Regarding whether Christ can help people, he sure helped me.

I have a lady friend. For a couple of years she saw a spiritual healer. Doing so had some effect, but it was limited. Recently she had a couple of dreams that told her that she needs to find another way of healing. One problem with the healer she has seen is that he doesn't teach people to heal themselves. The ulterior motive of making them dependent upon him might be involved.

The other night, before she went to sleep, my lady friend prayed for sprit help. Sometime during the night she received the words in a very clear way: "In his name." She knew that Christ was being referred to.  Even though I've spoken to my lady friend about being in touch with spirit guidance, I haven't said a lot about Christ.  The message she received was unexpected.

My lady friend has a lot of experience with the gurus of the World, and has found out that they aren't all that.  Before she got into the gurus she was a born again Christian. This experience caused her to have the discomfort about Christianity that people often have. Nevertheless, something inside has always told her that there is something special about Christ.

It seems to me that it's about impossible to unify a vision for all, especially in the written word world. We all stand in a different place as we look upon anything. Everyone has a different point of view even when they belong to a group or gathering. I think we come together in the light and up until then we are each points of view, physically and spiritually. The light experiences through our experiences perhaps. I mean even the writers of the Bible wrote about something that had happened years before. I think the greatest thing that comes out of it all is this amazing guy who dared to question the establishment, but my guess is he would be questioning the establishment today too.

cheers,
Beau

O.O.B.D. wrote on multiple worlds, lives thread, Quote:


 With this, we touch on some very deep stuff here O.B.Dude.   Since i've not completed this process myself, i'm definitely not the best one to speak about it, so a grain of salt is in order  

 But anyways, a few psychic sources that i really like and respect talk about this very issue.  Have you read about Rosiland A. McKnight's work with Robert Monroe in the early explorer days, as per her book "Cosmic Journeys"?  Her sessions with Monroe are largely responsible for the overall format and content of TMI's "Gateway Voyage program".  

 Well for example, both her book/work, and the Edgar Cayce work, seem to suggest that our experience of the physical, our perceptions about same are largely illusionary in nature.   In that sense, same old song and dance as many ancient beliefs, particularly Eastern oriented ones.  And now also theoretical, physics oriented science.

 But heres where these particular sources differ, they seem to say that if we attune enough to Source and PUL consciousness, that we would have a different experience and perception of physical life, and if fully attuned and merged with same, we would transcend the experience of "physical death".  

Both guidance energies from both works mention that physical aging and death are illusions and definitely not necessary.   It's both a matter of belief system stuckness, and of not living enough according to love.  If we change those two factors, then we can experience a deathless/ageless state if we want too.  One could say, that the experience of this is a true and ultimate indication of true spiritual growth, maturity, and at Onement with the All...  

 Now come on Dude, you're familiar with Monroe's work, don't you remember reading about "He/She" the almost 2000 year old person who doesn't eat, sleep, age, or die and who is in total control of their energies?

 Now we have 3 pretty good, very deep, non dogmatic, psychic oriented sources talking about a very similar thing here.  All of which have definite verifications connected to their work in some way.

And then we have an historical multiple person account, saying that indeed one person from humanity did fully actualize and achieve this state of being, and lived a very dramatic life to forever impress this truth upon our collective consciousness.  

 Then we have the one and only Shroud of Turin artifact, which just so happens to conveniently match up to many conditions and patterns around the historical "Jesus" in many, multi-layered ways...

 Now taken all together, doesn't this just pry open your mind a little at least to the possibility of such being true?   And honestly, who should i believe on this matter, you and/or Seth, over a combo and similarity of McKnight's work, Monroe's info, the historical N.T., my own intuition and guidance on the matter, the one and only Shroud of Turin artifact, and Cayce's work???  

 Come on Dude, i may be a "incomplete and non physically immortal consciousness" and occasionally not as loving or centered as i should be, but i still have a developed left brain and can reason pretty well.

 Sorry, but for me burden of proof is leaning more towards the latter grouping for patently obvious reasons, though i do generally respect your opinions and perceptions.     Something tells me, that somewhere, someday down the line, your beliefs might quite change in some of these regards.  Just a feeling.    But it will it probably have to come more through your experiences and own clear and more accurately understood guidance messages.  

