There was a fascinating program on History Channel about the universe.

Some scientists believe that there may be many, in the millions or billions, of multiple worlds.  These are parallel worlds to our own, sort of mirror images.

Moreover, billions of copies of ourselves exist in these worlds.  They don't exist in some far reaches of the universe, but in the same "space" as planet Earth.

What really got my attention was the premise that we ourselves spin off these alternate worlds each time we come to a decision point in our lives.

For instance, we decide to marry person A rather than person B.  In so doing we then spin off a parallel world in which we married person B.  And so on.

For anyone who read the Seth material, you'll remember that this very same scenario was laid out by him.  And the original Seth book dates back to the 1970s, before the string theory came into play that some physicists cite as the basis for the multiple worlds theory.

This whole theory also seems to tie in to the aspect of probabilities.  You could almost say that these parallel worlds are also probable worlds.  In other words, when we choose a path in our life, whether it's marriage or taking a job or whatever, we create a probable world in which the path not taken in this world is in fact taken in another.

And when you think this through, it could also explain the riddle of reincarnation.  It's difficult to accept reincarnation if we link it to this one world in which we live.  Obviously with billions of people now living, they all could not possibly have lived before on this planet.

However, suppose that there are countless billions of planet Earths!  Then it becomes entirely possible that all of us could easily have lived other lives (not "previous" lives but really simultaneous) on other planets identical to our own.

This would also explain deja-vu.  We visit a town in which we've never been, but we can find our way around it with no trouble and know what's around the corner before we even get there.

Maybe we never were in that town in this world, but we were there in a parallel world.

Hopefully the History Channel will re-run this program.  Some pretty eminent scientists subscribe to this possible scenario.

R

Rondele

Very neat stuff aint it?!  

To expand on Seths explanation of things, he says we have three main types of physically oriented selves:

1. Simultaneously reincarnated selves- other aspects of our higher being/oversoul/disc incarnated at any given time on earth.

2. Counterparts- reincarnated selves alive on Earth during the same period of time.

3. Probable selves- what Rondele has described, versions of us existing in parallel worlds.  Each moment we have the freedom of choice, and as infinite beings our experience is not limited, so as we chose one possibility each moment, probable universes are created in which our probable selves experience the other possible choices.

Physicists came up with the multiple worlds explanation when they tried to explain the mysteries of quantum mechanics. Many physicists don't agree with the many worlds explanation. It a subject that supposed channeled sources like to speak of.

I can't say I agree with it to the extent Rondelle elaborated. One of the key points of soul development is getting to the point where one has control of the creative aspect of one's being. According to the many worlds explanation such control is never reached. Instead, one's soul spins off an infinite number of ways.

If the many worlds explanaton is true, your soul reaches the light in some projections, but in an infinite number of other projections you end up in a lower realm for all of eternity. This includes firey infernos with a devil with a pitchfork, because if everything that can be conceived is created, then  an infinite number of beings burn in hell for all of eternity, with no hope of ever finding their way out.

Consider another possibilty. Say there was a lady who was beaten by her husband. She manages to escape this marriage and ends up marrying a very loving man. According to the many worlds explanation she didn't escape her marriage, and not only that, an infinite number of projections of herself are married to numerous versions of her abusive husband. Would the divine powers that be allow creation to take place in such a way?

I do agree that we can have multiple aspects, but the manner in which they are created is more of a matter of cause and effect and need, rather than what the many worlds explanation advocates.

Albert-

Actually, Seth contradicts himself when he stated that Jesus was never crucified.

Because, if all probable actions really do take place as Seth stated, that means there certainly WAS a reality in which Jesus was in fact crucified!

Actually I don't accept the Seth stuff.  It's just that when the physicist talked about probable worlds being created, it reminded me of what Seth said.....or what Jane Roberts said.  

Generally speaking, I don't put much stock in channeled material.  

R

Good point Rondelle.

Seth's create your own reality viewpoint is also contradictory, because what's the point of talking about such a thing if every conceivable possibility is going to be created whether you like it or not?

If you decide "not" to read a Seth book because you don't like what he says about Jesus, does there absolutely have to be another universe where you do read a Seth book, or does the fact of how your heart inspires you not to read Seth, preclude such a supposed eventuality?

Here's another thought. Say there is a political leader who decides (decide?) to "not" start world war III. In another universe he decides to start World War III.  Do all other people, life forms, and even beings beyond this World, also have to take part in creating an alternate universe so this political leader has somebody to interact with?

If this leader started World War III by attacking country A, what would happen if in an alternate universe he started the war by attacking country B. Would everybody else in the World and beyond have to take part in creating this alternative universe so the political leader would have other people to interact with? If the political leader wore a pair of brown socks on one occasion, green on another, and so on and so on,  would everybody else in the World have to take part in creating an alternative universe so this political leader would in each case have other people to interact with?

This way of thinking can be extended to other people. If within this World War III scenario a person tells another person something with his or her voice volume at one level, and in alternate universe says the same thing with the volume turned up a bit, does everybody else have to take part in creating an alternative universe so the creative needs of these two people are addressed? The possibilities are endless.

Just because something sounds intellectually stimulating, this doesn't mean it's true.






rondele wrote on Dec 9^th, 2008 at 4:14pm:

Albert- Actually, Seth contradicts himself when he stated that Jesus was never crucified. Because, if all probable actions really do take place as Seth stated, that means there certainly WAS a reality in which Jesus was in fact crucified! Actually I don't accept the Seth stuff.  It's just that when the physicist talked about probable worlds being created, it reminded me of what Seth said.....or what Jane Roberts said.   Generally speaking, I don't put much stock in channeled material.   R

P.S.

Perhaps it is time for the Schrodinger's Cat story to die, once and for all. ;) Stop killing that cat.

It just goes to show that Star Trek the Next Generation, and Voyager are esoteric subjects!  ;D
But then I love the alternate timeline stories, and I understand that those ones are the ones that were the most popular with fans.
Maybe they resonate at a very deep level.
Or was someone on the STNG writing team a Seth advocate?  :o :)

Best wishes,

David.

Probable past realities, read MBT by Thomas Campbell and it may shed some light on the subject.  
He says there are history database that can be accessed and probable realities explored from decisions that could have been made and the outcome that would have followed.You can be an observer of these probable outcomes or actively experience them. What if Hitler won the war? How would the world be different today?   You can call them a parallel universe I suppose but only what would have been if free will made that particular decision. Probable future also, "probable" being the operative word. Akashic records may be a term used also.
If it is accessed for your entertainment and is used for ego then you will be limited in what you can access.

Love,
Pedigree

That kind of circles back around to Schroedinger's Cat again...which is more how I pictured it than a bunch of "current" active "other possible universes".

If you can even picture a thing like that.

Perhaps these parallel universes have a physical reality of their own.. or maybe they are actualized in deeper levels of reality, where a portion of our greater consciousness does in fact experience them, but they are not physicalized.  Its important to remember that we are beings of infinite consciousness in an infinite universe flowing from an even greater and more infinite nonphysical reality, so in this light how far fetched is this concept?  

The only way to know for sure is to obtain first hand experience in other parallel dimensions.  I have heard several cases in which people have entered parallel universes in altered states of consciousness.  I have had dreams in which I am the same person but living a totally different life, or a similar life with different friends and circumstances.  Perhaps these are glimpses into these parallel worlds.  

I believe we are recreated each and every moment.  Each moment is basically a new dimension, for it is never the same as the moment before.  We are basically constantly creating new dimensions as we exist and we travel through these dimensions with relative ease without realizing what it is that we are actually doing.  These dimensions do not disappear, however, but exist for eternity outside of the framework of time.  So in a way, these dimensions we experience throughout our lives have existed before we experience them.  So why would only some dimensions exist(the ones our present egos experience) but not any others(the parallel ones we are not aware of), if the universe is infinite?  

The universe is complex in ways that defy the human intellect.  Perhaps if you guys were a little more read up on the subject at hand it would make a little more sense.. refusing to read and rejecting material will not allow for a good understanding.  The mind sets up filters and blocks out what it does not agree with when you look into something with your mind already made up.

Dude-

Ever read "Education of Oversoul #7"?  It's a fictional work by Jane Roberts, based on the concept of multiple lives going on simultaneously.

Fascinating stuff.  

R

Dude:

People expand their horizons in different ways. In my case I found it is okay to have love, reverence and respect for Christ to an extent, where I'm not interested in sources that purposely misrepresent him. This has opened up my heart chakra to an extent that couldn't be matched by reading a book.  



I Am Dude wrote on Dec 10^th, 2008 at 3:20pm:

The universe is complex in ways that defy the human intellect.  Perhaps if you guys were a little more read up on the subject at hand it would make a little more sense.. refusing to read and rejecting material will not allow for a good understanding.  The mind sets up filters and blocks out what it does not agree with when you look into something with your mind already made up.

Hi i actually read somewhere a while ago that scientists have tryed to copy Star Trek,by that i mean when Cartain Kirk says "Beam me up Scottie" and when Scottie does this the Captain and those who are with him are turned into molocules and when reaching there destination turn back to solid human.

I read that scientists have tryed this in a lab with solid objects and it has worked,i read this quite a while ago.I did not know whether to beleive it or not but it must be true or i would not have read about it.

As for parrallell worlds,i find it hard to take in because reincarnations is living totally different lives from the one you had before.if we lived the same life in parrallell worlds then we would not learn much,only the same thing all the time,i feel really skeptic about parrallell worlds,imagine when you pass to spirit then all your otherselves would pass with you,i feel its not what life is all about,parrallell worlds in my opinion,i dont think so.

Love and God bless   love juditha

Hi Juditha,
I think you may be missing the point, but then I do have a complete run of Star Trek TNG videos to fall back on!  :-[ ::) :( :o
As any trekkie will tell you, for any decision there are an infinite number of outcomes. You decide to go a different route to work one day, you meet someone new, he/she offers you a job/ introduces you to a bunch of new folks you might never have met, and your career/life path takes a totally new direction. Now at a quantum level, part of you went the usual way to work, you didn't meet that person, so another bunch of experiences turn up instead -and so on, every week.
If there are an infinite number of worlds coexisting together (and remember that the universe is not only stranger than we think but stranger than we can ever imagine) then in another world you might be an artist, politician, spiritual leader, hitman, hobo or anything else.
I like to think that in an alternative universe I maybe still with my first wife and we get along fine instead of hating each other as we ended up doing. In another universe I would never have met her at all and married someone else. All things are possible and indeed, probable.
As I see it in alternative worlds we DON'T live the same life because we make different decisions. Here my decisions might run A+B+C+D, in another world they might run A+B+Z+Q and so on. The sum of experiences we end up with and the end of those incarnations would all be different and all add to the sum of our experiences.
It's the free will that makes the difference (sometimes it's a double edged sword) but there's always a plan B.... or a plan C.
For instance.....2 years ago I rang up one of my closest friends to wish here happy Christmas and asked how she was. 'Fine, but the orchestra I play in can't find a new conductor.' So I applied for the gig, got it, and have meet a whole bunch of great new friends and am having a wonderful time making music with them -and it all stems from that one phone call. If I hadn't made it, who knows what might not have happened?

Hope you understand.

Live long and prosper (as they say)

David.  :)

Juditha:

When people believe in the Multiple World viewpoint, they believe things such as in another universe Adolph Hitler won World War II. Why? Why? Why is such a thing necessary? If we have such little control over our destiny, then why even bother?

Or in other words, there are channeled sources that on the one hand state that we have to take control of our destiny, nothing is fixed; and on the other hand they state that parallel universes exist where other possibilities did take place. What a bunch of poppycock. Why talk about the first premise, if the second is true?

If the multiple world viewpoint is true, at what point do new branches extend?

Say there is version number 1 of you, and one of the many subatomic particles in your body rotates at a 45 degree angle for 2.36 seconds, does another universe have to be created where the same subatomic particle rotates at a 45 degree angle for 2.37 seconds, and then one at 2.38 seconds...and...and it doesn't stop here, because what is the relationship between the movement of one of these particles, with the movement of all of the other particles that exist in your body and the rest of the universe?

Perhaps when we do something such as stopping a child from running into traffic, that's it, because there is no other suitable choice.

Hi David I do understand what  you are saying but if we are living different lives in parallell worlds then there would be no need for riencarnation and riencarnation is offered to someone who feels they need to return to the physical to learn what they felt they did not learn from the life they have died and left.I and my husband ended up hateing each other but i dont beleive that i am in some other world living happily ever after with him.

If parallell worlds were out there,then we would  have no need to bother learning  different things, if our other selves are already doing it elsewhere in the universe,so what would be the point in us being here and when we go to spirit,the higher spirits say"Well what do you feel you have learnt,we would just say"Well i learnt about love and hurt ,but i did not bother about the rest because all my otherselves are standing with me and each one has learnt what i didnt bother trying to learn,so i know it all because of my otherselves".

But i feel this is not the way it works,we are put on this earth to learn about all things that go wrong in our life and also the good things,its the natural way of things,thats why we are born and eventually die.

I'm not saying i'm right David and your wrong,i just dont beleive that parallell worlds were part of God's plan,it seems like what Recoverer has said poppycock.

Captain Kirk says on star trek "The needs of the one outway the needs of the many"not quite sure what he meant but they were good words. :)

Love and God bless   love juditha

Recoverer

I don't believe Seth misrepresented Christ... in fact he elaborates on the truth of his greater spiritual being.  He simply has a different perspective regarding the crucifixion- a perspective which no one can prove right or wrong.  If you distrust him because of this, so be it, but it is hardly a reason to reject everything he says, especially when these same things are being confirmed by not only others experiences, but now by science.  

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone that the parallel universe theory is correct.  Instead what I would like to do is offer a perspective which will help you see it in a different light.  

The idea is that God/Source/AllThatIs contains within itself the potential for infinite varieties of consciousness and infinite varieties of experience, and desires the actualization of these.  This allows for maximum - infinite- spiritual growth.  This is one of the main driving forces for all consciousness.

This should take care of the "Why?"

Seth stresses that we create our reality and therefore should take control of our lives in order to manifest our most ideal one.  This in no way contradicts the parallel universe theory.  Rather, what it implies is that the potential for all possible choices exists in latent form, and we simply need to choose the best ones.  The options we don't choose are actualized in other levels, however, and are experienced by another portion of our inner selves, allowing maximum experience and therefore maximum growth by our higher selves- once again, the main driving force for consciousness.  

So the question is, Is God/AllThatIs a power of infinite creative consciousness?

I believe so..

And if this is correct...

Then consciousness must be infinite, for All That Is is pure creative loving consciousness which creates, and its creations posses that consciousness as well.

So if consciousness is infinite, then the universe must be infinite, for the universe is a physical manifestation of that consciousness, which is infinite.

So if the universe is infinite, then that means all possible dimensions exist, and the parallel universe theory is valid.

Rondele

Ill have to check that out sometime... I'm on my 7th Seth book right now- Dreams Evolution and Value Fulfillment, which may just be the best one yet... I wanna bust out this saga and then move on to other authors for a while.  I wish I could just download all this information right into my brain... I have a list of books to read larger than santa's wish list.

Hello. I'm new to the town  :).

I have never read any of Seth's books or any other books on the subject but it might be interesting for the discussion if I described one dream I had some longer time before.

Treat it as another theory or just a dream, but it happened to me and was totally surprising.

In the dream I approached to some kind of line (ressembling assembly line). I was told that this is line of my life and almost on every stage of it there are works being conducted. It means that on every stage my aspects from my energy are being made which test the results of different choices, different decisions. Paralel worlds are created all the time but I suppose they are temporary (maybe they are only astral projections of my copies-aspects). I make a distinction between of what I saw and my interpretation, the latter is my interpretation.
I was not feeling well in days preceding the dream although I could find no reason for that. I was told in the dream that this was because I had made too many aspects involved in other experiences and my energy and consciousness is lower.  ;)
I was also told that it is called "expert way" as not all the people make such "assembly line", some choose go straight without that effort catching random experiences, it is a choice everybody makes themselves. I was also shown an observer - a being which was going to incarnate someday but beforehand wanted to look what it's like.
After that I had a good idea to jump into that line at early stage. I was suddenly in my childhood (maybe 2-3 yrs old) - looking into the details of the house we left some time later and observing my family members which looked younger. Afterwards I woke up.

Reading your posts I suppose that the theory of paralel worlds may be linked with reincarnation. In our point of view time is something real, but in afterworld reincarnation exist simultaneously in different layers of consciuosness. This explains how we can help our aspects or reincarnations spread somewhere living their lives. The theory of disc helps - as a center of consciousness with exploring agents being placed in some interesting areas.

Greetings, Conchita,

Welcome to this site!  :)

Your dream and your interpretation of it are both very intriguing!

Could you say more about this part, please? : "
It means that on every stage
my aspects from my energy are being made
which test the results of different choices, different decisions. "

--How do you mean "my aspects" ? Are they alternative situations? Did ou see alternative "yous" being made on the asembly line?

Thanks for posting!
Bets

Greetings You-All,

So in our dreams we could be visiting
some of our alternative selves ?!  
Except they wouldn't really be us anymore, since who a person
is defined in part by their own relationships and surroundings.

And what if we meet a person who has met our 'double', (not a double really but one in a 'million' :-? of other aspects I share) --our dopplegangers?  Does that mean that the alternative universes folded or passed through each other?
Our double is not a random coincidence but the result of previous choices?

I'm thinking that the choices that create a new aspect are based upon bigger choices, such as major attitudes toward loves or loves denied. Does that sound possible?
I say that because the gas station attendant who serviced my double's car the day before mine said it was full of kids I'd said were mine,   but I have none.

