I don't agree with Kathy's (Lights of Love) contention that light beings wouldn't warn people about misleading influences. If fact, as far as I'm concerned, it makes perfect sense that light beings would warn people of misleading influences.

Below is what ACIM has to say about misleading influences:

"The devil is a frightening concept because he seems to be extremely powerful and extremely active. He is perceived as a force in combat with God, battling Him for possession of his creations. The devil deceives by lies, and builds kingdoms in which everything is in direct opposition to God. Yet he attracts men rather than repels them, and they are willing to sell him their souls in return for gifts on no real worth. This makes absolutely no sense (49-50,2).:

I don't believe in a being referred to as the devil. However, this doesn't mean that unfriendly beings don't exist at all. I figure that if Christ shared enough words so that almost 1,200 pages of text came to be, he would've said more than the above when it comes to unfriendly influences. I figure he would've tried to clear things up. Instead, the above adds to the confusion that exists, because it doesn't address the matter in an accurate manner.  For the most part, people don't get involved with unfriendly influences for the reason ACIM suggests. They usually do so because they live their life in a negative way, and this causes them to make energetic connections to unfriendly influences. ACIM could lead a person to believe that there aren't any unfriendly influences people need to concerned about, including the course.

One of the main things the course does is try to get people to believe that they don't have to worry about guilt, sin and the problems of this World, because the only thing that is real is what God created. The World that they see doesn't exist. I believe that if the energy with which this World was created comes from God, and if the awareness we use to be aware of the World comes from God, then what we experience is real, because whatever comes from God is real. It doesn't matter if what we experience isn't permanent and isn't the only way in which we can experience existence, because when we experience what we experience, we do in fact experience it.

The course contends that when you see the World according to what it teaches, you no longer remain concerned about the problems of the World, because your way of seeing will negate its existence. The course has been around since 1972 and many people have read it, yet, "tick tock," "tick tock," the last time I checked, this World and its many problems still exist. Below is an example of how the course addresses the problems of the World:

"With eyes closed, think of the horrors in the world that cross your mind. Name each one as it occurs to you, and then deny its reality. God did not create it, and so it is not real. Say for example:

God did not create that war, and so it is not real.
God did not create that airplane crash, and so it is not real.
God did not create that disaster [specify], and so it is not real. (Lesson 14, pg. 23)"

Perhaps the course should be called: "A course in denials and assertions," rather than A course in miracles.

It's approach reminds me of Advaita Vedanta. I know of a number of gurus who have told their followers that they don't have to worry about the problems of this World, because this World doesn't exist. I've known of many followers of such gurus that believed it was ignorant to be concerned about the problems of the World. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, many people do suffer in this World. Indifferent attitudes do us no good whatsoever. What we do effects not only our generation, but future generations. This is a point that near death experiences are really good at making. It does make a difference how we live our life. Even though near death experiencers find that there is an existence beyond this World, they don't become indifferent to fate of this world.

When it comes to sin, the course contends that it isn't real because in God's world there is no sin and only what takes place in God's World is real.  When the word "sin" is thought of in a non-dogmatic way, it simply means to do wrong. Certainly many people do things that are wrong. It isn't right to do things that are harmful to other people. Many people do negative things to other people while they know that they are doing so. For example, the San Francisco Chronicle recently had an article about the ten worst dictators in the World.  In Zimbabwe people who supported Mugabe's campaign raped and tortured people in order to intimidate people. There is one case where his soldiers raped a 13-year-old girl in front of her parents in order to intimidate her parents. They must've known that they were partaking in a negative action, because how else would what they did be a form of intimidation? Certainly such action is wrong. Therefore it can be referred to as sin. Certainly the people who lived through this episode experienced it and suffered accordingly. Therefore, the activity did exist. The same is true for any negative experience that takes place within this World.

I'm not suggesting that there's no such thing as a grand future that awaits us. But that doesn't mean that our World of problems don't exist while they exist. Therefore, I figure that a light being like Christ would tell us to try to make this World a better to live in, rather than tell us to deny its existence.

The course also contends that there is no reason for having guilt. I don't believe that people should wallow in guilt. Especially not when they do so for reasons that aren't legitimate. But sometimes people feel guilt because they listen to their conscience. Consider spirits that don't move on to the light right after their body died because they feel guilty about how they harmed other people. This is their conscience speaking. Our conscience is one of the things that keeps us on track. When ACIM miracle denies sin, guilt, and the problems of this World to the extreme it does, it strives to make its followers conscience inert. If our conscience becomes too inert, we might believe that it is okay for a course to claim that it comes from Christ when it doesn't.