Justin

I totally agree that the aging process is due mainly to our beliefs, and that it is possible to retain an ageless/deathless state of physical being.  What I am trying to say is that I feel that once we reach a certain point of development here on Earth, we must move on to higher levels where we can develop further, and this requires physical death.  And perhaps it would be possible to ascend, transforming our physical bodies into bodies of light.  I would certainly prefer that!

Btw, I don't speak for Seth.  He is not my only source of information.  Monroe was one of my first sources, and one of the most important in my development.

 And according to a synthesis of Cayce's work and the Shroud of Turin, look for a man who follows roughly this description.   Course, most of us will know him by his radiation..but for those less deeply, accurately intuitive look for...

 A youngish but very mature looking man some 6 foot or so in height, weight about 173 or so with a strong, but naturally muscular, athletic build (meaning he wouldn't look like a jock who has worked out with weights).  

 Facially good looking, somewhat long and broad face with high forehead, not much Hebrew like features all in all, noble features.  

 Coloring, hair and/or if beard at all, is rather reddish golden light brown mix.   Eyes, piecing heavy gray blue.  

 You know what's interesting O.O.B.D.    One time, way back when in like the 20's or 30's Cayce described this mans looks, and said his weight would have been at least 170 lbs.  

 Well flash forward many years, intensive forensics type research is being done on the Turin Shroud by medically trained folks, etc.

 Flash forward many more years, Justin reading a book on the research of the Shroud, and reading that one of the medically trained people who did research on the Shroud, would have best guess estimated the mans weight to have been 170 or so, give or take a few lbs.  

 Justin's eyes then bulge a bit out of his head and loudly exclaims out loud.   "Well hot damn, that's quite close to what Cayce said!"

 Btw, the man on the Shroud also didn't look more stereotypically Hebrew like (one of the skeptics arguments against it actually), at least not compared to todays standards which are a bit different considering that 2000 years and more mixing has passed.  For one, he was kind of tall for that people, area, climes and times, though contrary to popular belief, not overly tall.   Probably something like the equivalent of a 6' 3" or 6' 4" Caucasian man today.  Unusual, but not that uncommon. 

 

  Hi there Beau, welcome to this group of colorful and eclectic folks. 

I'm not a fan of fundamentalism in any form myself, and have thought since a boy that the whole going to hell eternally thing was hogwash, and a manipulative tactic. 

   I personally do not consider myself religiously "Christian", though in a sense i do consider myself Christian in the respect that while i have many diverse spiritual interests and have looked into many belief systems (and see truth in many), well when it comes to a spiritual teacher, I look always and primarily to the example and life of Yeshua.  I have  two main teachers in the more narrow sense of the word, beyond life itself, and that is my Greater self and Yeshua. 

  Lately, i realize i've been coming off too strong about defending this example from what i consider slander and distortion.  I will try to tone it down.  My beliefs and debating, i realize, will probably not change anybody's thinking or perceiving anyways.  It may actually push people away from him, i dunno.

  Anyways, welcome to the site.  Bruce Moen i would say, is a pretty good source to check out.  Certainly is wiser than myself in some respects.

Hello Justin and et al.

I think Jesus spoke to those who asked, other than his sermons of course. The idea that one knows better than another might be the crux of the whole issue. I feel weird talking about my feelings in these matters because I don't want to squelch someone else. There is a little bit of the Emperor's new clothes going on with so much. I like Bruce's approach because he invites you to find out for yourself...rather than accepting the word of an ancient book that was written for many political reasons in addition to spiritual ones. Deciphering the answers is part of the fun of living for me. I like to learn from my mistakes and it helps me not judge others in the process. I've been told many times that the bible is there to keep us from failing on our path, but when I go to church I feel way out of place. And I don't mean that I feel I'm ahead of that group. It just seems that so much information is "blasphemed" by them and it's usually info that I find quite compelling...so what's a guy to do, right? My gf is devout, but we get along very well and I don't feel like she's trying to convert me ever and she very often makes a lot of sense--but she is very wary of my endeavors on this subject of the afterlife. Oh well, it all works out. These conversations are very interesting to me cause I want to make the right choices in how to talk to my 13 year old about spirituality and so far this board has been fantastic with ideas. His mother brought him up pretty strict christian, but he has veered a bit from that in the last year or so. We had our first deep convo about it a few weeks ago and it's amazing how he reasons things out for himself at such a young age. As far as how much to talk about it, I don't know. I try to keep my mouth shut unless asked, but it can be hard sometimes. Thank goodness I can write on here a couple of times a day. Thank you for being here, each and all...very  comforting.