Bets

Oh, give me a break Dude! Jane Roberts Seth comes up with a story that a mentally disturbed man was crucified instead of Jesus, "and Seth just stated his persective." You say that nobody really knows, yet Seth supposedly knows.

Jane Roberts Seth also spoke of three of Jesus's most famous verses and despiritualized them (In the books "Jane Roberts Seth Speaks" and "A Nature of a Personal Reality"). Conversely, there were no verses that Jane Roberts Seth supported. Jane Roberts Seth said that when Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself, Jesus was just making a joke. No wonder some fundamentalists do some of the unloving things they do. They read Jane Roberts Seth and figure that Jesus was just making a a joke when he said to love your neighbor as your self.

Apologetics often = confusion

Infinite creative ability doesn't mean that there aren't any parameters in particular situations.

Albert-

Well, maybe Seth knew there was an alternate reality wherein Jesus was a comedian, and was making His followers laugh by advising that we should love our neighbors as ourselves.  Maybe Jesus was the Seinfeld of his era.

Actually, this whole alternate reality thing might also explain ACIM.  Maybe in some other parallel world, Jesus really was the author of this book.  Obviously it wasn't the Jesus of the New Testament, since the ACIM Jesus tells us that there's no such thing as sin because what we think of as evil acts are really just illusions.  I'm sure that is good news for the woman who lost both her husband and teenage daughter after they were executed during the Mumbai massacres. 

And after watching Gordon's Mumbai video, I now know that the terrorists who were killed arrived safe back at their training camp, and joined in the happy celebrations going on at these places of comfort.  I also learned that these murderous thugs were really freedom fighters.  It's heartwarming to know that these terrorists enjoyed such a happy reception after they slaughtered innocent civilians.

After the Columbine killings, Bruce posted his own explorations involving the teenage killers.  They were in a very dark place.  They certainly weren't found in a celebratory/comforting environment.

I think retrieval accounts are greatly influenced and colored by the personal beliefs of those doing the retrievals.  For example, if a person already feels sympathy with the "cause" of those carrying out terrorist acts, he or she will also put a positive spin on what happened to the perps after they die.

The interpreter overlay of the person doing afterlife explorations is powerful and no doubt explains the many contradictions that abound when reading this stuff.

I see what you're saying Rondelle. Regarding what Gordon saw,
I wasn't able to watch Gordon's video, but going by what he wrote I don't believe he was apologizing for the Mumbai terrorists. Sometimes spirits end up earthbound for a while and go to the place/people they are attracted to. Deceased terrorists might be attracted to the people they knew before they died. Eventually these spirits will have to move on and become honest about what they did.  I don't believe that Gordon denies that lower realms exist and some spirits end up in such realms according to their overall state of mind.

Regarding the retrieved terrorists Gordon wrote about, I wouldn't assume that they went to a higher realm. I have reasons for believing that when spirits are guided away from being earthbound, some of them are directed to a lower realm if such a realm matches their overall energetic (needs?). Even moving on to a lower realm can be a part of a spirit's growth process, if this is what a spirit needs. If such a spirit stays earthbound, it will be less likely to acknowledge the mistakes it made, and end up being a problem for the person/people it tries to influence.

Regarding the terrorists being courageous, can deluded people be courageous? I don't believe they were loving. If anything, they were hateful, self-centered men that were hoping to get rewarded with 72 virgins.  There's nothing admirable about being self-serving in such a way. Men who end up this way tend to be men who grow up in a culture where they get brainwashed in such a way.  Do they have enough freedom of mind to choose differently after being brainwashed? I don't know. Perhaps what they needed was for somebody to tell them to love their neighbors as themselves. Or do only jokesters make such statements?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQuT4YYPBZQ&feature=related

nice video, some Seth quotes

Blink:

What if a person, let's say his name is Albert,  has a really good friend that he really respects and loves, and an author named "What the hell" wrote some things about his friend that are false. Would Albert be inclined to have a what the hell attitude and read some "great" quotes from "What the hell," or out of respect and love for his friend would Albert be inclined to find another way to find the knowledge he needs to obtain, with the faith and understanding that the universe is able to provide the information he needs, without the assistance of "what the hell?"

Is it uptight for Albert to be loyal to his friends? Does his loyalty deserve any respect, or should people make posts out of spite? Do PUL and spite go together?

I didn't write my posts out of spite. I did so to address "possible" false information.



wrote on Dec 11^th, 2008 at 4:29pm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQuT4YYPBZQ&feature=related nice video, some Seth quotes

It is unnecessary for you to take my post personally, Recoverer/Albert.  I have shared a link I enjoyed with anyone who is interested. I do appreciate some of what Jane Roberts/Seth has to say.

love, blink

 "Seth" could be summed up in one of "his" quotes, "You create your own reality."

 One thing i was getting when reading Seth/Jane Roberts, was an emphasis on "self", as in the little self.  

  Rather, we "Co-create our reality."   Slight change in wording, but major, major difference in meaning...

 Otherwise, nice video Blink though I don't think Roberts was all that accurately psychic or intune, and most of her material has an overall slow vibrating quality to my perceptions.  

 But i do like some of what Seth/Roberts said here and there.  It is always well to look for the good in all no matter what.  Besides, i love Sarah's work and voice.

Recoverer

I have respect and love for Jesus.  Just the other day I had an experience in which I nonphysically met and communicated with Jesus and channeled his words to some friends of mine in the dreamstate.  Its funny, because the Seth material actually strengthened my trust and understanding of Christ, whereas your belief system has caused the opposite reaction.  

I was not bothered by his alternate story of the crucifixion because it was simply not important in the grand scheme of the message, which was Christ is an entity deeply in touch with his divine inner self and wanted to spread his knowledge, and that there is deeper symbolism to the Christ event than what is commonly thought.  

Please provide the exact quotes where Seth despirtualized Christ's words, because I feel you misinterpreted what was said.  I highly doubt Seth said Jesus was joking when he said love your neighbor.  From what I remember, Seth took some things which were said by Jesus and provided an interpretation which ties them more into these universal truths which we are beginning to realize as we develop as spiritual beings.  Jesus couldn't come out and say, "you create your own reality" or "God is not actually a "being", but is the source of all being and we are all connected in an infinite web of consciousness."  Christ spoke in terms of the time, and as the times change the deeper meanings emerge which were before inconceivable.  

It appears that having a slightly more neutral perspective and not allowing my emotions to interfere has allowed me to see this, whereas someone with their defenses way up will shut out all positive and only see negative.

I am not saying that parameters do not exist in certain situations.  We experience parameters because we have chosen so.  If there were not parameters we couldn't have this type of experience.  However, we are speaking of other aspects of our much larger selves involved in a system of experience which we cannot fully comprehend now.  These parameters exist in our world... the point here is these are not the only parameters that exist.

I was not bothered by his alternate story of the crucifixion because it was simply not important in the grand scheme of the message

True.  The crucified (or otherwise murdered, and sometimes chopped up) and then risen son of god theme is so common in ancient religion that if that was the real important issue, there's half a dozen others that would have to be "let into the club".  There's nothing unique about the Biblical story of the death of Christ...it's his message that's important (which isn't unique either, really, but as a body of work it is, as far as I've been able to determine).  Putting a lot of emphasis on the crucifixion story itself actually weakens the argument of the specialness of Jesus.

Greetings,

Do any of you recall having significant-seeming dreams when you met people who seemed familiar but were consciously unknown?  Do you think you might have popped into one of your alternative lives through a dream/vision?

Bets

Betson

I have these dreams all the time.  I also have OBEs in which I encounter people I know spiritually, and yet have never met them physically(in this life anyway).  

It could be these are people I know from an "alternate" life(a parallel spinoff of mine current life).  It could also be that these are people related to me from a life of a reincarnational personality, for in some dreams I am myself, and yet I am not myself... I seem to be someone else without even realizing it until after the fact.  Or it could be that these people are actually aspects of my oversoul/disc or simply friends I have met in spiritual realms.  

Justin
 
Seth emphasizes our current "self" because at the present time we are this "little self", and so it relates to us most.  Seth most definitely emphasizes that we Co-create our reality as well, especially in his later work... in fact he wrote a whole book on it, "the Individual and the Nature of Mass Events."  

Dude:

I believe you when you say that you have love and respect for Christ. I believe it is wonderful that you had the experience you had. Despite our disagreement about Jane Roberts Seth, I believe you are great guy with a good heart.

Going by the messages I received, Jesus was crucified.

I agree that Jane Roberts Seth does say some positive things about Jesus. This is one of the reasons I believe it is very possible that Jane Roberts made up Seth. Sometimes she says things about Jesus that sound positive, sometimes she says things that sound false. Whatever the case, the information she provides doesn't seem infallible to me.  Even if much of it is true, some it is false. Going by what I read, her overall approach isn't very love oriented.

Jane Roberts Seth was very clear when she said that Jesus was just making a joke when he said to love your neighbor as yourself. I don't have the book with me at work, the words went something like, "When Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself he was just making a joke, because nobody loved their neighbor during Jesus' time period. Much of Jesus' humor was lost ."  If you look at the verses that surround Jesus' love your neighbor as your self verses, it is very hard to believe that he was just making a joke. Below are some of his words.

from the Gospel of Matthew:

19:16 And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 19:17 And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments. 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultry, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19:19 Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself. 19:20 The young man siath unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet? 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 19:22 But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions."

22:354 But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, gathered themselves together. 22:35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, trying him: 22:36 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? 22:37 And he said unto him, Thou shalt love thy Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 22:38 This is the great and first commandment. 22:39 And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 22:40 On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets."

From the sermon of the mount:

Love Your Enemies
 43 "You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
 44But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

The below is from the gospel of Luke. Jane Roberts Seth stated that Jesus was suggesting a defensive strategy as in playing dead like a sloth, and that the common interpretation is false. Considering what is said above in the sermon of the mount, does Jane Roberts Seth interpretation sound true? Also, if it was a matter of playing dead, why would Jesus tell his followers to pray for those who mistreat you?

Luke 6:27-30 (New American Standard Bible)

27"But I say to you who hear, (A)love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,

28bless those who curse you, (B)pray for those who mistreat you.

29"(C)Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.

30"Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back.

 

Blink:

There was an occasion in the past where I wrote how I didn't agree with a source, and you responded by posting links for that source. It sure seemed as if you did so in order to antagonize me. If I'm wrong about this, then I'm wrong.



wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 1:05am:

It is unnecessary for you to take my post personally, Recoverer/Albert.  I have shared a link I enjoyed with anyone who is interested. I do appreciate some of what Jane Roberts/Seth has to say. love, blink

Thank you Recoverer, I also believe you are a great guy with a good heart.  

I don't believe the Seth material is outside of the realm of love.  Seth does in fact speak of the importance of love and even expands on the concept at times.  It is indeed a more intellectual read, but so far I have not read one word that falls out of the context of love, for even when he describes negative aspects of humanities reality, he seems to be doing so in an overall effort to help us arise from these circumstances.  What Seth appears to be doing is helping people get in touch with their inner selves and understand the true nature of their reality so they can create their most ideal one.

I also do not believe that 100% of the words I read are accurate.  I do believe Seth is a real entity, however, and believes what he says is true.

As far as the joke, I'm really gonna have to read what was said before commenting, because I recall a quote about love thy neighbor, but I recall him adding a new dimension to the quote rather than despiritualizing it.  I'll try to find it some time.  Oh well.

Dude:

The quotes are in some combination of "Seth Speaks" and "A nature of a personal reality." If you look for words such as "Christ" under the index, you can probably find the quotes fairly easily.

Hi  I reading Seth Speaks right now. after I'm through I'll read The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events

Jane Roberts, also known as Rubert, as called by Seth, Jane is also a he, in our multidimensionality zones of being.
I am also my other incarnation personality, "he" calls himself David, I call him DP. short for dead preacher, as this personality will often show a penchant for preaching, while Laughing Rain just wants to have fun.

While you are in one focus, one personality, that is what you are supposed to focus on; this life. however, as you develop a greater awareness of a truly holographic universe, we spin selves off, in the same way we make flesh and blood babies within unions.

there are alternate realities, alternate physical realities as well in our universe we are not aware of.

There were three of the Christ. Moses, John the Baptist, and JC. they are all the personalities belonging to the historical figure known as JC.

this I feel is true, that the philosophy fits with my concept that we are all One individualized, when we enter bodies, a life.
and love is important. as relationships, in truth, are all we really take with us, the fruits of the relationships.

here's a quote about love from Seth on page 54.

"You will be bound to those you love and those you hate, though you will learn to release and lose and dissipate the hatred. You will learn to use hatred creatively and to turn it to higher ends, to transform it finally into love.

page 404 ...through traveling within yourselves, you will discover the unity of your consciousness with other consciousnesses. You will discover the multidimensional love and energy (PUL) that gives consciousness to all things. This will not lead you to want to rest upon the proverbial blessed bosom. It will instead inspire you to take a better hand in the job of creation; and that feeling of divine presence you will find indeed, and feel indeed, for you will sense it behind the dance of molecules, and in yourselves and in your neighbors.
What so many want is a God who walks down the street and says, "Happy Sunday, I am I, follow me." But God is hidden craftily in his creations, so that he is what they are and they are what he is; an in knowing them, you know him.

_____
my thoughts: we are not only busy here spinning of alternate selves, alternate realities, probably realities, but we are also fabricating each other, to be as we assume, other is.

To get to the truth, there is a need to develop the mental through intellect, for it is only the mental which decides on which personal reality shall be created to experience.
In conclusion, Jane allowed herself to be used to produce some 14 books. In this regard, it is hard work, and a gift to those who would learn to create a better more aware world of who and what we are and the possibilities we can make together, and this too is love. to be in service. Seth also is a gift to us, to the world.

Love is behind all actions, all relationships. Perception says not, but that only means you have to dig deeper to find the love.

it's there, and it's not just the poets who speak of it. To feel divine presence, it must become an experience. To speak of it even, limits the experience to words, as we are told on this site, and as Monroe said it well, you must explore your own self, your beliefs which tend to hinder you. He was one who had a head start, and so shared what he discovered.

and this is why I so appreciate when any of you share your inner journeys. love, alysia

What do you mean, familiar? There are people who pop up from time to time, but to say I really know them would be mistaken.

If there is one thing I've taken from this site, it is that each person has their own unique viewpoint/take on absolutely everything.

I keep wondering who the blonde guy with the blue eyes is. He's cheerful, always in a good mood. He just never hangs around very long.

love, blink


betson wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 10:37am:

Greetings, Do any of you recall having significant-seeming dreams when you met people who seemed familiar but were consciously unknown?  Do you think you might have popped into one of your alternative lives through a dream/vision? Bets

Recoverer

I found the quote.. page 414 of The Nature of Personal Reality

"The very term, "Love your neighbor as yourself", was an ironic statement, for in that society no man loved his neighbor, but distrusted him heartily.  Much of Christ's humor has been lost, therefore."

He did not say Jesus was making a joke.  He said his statement was ironic.  Big difference.  He is not saying that Christ meant it as a humorous statement, but that there is humor in the statement due to its irony.  

Hi, Rondele,

I have just taken a look at the latest threads and read yours introduction. This topic really fascinates me I have had weird dreams of countless multiple me;s.I once found myself sitting in the middle (a sort of average Alan) with other Alan's to the right and left. they were similar to me, but differed, some were bigger, some were older, some smarter, and those more distant looked less and less like me until they were completely alien or bad copies of me.

This was only a dream I am not saying it is true in any way.

Some on the forum might remember another dream I had, in fact i have had this dream a few times. I called this thread, They all walked backward. In the dream I found myself in a universe exactly like this one with the exception that time was reversing relative to me.

There are times when i seem to be aware that each step, or decision i makes, a Alan spits off and walkes into another reality with another destiny

Take Care

Alan

About the Seth of Jane Roberts, the only Seth I know of is the third son of Adam, Jane Roberts was a deluded but intelligent liar.

Or maybe worse maybe her Seth was the Deceiver, mixing of truth with a little deadly poison

We are what we think is nonsense, many people think they are god or some enlightened master but are just not.

Many people think they are highly intelligent but they are not etc etc ad infinitum

There was a man , who thought he could move through walls, he really really believed he could, so to prove it, he ran at full speed into a plate glass door and decapitated himself

Alan

Thank you, Out of Body Dude. I was wondering where this idea was coming from. It is helpful to see an actual quote clarifying the general statements made about it.

It is very easy to dismiss what is not understood, so every single one of us would be well advised to examine our assumptions about our observed realities. We may disagree, and that's also okay.

I am very grateful for the tremendous energy with which Jane and her husband tackled this problem together. To me it is useless to demand some kind of unfathomable perfection from other mind-explorers. I would rather pick up the necklace Jane has made and admire it myself.

Even so, I was not there in person to see what her words meant to some who were willing to open their minds a little to hear her.

She is only one of many who have been brave enough to risk the ridicule that comes with taking that chance.

We need more, more, more of such people, not less.

Just my opinion.

appreciated, blink


I Am Dude wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 2:23am:

Recoverer I found the quote.. page 414 of The Nature of Personal Reality "The very term, "Love your neighbor as yourself", was an ironic statement, for in that society no man loved his neighbor, but distrusted him heartily.  Much of Christ's humor has been lost, therefore." He did not say Jesus was making a joke.  He said his statement was ironic.  Big difference.  He is not saying that Christ meant it as a humorous statement, but that there is humor in the statement due to its irony.

