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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE HIDDEN AGENDAS OF CHANNELING:
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Paul,

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

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

Thanks for your reply,
Don

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

Hey Don,

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

Cheers,
Glen