Hello Beau:

My reason for having good feelings about Christ aren't based upon believing in the Bible. There was a point in my life where I realized that I just didn't know what Christ is about. I prayed and found out in a number of ways that he is a significant light being.  I also realized that I received messages about him before I asked.  I can't say what Christ is all about, but I don't believe that fundamentalism has the answers.  Going by the messages and experiences I've had, Christ does seem to have a bigger responsibility in the grand scheme of things, than spirits that used to be human tend to have.  I once received a message stating: "The Bible's story of the lamb is mostly correct." I figure it is up to each person to decide what "mostly" means. I figure that opening one's mind and heart to divine revelation is a more trustworthy than relying on one's intellect.

I've received spirit guidance from Christ, and he does know better than me. I'm certain he realizes this. This doesn't make him egotistical and it doesn't mean he looks down on me, even though he does see me from above.


Quote:

I think that need to degrade another's belief system comes from getting along a path too quickly to actually understand where you are. I can be defensive sometimes for sure but I hope I eventually take strides to apologize for any smarted feelings. I crave a broad discussion and I guess I am guilty of shutting down when I hear what to me seems shallow or unimaginative...but I have often found that I was too quick to judge when that has occurred in the past. I like Thomas Jefferson's Bible...I think it was Jefferson. Great day to all.

Beau

I must confess, Rec, that it is a little sophmoric, but I don't want to wind up in focus 25 when I could keep striving and maybe make it to 27. But it seems the people in here regardless of their beliefs are pretty open minded.

Excellent post, Rec. I may be a little bit unintentionally misleading in my posts. I have no doubt that the Christ light is what it's all about. My problem is with the texts...certainly not all of it, but some of it. Old or New Testament those writings had more purpose than enlightenment in my eyes. But when you speak of Christ I can see that you have are open to what Christ is saying and that is a beautiful thing. I live in the south, US. It is a true Bible belt down here and Jesus comes up I don't always know where someone is coming from at first. I don't know about the afterlife to a great extent as I've only had a few fleeting encounters with what I think may be related to it. And certainly your point at the end of your post is very true about The Monroe idea becoming a Focus 25 system of it's own if one isn't careful. I guess I am still attempting to bring the character of Jesus in the bible together with what I feel is the Christ light. I mean here the person as spoken of more than his own words. I believe the Bible is fallible so I have to secure my information from sources that ring true for me. Your above post is one of them and I thank you for that.

I wrote, talking about Yeshua, "Cayce's source essentially seemed to place him in the role of main Spiritual director for this Universe, and especially for Earth. "

 This actually reminds me of another Monroe connection surprisingly.  In Monroe's first book, he mentions a very unusual occurance that happened at least a few times when he was exploring the nonphyscial in OBE state.  

 He states that it didn't matter where he was, or who he was with, but on occasion this immensely powerful, rushing energy would sweep through whatever dimension he was focused in at the time, and then everyone in that dimension around Monroe, would "lay down with their bellies up".  

 He said it wasn't coerced, but just something that everyone spontaneously and naturally did for some reason (and he felt the same urge too).   He asks questioningly "Is this God's Son?"  Perhaps, it was a humility, reverence thing for all these consciousnesses, wherein they realized the Co-Creator of their reality was passing (or rather concentrating) through?

 This also reminds me again of the Cayce readings.  With Cayce's work, he wasn't technically a medium type channel.    Other consciousnesses/beings rarely ever spoke directly through him, but rather he would go OBE during a very, very deep altered, meditative state, and communicate with various beings and energies, and relay the info via his own actual consciousness.  

 Anyways, on a few occasions we find him giving a reading, and all of a sudden it cuts off, and "higher self connected" Cayce starts to speak in a hushed and very reverent manner, and says something like, "Quiet, the Master is passing by.."  

