people you cite were deceived, maybe none. Maybe half. The point is, there is no possible way of knowing. There's no way to prove either possibility. I know you reject ACIM as do I. But neither of us can prove it wasn't Jesus who was the source of the material. I will say this: whoever the source was, it was extraordinarily clever. It was highly seductive and on the surface seemed very compelling. It fooled many people who should have known better. I'm reasonably intelligent and ordinarily very skeptical about things, but it sucked me in at first. It's that good. So, not to take anything away from the people you cite, but yes they could have been fooled. Any of us can. That doesn't add or subtract from the basic point. That's why I say, it's a straw man argument. R

Dude:

Considering the point you are trying to make on this thread and elsewhere, some people might conclude that "perhaps they are" pretty much means "yes."

If I am wrong, perhaps with equal enthusiasm as you have demonstrated thus far, you can present the case, that perhaps Bruce made contact with a positive being of love and light, when he interacted with his Disk. Thus far, you have only presented the negative possibility.


I Am Dude wrote on Jun 5^th, 2017 at 3:44pm:

No Albert, you have drawn a conclusion that does not logically follow the premise I have put forth. I don't believe they are all being deceived by demons. Perhaps they are. I don't know. I am simply stating the fact that demonic influence does not necessitate full-blown possession symptoms.

Albert, I do believe in good spirits including angels. Remember, I'm convinced my own life was saved by angelic intervention.

But here's the difference- the angel appeared on her/his own volition. I wasn't consciously asking for help.

If we venture into the afterlife what happens is on THEIR terms, not ours. I'm not saying all contact is fraught with evil entities. I don't know. And because I don't know, and lack the ability to discern good from bad, I'd rather err on the side of caution.

R

Roger:

Each of us needs to determine what is appropriate for ourselves.

Regarding who initiates contact, I believe it is okay for a person to initiate contact through prayer.

Sometimes it is a joint venture, a person wants to serve in some way, and a love-based spirit being sees the advantage of hooking up with such a person. I wouldn't be able to help with retrievals in the way that I do, if I hadn't made contact with guidance-like spirit beings.

Sometimes it is a matter of what is good for a person's spiritual growth. The more a person gets in touch with his (or her) spirit self, the more he will get in touch with the spirit levels of existence, and the more he is likely to become aware of the presence of spirits.

I used to be afraid of demons and getting possessed. If it wasn't for the help I received from friendly love-based beings, it would've been difficult for me to overcome such fear.



rondele wrote on Jun 5^th, 2017 at 4:37pm:

Albert, I do believe in good spirits including angels. Remember, I'm convinced my own life was saved by angelic intervention. But here's the difference- the angel appeared on her/his own volition. I wasn't consciously asking for help. If we venture into the afterlife what happens is on THEIR terms, not ours. I'm not saying all contact is fraught with evil entities. I don't know. And because I don't know, and lack the ability to discern good from bad, I'd rather err on the side of caution. R

Albert, I probably venture into the afterlife every night. But the difference is, that's a natural process. It's not something I consciously set out to do. If I'm interacting with entities while asleep so be it.

It's a personal decision. I agree, we need to do what we think is best for ourselves.

R

I can't argue with the below. Aw, fiddle sticks! :)


rondele wrote on Jun 5^th, 2017 at 5:28pm:

Albert, I probably venture into the afterlife every night. But the difference is, that's a natural process. It's not something I consciously set out to do. If I'm interacting with entities while asleep so be it. It's a personal decision. I agree, we need to do what we think is best for ourselves. R

As we grow so to do our responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to cease sowing suspicion and fear.

We are here NOW.


-30-

rondele wrote on Jun 5^th, 2017 at 5:28pm:

Albert, I probably venture into the afterlife every night. But the difference is, that's a natural process.* It's not something I consciously set out to do. If I'm interacting with entities while asleep so be it.

*My use of bold and underline.

   Hmmm, I think it can easily be argued that consciously communicating with and exploring the nonphysical is just as natural as sleep, and that a percentage of humans have been doing that since humanity has been around. 

     It's only in our modern, super left brain polarized day and age, that it's become such a taboo to believe in and talk about about such communication, contact, and exploring, though this is gradually changing for the better as time marches on. 

    It seems clear that there are forces behind the scenes at work in suppressing such knowledge and openness.  So little money and research is spent on scientific research on the nonphysical nature of consciousness, despite that the relatively few studies that have been done (like Duke University's PEAR lab's work) shows much promise and definite above chance correlations. 

