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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freebird

Hi to all....

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


Quote:

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

Quote:


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

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

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


Seth "agenda"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On responsibility

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

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

On agenda

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Cheers,
Glen

Oh my gosh, Donald!

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

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

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

Peace to you,
Debbie

Quote:

Hi Roger,

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

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

Best wishes,
Glen

This time to Donald,

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

Freebird

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

With Love,
Mairlyn   

Dear Glen,

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

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

Berserk

Quote:


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

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

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

Freebird

Quote:


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

Freebird

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

Dear Petrus,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Berserk 




   

Glen,

Quote:


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

The hypotetical person is Augustus... I and II

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

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

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

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

Quote:


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

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

Freebird

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:


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

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

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

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

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

Freebird

Quote:




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

Elias forum latest newsletter

Over 1 million webpages served!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

paul

Quote:


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

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


paul

Quote:


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

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

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

Freebird

Don-

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

Roger

THE DECEPTIVE REVELATIONS OF FAMOUS MEDIUMS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© 2001 Acharya S

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

Quote:


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

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

Quote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Lindemann, "UFOs and the Global Situation"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© 2004 Acharya S.

Greetings all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worthy comments welcome.


paul

Paul aka Freebird

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

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

So long from  the subject in  my part...

Don-

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

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

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

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

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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


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


paul

Quote:


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

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

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

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



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

Hi Freebird-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Tim-

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

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

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

  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

Hi Don-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Don,

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

Quote:



Don,

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

John,

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

Don

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

Quote:


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

Ellen-

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

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

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

Dear Legolas,

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

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

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

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

Don

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

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

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

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

Don

Quote:


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

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

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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

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

Quote:


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

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


So your first point makes no sense.



Quote:


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

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


Quote:


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

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

Should I call you a christ groupie??


Quote:


One, I don't know Doris.

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

Quote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legolas,

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

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

Don

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

Much Love Kathy,
Mairlyn

Quote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Love, Mairlyn

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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