Kathy:

It sounds like you've read ACIM and Eckart Tolle with all that ego talk. "The ego this, the ego that." It is no wonder that I received a message to drop ACIM, because it makes the ego bigger. The course talks about the ego over and over again. If a person asssumes the course comes from a divine source, how can he or she possibly question the course's huge belief in ego? The more a person reads about the ego in a source such as ACIM, the more he or she will create an aspect of mind that is ego like in nature. I'm not suggesting that we don't have any ego like attributes, but sources like ACIM and Eckart Tolle blow this ego business way out of proportion.

It isn't an all or nothing matter like ACIM contends. It isn't either you're completely "attonened," or you aren't.  The fact of how people manifest differing levels of loving behavior versus unloving behavior without it coming down to whether they are enlightened or not, whatever that means, shows that it isn't an all or nothing affair. But that's what sources like false gurus and ACIM do, they get people into this all or nothing mode so that they neglect growth in a piecemeal fashion. They come up with elaborate paradigms on how the ego works, rather than dealing with aspects of mind on a one by one basis.

Don (Berserk) started this thread. He asked people to engage in a conversation about misleading channeled sources. If he tells me he doesn't want me to partake in this conversation I'll stop doing so. If you believe it should be illegal for him to question whether some channeled sources are deceptive, you should tell him.

Don and I don't always agree with each other, but we do agree that is completely inappropriate for a source to misrepresent Christ, and when a source does so, it is more than appropriate to speak up against this source, even if you have to step on some toes along the way. There are priorities.

Albert and his incredibly huge ego.
 

Alan:

I use that terminology because I believe that all beings are innately divine; however, some go astray for however long and manifest in an evil way. For example, Adol...no, I won't go there.

Alan McDougall wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2009 at 6:24pm:

That's why I like to say that all souls are innately divine. Some just happen to go astray for whatever reasons.  The free will issue can go on for quite a bit, so I won't get started.


Quote:

Recoverer

Quote:


Some psychophaths are intrincially evil, they are dark entities and there is no light in them

Do you mean that Hitler was born innocent and potentially good, but the curve balls of life led him into the realms of evil?

I can accept that

Alan

My thread on mediumship has been hijacked.  So I feel entitled to resurrect this thread that contains a thorough discussion of the relevant issues.

Don, this is my post from the other thread.

I agree with you that ESP does seem a more plausible explanation of channeling where most contacts are made with records or memory held within a database of consciousness rather than an actual entity that's been "summoned" to provide direct interaction, though direct contact is a possibility, just an unlikely one, especially after a year or so has passed.

I think many times what a person "sees" in the non-physical realm is a "representation" or image of the person they are trying to contact, not the actual deceased person because that person has likely moved on, especially if some time has passed since their death.  When we interact with stored information of a person's life, it makes sense that an image of that person would appear to us as a means for interaction.  The idea that this is what occurs need not take anything away from one being reassured their loved one is just fine.  God is benevolent after all.  His ways are not necessarily what we may think.

ES spoke a great deal about symbols, representations and correspondences.  Since the non-physical realm has no objects, it makes sense that what we see there is a representation or is symbolic of the information we desire as a means of communication.  In Arcana Coelestia 4044 ES says, "Representations are nothing else than images of spiritual things manifested in natural ones, and when the former are accurately represented in the latter they correspond."  He goes on to say if we want to understand a symbol or representation that we should look to what is inside of us.  "But if he will reflect on the things taking place every moment within himself he will be able to gain some concept of them… These actions are able to provide some idea of representations and correspondences."

Kathy

Yes Roger, ignoring the troublemakers is the way to go. I suggest that we keep each other in check by reminding one another if we fall for their bait. If we leave their posts alone, threads will not be able to be derailed, as it takes two to tango. Of course, if they are able to be respectful and on topic, I am not against having a discussion.

When I was heavily into channeled material, I was convinced that the information these sources were bringing was genuine because a lot of it was in agreement with the others. It now seems more likely that it is in agreement because it is coming from the same deceptive source pushing one particular agenda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6sSdlCbWe0