   It's very similar with UFO's and ET's.  This is also being suppressed and/or much misinformation is spread. These same forces don't want humans to have more clear knowledge about these. 

     If my hypothesis is true, I wonder why such information is being suppressed?   Could it have to do with the potential freeing nature of such knowns and such contact? 

      Truth can help people to set themselves free.

Imagine a society completely free of the fear of death, and which fully knows and understands the great Universal Law of Like attracts, begets, and resonates with Like!  How free and glorious could such a society and peoples become!  Free from the shackles of greed, corrupt overlords and "leaders", and base, pointless materialism, but focused on Love, helping one another, and co-creating a beautiful, Spirit infused, kind, healthy world.

   A world much like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytUqTRC1twE

    I plan to fight tooth and nail for such an above world, even if it means sacrificing this body. 

“He who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself; and if you gaze too long into the abyss, the abyss will gaze into you.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche

rondele wrote on Jun 5^th, 2017 at 3:17pm:

Albert, that's another straw man argument. You miss the point. Maybe all of the people you cite were deceived, maybe none. Maybe half. The point is, there is no possible way of knowing. There's no way to prove either possibility. *

* My use of bold and underline

   Actually, there is.  Yeshua taught that you could know a source and it's true intentions by looking at the overall, long term fruits of same.  Like attracts, begets, and resonates with Like.  Contact with positive sources tends to beget positive, helpful fruits. Primary contact with negative sources tends to beget negative and unhelpful fruits long term. 

   For example, that is very obvious in Helen's case with her course.  She died angry, miserable, and disliking all things spiritual and nonphysical. 

   But, conversely, I can bet you large sums of money that other people, like Edgar Cayce, Bob Monroe, Rosalind McKnight, Bruce Moen, our own Vicky, Albert, I, and many others are quite happy that we have made contact with real guidance, and that our lives have been tremendously improved and helped by such contact and communication. 

    Many of the above folks have helped others a lot in different ways. 

   For myself, I've working very people oriented service jobs since my early 20's.  First I worked with elderly folk in home, then later adults and also children with disabilities.  None of these jobs ever paid much, but that never mattered to me because it's always been fulfilling in a deeper, more meaningful, and spiritual way.

  Truly I often feel that my cup overflows with abundance though I have little materially as our society tends to count it. 

    Part of what made me decide to work in these fields and say not a higher paying, corporate or upper level government type job, is because of my experiences with the nonphysical and contact with positive guidance.

    That same contact/communication, also helped nudged me to stop contributing to the torture and abuse of animals, that the big agribusiness corporations and factories perpetrate on these beautiful, valuable Creatures of God, like cows, chickens, pigs, etc. 

    Basically, my levels of empathy only have increased and increased since becoming involved with all this.  Many people, old and young, and many animals, directly or indirectly have been helped by my choices which were influenced by my connections to positive guidance.   

   I would call that some pretty positive, long term fruits.  Wouldn't you Roger?  Having met Albert in person a couple of times, as well as talking to him on the phone more, that Albert strikes me as an unusually happy, at peace, and loving person. He just radiates light and love.  It was similar when I became friends with Rosie McKnight and met up with her a couple of times.  She just seemed, well happy, content, and at peace. 

   Albert might say similar about me.  I also got some of that from meeting Vicky and Bruce in person as well.  Bruce had a really cool vibe in person.  On a deep level, he struck me as a truly nice, gentle, kind, mostly happy, and at peace person.  Aka positive fruits.   :)

Morrighan wrote on Jun 5^th, 2017 at 10:52pm:

“He who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself; and if you gaze too long into the abyss, the abyss will gaze into you.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

  Sorry, but I don't consider Neitzsche a source of deeper, spiritual wisdom.  In his earlier days, he had some somewhat wise and deeper things to say, but it's very clear as he got older, he became very, very embittered, cynical, and nihilistic. What a grumpy old man he became. 

  In other words, a lack of positive fruits in the long term. 

I Am Dude wrote on Mar 20^th, 2009 at 1:25pm:

Remember recoverer...  Focusing on negative, unfriendly influences tends to open one to them and attract them into one's consciousness.

   I like this quote by I Am Dude, there is a ring of relative truth to the above. 