I Am Dude wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

Justin   Seth emphasizes our current "self" because at the present time we are this "little self", and so it relates to us most.  Seth most definitely emphasizes that we Co-create our reality as well, especially in his later work... in fact he wrote a whole book on it, "the Individual and the Nature of Mass Events."

 Thanks Dude for the heads up.  I can only speak on what i've read, intuited and experienced for myself.  Admittedly i'm not well read on the Seth material.  

 Here's my experience in specific and how i approach outside sources in general.  

 When reading Seth Speaks, part of me was like, "oh this is interesting", that was my intellectual part.  Another part of me was questioning the veracity, and didn't like the overall "feel" of what i was getting from the book, and this before i read or knew the very conflicting and contradictory statements made about Yeshua.  

 That deeper feeling part of me, trumped the intellectual oh this is interesting part, and then when i later read that Seth claimed that Yeshua and his disciples set up a plan to have another person drugged to take his place to be crucified, well i wasn't surprised i got that earlier nagging feeling in regards to this work.  

 I believe and know (having had nonphysical experiences with this consciousness), that this person was extremely responsibly and very ethically minded, and wouldn't have been party too such a "plot".  

 I'm not a religious person, and never have been, but because of what i know, i highly, highly respect the above person, and i do get the sense that the Seth material does try to minimize the importance, integrity, and overall effect of said person and life.   And while the Shroud of Turin is still scientifically a hotly debated subject, for me it does lean to supporting the claim in the N.T. that Yeshua did something no one in our known history has done to that date, fully converted his "matter" back into pure Light state.  

 Anyways, when i read stuff, i don't just focus on the words and concepts in same, i use my intuition and focus on the feelings i get in relation to same.  

For example, when i read say Rosiland A. McKnights stuff, as in Cosmic Journeys or Soul Journeys, i get a very, very uplifting and expanding vibe.  

Similar to when i read Bruces stuff, or much of Cayce's stuff.   I got a bit more of a mixed bag when reading Newton's Journey and Destiny of Souls, but all in all i liked and got good vibes from them more than not.

 Some sources like Seth, i just didn't get those uplifting and expanding feelings in association with (actually a bit of the opposite), though like i said part of me was like, oh this is interesting.  

I believe this has to do with the degree and purity of PUL in relation to a source.   And don't think for a moment, i agree with everything that say Bruce has to say, or any other source that i get those more full and expanded PUL vibes from.  

 If you get those feelings from Seth, then go with it, who am i to tell you or anyone specifically what you should or shouldn't be resonating with?   I respect your appreciation of said source.  

quoting certain Seth passages here on page 366 in Seth Speaks.

First Seth presents us with another way to look at JC versus what got written up in the bible. the way I see it Seth is extolling the virtues of JC and means no disrespect. As well, Seth says pg 328 there will be a 2nd coming (Matthew 24) so that prediction is true I believe. I never believed in the 2nd coming, so I find this incredibly hopeful news that he would actually come back in the flesh and teach once more.
Seth would not inform us of this event unless he was on the same side as JC, so efforts to discredit Seth are hardly worth the energy, my opinion.

We all suspect JC was a rebel rouser, a revolutionist type as well as quite human, with a sense of humor and all those human traits we all have to some degree. Here on pg 328 Seth says JC will return to begin a new religious drama, he will return to straighten out Christianity which will be in shambles at the time of his arrival, and to set up a new system of thought. By that time all religions will be in severe crisis. He will set out to undermine religious organizations (as every good revolutionist knows exactly how to do this) He will not unite religion as I thought was the course to take once; his message will be, as we practice here, what is the individual's relation to All That Is.

He will clearly state methods by which each individual can attain a state of intimate contact with his own entity (I/there) the entity to some extent being man's mediator (HS) with All That Is.

by 2075 all this will be accomplished.

LR speaketh: sounds like fun to me! I'm putting in my reservations to be around and help out!

side note: page 163 talks about ELS being an experiment. We've talked about that here somewhat.
Page 366-368, 409 discuss the crucifixion was false. That JC was so far advanced, that he had no intention of being crucified.

Indeed, as reported by the bible, the man on the cross asked of God "why hast thou forsaken me?"

logically, a man of JC's evolvement would not experience such a feeling of weakness, he would have been quite capable of seeing the writing on the wall, thus shaping his own destiny. what he is said to have done is simply disappear after visiting with the disciples.

I like to think he could transpose his body into light and disappear in that way but I'll have to get back with you on that one!

Also, in my mind, I see Mary knowing all about the fiasco of the false crucifixion. the bible reports her going to the tomb to view her son and discovering the tomb was empty. For one thing, a mother would logically have remained with her son all through the night, not gone home and returned to discover the body later and do that swaddling stuff they did.
and from out of love, she would have never left her son alone on the cross. she would have stayed all night.
So the empty tomb was another story. it is reported by Seth the false Christ was put in the tomb, then later removed and buried somewhere by the group who did not want the authorities to know they not crucified JC. If Mary did not stay all nite, and actually did come forth to an empty tomb later, then she knew full well her son was not in the tomb, and that would have been the reason for not staying all night with JC near the cross.

There is no way we can insist, in all honesty and love for the Christ, that he die for "our" sins. so therefore I say Christianity needs an overhaul, but not JC himself. He is still here as the voice that speaks for God.

die for your own sins. don't make someone else die for you! Christianity teaches you to suffer.
I think I've just about had enough of suffering; I'm ready to experience more deep down joy of the spirit. how about the rest of you?

I'm ready too!

There is no way I can determine whether or not Seth's crucifixion story is true, just as there is no way I can determine whether the bible's story is true.  I just don't have the evidence and/or experience to be sure.  It really doesn't matter either way, for it does not negate Jesus's validity and importance.  Nothing would change if I found out Seth was wrong about it OR if I found out he was right.  There are more important issues and concepts he speaks of which I intuitively and objectionally know are truths.. this tiny issue is just not one of them.

I just repeat my concerns I've written to Ronny on another thread:

Hi Ronny,
so let's take the "choosing a path" model and have a look at it.

 It remains the problem that when there are entities moving on a path in time, they are different entities than those who, at a branching point, chose another direction, "split off", so to say. Thus it would not be appropriate to speak of "other versions" or "parallel versions" of a person, if we not make the additional assumption that we speak not of our here-now-in-the-physical self but instead of a higher self which is containing all the split-offs of us; between these parts of a higher self then may be a form of information exchange take place, the so-called bleed-throughs. Or we don't allow split-offs, but then, if we keep the already existing path model, we had two types of paths: Those on which an entity is moving, and those which are "empty", we might call them "realized/manifested" vs. "virtual/unmanifested". But there's a problem. It doesn't make much sense to me to speak of those empty paths, as the entity moving on a path seems to be an integral part of the path itself. Imagine a path of a person, but without that person. That doesn't make much sense. So then, we have infinite paths of persons.

The practical value of this model is another question to consider. It would only make a difference if we in any way had access to more than one path at the same time. That's, in my understanding, is what Seth/Roberts called "bleed throughs". Because if access to only one path is possible, it just won't make any difference, we had our one world, and the infinite number of other paths just wouldn't matter to every single I here, now. The very, very most of informations of our other versions on different paths would be totally confusing and meaningless to us, as most paths, would be so different that we wouldn't recognize anything there, the more the longer the branch-off lies back in time.

Also remaining is the question after the circumstances under which branch-off points are set.

There's another funny thing coming from the infinite number of paths. When there is actually an infinite number of paths, meaning an infinite number of possibilities/realities, then there might be an infinite number of paths which are the same, given the possibility that a branch-off can be created, and in the following the differences of the two (or more) paths can be leveled out again. Even when the chances are very little, but not zero, we'd have an infinity of those same-paths.

Btw, the concept of free will doesn't sound very convincing to me, at least when the term is used as it is commonly used. We had a discussion about it here:
http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1189351469/0

Spooky

Re: multiple lives, worlds and parallel stuff...  

 My hunch is that when the uncaused Cause moved within itself, and became a Creator, well in that very first awareness or moment or whatever of initial creating, all possible realities were simultaneously seen or played out.

 In comes us, the individuated aspects of the Creator, and now we get to choose between these various rivers or streams of movement.  By and through various choices we make, we align ourselves more to one stream than another, but we're constantly choosing between probable paths, though occasionally we can choose a rather non probable (for us) path.  This all of course is interweaved between the actual, possible, and probable decisions of all others.  

 I'm not sure this even relates to what others are talking about here.

 In the end, i'm not sure the specifics of all this are that important really, cause its how we live our lives, and how that makes us feel, which really seems to matter.   Obviously some paths and decisions facilitate lack of happiness, and others facilitate greater happiness.  Wisdom is then learning to discern between what facilitates what, and more importantly applying that knowledge (and not just thinking high mindedly about it).  

 

"Well the fact is Jesus Christ did what he had to do"

Alan

Spooky

An important factor in your post is what you consider an "entity" to be.  I consider an entity to be a higher self. (This is a term I adopted from Seth)  So the idea is that our present consciousness is on one particular path, and our Entity- our higher self- still experiences all of the split-offs which may take place, although we are not aware of them consciously.          

Justin

I agree, regardless of all the theories, the important thing is to live your life to the fullest.

Dude:

Then why did Jane Roberts Seth say that much of Christ's humor was lost??????????????????????





I Am Dude wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 2:23am:

Recoverer I found the quote.. page 414 of The Nature of Personal Reality "The very term, "Love your neighbor as yourself", was an ironic statement, for in that society no man loved his neighbor, but distrusted him heartily.  Much of Christ's humor has been lost, therefore." He did not say Jesus was making a joke.  He said his statement was ironic.  Big difference.  He is not saying that Christ meant it as a humorous statement, but that there is humor in the statement due to its irony.

<<When reading Seth Speaks, part of me was like, "oh this is interesting", that was my intellectual part.  Another part of me was questioning the veracity, and didn't like the overall "feel" of what i was getting from the book, and this before i read or knew the very conflicting and contradictory statements made about Yeshua.>>

Justin-  You have good instincts.  

R

Regarding Alysia's post,  as I agreed on another post, at times Jane Roberts Seth seemed to speak well of Jesus, at other times she said things that don't add up.

Regarding whether Jesus would tolerate being crucified, one time I prayed and asked if he was crucified, and in a clear way I received the word "willingly." This word came with a feeling. Jesus was more than willing to fulfill his destiny.

It is hard to imagine that some of his disciples would take part in a scheme to crucify an innocent man in Jesus' place. I know that I wouldn't take part in such a ploy. I figure I should give Jesus's disciples as much credit.

It is also important to consider that Jane Roberts Seth used the gospels to make her case that Jesus wasn't crucified. Therefore, regardless of what translation issues took place, the gospels are admissible evidence. There are numerous verses which show that Jesus was well aware that he would be crucified. Why would he have such an awareness if a deluded drugged man was crucified in his place?  Jane Roberts Seth claim that Peter denied Jesus three times because somebody other than Jesus was caputured.  Why would Jesus tell Peter that he would deny him (Jesus) three times, if Peter ended up denying somebody other than Jesus?

It sure seems to me that Jane Roberts Seth went out of her way to twist the meaning of what the gospels say.  If a person doesn't choose to use kean discernment and instead comes up with excuses,  he or she is likely to be misled.  Defending for the sake of defending isn't wisdom.

I suppose that last comment was directed towards me.  I am not defending for the sake of defending.  I already stated clearly that I too do not necessarily believe that everything Seth speaks of is truth, and his story of the crucifixion is not something I do not have a lot of faith in.  

I am defending because it seems apparent that your bias towards Seth has caused you to misinterpret what he says, thus causing you to misrepresent Seth, which is obviously true to a degree, for you believed he said "Jesus was joking," when in fact he said "The statement was ironic" and "Jesus had humor"-which, by the way, seems to me to be more of a joke on Seths part than a factual statement(about J's humor).  I have read enough Seth books to know when he is being funny, this appears to be one of those times.  

Anyway, my overall motive for defending Seth is that I have learned a great deal from him.  He has opened my mind to new ideas and shed light on older concepts.  He has given me a much more expanded perspective to view the world from.  There is a greater purpose and meaning in my life now thanks to Seth's work.  It just doesn't seem right to dismiss the potential of his work over a misinterpretation.  But in the end, you feel how you feel and only you can change that-others can help of course, and that was my purpose here.

Dude:

The last comment wasn't directed towards you. There are some people that defend every source that is questioned. I don't believe you do this.

I believe it is great that you can find useful information in a source without having to consider the source infallible.

Dude:

Regarding bias, I gave Seth a chance and was excited about having a source that could be helpful, but when I read some of the things that were written about Jesus, they didn't add up.  Quite naturally, this caused me to have doubts and the more I considered what Seth is about the more I didn't want to use the Seth books as a source of information.

Sorry, my mistake Recoverer.  I understand where you are coming from.  Not every source is for everyone.  I respect your decision.  

:)


I Am Dude wrote on Dec 15^th, 2008 at 6:29pm:

Sorry, my mistake Recoverer.  I understand where you are coming from.  Not every source is for everyone.  I respect your decision.

Cricket wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 10:28am:

I was not bothered by his alternate story of the crucifixion because it was simply not important in the grand scheme of the message True.  The crucified (or otherwise murdered, and sometimes chopped up) and then risen son of god theme is so common in ancient religion that if that was the real important issue, there's half a dozen others that would have to be "let into the club".  There's nothing unique about the Biblical story of the death of Christ...it's his message that's important (which isn't unique either, really, but as a body of work it is, as far as I've been able to determine).  Putting a lot of emphasis on the crucifixion story itself actually weakens the argument of the specialness of Jesus.

 I use to believe a similar thing as in the above, particularly so when i somewhat briefly and temporarily opened myself up to Alice Bailey's work.  

 She talked about all these supposed historical correlations and similarities between other figures of history and Yeshua.   Supposedly the whole nine yards of virgin birth, enlightened teaching for a time, sacrificial death, and resurrection.  

 Later on, i questioned these beliefs, and decided to do more research.   Well i found that her claims were greatly exaggerated when compared to a cross section of both historical info and myth oriented info.   For example, she claimed that Lao Tsu was born of a virgin, yadad yadayada, well most Chinese philosophy and historical scholars will argue that Lao Tsu is a bit of a made up character to begin with, and many lean to believing that perhaps he represents a synthesis of various ancient Chinese teachings rolled into one.  

 But the main point is, we know very, very little historically about many of these characters, many of whom were quite farther in the past than Yeshua, if they were real to begin with.   History without detailed documentation is kind of like that phone game with passing whispers around the room from ear to ear.  

 While Don/Beserk and I disagree strongly on quite a few things, he did give a great and informed talk about this very subject here once i believe, and he found similar major inconsistencies and exaggerations between the Yeshua is so not unique at all theory.  

 Anyways, there does seem to be at least "some" of that, more objectively speaking.   Interestingly, the Edgar Cayce readings, the most independently verified outer source that i've ever looked into so far, gave a unique perspective on the "Jesus Soul", and said that as a Soul or Spirit essence, he has either directly or indirectly influenced every major thought and belief system which strongly emphasizes and professes the Oneness of All Force/Consciousness.  

 In some cases, this was a direct physical incarnation/personality as a spiritual teacher among humanity, or as they said in the case of Buddha, something like, "When Buddha meditated, the Christ Spirit communed with him."

 Apparently, Jesus's Disk had expressed quite a few known and not so well known Biblical characters, like Enoch, Melichizedek, Joshua, Joseph, Asaph the temple musician and right hand man of David, and various others.   Some of these other lives had some similar parallels or similarities to his life as Yeshua Ben Yosef.

 Cayce's work also suggests that the Jesus Soul was the main person responsible for and genius behind the designing of the Great Pyramid, and this figure later on became known as Hermes and Thoth in different cultures.  (there are some suggestions that this came character, was known as "Enoch" by what later became the Hebrews/Jews).

 He said it was this figure, this Teacher of teachers, and not Ra who was the true wisdom behind the immense spiritual heritage of the ancient Egyptians, and interestingly in some old myths, like some ancient Arabic ones, it is said that Ra was the mouthpiece of Thoth, who was the Heart.  

 In another reading generally about the Jesus Soul, specifically as his life as Y.B.Y., his source said something like, "out of the millions who have entered the Earth as teachers and helpers of humankind, only Yeshua fulfilled completely and held to the Whole Law all the way through."  Yet this same source was emphatic that we all could do likewise.

 Perhaps if this is true, this is why there has ever only been found one artifact like the Shroud of Turin?

 Perhaps Jesus and his Disk is more unique in ways that most of us aren't willing to open ourselves up to in this life?   I kind of see him as just another Child of Source like the rest of us, but also an outstanding spiritual prodigy and phenomenon comparatively speaking to the rest.  I mean the dude just cut through illusion faster than anyone else ever has.  Both as a "Disk", and especially as the personality Yeshua B. Y.

 There are some suggestions in both the Bible, the Cayce readings, and in other sources completely unrelated to same, that Yeshua's Disk is the very Co-Creator God of this particular Universe, the "logos" in this Reality.   Often enough, we find in some channeled sources, in some NDE's and other info like this where "Yeshua" shows up, like in one of Monroe's books, we find him referring to us as "my child" or "my children".  

 Perhaps he means that in many cases literally (in that his Essence was the womb from which many of our Souls emerged)?  Perhaps we too will become like him in other Universes and in other worlds.  Perhaps if all the above is true, he deserves a lot more respect than so many of us actually give him, for he has always been there trying to help all of us to be happy/joyful again?    And yet look at how much vitriol hate, disdain, dislike, disrespect, and misrepresentation is constantly directed his way.