 Occasionally Yeshua directly spoke through, or relayed info via Cayce, but it was rare.  Cayce almost never remembered his readings consciously, but occasionally before and especially after a reading was given, he felt the presence of Yeshua/Christ, and sometimes experienced a warm but powerful Golden light energy.  In one Reading, it was given that Cayce's work was essentially and ultimately the work of "the Master of Masters" or Christ Yeshua if you prefer

 Then, in Monroe's first biography, he talks a little bit about the nature of this Universe and its Creator.   He said something like things got a little too crazy in it's Creation, and then the Creator decided to become directly involved in the drama.  Monroe is not necessarily speaking of The Source btw, when talking about a "Creator".  

 Not surprisingly, this again echoes info found in the Cayce readings, which suggest at different points, similar to John gospel in the N.T., that Yeshua Disk or Spirit Essence is the very Co-Creator of this particular Universe/reality.   In the Cayce work, it is said that Christ, the Co-Creator wasn't originally directly partaking in its Creation, but started to after many of its brothers/sisters/children started to become increasingly stuck.  
It decided to first show up as a deathless, unborn teacher who just manifested a body for itself, but saw that this approach wasn't working, and so then decided to become more immersed and enmeshed in this drama in Earth.   It decided to partake in the reincarnation cycle, and took a risk of forgetfullness to do so.   This spiritually leading the way pattern, culminated in Christ's fastest vibrating lifetime as Yeshua, whom Rosiland McKnights guidance claims at one point in her book "Cosmic Journeys" was "the highest vibratory being to ever come to Earth."

  Not surprisingly, in Bruce's 4 book, Voyage to Curiosity's Father, we again find some fascinating, but subtle suggestions along this line when Bruce talks to the "Planning Intelligence".  The P.I. informs Bruce and his exploration partner, that the P.I is the Creator of this Universe, and like a Father to it, but YET was still the Child of THE Creator, of original Source.  
  During their initial contacts with the P.I., Bruce's exploration partner when tuning into and communicating with the P.I., got strong associations with the Christ and the Christ concept.  Hmm, yet she was not a "religious" person by any means...

 Ok, not only that, but in Bruce's remembrance or vision of the birth of Creation, as shared with him by the P.I., we find yet more parallels with Cayce's work.  
 
  Cayce's work suggests that the Christ Soul, was one of the first Souls to separate from Source and yet also the first Soul to fully merge with Source/The Creator again, even before the Earth and this Universe were manifested.   Cayce's source also says that this Soul, or Spirit, was and is the same thing/consciousness/energy as that we term "Love".  

 Again, not surprisingly, this mirrors and echoes Bruce's vision of this birth of Creation and that, that One being, one aspect, one spark of "Consciousness the Creator", which to him seemed "thrown outwards", indeed return fully completed and merged with "Consciousness" before any other, and thus became a model for further Creating on part of Source, and now with its Child's help.  

  This all was bit of an experiment in Bruce's interpretations.  Anyways, when examining this particular Spark, and why it was so successful in its purpose and in its mission, it realized that it was because PUL was an integral part of its Beingness, and that PUL acted much like, in analogy, water which surrounds and connects all the little particles of dry cake mix, making them all different/unique and yet One and connected at the same time.

 In the N.T., particularly in John's Gospel, we read that Christ is the Light of the world.  

   Light, the consciousness of same, is what connects everything to everything else, it is the essence of "The One Field", it is like the water that Bruce talks about.   According to Bruce and to the P.I., the P.I. is that very Light, it is the first awareness or rather concrete expression of PUL in Creation.  

  Sure, this all sounds very far out to many here, but the repeating parallels, suggestions, and connections between these very different and seemingly unconnected sources is undeniable and uncanny.  Come on, we would expect to find parallels between Monroe and Moen's work, but between them and also with Cayce's and the N.T.?

 It all came together for me (though i sensed parts and connections of it here and there), one night while taking a relaxing bath.  I received a "rote" totally and seemingly out of the blue then, and had one of those "Aha" moments and feelings, where I saw all the connections from these various sources that i had studied (and more than the ones i have just mentioned), and just knew beyond a doubt, in my gut (actually more in my Heart and Forehead   ) that my conclusion/synthesis/over view was completely right on.  