  I modify it to say that more so fear, and over focus, tends to open one to them and attract them into one's consciousness. 

  Some focus, some awareness without fear, certainly is ok. 

Notice that neither Albert nor Justin are willing to watch Vince's video  which decisively refutes their perspectives on channeling.

Roger, your point about waiting for angels to intervene rather than consciously conjuring them up and waiting to be divinely initiated into afterlife territories rather than creating a method to do so is probably the wisest single caution in this thread. 

Lights of Love wrote on Mar 20^th, 2009 at 2:05pm:

...Albert, guides and helpers with a high quality of consciousness in the non-physical couldn’t care less about anyone’s ego needs and therefore wouldn’t bother to communicate whether or not a book or other source of material is good or bad, unless of course you’re communicating with a being that has a low quality of consciousness themselves. In that case they are either playing with you by feeding your fears and ego or you are getting this stuff from within your own consciousness. Probably the latter since speaking out against certain sources seems to be a constant past time of yours. I know you don’t see it, but doing that is all about fear and ego.

   Kathy, you wrote this after Albert shared on this thread, that he got some messages from guidance about the hindering and deceptive nature of ACIM. 

     I'm confused by what you wrote above.   

   Here's what's odd to me:  Strangely, the one thing that Albert, Don, Roger, Vince, and I all strongly agree on, is the hindering, limiting nature of that particular work. 

     Do you still think there is nothing to what many of us have said over the years about it?   Or the direct guidance that Albert and I received about it?

   This was my first clue to the true nature of that course: I had a dream where I saw myself climbing up a tall, straight tree, and I was making good progress getting to the top, until I decided that rather than going straight up, I came upon this one branch that looked strong and sturdy, and decided to climb out onto the branch rather than just pulling self up to the next limb, and the "strong looking' branch snapped, and I fell. 
     When I woke up, I intuitively knew the dream was talking about my involvement with ACIM, and that ACIM was the seemingly strong looking, but deceptively so, branch that I was taking a detour from my upwards paths onto.

   If what you said in the above quote is true, then why would my guidance give me this dream?  Also, not long ago, I shared with you that a former member here who is into that course, publicly called Don the "anti-Christ".  While obviously Don and I don't see eye to eye on a number of things, I essentially feel that Don is a good person who mostly means well.

  I believe that person's remarks to Don were really, really, really extreme and off base, and a good indication that this course did not have a good influence on them.   

      

Vince,

That video was quite important as first hand testimony about the dangers of drop in visitors.  It is well known that there are dangers of the use of a Ouija board with regard to problems with lower level entities, and I would bet that channeling is prone to the same problems.  Why?  To me, it is clear.  When we explore with hemisync or astral projection, we can be conscious, we can invoke intent and in general, our conscious astral forms are mostly immune from possession or harm (there are numerous discussion boards that back this up).  When a person channels or uses a ouija board, they are asking others to "take over," ceding control of their physical bodies to take over.  So a channeer is not so much an explorer as a puppet.  One channeler described it in Vince's video as the fact that there is a "door" which allows an entity entrance and for most incarnate people, this door is locked, bolted and shut, tightly closed.  But for a channeler, the door was, as if broken, off the hinges.

This is not to say that some channelers might have more control over the process.  But I don't think that it is ever wise to invite someone else, unknown to take control.  This is not exploration; just the opposite; it is ceding your own volition and will and opening a door.

M

TheDonald wrote on Jun 5^th, 2017 at 11:36pm:

Notice that neither Albert nor Justin are willing to watch Vince's video  which decisively refutes their perspectives on channeling.

  Hmm, actually, I did watch some of that video.  I do think there is some relative truth to it. 

But here is where you and I strongly differ.  I don't over generalize and over demonize the whole thing.  I don't think all channeling is all demonic.  I don't think the entire "New Age" is all demonic. 

      I think negative, deceptive beings are "equal opportunity" misleaders who are involved with various different aspects and levels of human life and various different belief systems, not just "New Age", but also religion, business, politics/government, etc   You name it, they got their hands in it.  But the same is also true for God's Helpers too. They also are all involved in all those different areas as well. You name it, they also have their hands in it too. 

   I'll give you a good example of the latter above: I was friends with Bob Monroe's long time explorer Rosalind McKnight (we found out we even had the same birthdate). When she worked with Bob, she worked with two major ways of communicating with guidance. She would meet helpers on some in between level and relay information from them, but she would also partake in true, classic channeling where she would let one of her helpers (usually "Ah So", but sometimes the colorful Alfonso) speak directly through her. 