  Those who have had various experiences with this Consciousness just do not tend to treat or think of him in such ways.   In my experience and in my relating with others who have had experiences with same, the utmost respect is usually felt towards this Consciousness, this once man (and still very involved with the physical btw with same body image he had 2000 years ago), this Disk, this Co-Creator God.   He IS literally PUL and Light, and his original birth from out of Source was the birth of same.  Course, most will not believe this until they have their own experiences and deeper intuitions with this subject.

 And that's ok, but sometimes i like to remind people that things may be a little different than they currently believe.   "He" doesn't always like this about me, but hey, i'm human yet.  

 And yes, without the death and crucifixion of Christ, there is no Resurrection, which Cayce among others (including the NT itself), said was the whole point behind his coming here.

Not so say that there is an afterlife, because that had been said and believed many times, in many climes and places before, but to show that physical death and the experience of same is an illusion and can be transcended if one resonates enough with The Reality, with PUL.

 If we raise, speed up the vibrations of the physical body enough by living a life devoted and attuned to PUL, we can translate this condensed, super slow vibrating energy back into Pure Light again, but this time with both complete control and attributes of BOTH physical and nonphysical energies.   We can consciously know our full dimensional and dimensionless being again.  

He came to prove that beyond a doubt to the peoples of the time, and to do that, he had to die first to make it as dramatic and long lasting of an impression as possible.  That means letting himself be physically killed, and then later coming back to that same body and translating, transforming the matter of the body he had been using.  Which, we conveniently have the Shroud of Turin, which is the only historical artifact of its kind ever found so far, that suggests that he did just that.

 And boy what an impression if we are still debate and arguing about him and his life some 2000 years later.  


 Alysia, i honestly can't believe that you would talk about Him in that way considering about much you talk about "JC" and usually in a very positive way.  Open mindedness is one thing, but i'm a bit at a loss of words right now, and don't want to say anything that i will regret beyond that i strongly, strongly, strongly disagree with your reasoning.  
So we're supposed to believe a channeled source (from a woman whose pics show a depressed and unhappy visage) that doesn't have one iota of hard core, materially paralleled verification in any subject that we can check against, over the historical records of people who directly knew Christ and those who knew those who directly knew him?

 Why is that other sources, like Cayce's which has multiple verification from multiple sources in multiple subjects including health, ancient history, personal predictions for individuals, long term predictions for humanity (hmm talking about global warming for the near future some 70 years before it became a common catchphrase), etc. etc. say that the basic, historical N.T. Biblical story is overall quite correct despite some editing and skewing here and there?

 Seriously, sometimes i just don't get people, and their reasoning.  

I am not necessarily denying that Jesus died, was resurrected, and transformed his body into a nonphysically attuned light body.  However, I think it's odd that it would be necessary to die and come back.  I would think he could have just as easily ascended from a physical body to a light body without having to die.  

The idea that he died and came back before he ascended makes the ascension a little more skeptical, simply because it opens up more possibilities as to what these witnesses actually saw.  For example, maybe they were actually witnessing the spirit of Christ which came back for a final goodbye.  

Perhaps someone can shed some light on why the resurrection was a necessary preliminary to J's ascension.  If I were to guess, I'd say it may have had something to do with showing that life exists after death, in other words it was necessary strictly for the message.  Although many would probably say that it only proves that our bodies can be brought back to life, thinking that our consciousness is simply just a biproduct of our brains, and proves nothing spiritual.  Of course, I disagree with this line of thought.

Edit:  I just read Justin's post which gives an answer to this question.  I am not sure that I totally agree that the resurrection's purpose was to show that we can transend physical death, for death is just as natural a part of life as birth, and is a big part of our spiritual growth.

Justin,

You have stated the truth, the great writer and theologian C.S Lewish had this to say about Jesus that "he was who he said he was" or he was the "greatest liar" that ever walked the earth, or worse..

There is no grey areas in the belief of who Jesus really is , you either accept he is "God incarnate the Divine son of God", or he is a lunatic a madman.

Alan

All, and Justin,

By the way Justin we are both red heads I was full of freckles as a boy, my hair is now grey, old age, Thinking about it I have never met an elderly person with red hair, so most properly when you get old your hair will change to a nice silver like mine.

You love kitties and so do I but I also love dogs and any animal, their love is unconditional  

OK here is my response on this topic

This idea of depressed  medium sitting and Channeling  a Divine being like Jesus makes my stomach churn,

Jesus does not posses one and put them in a trance and then use their mouth as a channel to this world . Any one can get access to Jesus just by praying to him

And what they state that Jesus or god has supposedly told them , fails always to come to pass and the source the "deceiver alters the truth" in a subtle way, like a little deadly poison in a glass lovely fruit juice.

Jesus does not need a fallible  human  to come and contradict what was known about him for 2000 years and change "his truth into a lie".

Neal Donald Walsch goes even further, he has no less than "Almighty God" as a "buddy" and they chat about everything, maybe god comes to tea with him. But what he writes is abject nonsense just like any other medium channeling some lying source

Alan  

I think it is fine for people to have a point of view. I think it is fine for people to disagree. I think it is fine for people to think certain things are not true.

But is it necessary to pass what I consider rather weak judgements on a person you did not know? This is the second time I have heard that Jane Roberts was 'depressed' looking as if that disqualifies her from having a spiritual experience of validity. :)

This is a blatantly personal bias. There is no point in it.

Every one of us knows that the Bible was written by numerous sources. It is often questioned. I don't spend my time here on this board criticizing those who wrote the Bible for their inconsistencies.

If it is our souls we are concerned with, shouldn't we be placing them in circumstances where we can actually do good?

These kinds of arguments do not 'win' people to Christ. They cause some people to turn away, because they believe that they will lose their own freedom of thought by adopting the posture of the group which calls itself Christian.

This is not a criticism of your own individual beliefs, and the comfort each of you may find in Christ's presence.

I believe that Christ is accessible to everyone, in many ways.

First of all, there are the many translations of the Bible. Every single one of us was advised by him to go into our own rooms and pray, and not to go loudly about in the streets boasting of our beliefs or showing them off for others.

Christ has a huge heart. There is room for everyone. But there is no need for personal attacks on someone (noteably Jane Roberts) who merely had the courage to place on paper what she actually experienced.

If people are slandered and attacked for writing their honest thoughts, why should they continue to do it?

It may be that one of you here is correct in your negative assumptions about the entity called Seth, but it seems to me that this entity has done much more good than harm.

How does any of us know that we are not being tested now, to find out what is in our hearts? What kind of people are we?

Therefore, I say, have an opinion. But do not crucify another person just because you disagree with him or her. There is no justification for it, according to any reasonable law of love.

love, blink

p.s. This is my recommendation for anyone who is having difficulty forming a personal relationship with the one who is known as Jesus. Jackie Haverty has a cd called Journey to the Crystal Palace (vol 1). This is an excellent way to connect to several 'portals' of discovery, and the Christ connection encouraged there has a very positive effect over time.

Blink, and others reading this thread

Blink quoted


Quote:

If people are slandered and attacked for writing their honest thoughts, why should they continue to do it?

It is "not her thoughts" but supposedly the "thoughts of the "entity" she was channelling", which in the absolute was not the Lord Jesus Christ.

And Blink what I stated was not slander but my own personal opinion of which I have a right to express where and when I want to. I was disputing the truth of her channeling and not her person.

If she had written that these where in "her own thoughts" I would have embraced them and absorbed all that I felt was true about them and dismissed what I did not like. After all she just like us on the forum would have been expression her views and one could disagree with them in a positive dialogue.

We humans are fallible make mistakes and are sometimes although sincere are sincerely wrong. We can truthfully state an untruth, but how does one get around someone telling you they have communed direct with the Most High and the Most High talks a load of rubbish.

But she claimed to be channeling a Divine Source like Jesus and if this were true then Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible and humanity have been lied about down through the ages.

A Divinity does not contradict itself and the Gospels were written by people that walked with Jesus in the flesh , loved him , saw his truth first hand and recorded what they had SEEN THIS AWSOME MAN had done right before their eyes.No need to channel first hand experiences.

From her picture Jane looks a very unhappy lady, I have stated what I have stated that is my belief about the matter. I am entitled to express my belief about Jane, Jesus, Buddha, and that might not concur with your belief or that of any one else on the forum

There is nothing wrong with healthy vigorous debate so long as we don't get personal and offensive  to each other or try to convert any one to our point of view (Blink I not saying you are offensive you never have been and you are a sweet loving lady)

This post is in addressed to anyone that reads it


Love

Alan

Alan-

People who accept channeled sources, as well as those who don't, should simply preface their posts with "in my opinion" or something similar.

Here's an example: "in my opinion, the Seth material contains a lot of interesting concepts."

Or, "in my opinion, channeled sources are not to be trusted."

Unfortunately, when people cut and paste endless quotations from these channeled sources as if they were chiseled in stone, it is inevitable that people who distrust these sources will respond.

And sometimes the exchanges get a little heated.

Easy to avoid.

R

rondele wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 11:41am:

Alan- People who accept channeled sources, as well as those who don't, should simply preface their posts with "in my opinion" or something similar. Here's an example: "in my opinion, the Seth material contains a lot of interesting concepts." Or, "in my opinion, channeled sources are not to be trusted." Unfortunately, when people cut and paste endless quotations from these channeled sources as if they were chiseled in stone, it is inevitable that people who distrust these sources will respond. And sometimes the exchanges get a little heated. Easy to avoid. R

OK! Fair Enough. :)
Then that should be for any and all Bible/Religious Quotes too.  Correct?

wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 8:23am:

I think it is fine for people to have a point of view. I think it is fine for people to disagree. I think it is fine for people to think certain things are not true. But is it necessary to pass what I consider rather weak judgements on a person you did not know? This is the second time I have heard that Jane Roberts was 'depressed' looking as if that disqualifies her from having a spiritual experience of validity. :) This is a blatantly personal bias. There is no point in it. Every one of us knows that the Bible was written by numerous sources. It is often questioned. I don't spend my time here on this board criticizing those who wrote the Bible for their inconsistencies. If it is our souls we are concerned with, shouldn't we be placing them in circumstances where we can actually do good? These kinds of arguments do not 'win' people to Christ. They cause some people to turn away, because they believe that they will lose their own freedom of thought by adopting the posture of the group which calls itself Christian. This is not a criticism of your own individual beliefs, and the comfort each of you may find in Christ's presence. I believe that Christ is accessible to everyone, in many ways. First of all, there are the many translations of the Bible. Every single one of us was advised by him to go into our own rooms and pray, and not to go loudly about in the streets boasting of our beliefs or showing them off for others. Christ has a huge heart. There is room for everyone. But there is no need for personal attacks on someone (noteably Jane Roberts) who merely had the courage to place on paper what she actually experienced. If people are slandered and attacked for writing their honest thoughts, why should they continue to do it? It may be that one of you here is correct in your negative assumptions about the entity called Seth, but it seems to me that this entity has done much more good than harm. How does any of us know that we are not being tested now, to find out what is in our hearts? What kind of people are we? Therefore, I say, have an opinion. But do not crucify another person just because you disagree with him or her. There is no justification for it, according to any reasonable law of love. love, blink p.s. This is my recommendation for anyone who is having difficulty forming a personal relationship with the one who is known as Jesus. Jackie Haverty has a cd called Journey to the Crystal Palace (vol 1). This is an excellent way to connect to several 'portals' of discovery, and the Christ connection encouraged there has a very positive effect over time.

   Good points Blink.  I believe that all in all you are trying to point to a greater truth, and yet the irony is that there is some criticism in your post, albeit more subtle and gentle than my more blunt style.  

 Perhaps i should explain more fully what i meant about the depressed look, etc.   There was reasoning behind that, beyond trying to make Jane Roberts look "bad".   Of course you are right that someone who is depressed, has been depressed, and/or will be depressed can have real spiritual experiences.  Sometimes choosing a deeply spiritual path can temporarily facilitate some pretty deep depressions.  

 But my deeper point is this;  if one is constantly hooking up to more expanded, loving energies both within self, and without as in being a medium like Roberts, eventually, despite even outer challenges, that should foster ever greater joy, balance, and centeredness within self.   Like attracts and begets like.  If a person is not being centered, etc, it is hard to hook up to those more helpful and constructive energies and vice versa.   Such a person will tend to attract less than helpful influences from without.

 Bruce sort of talks about something like this in one of his books dealing with a depressed, unhappy medium who was "hooked up" to "Shawn" her "guide" (whose dark energies exacerbated her issues more deeply) , who wasn't quite a guide to begin with.  She wouldn't let go of Shawn because of ego issues of being seen as a medium, and all that stuff that goes along with being special in some way.   According to your reasoning, well i have to ask, why did she continue to put her honest thoughts out?

 In general, the state of the channel, really affects both the type of energies that flow through, what energies they attract to begin with, and the accuracy or lack thereof of the info coming through.    As mentioned, i do not know of one thing that Roberts ever said in trance state that was able to be verified in a more hard core way, something that she couldn't have possibly known about in a physical sense.  Perhaps i am wrong on this.  

 It is very important to discern the energies of the channel him or her self, if one is going to buy into the info and very energies being presented from the outer source.  People are complex, and of course there is room for some temporary depression in even rather spiritually mature folks.   But the above reason is why say Rosiland's McKnights guidance worked so diligently with her, trying to ever clear, balance and raise her energies so that the most accurate and helpful info possible could come through.   We don't see this advice at all in the Seth work as far as i know.  

 Roberts or Seth is speaking against the very life and example of most intune, helpful, and loving public teacher known to humanity.   I have a hard time not saying anything in such a case.  If she had speaking against me, i would have kept my big mouth shut.  Her "source" totally misrepresents some of the core, key truths that this person came to show.  

 Also, you keep speaking of Roberts as if she was a pioneering hero, who bravely trod the path so that others do it more easily later on, or something.  

  Do you know 100 percent that she was totally genuine and sincere in her beliefs, in her work, and in her lifestyle?  You mean to tell me that there aren't fraudulent mediums out there past, present, future  who are looking more for money and/or ego props of being well known, than of being of service to their fellow humans?  

 When someone doesn't take what they do that seriously to begin with, and don't fully believe in something themselves, it's not all that hard to take criticism for your "line of work".  

 I don't know if you are just that beautifully, wonderfully, and innocently naive Blink, or that you should believe that much in Roberts?   Fine either way, but neither applies to me.  

 But yes, you are essentially correct, coming off so strong about Yeshua and sources that speak falsely of him, doesn't tend to help things or bring people to him.  I'm human Blink, i sometimes get upset, i sometimes get uncentered, i sometimes have a big mouth, and i get a little miffed sometimes when supposed "high" sources speak so falsely about someone i respect so much.  

 It's an attachment issue i know, but again i'm human.   There have been many times wherein Seth, and the greatness of same has been brought up here, and i just passed it over.  For some reason, this time, i felt compelled to speak up.  

 Again, if people are going to look into outer psychic sources for truth, i just don't understand why they don't look to the ones with actual and especially repeated verifications behind them?  We here stress verifications (at least in the beginning) for self experiences, well shouldn't that apply to outer sources too?

Hi Alan,

 Jane Roberts didn't claim to channel Yeshua, you may be thinking of Helen Schueman and A Course In Miracles.   Roberts claimed to channel a consciousness who called itself Seth, and Seth couldn't seem to keep away from Yeshua, and speaking about him in rather contradictory ways at times.  Hmm, much like a wavering human who forgets what they have said years or months before...

 Perhaps Roberts was channeling her own unconscious "stuff"?    There is a lot of ego pitfalls and attractions in being known as a medium (not to mention money to be made).  

 Hopefully that succinct last statement, will offer a different perspective to Blink about why someone would continue with such an activity despite the world generally not agreeing with, and at times criticizing such things.  

 Similar with being a Guru or spiritual teacher, and certainly there have some pretty fraudulent and/or very destructive ones in that category.  

 It seems just that women with ego issues, and lack of love within, just tend to get more attracted to the medium role, and that men with same, tend to get more attracted to the more active Guru or spiritual teacher role.    It is healthy to question anyone who is actively seeking to be a public known figure and/or especially when they are trying to get followers in any kind of way...

Related to what Justin wrote a couple of posts ago, if a light being was going to channel itself, I really doubt it would choose a person who hasn't taken the time to spiritually develop his or her self to a significant degree.

While I've received spirit guidance I haven't received the impression that I'm supposed to be some kind of channel. I haven't received large packages of information regarding what the spirit World is all about. It has been largely left up to me to figure it out for myself. My understanding is based upon my experiences, what makes sense, and the minimal information I was provided with. It is certainly possible that some of my interpretations are false. They are incomplete.

The guidance I have received has served the purpose of facilitating my spiritual growth. If I reach the point where I can share information in a meaningful way it won't be because I channel information, it will be due to my spiritual growth.

I figure this is how a light being like Christ would work. Rather than finding people to channel information through, he would find people who will grow enough so they can speak from their own experience. It isn't necessary that they know everything. Just some of the basics such as how to live according to love and to be able to tell the difference between genuine sources of information and the pretenders, while understanding the importance of doing so.

Thanks to Rondell and Conchita--
This was a great thread. Leaving "religion" out of it--- Here is what I experienced. Because "time" is only a man-made concept for measuring purposes, in Parallel or multiple world/universes there is no time as we created it. Because there is no time, we are living our parallel "lives" simultaneously. In my glimpse of my other selves the I/Now was climbing up a totem pole of thousands of other "me's". The other selves were piled one atop the other and perhaps 6 persons deep to each layer. As I climbed upwards, I remember reaching in when I was about half way up to eternity. A hand came out to reach mine and we touched. I remember thinking "who are all these persons?" I only had curiosity and wonderment for the totem.  These were my other selves, one atop the other, and I could reach in at any moment (of time) and become part of the other. MY I/NOW didn't feel disconnected. I was there in wonderment and exploration only.  

