And yes, without the death and crucifixion of Christ, there is no Resurrection, which Cayce among others (including the NT itself), said was the whole point behind his coming here.

Not so say that there is an afterlife, because that had been said and believed many times, in many climes and places before, but to show that physical death and the experience of same is an illusion and can be transcended if one resonates enough with The Reality, with PUL.

  If we raise, speed up the vibrations of the physical body enough by living a life devoted and attuned to PUL, we can translate this condensed, super slow vibrating energy back into Pure Light again, but this time with both complete control and attributes of BOTH physical and nonphysical energies.   We can consciously know our full dimensional and dimensionless being again. 

He came to prove that beyond a doubt to the peoples of the time, and to do that, he had to die first to make it as dramatic and long lasting of an impression as possible.  That means letting himself be physically killed, and then later coming back to that same body and translating, transforming the matter of the body he had been using.  Which, we conveniently have the Shroud of Turin, which is the only historical artifact of its kind ever found so far, that suggests that he did just that.

  And boy what an impression if we are still debate and arguing about him and his life some 2000 years later. 


  Alysia, i honestly can't believe that you would talk about Him in that way considering about much you talk about "JC" and usually in a very positive way.  Open mindedness is one thing, but i'm a bit at a loss of words right now, and don't want to say anything that i will regret beyond that i strongly, strongly, strongly disagree with your reasoning. 
So we're supposed to believe a channeled source (from a woman whose pics show a depressed and unhappy visage) that doesn't have one iota of hard core, materially paralleled verification in any subject that we can check against, over the historical records of people who directly knew Christ and those who knew those who directly knew him?

  Why is that other sources, like Cayce's which has multiple verification from multiple sources in multiple subjects including health, ancient history, personal predictions for individuals, long term predictions for humanity (hmm talking about global warming for the near future some 70 years before it became a common catchphrase), etc. etc. say that the basic, historical N.T. Biblical story is overall quite correct despite some editing and skewing here and there?

  Seriously, sometimes i just don't get people, and their reasoning.

I think it is fine for people to have a point of view. I think it is fine for people to disagree. I think it is fine for people to think certain things are not true.

But is it necessary to pass what I consider rather weak judgements on a person you did not know? This is the second time I have heard that Jane Roberts was 'depressed' looking as if that disqualifies her from having a spiritual experience of validity.

This is a blatantly personal bias. There is no point in it.

Every one of us knows that the Bible was written by numerous sources. It is often questioned. I don't spend my time here on this board criticizing those who wrote the Bible for their inconsistencies.

If it is our souls we are concerned with, shouldn't we be placing them in circumstances where we can actually do good?

These kinds of arguments do not 'win' people to Christ. They cause some people to turn away, because they believe that they will lose their own freedom of thought by adopting the posture of the group which calls itself Christian.

This is not a criticism of your own individual beliefs, and the comfort each of you may find in Christ's presence.

I believe that Christ is accessible to everyone, in many ways.

First of all, there are the many translations of the Bible. Every single one of us was advised by him to go into our own rooms and pray, and not to go loudly about in the streets boasting of our beliefs or showing them off for others.

Christ has a huge heart. There is room for everyone. But there is no need for personal attacks on someone (noteably Jane Roberts) who merely had the courage to place on paper what she actually experienced.

If people are slandered and attacked for writing their honest thoughts, why should they continue to do it?

It may be that one of you here is correct in your negative assumptions about the entity called Seth, but it seems to me that this entity has done much more good than harm.

How does any of us know that we are not being tested now, to find out what is in our hearts? What kind of people are we?

Therefore, I say, have an opinion. But do not crucify another person just because you disagree with him or her. There is no justification for it, according to any reasonable law of love.

love, blink

p.s. This is my recommendation for anyone who is having difficulty forming a personal relationship with the one who is known as Jesus. Jackie Haverty has a cd called Journey to the Crystal Palace (vol 1). This is an excellent way to connect to several 'portals' of discovery, and the Christ connection encouraged there has a very positive effect over time.

Alan-

People who accept channeled sources, as well as those who don't, should simply preface their posts with "in my opinion" or something similar.

Here's an example: "in my opinion, the Seth material contains a lot of interesting concepts."

Or, "in my opinion, channeled sources are not to be trusted."

