Hi rog and all,

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

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

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

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

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


paul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THERE IS INDEED A GOOD VS. EVIL POLARITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:


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

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