Remember the candle scenario: If you take three candles, light them and hold them apart--- there are three flames. Hold all three in one hand and let the flames meet--- there is only one flame but three candles. This is our parallel.
Carol Ann

R said: It isn't necessary that they know everything. Just some of the basics such as how to live according to love.

___
On a spiritual path, I agree it's not necessary to know everything and if we all lived by the golden rule, I suppose we all would be channeling our higher selves and no need to be discussing or arguing..there would just a "knowing."
I think the golden rule is an attitude in that sense. Not all of us at the same time adopt such an attitude.
Religion is not all bad. it's a pathway, a belief system. there is life beyond religion though. and it's not a hollow heaven I'm speaking of.

Trust in our brothers is an issue. I find that if I trust others they trust me. Regarding channelling, it is more like sharing the housing of the mind with concepts slightly beyond what the channeler has experienced. these ideas are fed into the receptive part of the brain, the right side. the left side then transposes into language what the right side is unable to do.

it is like being plugged into something. In this case the info seems to be coming from outside of you. It is more like Carol Ann says, that these energies merge as 3 flames make one flame.
see it as the Star Trek Spock mind meld action if you want.

channelling illustrates the ability of the human to entertain and perceive mankind's basic oneness operating.
In that we effect one another, whether we are in a body or we are a non/physical being, operating in an adjacent dimension, where space and time are defined quite differently.

Ideas are free. we give them to each other all the time. We also give judgment to one another all the time. Until we do love each other unconditionally, there remains the limitations we put on each other, the judgment itself, that one is more evolved, so then one must be not evolved. one is less, one is more.
these are considerations we call judgment, or critical analysis, whatever we label it, it is non/acceptance of one another and shuts down further enlightenment process, the open mind closes down within the emotions.

Open your mind to each person you meet and discoveries are made of your oneness with them, which produces a feeling of love, hope, good cheer, versus the negative trains of thought we can entertain quite easily.
btw, not to speak of religion, but ALL are chosen. Few choose to enter the straight and narrow path, say, a love path.

In this world, it is always a case of your word against mine. because nothing can be proven, to say the authenticity of PUL cannot be brought under the laboratory of the scientific microscope and dissected, measured and labeled.

And yet I assume we all are here to discover and feel PUL.

happy holidays...am having a year end blast over here.  :)

Opening our minds and allowing those who intentionally deceive to deceive us are two different things. There are lots of people that try to deceive others. This is a fact of life that won't go away by pretending differently.

that is your experience then R. I have never been deceived myself.
I have "thought" I have been deceived intentionally, but then time goes by and I am shown how I created the deception, or allowed the deception to play out, I am shown my part in it, how I allowed it for the learning.
I don't believe in evil. therefore it is not in my world.
therefore I am responsible for whatever bad feelings get generated which places my destiny in my own hands.

a person can fool you once. the second time you get fooled, it's best to sit down for a long meditation on how that happened.
then the 3rd time will not happen.

First you must figure out why they are in your life, as there's always a reason. then you must figure out what they want. then you must figure out what you are withholding from them that they want.
If you can give it to them it heals the deceptive element, to show how it happened and why.
You also must figure out the precise moment you agreed to interact with them, what you hoped to gain for yourself. what experience you were after. then you can see no one can effect you unless you invited their company.

It entails seeing them as they really are. In truth, like the song, Hungry heart, that is how we all are. we all want love. Instead of love, what we often get is what you perceive as intentional untruth.
while for the other person, they may not even consider their truth is not your truth.
for example, in a court system, they try to establish if the law breaker knows right from wrong.
In many cases, it is established by several psychologists, the criminal truly didn't know right from wrong.

and so rehabitilization begins. as we call it to lock them up. some are improving by being in jail. some repeat offenses. we work with the system as best we know how.
It is incorrect thinking to call this a perfect world R. Nobody promised us a rose garden.
there are thorns all along the way. but for me, I can say, it was worth it to come for the few whose path we can share some love and bring good cheer and courage to whom are given to us.

Alysia:

Sometimes deceptive influences come into my life for a bit because I see their books on bookshelves. Fortunately, I developed somewhat of an ability to determine when I grabbed something off of a book shelf that is deceptive. My ability isn't the result of making excuses for those who seek to deceive.

I also believe that deceptive spirits exist. If we take on the mentality of letting books deceive us, perhaps it'll be easier for unfriendly spirits to do the same.

Misleading influences exist partly because people make excuses for them.

I disagree that anyone is trying to be deceptive. what I would suggest is you ask Spirit, or you may call it Christ if you want, to help you choose your reading material. this always works for me.
One book that you may consider deceptive, to another is just what they need to read.

it's all in your mind. this way you don't have to waste your time making excuses for whatever. why bother making excuses?
Just ask for guidance, see how fast it shows up.

Dear ALL,

I did not mean Jane was channeling Jesus but that she was getting comments about Jesus that I do not agree with,

"In my opinion", Seth is an invention of her colorful imagination, and your doctor Phil could give just as profound without going into a glassy eyed trance "In my opinion"

Alan

I disagree with the idea that Set is deceptive.  I have read 7 of his books now, and have a very good idea of what his motives are as well as a fairly good understanding of his concepts.  Going by not only my intuitions, but my personal experiences to varify the truths that Seth speaks of, I feel Seth may be one of the most important sources of truth today regarding the nature of reality as it exists in all levels.  If I felt this wasn't true I would not have bothered buying book after book and reading them.  

For Seth to be deceptive, that would mean he was purposefully dictating false information.  This is nothing more than an opinion, unless you can prove that what he says is indeed false.  Otherwise its Book One vs. Book Two, both providing no evidence whatsoever, but only words.  I understand you say your intuitions lead you in one direction, but mine lead me in the other direction, and perhaps its not a coincidence that I have more knowledge of Seth's material ( Not to mention I am rather unbiased when it comes to the subject of Jesus and Christianity, which tends to give a person a better chance at seeing the truth without any strong belief systems intruding and deluding) It seems the only aspect of Seth's work that people have a problem with is his Jesus material- which is not only probably the least talked about subject in all his work but one of the least important IMO.. He offers interesting insight into the Christ entity, but most definately does not negate J's existence or importance.  If a disagreement about a subject that is 1/1000th of the totality of a source of information causes you to see that source as deceptive, something is obviously being overlooked.

I Am Dude wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 2:22am:

I disagree with the idea that Set is deceptive.  I have read 7 of his books now, and have a very good idea of what his motives are as well as a fairly good understanding of his concepts.  Going by not only my intuitions, but my personal experiences to varify the truths that Seth speaks of, I feel Seth may be one of the most important sources of truth today regarding the nature of reality as it exists in all levels.  If I felt this wasn't true I would not have bothered buying book after book and reading them.   For Seth to be deceptive, that would mean he was purposefully dictating false information.  This is nothing more than an opinion, unless you can prove that what he says is indeed false.  Otherwise its Book One vs. Book Two, both providing no evidence whatsoever, but only words.  I understand you say your intuitions lead you in one direction, but mine lead me in the other direction, and perhaps its not a coincidence that I have more knowledge of Seth's material ( Not to mention I am rather unbiased when it comes to the subject of Jesus and Christianity, which tends to give a person a better chance at seeing the truth without any strong belief systems intruding and deluding) It seems the only aspect of Seth's work that people have a problem with is his Jesus material- which is not only probably the least talked about subject in all his work but one of the least important IMO.. He offers interesting insight into the Christ entity, but most definately does not negate J's existence or importance.  If a disagreement about a subject that is 1/1000th of the totality of a source of information causes you to see that source as deceptive, something is obviously being overlooked.

 Hi O.O.B.D,

I know you weren't replying to me in the above, but i do have some honest questions if you don't mind?  

 I'm asking you since you seem very well read on Seth, and i'm not.  In your understanding, did Seth give multiple instances of info along any kind of material lines, which were able to be verified in a more convincing, broad, holistic kind of way?   What i've read of Seth so far, is a lot of philosophy, and i'm wondering if there is a more holistic aspect to this work.

 Like for example, some predictions that actually came about or what not?  Historical info that was later verified when more historical data was found, etc. etc. If this is the case, and there are such multiple verifications found in connection with this work, i would be open minded enough to give this work a try again.

 As an add on, speaking for myself and not for Alan, while i'm a big fan of Yeshua, i've never been a fan of religion or any dogmatic beliefs.   Perhaps my only skewing about Yeshua comes from a source which all in all, was very universal, tolerant, and deep in nature, and one that was integral to jumpstarting both what some call the "New Age" and the holistic health movements, not only in this country but in the world in general.  

 So, having not been raised by religious parents, having never joined any religion or really any group of any belief system, i would say that i'm fairly unbiased when it comes to this character.  Heck, i haven't called him or thought of him as "Jesus" in many, many years, because that is part of the Roman/Greek skewing that went on, and a history that i much dislike.  

And when i speak about him, i'm not just speaking from the outer psychic source i just mentioned (which happens to have many kinds of verifications in many fields), but also experiences and dreams about him.  

 More specifically about your post and some of issues you brought up with Alan, well i also like Spooky disagree with some of the theory about parallel selves as presented by this source.   As i mentioned, in the Seth material i have read, i get getting a strong emphasis on the little self, too strong an emphasis.  Seth in what i read, talked very little about things like PUL, or a Creator (beyond the little self).   You seem to say that he does later on talk of some of these things, but why are they so absent in what i've perused?  

 If PUL is the fundamental core to our reality and the means to freeing oneself from all illusions around same, it should ever be the main emphasis in any truly spiritual, and expanded work and source.   In some psychic sources we find this, and in others we don't at all, or kind of bit and piece here and there.  

 Also O.O.B.D., i'm curious as to your opinion on this...  Would you or your intuition say that Seth was what Monroe might have called a "completed consciousness"?    Seems to me a completed consciousness wouldn't have given such contradictory info on any kind of subject.  I must say that it does kind of remind me of a simple human being who says one thing awhile in the past, forgets consciously, and then says another rather different thing in the future?

  I know and love you Aquarian born folks well, and one thing i've learned about this unusual pattern, and consciousness indication is that they can appear very open minded, but really be some of the most mentally stubborn and hard to change their minds folks around.   I'm married to a person with like 4 major Aquarius placements, and have been close to many with the Sun, Rising, or Moon in same.   I also have a dose of it myself.

More to the point, are you as truly open minded as you would have us believe, or that you seem to believe about yourself?  Or, are you like most of us mortals, that to some extent you believe in what you want to believe and believe and perceive based on like attracts/begets/resonates with like law?

 Btw, i do believe there is info of worth in Seth, and generally speaking, if this work makes people more open to nonphysical reality, then despite whatever inaccuracies my mortal/uncompleted self perceives, then to some extent i'm for it.  But at the same time, i'm more for love.   Every person whom i've met so far, who is really into Seth in a deeper way, has struck me as a person who still has a lot of Heart opening up and balancing to do, and who seemed very mentally polarized.   You know, kind of stuck in the head too much.  It takes one who has been there, to recognize one sometimes.  Seth had the affect to pull me more back into that mode, when reading same.  

OOOBD

You quoted

Quote:

For Seth to be deceptive, that would mean he was purposefully dictating false information.  This is nothing more than an opinion, unless you can prove that what he says is indeed false

I will investigate Jane Roberts further as there is no such entity as Seth, it does not exist "my opinion again"

I would like you to take up the challenge and prove to me Seth ( who was in reality just Mrs Roberts) is a source of absolute truth.

If you can I will become an immediate disciple, as I have searched for truth all my protracted life and I remain confused by the millions of conflicting truths

Alan

Justin

Seth gives many suggestions and techniques for his readers to practice for various areas of personal growth in all of his books.  Here is a link with page numbers for each exercise. http://newworldview.com/library/Helfrich_P_Seth_Jane_Exercises.html  These can all be practiced and the truth of Seth's concepts can be experienced first hand through these mental/spiritual exercises.  

As for future predictions, I have not come across any as of yet.  I have read that many of Seth's clairvoyancy tests have been verified, however, and Jane's as well.  This information can be found in Robert Butt's notes throughout the books, as well as Jane's book Dreams, Projections of Consciousness, and Seth.  

I do not believe Seth emphasizes the little self.  Perhaps you can give me an example of what you mean.  He speaks a great deal of a Creator, calling him/it All That Is.  Actually, I just read Dreams, Evolution, and Value Fullfillment, and this book goes into great detail about our creator and the creation process.  He also speaks of love, how it is of upmost importance to love not only our fellow humans, but all of nature.  He believes it is absolutely wrong to kill or do harm in any way to any aspect of nature.  Many of this material is found in his later books.  This is a fact, and not just something I am making up.

Seth does emphasize PUL, although he may use different terminology for the same concept.  He delves into all areas of physical and nonphysical reality, PUL being one of them, but certainly not the only one, for there is much more to the inner workings of the univerise and our consciousness than to simply say, PUL is the answer.  It is the answer at a basic level, and Seth recognizes this, but he expands beyond this base level into the more complicated unknown aspects.

Do I believe Seth is a "completed consciousness?"  No.  Does Seth?  No.  He, just like everyone, is on a never ending quest of growth and fulfillment.  I believe he knows a great deal more about the true workings of the universe and consciousness than we do, however.  I don't believe it is possible to be fully complete, for that would imply there is no more room left for growth, which I believe is never the case.  Our yearning for greater and greater value fulfillment is what drives all consciousness.  

I don't know if you were referring to me as Aquarian, but if you were, I am Capricorn.  I feel that I am open minded.  Of course everything is filtered in through my believe system, just like everyone else, but I believe that I have a belief system which allows me to assimilate information in a way that doesn't receive much interference from negative emotions and false beliefs.  

I am very deep into Seth's concepts and material, but I feel I actively experience and show love quite often, definitely more than many others I observe.  The Seth material has not hindered my spiritual growth in any way, but has expanded it.

Alan

I cannot, nor do I want to, prove that Seth is a source of absolute truth.  I just feel he deserves more credit than what he is being given.

:POOBD

Quote:

Do I believe Seth is a "completed consciousness?"  No.  Does Seth?  No.  He, just like everyone, is on a never ending quest of growth and fulfillment.  I believe he knows a great deal more about the true workings of the universe and consciousness than we do, however.  I don't believe it is possible to be fully complete, for that would imply there is no more room left for growth, which I believe is never the case.  Our yearning for greater and greater value fulfillment is what drives all consciousness.

Well if Seth is not the divinity that many claim he is then he is fallible and finite like us is he not In fact is "he a he?" So his views might have profound truths and also be profound incorrect.

We all know the source of absolute truth is God  but of course it is not wrong to absorb truth from someone you know and trust to be honest

For instance just one example a quote from a Seth quote You are the  creator of your own reality and future.

You say he knows considerably more of the true working of the universe and consciousness than we do, I dispute this in the absolute give me just one example of some truth he has revealed to humanity, that little earthly being known as Alan, does not know about.

My mind can expand to embrace all of existence and it has done this, has this entity done this?

Your thinking can lead into or out of poverty.

Come to Africa, and look at people born and living in unspeakable poverty, even pigs would be disgusted to live like this. So I must according to Seth go into these hideous slums and tell , look people you it is your fault you have to live in this filth and disease

Now go and tell the survivors of the holocaust that they created that reality.

I just can not put some unknown entity on a pedestal and follow it as some sort of perfect truth.

I am in myself a most imperfect vessel , but I can concoct similar guides to living and I have done just this in my writings, but I do not need an entity to do this , my life's journey, my experiences both  painful and joyful have given me wisdom , without consulting a trance medium.

If I desire absolute truth I go to the source of absolute truth to get it

Alan

I Am Dude wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 5:59am:

Justin Seth gives many suggestions and techniques for his readers to practice for various areas of personal growth in all of his books.  Here is a link with page numbers for each exercise. http://newworldview.com/library/Helfrich_P_Seth_Jane_Exercises.html  These can all be practiced and the truth of Seth's concepts can be experienced first hand through these mental/spiritual exercises.

 Thanks for the info and link. 


Quote:

As for future predictions, I have not come across any as of yet.  I have read that many of Seth's clairvoyancy tests have been verified, however, and Jane's as well.  This information can be found in Robert Butt's notes throughout the books, as well as Jane's book Dreams, Projections of Consciousness, and Seth.

 

 Thanks again.  I wonder what these tests entailed, and how they were set up?  Is Butt's a prior "fan" of her and this work?   Is there  a possibility that he is biased?  Are there independent, non associated persons that vouch for her clairvoyant accuracy in written, signed documents, etc?   Could i personally see copies or the originals of these documents?    

 Monroe met up with Jane, and interestingly enough that's all that's in 1st bio, is that they met up.   Yet when talking about another well known psychic that he met up with, he did talk about meeting her guide.


Quote:

I do not believe Seth emphasizes the little self.  Perhaps you can give me an example of what you mean.  He speaks a great deal of a Creator, calling him/it All That Is.  Actually, I just read Dreams, Evolution, and Value Fullfillment, and this book goes into great detail about our creator and the creation process.  He also speaks of love, how it is of upmost importance to love not only our fellow humans, but all of nature.  He believes it is absolutely wrong to kill or do harm in any way to any aspect of nature.  Many of this material is found in his later books.  This is a fact, and not just something I am making up.