Unfortunately, when people cut and paste endless quotations from these channeled sources as if they were chiseled in stone, it is inevitable that people who distrust these sources will respond.

And sometimes the exchanges get a little heated.

Easy to avoid.

R

Quote:


    Good points Blink.  I believe that all in all you are trying to point to a greater truth, and yet the irony is that there is some criticism in your post, albeit more subtle and gentle than my more blunt style. 

  Perhaps i should explain more fully what i meant about the depressed look, etc.   There was reasoning behind that, beyond trying to make Jane Roberts look "bad".   Of course you are right that someone who is depressed, has been depressed, and/or will be depressed can have real spiritual experiences.  Sometimes choosing a deeply spiritual path can temporarily facilitate some pretty deep depressions. 

  But my deeper point is this;  if one is constantly hooking up to more expanded, loving energies both within self, and without as in being a medium like Roberts, eventually, despite even outer challenges, that should foster ever greater joy, balance, and centeredness within self.   Like attracts and begets like.  If a person is not being centered, etc, it is hard to hook up to those more helpful and constructive energies and vice versa.   Such a person will tend to attract less than helpful influences from without.

  Bruce sort of talks about something like this in one of his books dealing with a depressed, unhappy medium who was "hooked up" to "Shawn" her "guide" (whose dark energies exacerbated her issues more deeply) , who wasn't quite a guide to begin with.  She wouldn't let go of Shawn because of ego issues of being seen as a medium, and all that stuff that goes along with being special in some way.   According to your reasoning, well i have to ask, why did she continue to put her honest thoughts out?

  In general, the state of the channel, really affects both the type of energies that flow through, what energies they attract to begin with, and the accuracy or lack thereof of the info coming through.    As mentioned, i do not know of one thing that Roberts ever said in trance state that was able to be verified in a more hard core way, something that she couldn't have possibly known about in a physical sense.  Perhaps i am wrong on this. 

  It is very important to discern the energies of the channel him or her self, if one is going to buy into the info and very energies being presented from the outer source.  People are complex, and of course there is room for some temporary depression in even rather spiritually mature folks.   But the above reason is why say Rosiland's McKnights guidance worked so diligently with her, trying to ever clear, balance and raise her energies so that the most accurate and helpful info possible could come through.   We don't see this advice at all in the Seth work as far as i know. 

  Roberts or Seth is speaking against the very life and example of most intune, helpful, and loving public teacher known to humanity.   I have a hard time not saying anything in such a case.  If she had speaking against me, i would have kept my big mouth shut.  Her "source" totally misrepresents some of the core, key truths that this person came to show.   

  Also, you keep speaking of Roberts as if she was a pioneering hero, who bravely trod the path so that others do it more easily later on, or something. 

   Do you know 100 percent that she was totally genuine and sincere in her beliefs, in her work, and in her lifestyle?  You mean to tell me that there aren't fraudulent mediums out there past, present, future  who are looking more for money and/or ego props of being well known, than of being of service to their fellow humans? 

  When someone doesn't take what they do that seriously to begin with, and don't fully believe in something themselves, it's not all that hard to take criticism for your "line of work". 

  I don't know if you are just that beautifully, wonderfully, and innocently naive Blink, or that you should believe that much in Roberts?   Fine either way, but neither applies to me. 

  But yes, you are essentially correct, coming off so strong about Yeshua and sources that speak falsely of him, doesn't tend to help things or bring people to him.  I'm human Blink, i sometimes get upset, i sometimes get uncentered, i sometimes have a big mouth, and i get a little miffed sometimes when supposed "high" sources speak so falsely about someone i respect so much. 

  It's an attachment issue i know, but again i'm human.   There have been many times wherein Seth, and the greatness of same has been brought up here, and i just passed it over.  For some reason, this time, i felt compelled to speak up.   

  Again, if people are going to look into outer psychic sources for truth, i just don't understand why they don't look to the ones with actual and especially repeated verifications behind them?  We here stress verifications (at least in the beginning) for self experiences, well shouldn't that apply to outer sources too?

Related to what Justin wrote a couple of posts ago, if a light being was going to channel itself, I really doubt it would choose a person who hasn't taken the time to spiritually develop his or her self to a significant degree.

