One of Bruce's greatest contributions is his exploration of "hollow heavens."   I like to remind people that St. Paul identifies Paradise (= Focus 27) as the preferred point of access to the heavenly journey.  But Paul locates Paradise in the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12), and this implies two "lower" heavens that are less desirable.   I have researched these two lower heavens in early  Jewish thought and have concluded that they correspond to Focus 25-26 in the Moen-Monroe scheme.  I regard this as impressive independent corroboration of an important afterlife insight.   

A related important insight is Bruce's discovery of how one can get "stuck" in a belief system territory.   In the case of Christianity, one reason for this trap is the mistaken belief that when we die, we suddenly become omniscient and spiritually perfect.   This non-biblical notion trivializes the various levels of spiritual progress achieved during earthly existence.   More importantly, it ignores the bibical teaching of postmortem soul progression and its corollory that, after death, we will continually need to upgrade our overview as we explore deeper levels of consciousness. 

In my view, we must not become permanent fence sitters in our spiritual quest.  We must embrace our belief systems passionately but provisionally--passionately because otherwise our beliefs will not nurture our spiritual progress and provisionally because we must never allow ourselves to close our minds to new spiritual insights from God.   It is useful to remind ourselves that God cares little about how we would fill in a postmortem multiple choice quizz on theological doctrine.  God cares more about how our beliefs shape the quality of our consciousness and facilitate our progress towards union with "Him."   

Over the years, I have critiqued some of the Moen-Monroe claims.  But this critique does not nullify the whole enterprise.  Ultimately, the only decisive test is to devote time to a full exploration of Monroe's Hemi-Sync technology or to take Bruce's course or, at least, to explore the methods taught in his latest book. 

By the same token, the only proper way to explore Christianity is to focus on the mystical experiences taught by its principles of faith and prayer--in other words to initially focus on the life-changing experiences that Christianity potentially offers.  A restricted focus on Christian doctrine will give you just enough spirituality to inoculate you against the real thing.   

So when posters here asks me to recommend a church, I advise them to initially ignore the question of which church seems the most doctrinally astute.   Instead, i advise them to explore which church best creates an atmosphere and programs that facilitate direct experience of God's grace and love and demonstrable experiences of the power of prayer.

Don

Warm greetings to DocM, Gerald, and all,


Quote:


To be precise :

The holocaust was anti-cosmoethical.  Apartheid in South Africa was anti-cosmoethical.  Ethnic cleansings and killings are anti-cosmoethical.

(for a deeper look at cosmoethics, see here).

As such, they can be viewed as 'wrong', 'incorrect' or inappropriate (ie. not accordance to will) for individuals who choose to align themselves with cosmoethics, with positive evolution, assistantiality, compassion, guides & helpers, light and love.

But they are not 'wrong', 'incorrect' or inappropriate for individuals who choose 'darkness', difficulty, or to create negative karma for themselves, for whatever reason that might be perceived from a higher viewpoint as 'misguideness' (not 'wrong').

Thusly, from a more enlightened perspective, there is no objective or static 'right' or 'wrong', but only (what can be understood as) 'appropriate' or 'inapporpriate', 'helpful' or 'unhelpful', 'cosmoethical' or 'anti-cosmoethical'. But these again, can and does vary, from individual/perspective to individual/perspective, and correctly so.

However, as we move up the evolutionary ladder, in terms of intelligence, wisdom, widening of perspective, light and love,  it is recognized that the more advanced beings, guides & helpers, and all beings of higher vibration, begin to come to a general consensus (due to contribution and inter-networking of perspectives amongst them) as to what is cosmoethical, what is helpful, and so on.

An analogy might be a dozen 10 yr old kids that arrive at 10 different answers to a complex engineering problem. But a dozen learned professors, would mostly agree on the same way as to interpret, approach and solve the problem, and hence come closer to a general consensus for a similar solution.

Such a solution, might be argued to be the 'right' solution, and the 10 yr old kids' ideas to be 'wrong'; but compared to a thousand years into the future, the solution offered by today's professors, would likely pale in comparison to the (more 'correct'?) solutions offered by the professors of the future.

This is why, from the perspective of the guides & helpers, there is no 'right' or 'wrong', only actions/intentions/thosenses/karma, that is perceived, understood or recognized (general consensus of the guides & helpers) as being helpful or unhelpful, cosmoethical or anti-cosmoethical.

Of course, even such, is not absolute or objective, naturally. The individual guides & helpers of any level, will naturally ('rightly!') unique perspectives amongst themselves (the beauty of God's exploration of Itself via free will of infinite consciousnesses), and of course, evolution is endless and infinite.

As we go up the evolutionary ladder (the guides & helpers of the guides & helpers of the guides & helpers, ad infinitum), what is cosmoethical or helpful, will tend to get clearer. But cosmoethics is never objective, absolute, static or inflexible. Nor should it be.

One then, might say it's a matter of playing with words, but it is important that words like 'right' and 'wrong', which usually convey limiting, dogmatic ideas similar to 'sin' and religious notions of judgement, be recognized as limiting and unhelpful, especially when they fuel fear and judgement.