  I perused some of her work quite awhile ago, and don't remember much at all of the specifics, but do remember the general impressions that i got at the time.   Sorry, thats oft how my memory works when long periods of time are involved, and i'm not overly interested in something to begin with.   I remembering perusing 2 of her books before, one was Seth Speaks and another well i don't even remember the name now.  

 But i don't generally remember reading much about PUL in any form, and i remember that because that one is, and has been for a long time, a big one for me.   You say it's in the latter works, and i believe you...but well i can't help observe or get the feeling that perhaps this info is not coming from a very spiritually mature guide, but rather from the unconscious of a human who is constantly evolving her own belief system and eventually starts to concentrate more on PUL like beliefs and ways of being.   This also might explain some of the very self contradictory things said about say Yeshua and his life, no?


Quote:

Seth does emphasize PUL, although he may use different terminology for the same concept.  He delves into all areas of physical and nonphysical reality, PUL being one of them, but certainly not the only one, for there is much more to the inner workings of the univerise and our consciousness than to simply say, PUL is the answer.  It is the answer at a basic level, and Seth recognizes this, but he expands beyond this base level into the more complicated unknown aspects.

 Again, i believe you that this is in the latter works, but again to my mind there is the strong possibility that it's coming more from Jane's own unconscious, and since everyone has an intuitive, psychic side to themselves, i don't doubt that occasionally she had some more accurate impressions.
But please understand that i'm coming from studying an enormous, very long term, very deep work that has multiple, independently verified stuff in various subjects all on paper for anyone to see (and numerous signed affidavits from people helped with health issues), and well lol guess i'm a bit spoiled in that regard and thus demand more from psychic, channeled sources than apparently most do.   I'm not overly right brain predominant, and definitely tend to lean a bit more  to the left brain on average.


Quote:

Do I believe Seth is a "completed consciousness?"  No.  Does Seth?  No.  He, just like everyone, is on a never ending quest of growth and fulfillment.  I believe he knows a great deal more about the true workings of the universe and consciousness than we do, however.  I don't believe it is possible to be fully complete, for that would imply there is no more room left for growth, which I believe is never the case.  Our yearning for greater and greater value fulfillment is what drives all consciousness.

 Let me explain more fully what i meant by that.  My understanding of this term that Monroe used, was for 1, when he had his "ultimate experience" wherein he temporarily but more fully merged with Source Consciousness and communicated with what he perceived to be "completed" consciousnesses fully consciously intune with same and with all energies.  He was told he couldn't "stay there" because he was still incomplete.  
 Or in other words, if they were a human, we might call them things like, "enlightened", or others might call them a Buddha, or a Christ, for example.   You're right, they are not done growing, but they are done "learning" in the sense that we learn, for our learning is a re-remembering, and they have remembered everything about the little self and the Total, Whole Self.  

 For them now, they are more enjoying being a fully conscious, Co-Creator with Source, and creating new Universes, systems, worlds and, new dimensions and birthing new Consciousness patterns to experience and enjoy these new dimensions.    So yes, still growth going on.  From that perspective, would you say that Seth was a completed consciousness as per more Monroe's use of the term?

 

Quote:

I don't know if you were referring to me as Aquarian, but if you were, I am Capricorn.  I feel that I am open minded.  Of course everything is filtered in through my believe system, just like everyone else, but I believe that I have a belief system which allows me to assimilate information in a way that doesn't receive much interference from negative emotions and false beliefs.

 Sorry about the mistake, i'm usually really good with stuff like that, and could have sworn that i read sometime that you were born right near the cusp of Aquarius/Capricorn or Capricorn/Aquarius, somewhere around Jan. 19th or 20th--i believe i even wrote you a happy b-day post once?   If that is the case, then as someone who has been into astrology for a long time, and who is good at tuning into others along those lines, i would say that even if you were technically born just barely still in Capricorn, you have very strong and predominant Aquarian energies going on.  (a compliment in my book btw).  

 Btw, i'm a Cappy too, born Jan. 8th.  I've always felt more Aquarian than Capricorn, and this due to both some highlighted Aquarius in my chart, and more so that Aquarius's main ruler, Uranus, is very highlighted in my chart.   Lol maybe i'm projecting onto you, but really it is a compliment for me to say that you are more Aquarian than Capricorn in tendency and feel.  

 And yes, regarding your beliefs and tendencies with same, i do get a sense that  you are fairly clear in that regard, fairly intuitive, and especially so for someone your age.  I wasn't trying to imply that i look down upon you, about the Aquarian thing and all, because i rather like that sign and Consciousness indication, but i've observed both in myself (also its a Capricorn issue too) and in other folks with really strong indications along those lines, sometimes are too head polarized and more stubborn than they first appear (also applies to Capricorn, except that Capricorn doesn't usually come off as open minded and unusual as Aquarius does).
Not that they are unspiritual, unloving people.   They just tend to have to work more at the "heart" and feeling stuff; mentally they are often quite advanced and easily understand and intuitively perceive very abstract and deep info about reality.  And they often tend to care about humanity as a whole in a detached kind of way.  Now add a little Pisces, Neptune, Jupiter, and/or strong Venus to the mix, and on average, you got one spiritualzed, truly and deeply loving chart indications.

Quote:

I am very deep into Seth's concepts and material, but I feel I actively experience and show love quite often, definitely more than many others I observe.  The Seth material has not hindered my spiritual growth in any way, but has expanded it.

 That's good to hear.  From what you've been telling me, and from my experience, if it were me, i would stick more with the latter stuff because it is more PUL centered.  

 The fact that i'm debating this stuff with you to begin with, shows that there is plenty of work that i need to continue doing with self, and thus i'm probably not the best one to transform anyones beliefs if there were a need for that to begin with.  

 That's usually best done by example, rather than debate, logical analysis, or overly generalizing a person, a source, and those into same that i don't know that well.   Please  forgive my ignorance in this case.  
So, i'm done with debating this subject, but will definitely read any replies from you re: it.   Guidance mutters, "geesh, about time."    Like i said, i have a stubborn side as indicated by the strong Capricorn and Aquarian (and like) energies in my own chart.  I may want to talk to you more about some of your questions re: Yeshua and his life pattern/example, but if i do i will take it over to my "resurrection" thread in the off topic section.  

 Btw, like you, i also don't have much belief system baggage, and am fairly clear and intuitive in that respect, so where does that leave us? :D ;D  Stalemated, because we both believe that we have the more accurate, clear, and expanded viewpoint, or at least it seems that way.  

I read a channeled source which said that Seth was just making a joke when he said the below, because nobody loved others during his time period. Much of Seth's humor was lost.

Dude, you can interpret Seth's words any way you like,  but he did indeed state that Jesus was just making a joke when he said to love your neighbor as yourself.


[quote author=OutOfBodyDude link=1228834578/75#81 date=1229594360]Justin


He also speaks of love, how it is of upmost importance to love not only our fellow humans, but all of nature.

 Hi O.O.B.D, i left a reply to your question and reply to my earlier post re: resurrection/Yeshua, over at my Resurrection thread in the off topic section.  

Hope to see you there.  Very little about Seth and nothing about Roberts is in there though.

Justin

I suppose your right, we are here trying to show we have a more accurate perspective regarding this subject.  Its funny though, debates tend to strengthen one's belief about the topic rather than change one's mind.  

Recoverer

That is simply rediculous.  I posted the quote.  He said Jesus' statement was IRONIC because at the time people didn't trust each other.  Then he stated Jesus had humor.  He did not say Jesus was joking.  He said that Jesus had humor.  There is HUMOR in IRONY, and this is why he said that.  Simple concept.  What Seth said does not negate the importance of Jesus' quote in any way, it only states a fact about the circumstances of the time.  You, my friend, are the one interpreting Seth's words in a skewed fashion.  

To those debating the entity Seth

Part 5
SETH ON THE INNER SENSES
The comments in brackets and higher case are mine and are my own opinion


The Inner Senses expand normal consciousness and allow us to become aware of our own multidimensional existence.  (HOW?)


Undistorted and yours for the asking, is the knowledge inherent in the inner self, pertaining to reality as a whole, its laws, principles and composition.  (MAKES NO SENSE EXPLAIN PLEASE?)

In the inner self you will find the innate knowledge concerning the creation of the camouflage universe as you know it. You will find the ways and means by which the inner self, existing in the climate of psychological reality, helps create the various planes of existence, constructs outer senses to project and perceive these, and the ways by which reincarnations take place within various systems. Here, also, you will find your own answers as to how the inner self transforms energy for it purpose, changes its form, and adopts other realities, and the mechanics involved.  (A CONVOLUTED MISHMASH OF VERBAL NONSENSE)

These will enable you to perceive reality as it exists independent of the physical world. You must learn to recognize, develop, and use them. The methods are given in the material, but you cannot utilize the material until you understand it.  (AS AN ENGINEER I CAN HANDLE AND UNDERSTAND THE MATERIAL BETTER THAN GHOSTLY SETH, I HAVE UTILIZED THE MATERIAL ALL MY WORKING LIFE, OH AND I CAN PERCEIVE REALITY WITHOUT HELP FROM THIS ENTITY)

You must, first of all, cease identifying yourself completely with your ego, and realize that you can perceive more than your ego perceives. You must demand more of yourself than you ever have before. The material is not for those who would deceive themselves with packaged, ribboned truths that are parceled out and cut apart so you can digest them. The material demands that you intellectually and intuitively expand.  (PACKAGED RIBBONED TRUTHS WHAT THE HECK IS THAT?? )

Consciousness can be turned in many directions, but you are in the habit of directing it along one certain path, and you have forgotten that there are other paths.  (HOW CAN THIS ENTITY STATE THAT  I  OR ANYONE HAS FORGOTTEN THAT THERE ARE MANY PATHS OF CONSCIOUSNESS, I KNOW THIS WITHOUT THE HELP OF SETH)

If you consider the conscious mind that you usually use as one door, then you stand at the threshold of this mind and look out into physical reality. But there are other doors... It is true that when you close one door there may be a moment of distortion before you open another, and you may need to learn the methods by which you can perceive other realities, other conscious portions of yourself. But these portions are as valid and as real as the consciousness with which you are ordinarily familiar. (WHERE ARE THESE DOORS I CALL THEM PORTALS))

There is only one way to learn what consciousness is: by studying and exploring your own awareness, by changing the focus of your attention and using your own consciousness in as many ways as possible. (I HAVE DONE THIS ALL MY LIFE WITHOUT HAVING TO CONSULT SETH)

When you look into yourself, the very effort involved extends the limitations of your consciousness, expands it, and allows the egotistical self to use its abilities that it often does not realize it possesses. (CONVOLUTED NONSENSE WHAT THE HECK DOES THIS MEAN?)

The Inner Senses reveal to us our own independence from physical matter, and let us recognize our unique, individual multidimensional identity. (WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, SETH EXPERTS EXPLAIN PLEASE?)

Properly utilized, they also show us the miracle of physical existence and our place in it. We can live a wiser, more productive, happier physical life because we understand why we are here, individually and as a people.  (WE ARE MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD AND HIS SPIRITUAL LIKE THIS , THIS CONCEPT IS AS OLD AS HUMAN HISTORY)

The Inner Senses can help us to use telepathic abilities. This means that in family, business, or social contacts, we will intuitively be aware of what another person is saying to us: we will know what is beneath their words. You will also use words better yourself to communicate your inner feelings since you will better know what those feelings are. You will not be afraid of them or feel the need to cover them up.  (EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT INTUITION SETH THIS IS NO NEW TRUTH)

Using the Inner Senses, we simply increase our entire range of
perception. The point of learning how to use the Inner Senses is that you will learn what reality is... This self-investigation initiates states of consciousness with which you are not usually familiar, and these senses can be used as investigative tools. ( INNER SENSES WHAT THAT IS? EXPLAIN)

Books cannot tell you this. Even if you use psychoanalysis, you are still only exploring the topmost levels of your personality, and you do not have the benefit of those altered states of consciousness that occur when you look into yourself. (I HAVE EXPERIENCED PROFOUND STATES OF ALTERED CONSCIOUSNESS WITHOUT THE HELP OF DEAR OLD SETH)




You are not the creators of the universe, but are the creators of the physical world as you know it..  (OH NO UNTRUE GOD IS THE CREATOR OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD)

YOU create your own reality (tell this to the victims of the holocaust or those dying of hunger and disease)

Thought is energy. (RUBBISH)

When you are in a state that is not the usual waking one (asleep or "daydreaming") you are conscious and alert. You merely block out the memory of this experience from the waking ego. (SO WHEN I AM SLEEPING I AM AWAKE A REAL OXYMORON NONSENSE BE REAL)

Electromagnetic energy units are the forms that basic experience takes when directed by the inner self. These then form physical matter and objects. (RUBBISH THIS IS A STATEMENT BY SOMEONE WHO KNOWS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT PHYSICS, ELECTROMAGNETISM DOES NOT HAVE UNITS IT IS EITHER A WAVE OR A PARTICLE OR BOTH AND CHANGES FORM WHEN OBSERVED AND DEFIES HUMAN LOGIC)

When a person dies (having chosen their own death, although not "consciously"), you must tell the person that they are free to leave, and that you joyfully give them their freedom. Let them know that they need not stay close, because you realize that you will be reunited.  (NO ONE CHOOSES THEIR OWN DEATH UNLESS ONE COMMITS SUICIDE?)

Your expectations send telepathic suggestions. (HOW WHERE INTO THE VOID WHERE?)

The conscious ego rises out of the "unconscious" ego, but the "unconscious" being the creator of the ego is necessarily far more conscious than its offspring.(AGAIN A CONVOLUTED MISHMASH OF ABJECT NONSENSE)

Energy projected into any kind of construction, psychic or physical, cannot be recalled, and must follow the laws of the particular form into which it has been molded. (WHAT???)) EXPLAIN)
Dreams can give clues to all kinds of behavior.

When you dream of others, they know it. When they dream of you know it. There would be nothing gained, however in conscious awareness of these conditions, at this time.  (THIS IS JUST NOT TRUE I HAVE DREAMED COUNTLESS TIMES ABOUT A PERSON WHO DID NOT KNOW IT)

The self has no boundaries except those it accepts out of ignorance.  (SO THE SELF OF HITLER EMBRACES ALL EXISTENCE, I DON’T SWALLOW THIS NONSENSE)

Later, in your time, you will look into the physical system at others in a position like yours now.
Within your physical atoms the origins of all consciousness still sing. (CONSCIOUS DOES NOT RESIDE IN ATOMS , IT IS SPIRITUAL AND ETERNAL , ALL ATOMS GO INTO ATOMIC DECAY AND ALL VANISH OVER TIME )

Your idea of space and time is determined by your neurological structure. The camouflage is so craftily executed and created by the inner self that you must, by necessity, focus your attention on the physical reality which has been created. (HUH!!)

The single line of physical experience is merely the surface thread along which you seem to travel. In actuality, following this analogy, there would be an infinite number of threads both above and below your own, all part of one inconceivably miraculous webwork.

The purpose of existence is, quite simply, being as opposed to nonbeing. (VERY PROFOUND SO SETH KNOWS SOMETHING EVEN ALMIGHTY GOD WILL NOT TELL US)

I am telling you what I know, and there is much I do not know. (SO I CAN TAKE WHAT I PRECEIVE IS TRUTH AND DISMISS HIS NONSENSE, LKE I AM NOW DOING)

“A quote of mine Alan one must know what they do not know”

I know that help must be given one to the other, and those extensions and expansions are aids to being. (JESUS PUT IT MUCH MUCH BETTER “DO TO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO TO YOU”

Each self, as part of All That Is, retains the memory of the state of agony before their release into actuality, and so each consciousness is driven toward survival, change, development and creativity.
There are answers to some questions that I cannot give you about the origin of All That Is, for they are not known anywhere in the system in which we have our existence.
(AH!! SO DEAR OLD SETH AKA MRS. ROBERTS ADMITS SHE DOES NOT KNOW EVERYTHING. THE ALL THAT IS GOD THE LORD OF EXISTENCE INFINITE)

("CANT YOU SEE SETH IS MRS ROBETS A FAIRLY INTERLLECTUAL WOMAN BUT ALL HER SO CALLED SETH KNOWLEDGE IS BASED ON THE TIME OF HER LIVING AS ONE CAN SEE BY THE OUT OF DATE POOR KNOWLEDGE OF PHYSICS"[color=#000000])

I again put out a challenge give me one quote one idea that is unique by this entity and I will become a follower

Alan[/color]

Alan:

I agree with you for several reasons:

1. Some of the erroneous things Seth supposedly said are ridiculous. Jesus wasn't crucified with an explanation that "can" be debunked if a person takes the time to do so. In the books I have three of Jesus' most famous verses were spoken of, and in each case they were completely misinterpreted.  If ordinary people have the sense to interpret Jesus' verses in a reasonable manner, why was it so difficult for a supposed higher level spirit being to do the same? If a spirit can be so wrong when it comes to these misinterpretations, how trustworthy is this being? My feeling is that the same dishonesty that enabled Jane to be a hoax channeler, is the same kind of dishonesty that enabled her to purposely twist Jesus' words.

2. Jane Roberts wrote things that don't relate to Jesus that are also very questionable. For example, the world is created when energy oozes out through the poors of our skin. Love and hate are the same thing. It is okay when you get angry with one of your loved ones and fantasize about killing he or she. Seth (Jane) claimed to be a pope in a past life, it was found that this pope didn't exist, and to defend his-herself, he-she claimed that historical records are inaccurate.

3. Jane started out as a science fiction writer, that didn't work. She tried to be an ESP teacher, that didn't work. She pretended to be a channeler, and wah lah.