While I've received spirit guidance I haven't received the impression that I'm supposed to be some kind of channel. I haven't received large packages of information regarding what the spirit World is all about. It has been largely left up to me to figure it out for myself. My understanding is based upon my experiences, what makes sense, and the minimal information I was provided with. It is certainly possible that some of my interpretations are false. They are incomplete.

The guidance I have received has served the purpose of facilitating my spiritual growth. If I reach the point where I can share information in a meaningful way it won't be because I channel information, it will be due to my spiritual growth.

I figure this is how a light being like Christ would work. Rather than finding people to channel information through, he would find people who will grow enough so they can speak from their own experience. It isn't necessary that they know everything. Just some of the basics such as how to live according to love and to be able to tell the difference between genuine sources of information and the pretenders, while understanding the importance of doing so.

R said: It isn't necessary that they know everything. Just some of the basics such as how to live according to love.

___
On a spiritual path, I agree it's not necessary to know everything and if we all lived by the golden rule, I suppose we all would be channeling our higher selves and no need to be discussing or arguing..there would just a "knowing."
I think the golden rule is an attitude in that sense. Not all of us at the same time adopt such an attitude.
Religion is not all bad. it's a pathway, a belief system. there is life beyond religion though. and it's not a hollow heaven I'm speaking of.

Trust in our brothers is an issue. I find that if I trust others they trust me. Regarding channelling, it is more like sharing the housing of the mind with concepts slightly beyond what the channeler has experienced. these ideas are fed into the receptive part of the brain, the right side. the left side then transposes into language what the right side is unable to do.

it is like being plugged into something. In this case the info seems to be coming from outside of you. It is more like Carol Ann says, that these energies merge as 3 flames make one flame.
see it as the Star Trek Spock mind meld action if you want.

channelling illustrates the ability of the human to entertain and perceive mankind's basic oneness operating.
In that we effect one another, whether we are in a body or we are a non/physical being, operating in an adjacent dimension, where space and time are defined quite differently.

Ideas are free. we give them to each other all the time. We also give judgment to one another all the time. Until we do love each other unconditionally, there remains the limitations we put on each other, the judgment itself, that one is more evolved, so then one must be not evolved. one is less, one is more.
these are considerations we call judgment, or critical analysis, whatever we label it, it is non/acceptance of one another and shuts down further enlightenment process, the open mind closes down within the emotions.

Open your mind to each person you meet and discoveries are made of your oneness with them, which produces a feeling of love, hope, good cheer, versus the negative trains of thought we can entertain quite easily.
btw, not to speak of religion, but ALL are chosen. Few choose to enter the straight and narrow path, say, a love path.

In this world, it is always a case of your word against mine. because nothing can be proven, to say the authenticity of PUL cannot be brought under the laboratory of the scientific microscope and dissected, measured and labeled.

And yet I assume we all are here to discover and feel PUL.

happy holidays...am having a year end blast over here. 

that is your experience then R. I have never been deceived myself.
I have "thought" I have been deceived intentionally, but then time goes by and I am shown how I created the deception, or allowed the deception to play out, I am shown my part in it, how I allowed it for the learning.
I don't believe in evil. therefore it is not in my world.
therefore I am responsible for whatever bad feelings get generated which places my destiny in my own hands.

a person can fool you once. the second time you get fooled, it's best to sit down for a long meditation on how that happened.
then the 3rd time will not happen.

First you must figure out why they are in your life, as there's always a reason. then you must figure out what they want. then you must figure out what you are withholding from them that they want.
If you can give it to them it heals the deceptive element, to show how it happened and why.
You also must figure out the precise moment you agreed to interact with them, what you hoped to gain for yourself. what experience you were after. then you can see no one can effect you unless you invited their company.

It entails seeing them as they really are. In truth, like the song, Hungry heart, that is how we all are. we all want love. Instead of love, what we often get is what you perceive as intentional untruth.
while for the other person, they may not even consider their truth is not your truth.
for example, in a court system, they try to establish if the law breaker knows right from wrong.
In many cases, it is established by several psychologists, the criminal truly didn't know right from wrong.

and so rehabitilization begins. as we call it to lock them up. some are improving by being in jail. some repeat offenses. we work with the system as best we know how.
It is incorrect thinking to call this a perfect world R. Nobody promised us a rose garden.
there are thorns all along the way. but for me, I can say, it was worth it to come for the few whose path we can share some love and bring good cheer and courage to whom are given to us.