    Having met Rosie in person a couple of times, as well as a number of back and forth emails, I can say that it's very unlikely that Rosie was strongly influenced by negative, deceptive beings.  She struck me as a rather old Soul and loving person.  You ever meet one of those people where you just feel, "man, here is a loving, wise, old Soul"?  Well, very occasionally I meet people like this, and Rosie was one of them.

   Also, to me, the "New Age" is not a particular doctrine, creed, or sect.  It's an extremely broad umbrella and category that covers A LOT of very different beliefs, sources, methods, and expressions.  If Albert and i are "New Agers", well most other New Agers that we have met, don't particularly like us or most of our beliefs I've noticed. We've received A LOT of flack from fellow "New Agers" on this forum over the years. 

    Here is what confuses me Don.  Both Albert and I see major issues with some popular "New Age" sources/beliefs like that "course" and Seth, we both love God and Yeshua A LOT and talk about and recommend them a lot, and yet, for some reason, you seem to think we completely lack discrimination or clear sight in an overly generalized, and extremist way? 

  It doesn't make sense to me.  Do we have to have exactly all the same beliefs, perceptions, and opinions as you to be "ok" or accepted?  We seem to have a lot more in common than a lot of other members of the board in some ways. 

   Do you really believe that all "channelers" are in contact with only negative, deceptive beings and levels?  Do you really think that all so called "New Age" sources are all influenced only by negative, deceptive beings and levels?  Do you really think there is a codified "religion" that is called "New Age"?  To me, the term "New Age" doesn't have any real meaning other than being a common name of a section in bookstores.  :) 

     In any case, since Roger and I both live in VA, next time you're out here, why not all get a beer or have dinner together?  I'm willing to drive up to northern VA or whatever current area Roger lives at. 

wrote on Jun 5^th, 2017 at 11:13pm:

Morrighan wrote on Jun 5th, 2017 at 10:52pm: “He who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself; and if you gaze too long into the abyss, the abyss will gaze into you.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche   Sorry, but I don't consider Neitzsche a source of deeper, spiritual wisdom.  In his earlier days, he had some somewhat wise and deeper things to say, but it's very clear as he got older, he became very, very embittered, cynical, and nihilistic. What a grumpy old man he became.    In other words, a lack of positive fruits in the long term.

Another responsibility that comes with growth is the responsibility of one's own words and deeds as clarity of one's own being comes into greater focus.

Morrighan wrote on Jun 6^th, 2017 at 9:18am:

wrote on Jun 5th, 2017 at 11:13pm: Morrighan wrote on Jun 5th, 2017 at 10:52pm: “He who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself; and if you gaze too long into the abyss, the abyss will gaze into you.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche   Sorry, but I don't consider Neitzsche a source of deeper, spiritual wisdom.  In his earlier days, he had some somewhat wise and deeper things to say, but it's very clear as he got older, he became very, very embittered, cynical, and nihilistic. What a grumpy old man he became.    In other words, a lack of positive fruits in the long term.  Another responsibility that comes with growth is the responsibility of one's own words and deeds as clarity of one's own being comes into greater focus.

   I agree Morrighan, and indeed the above is true, and sometimes that responsibility comes with the duty to at times speak critically of sources that are hindering and limiting in nature.

   Such as how Yeshua sometimes spoke to, for, and about the Pharisees, Sadducee's, and Scribes, and why and how he spoke to, for, and about them.  Love isn't always sweetly Feminine and soft.  Sometimes it's Yang, Fire attuned, and/or partakes in tough love. 

    I figure the Soul that once inhabited Nietzsche's body, is probably ok with what I said, and heck, since he is now probably a lot more wise and aware than he was when connected to a body, he might actually approve of my critical words.   :o   8-)  :)

Don:

I guess you didn't pay attention to my response on this matter. I've spent many hours reading about unfriendly influences and possession cases. I've watched exorcism videos. How much time do I have to spend doing such things, before you'll understand that I'm not ignorant about unfriendly influences? I'm probably more knowledgeable than you, because I've experienced lower level entities as I retrieved them.