4. Would a higher level being actually be channeled for 20 years or so?

5.  Not only did she supposedly channel Seth, she also supposedly channeled Rembrandt, Paul Cezzane and William James.

6. The fact of how she was a science fiction writer and wrote the oversoul adventure books without the help of Seth, shows that she had enough imagination to pretend that she was channeling an entity.

7. Much of what she said wasn't original.

8. Her/Seth's dialogues tend to ramble and are repetitive. Would a light being ramble and be repetitive?

9. I read an article where a man who worked for her publisher said it was well known that Jane Roberts made up Seth. He said that her husband would speak to people before supposed channeling sessions, and pass on this information to Jane. This source seemed credible.

10. Another source said that Jane Robert's admitted on her death bed that she made up Seth. I don't know how credible this source is.

11. Does it make sense that a person would make contact with a higher level spirit being through an Ouija board? Plus, Seth was supposed to be a part of her greater self.

12. She died of an autoimmune disease. Why wasn't Seth able to apply healing energy?

13. I watched a video of Jane when she was supposedly channeling Seth, and Suddenly she stopped speaking in his voice in order to say: "We'll take a break in a moment." It seemed rather curious that she could break out of Seth's voice so easily.

14. That routine of throwing her glasses on the couch, drinking wine and I believe smoking a cigarette seems a bit much. It seems put on.





Alan McDougall wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 1:02am:

Dear ALL, I did not mean Jane was channeling Jesus but that she was getting comments about Jesus that I do not agree with, "In my opinion", Seth is an invention of her colorful imagination, and your doctor Phil could give just as profound without going into a glassy eyed trance "In my opinion" Alan

Dude:

I read the related passages very clearly and Jane Roberts Seth did in fact state that Jesus was just making a joke when he said to love your neighbor as yourself. I don't have the book in front of me; however, I remember that Seth said "much of Jesus' humor was lost" rather than "Jesus had humor." Why would Seth say this, if he wasn't implying that Jesus was just making a joke when he said to love your neighbor as yourself?  The comment about Jesus having a sense of humor was made at the same time Seth commented about Jesus' love your neighbor as yourself verse. Why would Seth talk about Jesus' love your neighbor verse and Jesus having a sense of humor at the same time, if he wasn't trying to make a connection? If Seth had something else in mind when he commented about Jesus' love your neighbor verse, why didn't he say something else?

Regarding Jesus' statement being an "ironic statement" what does this mean to you? Was Jane Roberts Seth claiming that Jesus' statement was ironic without saying anything about Jesus' intent, or was he saying that it was Jesus' intention to be ironic? How would Seth know about such intent, if he couldn't even get it clear about the crucifixion? I already provided the verses which surround Jesus' "love your neighbor as yourself" verses, and they clearly show that Jesus wasn't being ironic.

I believe you aren't able to see this matter clearly, because you are too strongly in the defend Seth mode. How are you going to be able to honestly question Jane Roberts Seth, if you are in the defense mode?




I Am Dude wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 2:11pm:

Justin I suppose your right, we are here trying to show we have a more accurate perspective regarding this subject.  Its funny though, debates tend to strengthen one's belief about the topic rather than change one's mind.   Recoverer That is simply rediculous.  I posted the quote.  He said Jesus' statement was IRONIC because at the time people didn't trust each other.  Then he stated Jesus had humor.  He did not say Jesus was joking.  He said that Jesus had humor.  There is HUMOR in IRONY, and this is why he said that.  Simple concept.  What Seth said does not negate the importance of Jesus' quote in any way, it only states a fact about the circumstances of the time.  You, my friend, are the one interpreting Seth's words in a skewed fashion.

Regarding Seth teaching useful technigues, anybody can learn about techniques and teach them to other people. You don't have to be a master to do so.

One thing that comes to mind when considering Seth, Elias, or the "Jesus" of ACIM is that offhand I can't think of anything these highly evolved entities said about how to live our lives.

Yes, there are tons of esoteric material about creating our own reality, but where do these entities tell us the best way to live and to treat others?

Seems to me that everything can be wrapped up by following the Golden Rule.

If we do that, or at least if we give it our best shot, seems to me that's enough.  Most of the rest of it is just background noise.

R

Recoverer

It seems to me you are too strongly in the defend Jesus mode, and you are the one who cannot see this clearly.  You are right, he says much of Jesus' humor was lost, in other words Jesus had humor, but it was lost.  Not much difference there.  If you find me where it says Jesus was making a joke, then I will surrender and admit that you are right.  The fact of the matter is, Seth stated that it was an ironic statement.  He stated nothing of Jesus' intentions.  An ironic statement is an ironic statement, end of story.  Irony is humorous.  I believe you looked into this too far, missing the obvious point.  

The reality is I received something positive from it, whereas you received something negative from it.  Now, what do false beliefs generate... positivity, or negativity?  

Rondele

I am very well read on the Seth material, and I can say without a doubt that he speaks a lot on how we should live our lives.  He clearly states the best way to live and to treat others, many times at that.  Its all in his books, feel free to open one and find out for yourself.  

Here is the statement again. It is incredibly hard to believe that the last sentence isn't a commentary on the first sentence.

From. page 414 of The Nature of Personal Reality

"The very term, "Love your neighbor as yourself", was an ironic statement, for in that society no man loved his neighbor, but distrusted him heartily.  Much of Christ's humor has been lost, therefore."

How about?  "2 + 2 = , five is the number we're looking for." and then the book moves on to another paragraph.

Is it fair to say that somebody doesn't know how to add?

More than that, Seth also tells us how we create our personal reality by our thoughts and emotions we hold to.

this info is in much spiritual literature, the same. after awhile you find the common basic running through all self help and spiritual books, and how we treat others is how they will treat us is nothing other than the golden rule and Monroe's "basic."  to each his chosen path however, there is no bad or good path, it all works towards the good. eventually.

Hi Can any of you explain to me who seth is or jane as i have never heard of them,so im not able to say what i think about them.

Love and God bless    love juditha

I've already written about two of Jesus' verses that Jane Roberts Seth misinterpreted.  She/he also contradicted Jesus' blessed are the meek statement, by claiming that Jesus was simply telling his followers to lay low, because in the end they will be victorious and have control of the land. If you read the part of the sermon of the mount where this verse can be found, I believe it is obvious that Jesus had much more in mind than a political strategy. A statement about being humble was made. I believe there is cause for alarm when a source purposely degrades spiritual teachings.

From the Gospel of Matthew:

The Beatitudes

1And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. 2Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:


3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
   For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
   For they shall be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
   For they shall inherit the earth. (Is this about a defensive strategy, or about being humble?)

6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
   For they shall be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
   For they shall obtain mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
   For they shall see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
   For they shall be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake,
   For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Alysia:

Often "eventually" happens, because people get around to questioning the false sources they rely on. If they don't get around to questioning, eventually won't happen.


LaffingRain wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 3:51pm:

there is no bad or good path, it all works towards the good. eventually.

Hi I dont know who this Jane Seth Roberts is but seems to me that she dont know anymore than i our anyone else does, as like me and all the rest she was not there with Jesus when he was preaching on the mount,but i will say this that i dont think for one minute Jesus meant by his words what she says he meant, because i think myself that Jesus meant when he said the words"Blessed are the meek,for they shall inherit the earth"that if we all were more like children,then the world would be a better place to be in, as children are free of sin,i maybe wrong here but thats how i see it.

love and God bless love juditha

Anyone read Farenheit 451, or seen the movie? It's kind of an oldie but goodie. It is about a time in the 'future' when authorities burn books because they make people unhappy. Most likely, in this future scenario (hey, maybe it's an alternate timeline in a parallel universe!), they also include phrases like "books confuse people and make them ill at ease" and other such "healthy advice" which might be thought to make society safer and happier.

Really, you should check this story out.

There are a few people who stand up against this tyranny and they refuse to hand over their books. One woman even stands on the burning pyre and dies in it, because she loves her books so much.

Others try something different. They create a separate, hidden society. Each person memorizes a book -- the idea is, each person IS a particular book. Each person becomes a walking, talking book, which will be passed down, so it won't be destroyed.

Why?

Why would someone memorize an entire book so they could become the book?

Because books are important. Because diversity of thought is important. Because you cannot hold a man or woman's intellect hostage.

People will find a way, even if they have to memorize entire books.

But, not everyone will do this. Some folks will love the new televisions which feel like a 3-D world, and the little 'plays' which they can participate in, right in front of the whole world. They are scripted, but it's still going to be fun for lots of people. They won't even miss the books....

According to the story....

Funny thing is, in this story, Farenheit 451, the folks who were actually preserving the literature weren't arguing over which books people were choosing. Not in the secret society. They were peaceful. They were walking around, reciting, memorizing, sharing.

It was too important a mission to do anything else. The books were disappearing too fast to waste any time. Even the next generation, represented by a small boy, was learning and memorizing a story, hearing it from the lips of a dying, elderly man.

These people were creating their own reality.

I think it's beautiful.

love, blink

 Blink, rather i would say that there is a very important difference between speaking out against a perspective, a belief system, a book, and speaking out against the person themselves.  People are not ultimately and essentially their beliefs and perspectives.

Or more simply put, not all beliefs are sacred, BUT all people are sacred.  If people weren't overly attached to their beliefs to begin with, they would have no problem with people trying to point to a different perspective, or to even say that there are inaccuracies and falsities in their beliefs.
There are people who hold beliefs like Satanism, wherein they believe it is right to consciously and deliberately hurt others for their own self gain, and/or for pleasure.  Are those beliefs sacred, just because a sacred Being happens to hold them temporarily?

   Is it wrong then, to try to change or speak out against their beliefs?   No, not forbid or repress them forcefully, but to disagree with them with the hopes that they will eventually change to more constructively facilitating beliefs?  

In so many cases when it comes to spiritual or belief system oriented books, the books and the contents within are what hold people hostage because they let themselves get stuck in those limiting beliefs.  If they weren't exposed to those limiting beliefs to begin with, there would be less opportunity to get stuck.  I've seen it time and time again, and i've seen guidance trying hard to get through to people in these situations and try to transform their beliefs to more helpful and accurate ones, but so oft real and expanded guidance gets ignored.    Hence the mess of this world and of humanity in general.

 It is better ultimately, to burn all (of ones own) books and just go within for truth, than for humanity to endlessly get caught up in illusion upon multi-layered illusion.  

  Not that i would ever do or be party to that, i was speaking more in parable, kind of the "if thine own eye offend thee, then it is better to pluck it out..."

 Right now with your post that i'm addressing, whether you own up to it or not, you are trying in some way or another to change another's belief and perspective.  My guess and hunch is that your intentions are positive, and that you see your way as the more helpful and positive.  

 Otherwise, you would just not speak out. And how is your attempt to change another beliefs, any better or more noble, than say my or Alberts attempts to change anothers beliefs about Seth, which we consider slandering the most intune public spiritual teacher and example so far?

 Maybe it is rather more the intentions that matter, and living according to, "Do unto others, as you would have done unto you."

 Speaking for myself, i am following that, for i have no problem whatsoever with anyone disagreeing with, criticizing, or trying to change my beliefs and perspectives.   If it was something that really bothered me personally, i would not "do" it to others.    I believe it is ok for people to disagree with anothers beliefs, as long as they try not to put down the person who holds that belief (btw, i'm not saying that i'm completely free of that myself--i saw myself do that, and that's why i stopped talking about Seth and Jane Roberts).

Recoverer,

Your response is comprehensive and  debunked this silly nonsensical non existence being Seth AKA Jane Roberts completely, thank you very much for that

If Seth were truly some advanced entity then one would have expected some practical advice to help humanity in a practical way.

[color=#ff0000]In physics, science and medicine "OR WARN HUMANITY OF THE COMING WORLD WAR AND THE ATOMIC BOMB"


Quote:

9. I read an article where a man who worked for her publisher said it was well known that Jane Roberts made up Seth. He said that her husband would speak to people before supposed channeling sessions, and pass on this information to Jane. This source seemed credible. 10. Another source said that Jane Robert's admitted on her death bed that she made up Seth. I don't know how credible this source is

.

As for me my,

GOD IS MY GURY

If they want to use Mrs. Roberts as a source of inspiration they must go ahead and wallow in this mud of abject nonsense

BUT AGAIN I STATE GOD IS MY GURU

Alan[/color]

Quote:

If Seth were truly some advanced entity then one would have expected some practical advice to help humanity in a practical way.

If you were educated on the subject you would know that Seth gives a great deal of practical advice throughout his series of books.  This debate is obviously pointless and is a waste of useful energy.  This will be my last post on this thread.  Sorry Recoverer, I wanted to get back to you but I'm not even going to waste my time.  I agree with Justin, it is silly to get caught up in these types of debates.  Adios, see you in my journals.

OOBD


Quote:

If you were educated on the subject you would know that Seth gives a great deal of practical advice throughout his series of books

Then list a few and respond to my list is a former post?

Seth did not write any books!!

Alan

As a general hypothesis, I think those folks who have experienced a genuine transformational experience would also be the least likely to embrace channeled entities, such as Seth.

If that is correct, it might explain why both Alan and Albert reject the Seth material.

On the other hand, people who are attracted to new age literature probably find Seth to be intriguing and credible.

After all, they have had no personal revelations of their own that would refute what these "highly evolved entities" espouse.

Just a theory.

R

Yes, Rondele, it is a theory. However, I would suggest that making assumptions about who has and has not had a 'transformational' experience is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

love, blink

[edit]Rondele,

As a general hypothesis, I think those folks who have experienced a genuine transformational experience would also be the least likely to embrace channeled entities, such as Seth.

If that is correct, it might explain why both Alan and Albert reject the Seth material.

On the other hand, people who are attracted to new age literature probably find Seth to be intriguing and credible.

After all, they have had no personal revelations of their own that would refute what these "highly evolved entities" espouse.

Just a theory[/edit]

Rondele a good theory more than a theory and your common sense approach has made me rethink a little

Rondele while I agree that the Seth type phenomenon is intriguing, one must not just swallow anything but investigate the statements from these entities in the light of common sense, logic and truth

To base your life on a supposed being like Seth  could lead to all sorts of troubles

But if one is careful and thoroughly researched the source and it accords with ones own truth then embrace it,

Regards

Alan

 I'm a bit conflicted when it comes to the issue of debate and disagreement with others regarding beliefs and belief systems.  

 On one hand, i've observed both in my own interactions, and observing others, that it rarely changes anything.  In the end, most people are not nearly as consistently open minded as they would like to believe about themselves or would like others believe about them.  
 In many cases, debate and disagreement can put others on the defensive, and when people start getting emotional about it, it can make the opposite happen.  Pretty much anyone who has ever been in a deep, long term committed relationship knows that one. ;)

 Other the other hand, i've both experienced, and have seen with others, that occasionally when someone disagrees with self (or self's beliefs) in a balanced, respectful, holistically logical, and with positive intentions kind of way, that if indeed that person does have the more broadly accurate and/or constructive viewpoint (from say a nonphysical guide viewpoint), well sometimes it does help one to view things in a different light.   Sometimes it's much later on down the road, rather than immediately.  But nonetheless a seed was planted.

 Also, my teacher occasionally debated with others.  Why would he, if it never had any merit, or potential constructiveness?  He was not one who liked to hear himself talk, so perhaps there are times and occasions for disagreement and debate.  In his case, it seems he didn't debate with others on a personal level, but rather always publicly...  
Maybe then his debating wasn't always so much for the person who was likewise debating him, but for others watching and listening?  Maybe those not directly and actively caught up in the "drama" of it, were more open to actually really listening to, and getting the truth of he was trying to say?

 Maybe the key is going within, and listening to the still small voice, and knowing when to disagree and speak out, or when to just keep ones opinions to oneself?

 Boy, i wish i could master that one!

 I find it very humorous (and immensely ironic), that people pay to read other people's opinions, and when they actually pay for it with money, they tend to be more open to those opinions.   Whereas, when people come on sites like this, and listen to given opinions/views/perspectives/logic that doesn't cost any money and that may be just as wise/expanded or even more so than what's found in books...well people tend to ignore or not really listen so much in these cases.  

 Maybe we all should put our opinions in books, and that way we'll all be heard more? :D

 We're a funny bunch, we humans.  I wonder why we choose for so long, to remain so..well "human" when that entails a lot of suffering?  Why do we cling so much to this human experience?

Regarding Blink's last post, I really doubt that beings who represent the light want us to sit on our hands and do NOTHING when it comes to speaking against fraudulent and misleading sources of information. An indifferent approach is what takes place when people buy into the nothing you see is real and moral relativism approach.

Do light beings ever get mad? I believe they have the right to get mad. Say a father decided to molest his young daughter. Would a being such as Jesus say, "What the heck, nothing I see is real," or would he get upset?  I don't know, but I figure he'd get upset.

Justin:

Boy, has the below occurred to me.

[quote author=AhSoLaoTsuAhhOmmra link=1228834578/105#109 date=1229710850]
 I find it very humorous (and immensely ironic), that people pay to read other people's opinions, and when they actually pay for it with money, they tend to be more open to those opinions.   Whereas, when people come on sites like this, and listen to given opinions/views/perspectives/logic that doesn't cost any money and that may be just as wise/expanded or even more so than what's found in books...well people tend to ignore or not really listen so much in these cases.  

 Maybe we all should put our opinions in books, and that way we'll all be heard more? :D

 Hi Albert, along those lines, an outer source i like, sometimes said something like, 'Be angry, but sin (err) not."  Meaning, its alright to get upset about something, but don't mistreat another (or self) because of it.