Thus, one can only judge what is right or correct, for himself and himself only. One cannot judge another to say, "What he did was wrong". By the Law of Reflection and the Clarification process, you can only (correctly) say, "What he did (as I understand it), would be wrong for *me* to do, because it is not in accordance to my will to be of positive service to others (as I understand it)".


Quote:


Hate is not wrong. Hate is based on fear, which is the absence of Love. Love is correct, but only for those who choose Love. You decide what you choose.

What you choose for yourself, determines what is 'right' or 'wrong', 'correct' or 'incorrect' for you, but only for you, yourself (and never for others).

This is self-responsibility and clarity, which is much more helpful (for one's personal evolution) than attempting to project judgement upon others (which is not 'incorrect', but ultimately your judgement is only relevant to yourself).


Quote:


Everyone is always accountable for himself. Not accountable to others for himself, but accountable to himself for himself. No one is accountable to you, and you are not accountable to anyone else.

This is from the perspectives of the guides, helpers, teachers and evolutionary orientors. They do not pass judgement upon you, even during the Life Review which occurs after death. During discussions with the soul, including the Life Review in the intermissive period, they, acting out of empathy, compassion and with intention to assist (the best that they at their various levels understand how), will guide the individual soul by gently sharing their insights (eg. by asking relevant, impactful questions targetting various contexts of the life just lived), sharing of their suggestions and their perspectives, from their greater evolutionary experience and wisdom.

And yes, we can (and correctly so) agree to disagree, have unique perspectives or varying ways of seeing issues, taking stands, and so on. This is only correct, because if every consciousness, every individual, every soul group, every Disc/Disk, every race, every lifestream, every world, every universe, etc, has come into existence to explore a somewhat unique perspective. Which is the very reason for free will.

Finally, we stand by our very words, no double standards here. If you should disagree with what we have just posted here, then it is certainly 'wrong' or 'incorrect' for you, very simply because you disagree with it. But it's not 'wrong' or 'incorrect' for those who agree, quite obviously.

The International Academy of Consciousness, and beings of higher vibration such as Hilarion, recognize that there is only what can be termed as "relative leading edge truths", and this refers to, for instance, what the guides & helpers largely agree on, as cosmoethical, as valid, as helpful, etc; as well as the knowledge, teachings, concepts, laws, understanding or wisdom. But they're always open to evolution, of ideas and of self.


So, what *is* right for you? *You* are.


Therefore, choose well.

Matthew,

I have to say I'm with you on this. If I'm in someone's stew pot and they are cooking me for dinner tonight then that is definitely wrong in my book.  

And if you're in there too, well, that is just doubly wrong.

blink

Quote:


Yea, thats why you believe what channeled stuff says, 

So.  Why are you even expressing your opinion if you dont think that this statement:

"NO ONE IS RIGHT NO ONE IS WRONG."

is right, or true, or ABSOLUTE?

Are you going to save us all from judgement by telling us there is no such thing when its part of the reason that you even tell us there is no right and wrong?
YOU ARE STILL MAKING A JUDGEMENT ABOUT JUDGEMENT.  you just see the surface illusion you want to see, but in actuality you judge that there is judgement and think its right that there shouldnt be any judgement.

lol
thats NOT ACCEPTANCE of judgement.

THATS DENIAL in a fancy disguse.  You deny judgement, you judge judgement itself as wrong, therefore making a state of no judgement RIGHT.
still an underlying judgement. if you look a bit deeper ,... to the core. The bigger image that you reflect is denial.
Though your affirmations seem to you to be benificial and peacefull and  right, your running from the acceptance of judgement itself. 

Very nicely written Kyo Kusanagi.

Quote:


Amen!

Right on Marta.

Love, Mairlyn

Quote:


 Wow, pretty darn concise Bob!  Sounds like it came right from your Higher/Total self and the balanced Heart and Mind...

Very, very much resonate with this and would add that in a sense there is right and wrong (or choice of Love or unlove)...for the individual according to their Consciousness, since every individual has its own unique vibratory patterns and its relative relationship to both all other individualized Consciousnesses, and to the Whole.... (meaning ones energies affect and is affected by all others energies in a this great flux and balancing act..)

 Now, when one consciousness can match frequencies to a very high degree with another Consciousness (i lable it merging and only those of or near White Light consciousness/frequency can do this very deeply and well), then it can "see" whats right or wrong for that individual, but there are no ultimate rights or wrongs...but there is Reality and unreality...which always comes back to that whole Love---unlove choice eh....  This is exactly what the Elders of our Council do, being Realized Beings, they can get inside our heads, hearts, and very Consciousness, and they have the deepest compassion for us, yet want to see us grow, and evolve to Source realization too....  Much like Yeshua beckoned those who would listen, to come follow his ways...not for his little self, but rather to be happy, and to lift up the collective a bit...its all about the Collective, and the very Planning Intelligence itself suffers deeply when one of its Children chooses unlove to such a degreee as to destroy its very own gift...  This is not desirable to the P.I., the Elders, the Council, or to me, and when very little i use to think a bit about "Satan"..and first i was mad at him, and then i felt compassion for "him", and i figured "he" must be suffering big time to be so cut off from God...  

Much appreciation for your wisdom and balancedness.