Dude:

I read the related passages very clearly and Jane Roberts Seth did in fact state that Jesus was just making a joke when he said to love your neighbor as yourself. I don't have the book in front of me; however, I remember that Seth said "much of Jesus' humor was lost" rather than "Jesus had humor." Why would Seth say this, if he wasn't implying that Jesus was just making a joke when he said to love your neighbor as yourself?  The comment about Jesus having a sense of humor was made at the same time Seth commented about Jesus' love your neighbor as yourself verse. Why would Seth talk about Jesus' love your neighbor verse and Jesus having a sense of humor at the same time, if he wasn't trying to make a connection? If Seth had something else in mind when he commented about Jesus' love your neighbor verse, why didn't he say something else?

Regarding Jesus' statement being an "ironic statement" what does this mean to you? Was Jane Roberts Seth claiming that Jesus' statement was ironic without saying anything about Jesus' intent, or was he saying that it was Jesus' intention to be ironic? How would Seth know about such intent, if he couldn't even get it clear about the crucifixion? I already provided the verses which surround Jesus' "love your neighbor as yourself" verses, and they clearly show that Jesus wasn't being ironic.

I believe you aren't able to see this matter clearly, because you are too strongly in the defend Seth mode. How are you going to be able to honestly question Jane Roberts Seth, if you are in the defense mode?



I Am Dude wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 2:11pm:

One thing that comes to mind when considering Seth, Elias, or the "Jesus" of ACIM is that offhand I can't think of anything these highly evolved entities said about how to live our lives.

Yes, there are tons of esoteric material about creating our own reality, but where do these entities tell us the best way to live and to treat others?

Seems to me that everything can be wrapped up by following the Golden Rule.

If we do that, or at least if we give it our best shot, seems to me that's enough.  Most of the rest of it is just background noise.

R

Rondele

I am very well read on the Seth material, and I can say without a doubt that he speaks a lot on how we should live our lives.  He clearly states the best way to live and to treat others, many times at that.  Its all in his books, feel free to open one and find out for yourself.

More than that, Seth also tells us how we create our personal reality by our thoughts and emotions we hold to.

this info is in much spiritual literature, the same. after awhile you find the common basic running through all self help and spiritual books, and how we treat others is how they will treat us is nothing other than the golden rule and Monroe's "basic."  to each his chosen path however, there is no bad or good path, it all works towards the good. eventually.

I've already written about two of Jesus' verses that Jane Roberts Seth misinterpreted.  She/he also contradicted Jesus' blessed are the meek statement, by claiming that Jesus was simply telling his followers to lay low, because in the end they will be victorious and have control of the land. If you read the part of the sermon of the mount where this verse can be found, I believe it is obvious that Jesus had much more in mind than a political strategy. A statement about being humble was made. I believe there is cause for alarm when a source purposely degrades spiritual teachings.

From the Gospel of Matthew:

The Beatitudes

1And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. 2Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:


3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
   For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
   For they shall be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
   For they shall inherit the earth. (Is this about a defensive strategy, or about being humble?)

6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
   For they shall be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
   For they shall obtain mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
   For they shall see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
   For they shall be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake,
   For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Hi I dont know who this Jane Seth Roberts is but seems to me that she dont know anymore than i our anyone else does, as like me and all the rest she was not there with Jesus when he was preaching on the mount,but i will say this that i dont think for one minute Jesus meant by his words what she says he meant, because i think myself that Jesus meant when he said the words"Blessed are the meek,for they shall inherit the earth"that if we all were more like children,then the world would be a better place to be in, as children are free of sin,i maybe wrong here but thats how i see it.

love and God bless love juditha

 Blink, rather i would say that there is a very important difference between speaking out against a perspective, a belief system, a book, and speaking out against the person themselves.  People are not ultimately and essentially their beliefs and perspectives.

Or more simply put, not all beliefs are sacred, BUT all people are sacred.  If people weren't overly attached to their beliefs to begin with, they would have no problem with people trying to point to a different perspective, or to even say that there are inaccuracies and falsities in their beliefs.
There are people who hold beliefs like Satanism, wherein they believe it is right to consciously and deliberately hurt others for their own self gain, and/or for pleasure.  Are those beliefs sacred, just because a sacred Being happens to hold them temporarily?

   Is it wrong then, to try to change or speak out against their beliefs?   No, not forbid or repress them forcefully, but to disagree with them with the hopes that they will eventually change to more constructively facilitating beliefs?  

In so many cases when it comes to spiritual or belief system oriented books, the books and the contents within are what hold people hostage because they let themselves get stuck in those limiting beliefs.  If they weren't exposed to those limiting beliefs to begin with, there would be less opportunity to get stuck.  I've seen it time and time again, and i've seen guidance trying hard to get through to people in these situations and try to transform their beliefs to more helpful and accurate ones, but so oft real and expanded guidance gets ignored.    Hence the mess of this world and of humanity in general.

 It is better ultimately, to burn all (of ones own) books and just go within for truth, than for humanity to endlessly get caught up in illusion upon multi-layered illusion.  

  Not that i would ever do or be party to that, i was speaking more in parable, kind of the "if thine own eye offend thee, then it is better to pluck it out..."

 Right now with your post that i'm addressing, whether you own up to it or not, you are trying in some way or another to change another's belief and perspective.  My guess and hunch is that your intentions are positive, and that you see your way as the more helpful and positive.  

 Otherwise, you would just not speak out. And how is your attempt to change another beliefs, any better or more noble, than say my or Alberts attempts to change anothers beliefs about Seth, which we consider slandering the most intune public spiritual teacher and example so far?

 Maybe it is rather more the intentions that matter, and living according to, "Do unto others, as you would have done unto you."

 Speaking for myself, i am following that, for i have no problem whatsoever with anyone disagreeing with, criticizing, or trying to change my beliefs and perspectives.   If it was something that really bothered me personally, i would not "do" it to others.    I believe it is ok for people to disagree with anothers beliefs, as long as they try not to put down the person who holds that belief (btw, i'm not saying that i'm completely free of that myself--i saw myself do that, and that's why i stopped talking about Seth and Jane Roberts).

Quote:


If you were educated on the subject you would know that Seth gives a great deal of practical advice throughout his series of books.  This debate is obviously pointless and is a waste of useful energy.  This will be my last post on this thread.  Sorry Recoverer, I wanted to get back to you but I'm not even going to waste my time.  I agree with Justin, it is silly to get caught up in these types of debates.  Adios, see you in my journals.