  This same source also talked about how those who have little or no passion or fire within them, don't tend to be very effective in the world (or with self change), but also cautioned that he or she who cannot control one's temper or upsetness (and who easily lashes out), is in a far sorrier state.  

 Again, like most things, its an issue of balance it seems.

 With the situation here, a minority see a certain author slandering the very meaning, life and teachings of a great spiritual teacher and that somewhat upsets the minority.  The majority doesn't see that, and says "what's the big deal, she (and/or he) just has a different viewpoint."  

 My hunch is that if they really knew the deeper meaning(s) behind this persons life, example, and teachings, they might not be so blase about such slandering, though they might not necessarily actively disagree and debate with people promoting such sources.   I have a feeling that there is a very intune person here at this site who quite disagrees with Seth re: Yeshua, but who doesn't speak up because they don't think it will change anything and that people have to come to their own truths via direct experience and perception.  

 Maybe the latter approach is on average the more wise one, often, but at the same time, i believe there are times and situations wherein it can be helpful to disagree and/or debate, otherwise why did Yeshua partake in that?  He certainly was much more intune that the above intune person i referenced and was thinking of.  

recoverer wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 2:26pm:

Justin: Boy, has the below occurred to me. [quote author=AhSoLaoTsuAhhOmmra link=1228834578/105#109 date=1229710850]  I find it very humorous (and immensely ironic), that people pay to read other people's opinions, and when they actually pay for it with money, they tend to be more open to those opinions.   Whereas, when people come on sites like this, and listen to given opinions/views/perspectives/logic that doesn't cost any money and that may be just as wise/expanded or even more so than what's found in books...well people tend to ignore or not really listen so much in these cases.    Maybe we all should put our opinions in books, and that way we'll all be heard more? :D

 All righty, agreed then, you sign my book and i will sign yours! :D ;D

 Actually, the only signatures we need, are the approval of the White Llight Bro-merged with-Sis'hood.   Something tells me that we would get those if we kept our books less against, and more for in nature.

rondele wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 9:18am:

As a general hypothesis, I think those folks who have experienced a genuine transformational experience would also be the least likely to embrace channeled entities, such as Seth. If that is correct, it might explain why both Alan and Albert reject the Seth material. On the other hand, people who are attracted to new age literature probably find Seth to be intriguing and credible. After all, they have had no personal revelations of their own that would refute what these "highly evolved entities" espouse. Just a theory. R

 I wouldn't say, and don't get the feeling that generally people here lack transformational experiences.  I get the sense that most people here are truly spiritual in nature, but that perhaps some are still too over attached to outer sources and don't go within enough for truth (and don't check enough, the outer sources they like against the inner guidance).

 It seems that perhaps some people are more consistently, consiciously, and accurately intune with their own guidance energies.  
With that said, sometimes guidance leads us to outer, material sources such as a book (yes, even psychic or channeled ones) for the meantime, until we open up more directly to same...

 It's far from being a black and white issue.

wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 2:47pm:

rondele wrote on Dec 19th, 2008 at 9:18am: As a general hypothesis, I think those folks who have experienced a genuine transformational experience would also be the least likely to embrace channeled entities, such as Seth. If that is correct, it might explain why both Alan and Albert reject the Seth material. On the other hand, people who are attracted to new age literature probably find Seth to be intriguing and credible. After all, they have had no personal revelations of their own that would refute what these "highly evolved entities" espouse. Just a theory. R  I wouldn't say, and don't get the feeling that generally people here lack transformational experiences.  I get the sense that most people here are truly spiritual in nature, but that perhaps some are still too over attached to outer sources and don't go within enough for truth (and don't check enough, the outer sources they like against the inner guidance).  It seems that perhaps some people are more consistently, consiciously, and accurately intune with their own guidance energies.   With that said, sometimes guidance leads us to outer, material sources such as a book (yes, even psychic or channeled ones) for the meantime, until we open up more directly to same...  It's far from being a black and white issue.

 And along that line, perhaps because very expanded, accurate, and very PUL centered books are kind of rare in this world (like i sense Bruce's work or McKnights work to be like), perhaps sometimes guidance does lead one to a book or teacher which they know does contain skewing, mis info, etc., but because say the deeper or general message at the time, is a good one for them to come across and tune into?  

   When i first read Monroe's 1st book, i didn't really like or vibe with it that much.  To me, a lot of his assumptions felt off, and i sensed a lot of fear and lack of heart openness in him.  

 Yet, for whatever reason i did persist with his books later on down the line, and enjoyed and resonated a lot more with the 2nd and especially his 3rd book.   And so while the 1st contained a lot of spiritual inaccuracies, i'm still glad i came upon it and him, for the help of the latter books.  

 Maybe it is somewhat similar in Jane Roberts and Seths case?   I still get the sense that she was more so channeling her own unconscious stuff, but by people's accounts who have read many of books, it seems she began to grow spiritually, and her latter work represented that.  

 Now, if her earlier work hadn't spoke out against one of 3 of my Father's (Source being the 1st, and my bio Dads another, and Christ/Yeshua's Disc being the 2nd and one i'm referencing too), well i would have never spoken out against Jane Roberts or Seth, despite that otherwise i sense and perceive skewing, inaccuracies, lack of PUL of in same (in the earlier works that i've perused).   It was the extremity of it, which prompted my speaking against.  

<<Say a father decided to molest his young daughter. Would a being such as Jesus say, "What the heck, nothing I see is real," or would he get upset?  I don't know, but I figure he'd get upset.>>

Albert-

Well, from what I gather from ACIM, Jesus would comfort the young daughter by assuring her that nothing she sees or experiences is real, and that her father's act of molesting her was just an illusion.

Sin simply doesn't exist, per ACIM.  And because it doesn't exist, any guilt that a person feels after committing a sin is likewise just an illusion.

In fact, Jesus could also comfort the father, by telling him he really didn't do what he thought he did to his daughter and therefore he shouldn't have any regrets.

Welcome to la-la land. 

R

All that I state  below is my opinion and you can toss it into the garbage bin if you like

I have just listened to Jane Roberts supposedly channeling Seth,

It is sickening nonsense and Seth can not even articulate, because dear Jane must be given a chance to blabber her nonsense. Her way of moving her head and grimacing  and speaking out of the side of her mouth is awful , even frightening. But if one looks at it in a cold clinical way it is really funny.

You know what?? if i knew that money and fame could have been made this way i might have set myself up as say Alan , channeling the Arch Angel Micheal.

But I hesitate Jesus said no liar with enter the kingdom of heaven , so i will believe him, rather than Seth AKA Jane Roberts

I can really do this type of thing, those on the forum who know me long enough know i have put my head on the block and demonstrated my real psychic ability


Why not me? there are people who go now into glassy trances and channel Almighty God. Where will this nonsense lead us into before it becomes dangerous

If you really believe Seth is a highly evolved being, why not use a much better source of knowledge Neal Donald Walsch channels no less that the Lord God himself , so why use Seth? It makes no sense God must be a much better source of truth?

Just do a web search Neal is all over the net, has written a whole lot of books, given talks all over the world and is much known that the Jane Roberts AKA Seth He has made an enormous amount of money being a close buddy of God


There are two types of unborn beings, the Angels of God and demons , this ugly one possessing Jane might be a real one, a highly intelligent demon, a messenger from the great deceiver himself

Alan

Rondelle:

Ultimately, I believe that everything works out, but one shouldn't put the cart before the horse because people do indeed suffer while they are here in this World and often afterwards for however long. If you experience something, then regardless of how temporary and relative this something is, this is what reality is.

When people have life reviews during near death experiences, they are shown in great detail how they effect others. Why is such information revealed, if it doesn't matter what we do?



rondele wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 3:14pm:

<<Say a father decided to molest his young daughter. Would a being such as Jesus say, "What the heck, nothing I see is real," or would he get upset?  I don't know, but I figure he'd get upset.>> Albert- Well, from what I gather from ACIM, Jesus would comfort the young daughter by assuring her that nothing she sees or experiences is real, and that her father's act of molesting her was just an illusion. Sin simply doesn't exist, per ACIM.  And because it doesn't exist, any guilt that a person feels after committing a sin is likewise just an illusion. In fact, Jesus could also comfort the father, by telling him he really didn't do what he thought he did to his daughter and therefore he shouldn't have any regrets. Welcome to la-la land.  R

 Rondele, are you bothered that i and others have so sidetracked your thread?

 If you are bothered by the side tracking, i will go and erase my side tracking posts/replies.

Rondelle started the thread? I forgot about that. What was the original subject?  :) :) :)  Imagine how much creativity would be stiffled if we couldn't get sidetracked.

Justin, if you and I ever ( ;)) met in person, our conversations wouldn't be allowed to get sidetracked.



wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 4:16pm:

Rondele, are you bothered that i and others have so sidetracked your thread?  If you are bothered by the side tracking, i will go and erase my side tracking posts/replies.

Heck no, I'm not bothered!  It turned into a very rich thread with all of its twists and turns.

It's always the detours that take us to the most interesting places.

R

Justin,


Quote:

Rondele, are you bothered that i and others have so sidetracked your thread? If you are bothered by the side tracking, i will go and erase my side tracking posts/replies.

Justin
Please don't do that, your posts and opinions are as valid as any other. A thread belongs to the forum not to the initiator, so we must let it meander, life a river with tributary of new thought entering as it flows

No disrespect Rondele

Regards

ALAN

 Thanks for letting me know that Rondele.  


  Alan, thank you for the sentiment, and while i understand what you are saying, i also think it can be rude sometimes to so side track a thread which is originally about a very different subject to begin with--especially rude to the person who started that thread.  I try to respect the forum rules and intentions lately, but don't always, and this one of those latter cases.  I got too personal in my debate with O.O.B. Dude, and criticized another's belief system.  

 Technically speaking, that's against the rules here.  I think that most people here are aware that my intentions were overall positive though--even if they disagreed with my behavior or my beliefs in this case, and all in all my temporary negativity was rather mild, balanced, and more impersonal than not.  I certainly did use some self restraint at one point.

 I figured it just was the considerate thing to do, to ask the starter of this thread if he was bothered by such side tracking.  I had a hunch he wasn't, but wanted to be sure since i'm not a complete mind/heart reader.    
I've been on and connected to this forum for a long time, though not as long as some.  Sometime during that time, i went through a very challenging and uncentering period for a bit in my "real life" and in my I-net life and relationships, and temporarily got really negative and personal with a few members here...

I took some time off, came back and decided that I owed it to the group in general, to those specific individuals, and to Bruce to be more respectful, considerate, and constructive in the future.   And i do try, but sometimes my Celtic, Fiery Leo Rising and Mars Jupiter conjunction side, gets the best of me.
 I don't believe you were here during my negative outburst period, but suffice it to say, a lot of people here had a lot of patience and real PUL with me, including Bruce who had every right to permanently ban me.   I tell you all this, to show you where i am coming from.   I'm basically a lovign and conscientious person, but i have a responsibility and duty to this forum i feel.

  Albert told me once that he got a guidance message about me, and his guidance said that i'm someone that could really help Bruce with this forum.   I've wondered about that, because sometimes i feel not that helpful, and have wondered maybe the best way i could help is by leaving.   I dunno.  But thank you much for your kind words and sentiments.

Justin


Quote:

Alan, thank you for the sentiment, and while i understand what you are saying, i also think it can be rude sometimes to so side track a thread which is originally about a very different subject to begin with--especially rude to the person who started that thread.  I try to respect the forum rules and intentions lately, but don't always, and this one of those latter cases.  I got too personal in my debate with O.O.B. Dude, and criticized another's belief system.

You are a decent guy a gentleman and I must learn some restraint at times my very volatile nature and up and down moods gets the better of me and for this I apologize deeply to the whole forum

Alan

 Thank you Alan.  

 I for one don't hold any of that against you.  I have a strong hunch that much of some of those issues come more from an imbalanced body/vehicle rather than your consciousness, beingness, intentions, motivations, and tendencies of same.  

 You are a bit of a spiritual "genius", who is close to the borderland ie. "super sensitive", and sometimes when you combine that with an imbalanced and unhealthy body, well volatile, erratic, and unrestrained states can be felt and expressed.    

 The Celtic blood/genetics, does innately tend towards the rather energy sensitive in nature, did you not know?

 If you choose to have another physical life (which you don't have to do), you may find yourself focusing more on maintaining physical health from the start and having the experience of a more healthy and vibrant vehicle for expression, and thus will be able to unleash more of your full potential, in a more balanced manner than currently experienced.  

 I hope you do choose to come back, because this World could surely use such help and energies as i see yours potentially being when in a healthier and more balanced body.  

 Pretty please with sugar and strawberries on top ;)   Do not get down, or overly hard on yourself my friend, it's your deeper spiritual intentions that matter, and not always the temporal reactions that we experience or express in this material life with its MANY influences.  

 I feel that some of this just came through a mix of my Greater Self and the One we both highly respect and love.  He is there for you, and always look to Him for help and guidance.

Justin,


Quote:

Thank you Alan.   I for one don't hold any of that against you.  I have a strong hunch that much of some of those issues come more from an imbalanced body/vehicle rather than your consciousness, beingness, intentions, motivations, and tendencies of same

.  

Yes correct Justin, I have suffered from manic/depression most of my life. It is fairly well controlled but at times manifests in anger based on nothing . Just some form of intrinsic, innate endogenous anger and irritability.

I use the term manic depression as the term bipolar disorder is a watered down word for a horrifying sickness.

Manic depressives are very highly sensitive as you stated and  many great people of enormous influence battled with what is often called "The brilliant Madness"

The world would be a much poorer place, without the contibutions by remarable people

But I am not crazy, I know you were not suggesting that I just included this statement for other members who do not know me well

Regards

Alan

Alan, i bet the planet Uranus, and probably Neptune to some degree as well, is very highlighted in your astro. chart.  

 The physical planets that we see and perceive physically....well are just like Earth in that they have their nonphysical counterpart as different and relative nonphysical dimensions.  
These various and varied dimensions correspond to the very "Afterlife" itself!   (sounded a bit like "V" in V is for Vendetta just then :D.)

  When our Greater self rolls together another physical life for itself, an aspect of the Whole figuratively steps out of same, and enters from a particular nonphysical dimension (there are 8 main ones, and in the 7 of those main 8, there are ever 7 sub dimensions within same) into the 3rd dimension of physical matter and Earth.  

 Uranus then, corresponds to extremes, psychism, the ultra and unusual on many levels but especially mentally, and tying up loose and challenging ends karmically.  It is both a difficult vibratory level, and yet a very catalytic one if used aright will lead to much spiritual growth for the personality who entered in from same.   Personality's strongly indicated by same, tend towards the manic depressive and super sensitive in nature.

 I know it well, as my just "past life" self came into the Earth directly from the nonphysical dimension that physical Uranus and its relative position in our solar system, represents.   And it is a fairly strong, but more background all in all, energy and vibration in my current life and psyche.  
When a Planet is "Rising", or close to the Ascendant/Rising sign degree in a chart, it is then at its MOST amplified, as amplified/indicated as it can get (and otherwise rather strong and conscious when in or close to the other 3 "Angular points" in a chart).

 This then, the law of attracts, begets, and resonates like between both physical and nonphysical sojourns is what creates the so called "influence" of astrology.  Rather it is not an influence, but an "indication", a quantum map of tendencies, Consciousness involved in physicality, and probabilities if you will.  

 We are not the way we are because of the Planets, Stars, and Signs are in this or that position or sign, but rather the Planets, Stars, and Signs are in their specific positions at birth because of how we have lived using our freewill in our other physical lives and where we "end up" because of that in the nonphysical dimensions.  And that we choose to be born at a specific time in which the outer indications match up to the inner consciousness and energies.

 Our chart, is a static, symbolic picture in space/time of our karmic blueprint/map then.   Astrology causes nothing, in and of itself.  

 It is one of the deepest and most multi-layered studies on Earth today, if studied aright and intuitively.  Most do not study it aright, and think that astrology actually somehow "causes" events, character, etc.  They don't understand the Quantum field nature of it all.  And they don't give enough power to Freewill.

 Edgar Cayce's guidance claims that Yeshua himself, studied it himself for a time in his teenage years, because his teacher, the prophetess and leader of the Essene's at the time, wanted him to have a good grasp of prophecy and cycles of unfoldment beyond his  intuition which was quite sharp even when a young teenager.  He studied it when he first went to Persia, which is where some of the "wise men" who came to his birth, came from originally.   They were astrologers and intuitives, and knew his birth had come about via astro. indications and from inner guidance.   Some said they were led by a "Star" to his exact birth place and then led back to their homes by this seemingly moving "Star".  

  My hunch is that this Star, was really an UFO of some very spiritually developed E.T.'s. who wanted to emphasize the special and transformative nature of this birth.   Christ and these are brothers and Co-Workers in helping to unstick a mostly stuck humanity.  

Justin,

Thank you Justin for the astrological explanation of my psyche. I have studied astronomy from the time I was a boy and had a few telescopes over that time.

The last telescope I had was a 12 inch reflector (mirror) Newtonian German Equatorial telescope, a most unuser friendly beast.

I stopped my astronomy a few years ago because of local light pollution.

Our astronomical society had a few astrological guys as well. I know from my science, physics background, that every particle in the entire universe is interconnected with every other particle, both huge and down to the smallest fundamental particle.

So I accept what you state, what I do, where I am in time and space, and the moment of my birth and death have a deep profound effect/affect on myself, other people and the whole universe

This has been validated by quantum mechanics and many of the hard core scientific community are at last looking at the possibility that astrology might be a real science in its own right

Regards

Alan