TheDonald wrote on Jun 5^th, 2017 at 11:36pm:

Notice that neither Albert nor Justin are willing to watch Vince's video  which decisively refutes their perspectives on channeling. Roger, your point about waiting for angels intervene rather than consciously conjuring them up and waiting to be divinely initiated into afterlife territories rather than creating a method to do so is probably the wisest single caution in this thread.

Albert wrote, "..because I've experienced lower level entities as I retrieved them." 

    Both my spouse and I have had dreams of being in lacking in Light areas and clearly doing retrievals there. Some of the dreams have been pretty intense. 

     It seems like one of the possible differences between Don and us, is that while we very strongly disagree with negative, deceptive beings ways and methods, we seem to have a lot more compassion and Love for them, as we know they are erring Children of God, just as precious to God and Yeshua as we or any other Souls are. 

   We've both have experienced major attacks while meditating and praying, and when we do, we both have told these similar things like, "We hope you re-join the Light, so that you can become truly happy and fulfilled again.  We love you.  God loves and misses you and wants you to come back." 

  It seems that some are somewhat caught up in demonizing the demons so to speak. Other than briefly speaking about Yeshua's pre Resurrection retrievals in the lower hellish realms, I don't think I've ever heard folks personally speak about negative, deceptive beings in the ways that Albert and I have, with compassion, love, and empathy. 

  If anything, it appears from what folks have consistently written here over the years, that they're very focused on and enamored of their dark "power" to mislead, create problems, etc. 

    I was raised in a mostly non religious household. I say mostly to simplify what is otherwise a somewhat longer backstory.  I eventually found out that my bio dad really loves Yeshua and his teachings in both a somewhat religious and somewhat non traditionally religious way.  But my parents split when I was 5 because of my dad's drinking problems. 
    My mom told me that one day when I was 4 or 5, I came up to her in a very serious manner and told her very matter of factly, "Mom, we need to leave dad." 
   
     She apparently followed the advice and soon after we moved out.  He was somewhat absentee, though he made an effort to be in our lives some here and there, but my Mom was very cautious of same when he was in drinking heavy cycles.
      Despite all the heartache that my dad had caused my mom and us, I could tell that aside from his alcoholism, she loved and deeply respected him.  She once told me that he had explained Yeshua and his importance to her in a way that no one else had, and she was deeply moved by his love of him, his teachings, and his general conviction.  Through my dad, she came to a deeper appreciation of Yeshua herself.
 
     Anyways, I bring up the above to mention that for the most part when young, I wasn't exposed a whole lot to religion, but occasionally I did hear some things, including about this Satan character and I can remember distinctly around age 5 or so, feeling this overwhelming sense of empathy and compassion for "him" (or her, or it?), and wondered that maybe if someone showed him enough love and care, maybe he might change his ways and come back to God?

    Now that I know a lot more, I view things a bit differently, and yet, I've wondered perhaps if this head honcho negative/deceptive being like a Satan exists, then perhaps God, Yeshua, and the Co-Creators are still holding out hope for him to change his ways and come back? I believe that both God and Yeshua have the ability to re-write any Soul or Spirit's Consciousness patterns back to a blank slate, aka to start them over again. 

    Maybe God and Yeshua so love Satan, the lacking in Light Souls imbuing Reptilian ET bodies, etc that they constantly give them time and chances to reform, and attempt to retrieve them in various different ways?   

Justin, yes, retrievals can happen in different ways.

John Lerma M.D. wrote a book called, "Learning From the Light (Pre-Death Experiences, Prophecies, and Angelic Messages of Hope). There is a chapter called "The Exorcism of John L. Masters." To make a long story short, he was a biker that allowed unfriendly beings to enter him during a gang initiation, and he became possessed. He developed physical problems, ended up in the  Psychological ward of a hospital, decided to change his ways,  and asked for the help of an Exorcist.

Dr. Lerma hooked him up with a Catholic priest named Father Doherty. On pages 91-92 the book says:

"I then heard John exclaim, "It's Archangel Michael. He is the  angel I described earlier. He is directing the band of evil spirits away from me and toward the light. Michael is telling the lost souls that God wants to help and not condemn them. All they have to do is trust, accept, and enter the Light of non-judgment, non-condemnation, and total love. Father Doherty, I wish you could see the souls you helped drive out of my mind and body.

With tears in his eyes, John Masters positioned his body on his bed and looked straight up at the ceiling, sighed, and closed his eyes. With his eyes still closed, he gently said that the lost souls were now slowly moving toward the light of God amongst an assembly of angels. This is what  it was all about. I now see clearly.  I see I had chosen to play a role as John L. Masters so that I could draw a group of God's lost souls into me and eventually out of me and  toward the light. Wow! I am awe-struck at the extent God goes to bring one or more sheep back to his flock."

Justin, what I said wash this: neither your Albert have watched Vince's video THROUGH, and you just confirmed this.  We could make a deal that we'll watch your videos if you watch ours.  But then you don't keep agreements like not posting on each other's threads, do you?

Okay, I watched the video, no new information was obtained.

In past, on this forum, many times, I've have spoken as if some people channel deceptive beings. I have referred to the book "A Siren Call of Hungry Ghosts" more than one time. The author of this book, "Joey Fischer," investigated several channelers and found that they were channeling deceptive beings.

I get it, misleading beings exist. Some of them have tried to mess with me. However, many friendly beings also exist, and going by what I and some other people have found out, it is possible to connect with them.

Even though it isn't common for people to do so, it isn't unnatural. After all, we have a lot more in common with love-based beings than with beings that aren't loving. If one considers the big picture beyond a human life, it is kind of strange how we get alienated from our love-based spirit friends for a while.

If people who pray for help are able to make some sort of connection with love-based beings, this seems to show that contact is possible. If a person prays to God and Christ for spiritual healing, some sort of energetic connection will be made.

The John L. Masters I spoke of earlier, spoke of angels that helped him become depossessed. They were able to make contact with him, even though he wasn't a spiritually evolved person.

If a person works to grow spiritually, a person is more likely to be able to make contact with love-based beings energetically.

The love-based beings I've spoken of have never attacked me with knives. They have never suddenly started speaking through my body, as took place with the man in the video Dude provided.

"Ye shall know them through their fruits," if good fruits always result, perhaps things are more than fine.

If one thinks of this matter in a Disk kind of way, there might be occasions when it wouldn't be unnatural for a being to interact with a person's body. If God chose to make one of your toes wiggle, would you complain?




TheDonald wrote on Jun 6^th, 2017 at 5:49pm:

Justin, What I said wash this: neither your Albert have watched Vince's video THROUGH, and you just confirmed this.  We could make a deal that we'll watch your videos if you watch ours.  But then you don't keep agreements like not posting on each other's threads, do you?

I would like to add that it doesn't make sense to me that Jesus could neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeever communicate with a person in this world, simply because some fakers exist. Why should he let the fakers determine what he does?

Recoverer 2 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2017 at 6:55pm:

I would like to add that it doesn't make sense to me that Jesus could neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeever communicate with a person in this world, simply because some fakers exist. Why should he let the fakers determine what he does?

It also doesn't make sense that because I have teeth, my wife could never sing the national anthem backwards. But no one has made this claim, so I don't bring it up. What's your excuse? 

Dude: God has provided us with the ability to use our intelligence in a reasonable way. What I said is quite different than what you said below.

Let's see.
1. A person can receive love from Jesus, this makes sense.

2. A person can receive support from Jesus, this makes sense.
3. A person can receive healing from Jesus, this makes sense.
4. A person can receive grace from Jesus, this makes sense.
5. A person can receive wisdom from Jesus, this makes sense.
6. A person can receive a message from Jesus, this makes...all of sudden you're going to start speaking about your teeth and your wife singing backwards?


I Am Dude wrote on Jun 6^th, 2017 at 8:54pm:

Recoverer 2 wrote on Jun 6th, 2017 at 6:55pm: I would like to add that it doesn't make sense to me that Jesus could neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeever communicate with a person in this world, simply because some fakers exist. Why should he let the fakers determine what he does? It also doesn't make sense that because I have teeth, my wife could never sing the national anthem backwards. But no one has made this claim, so I don't bring it up. What's your excuse?

You brought up something that doesn't make sense which no one (that I'm aware of) has claimed. I simply did the same thing as a silly way of asking you why you did this.  :D

Now it seems as if you are saying that Jesus could communicate to a person if he wanted to. If so, I agree.


I Am Dude wrote on Jun 6^th, 2017 at 11:25pm:

You brought up something that doesn't make sense which no one (that I'm aware of) has claimed. I simply did the same thing as a silly way of asking you why you did this.  :D

God/Jesus communicating with man is written all throughout the Bible. I would be a pretty bad Christian if I didn't believe this was possible.

I Am Dude wrote on Jun 7^th, 2017 at 8:53am:

God/Jesus communicating with man is written all throughout the Bible. I would be a pretty bad Christian if I didn't believe this was possible.

   Ok, and now if you just apply it in a more universal sense, then will it be truth.  For God speaks to It's entire Creation.  Not just man and not just Christians or Jews. 

   When people think that a particular group or sect has the whole truth, and has the favor of God exclusively, then does that group get really, really far away from Truth. 

   For Real Love is Universal.  For God is Universal and God, Source of All.

   This is some kind of "disconnect" with certain belief systems and approaches about this for some reason. What's the disconnect?   Ego/fear/seflishenss/separateness--all words for the same expression--more severe lack of Universal Love. 

   The true path is the pathless path.  Or, as I was (Guidance) inspired to write in early High School, "It has been said that there are many paths to God.  I disagree. While there may be many different valid beliefs and perceptions about God and the larger reality, there is only one path to God--the path of Love." 

   This is a truth that was given to self from the most expanded level there is.  The God/Co-Creator, pure Love level. 

   When someone tries to put that path into a little narrow belief system box, they start to close themselves off from God and Love. 

   Or so says Yeshua through his advocate/helper/counselor/comforter in the flesh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byNZDaO9duw

(and he has a cheesy sense of humor fo sho  :D  ;D )

wrote on Jun 7^th, 2017 at 9:16am:

I Am Dude wrote on Jun 7th, 2017 at 8:53am: God/Jesus communicating with man is written all throughout the Bible. I would be a pretty bad Christian if I didn't believe this was possible.    Ok, and now if you just apply it in a more universal sense, then will it be truth.  For God speaks to It's entire Creation.  Not just man and not just Christians or Jews.     When people think that a particular group or sect has the whole truth, and has the favor of God exclusively, then does that group get really, really far away from Truth.     For Real Love is Universal.  For God is Universal and God, Source of All.    This is some kind of "disconnect" with certain belief systems and approaches about this for some reason. What's the disconnect?   Ego/fear/seflishenss/separateness--all words for the same expression--more severe lack of Universal Love.     The true path is the pathless path.  Or, as I was (Guidance) inspired to write in early High School, "It has been said that there are many paths to God.  I disagree. While there may be many different valid beliefs and perceptions about God and the larger reality, there is only one path to God--the path of Love."     This is a truth that was given to self from the most expanded level there is.  The God/Co-Creator, pure Love level.     When someone tries to put that path into a little narrow belief system box, they start to close themselves off from God and Love.     Or so says Yeshua through his advocate/helper/counselor/comforter in the flesh. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byNZDaO9duw (and he has a cheesy sense of humor fo sho  :D  ;D )

I fail to see how any of this applies to me. I just see a lot of false assumptions and obvious misunderstandings of where you think I'm coming from.

  Such is the nature and tendency of the human condition.  Such is why occasionally consciousnesses from outside this little system are directly sent in to try to facilitate retrieval. 

  What is "retrieval" all about at it's very core?  Changing stuck, inaccurate, and limiting beliefs/perceptions to more expanded, accurate, freeing ones. It's about helping others to take off those coverings and masks that prevent them from being who and what they truly are, most beautiful Children and potential Co-Creators with a most Beautiful Source and Parent.  But, many humans like distractions and like to play Halloween and they like to wear masks and forget what they truly are. 

    While retriever consciousnesses can come and speak truth, they cannot do the work for us.  They can only point in the direction and say, "This is the way, and if you will walk it, it will eventually lead to the Waters of everlasting Life Eternal".  But often, humans are like horses, and what is the old saying about horses?  That you can lead them to water, but can't make them drink. 

   The very Waters of Life are flowing before you, but it is your choice to partake or not.

I was actually looking for some facts in support of your statements. Otherwise I can't take them seriously.

   "Facts".  ;D    Some truths are self evident.  Some of what I've been talking about is, in some ways, metaphysics and spirituality (as divorced from dogma/doctrine) 101. 

  Speaking of self evident truths: How about Love?  Talk to your average, material minded scientist and they will tell you that love is feel good chemicals that brain makes.

  You might say, no, it's much more than that, it's a Force, a Consciousness, and the very foundation of Creation, but what will they say?   

Show me your "facts".  Prove it to me.  Well, at that point, you just got say, some truths are self evident and while "facts" cannot be supplied in a narrow scientific sense, the truth is all around you ready to be tuned into. 

  All similar to what I've been saying to you recently.  I bet you Albert fully understands what I've been saying about the universality of God, truth, the pathless path of Universal Love, and how over attachment to narrow, codified belief systems tends to have limiting affects on people and their perceptions through the power of distorted beliefs. 

   Or that retrieving is all about trying to make little or big cracks in these distorted belief systems to let the Light get in more fully. 

I'll restate. How does the statement I made logically lead to the conclusions you posit in response to it?



wrote on Jun 7^th, 2017 at 9:16am:

I Am Dude wrote on Jun 7th, 2017 at 8:53am: God/Jesus communicating with man is written all throughout the Bible. I would be a pretty bad Christian if I didn't believe this was possible.    Ok, and now if you just apply it in a more universal sense, then will it be truth.  For God speaks to It's entire Creation.  Not just man and not just Christians or Jews.     When people think that a particular group or sect has the whole truth, and has the favor of God exclusively, then does that group get really, really far away from Truth.     For Real Love is Universal.  For God is Universal and God, Source of All.    This is some kind of "disconnect" with certain belief systems and approaches about this for some reason. What's the disconnect?   Ego/fear/seflishenss/separateness--all words for the same expression--more severe lack of Universal Love.     The true path is the pathless path.  Or, as I was (Guidance) inspired to write in early High School, "It has been said that there are many paths to God.  I disagree. While there may be many different valid beliefs and perceptions about God and the larger reality, there is only one path to God--the path of Love."     This is a truth that was given to self from the most expanded level there is.  The God/Co-Creator, pure Love level.     When someone tries to put that path into a little narrow belief system box, they start to close themselves off from God and Love.     Or so says Yeshua through his advocate/helper/counselor/comforter in the flesh. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byNZDaO9duw (and he has a cheesy sense of humor fo sho  :D  ;D )

Dude:

Regarding being a bad Christian, that is "your" definition of being a Christian.


I Am Dude wrote on Jun 7^th, 2017 at 1:52pm:

I'll restate. How does the statement I made logically lead to the conclusions you posit in response to it? wrote on Jun 7th, 2017 at 9:16am: I Am Dude wrote on Jun 7th, 2017 at 8:53am: God/Jesus communicating with man is written all throughout the Bible. I would be a pretty bad Christian if I didn't believe this was possible.    Ok, and now if you just apply it in a more universal sense, then will it be truth.  For God speaks to It's entire Creation.  Not just man and not just Christians or Jews.     When people think that a particular group or sect has the whole truth, and has the favor of God exclusively, then does that group get really, really far away from Truth.     For Real Love is Universal.  For God is Universal and God, Source of All.    This is some kind of "disconnect" with certain belief systems and approaches about this for some reason. What's the disconnect?   Ego/fear/seflishenss/separateness--all words for the same expression--more severe lack of Universal Love.     The true path is the pathless path.  Or, as I was (Guidance) inspired to write in early High School, "It has been said that there are many paths to God.  I disagree. While there may be many different valid beliefs and perceptions about God and the larger reality, there is only one path to God--the path of Love."     This is a truth that was given to self from the most expanded level there is.  The God/Co-Creator, pure Love level.     When someone tries to put that path into a little narrow belief system box, they start to close themselves off from God and Love.     Or so says Yeshua through his advocate/helper/counselor/comforter in the flesh. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byNZDaO9duw (and he has a cheesy sense of humor fo sho  :D  ;D )

I bet if all of us are still alive ten years from now, and the forum is still existing, it'll look much the same as it does now. In fact in the 20 years I've been a member, I can say I haven't observed any real change. Same bickering, same differing opinions and no real breakthrough in the most important thing of all...afterlife knowledge!  Kind of ironic.

I guess we'll all have to die before we figure out what's what. Or then again maybe not.

R

Roger:

If you would've made that point a while ago,  perhaps Don would not had started and later restarted this post.


rondele wrote on Jun 7^th, 2017 at 2:08pm:

I bet if all of us are still alive ten years from now, and the forum is still existing, it'll look much the same as it does now. In fact in the 20 years I've been a member, I can say I haven't observed any real change. Same bickering, same differing opinions and no real breakthrough in the most important thing of all...afterlife knowledge!  Kind of ironic. I guess we'll all have to die before we figure out what's what. Or maybe not. R