 I later wondered why i didn't get it all before.  After all, for years i was trying to figure out this Jesus guy, and what was the true story with him.  I guess i had to get to a certain point in my own spiritual developement before i fully comprehended and more importantly accepted all of it.  

  No wonder why, then, that Albert frequently hears or hears of things like from his guidance, or his close friends guidance, things like, "In His name".   It's very similar to the things that Cayce's source oft said, and Albert has never studied or been into Cayce. 





 

I will read these books you recommend, Justin, and I thank you for mentioning them. I am very glad to read what you write and I don't find what you have to say tedious or arrogant. I believe at the root of all existence there is only ONE thing. That duality is the illusion of separation. And if we truly are all one then ultimately there can be no Good and Evil, Love and hate and any other duality that you can think of. This is hard for me to write about because I have been misinterpreted many times when I say these things. When I am in a play with other actors at the end of it we all go out and have a big party after even though the people we played on stage that night may have killed each other and hated one another. Sometimes in life we forget that we are playing roles and that the costume will come off at the last day...The actor or seeker isn't going anywhere, but the character we played in this world must succumb to the end of his natal chart. So my point about Jesus is that I find fault with the Character's portrayal, not with the essence or actor that tried to break down the walls of the mind. I have yet to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that his birthday is same as Osiris. And I have yet to believe in the resurrection as it is spelled out in the gospels, but I take great pride in my acceptance of what Jesus did. It's not that I am unopen to believing those things about Jesus...It's not as important to me as what he said and did. You know what bugs me the most about Church? When I go in there and everyone is talking about treating Jesus as a king--as though Prince Charles life would appeal to him. I get that a lot down here and it's true I don't go to church anymore, unless it's something special that my giirlfriend wants to go to.
Thank you for posting all this wonderful info about yourself and what connections you've made for yourself. It is very inspiring. I'm glad you pursued me on this subject because I do tend to fret a little when someone invokes the name of Jesus...because nine times out of ten, it's to tell me what's wrong with what I think. To me we are all interpreting the same message...I know, there appears to be other ones, out there, but to me ultimately all road lead to OM, so to speak...some roads are just a hell of a lot longer and less interesting. I don't think anyone burns in hell unless that's just the only they can see it coming together for them. You know what it is? Down here Jesus and Judgment are kind of one and the same. Don't get me wrong I'm not implying that you think this way...and maybe you do. I just don't believe anything is stagnant in the universe. I make the decision to move on or go back based on my ability to learn what I need from a given moment or life time. My separation from Christ is my own illusion to overcome. Jesus laid the groundwork to retrieve me and the Christ light will fulfill it when I can pull the veil down and see the connection without winding up in the pysch ward. Again many thanks for sharing and as soon as I finish Bruce's third book I will go back to Monroe and I'll look for this new book you've mentioned too. Many thanks for taking the time to benefit me.

Yours,
Beau

Well, that's really it, isn't? The bitter taste of Dogma. I guess for most of my experiences with people's impressions of Jesus it has always seemed to lead them ultimately to that dogma that makes it so hard for me to advance in conversation with them. I think the wisdom of the Christ light has permeated everything and every voice, but when our egos of either fear or fearlessness gets in the way we lose our way... I know I do. It's like a road that I know I have traveled before in some other time and I genuinely feel I have brought back something else with me this time. I haven't fully defined it yet, but I'm pretty sure most of the time of what it isn't...now by that I don't mean that such a dogmatic path will not eventually lead to the OM, but like I said before, some paths are longer...or at least different. The Oversoul is experiencing through all of us and I feel there is no need to be hasty, but at the same time I don't want to lose ground. I often hear christians down here say "why bother with all that, just accept Christ as your personal savior and you don't have do anything but live as the bible says." Then I look at where the Bible has lead humanity and I just have to wonder, you know? I have an enormous respect for Christ as I understand Christ, but I'm not looking for a short cut. Everything still evolves...even the message, but I have to keep coming back to the Golden Rule. I can't say I always follow it but before the day is over each day I am aware of it and I press on. There is too much masculine energy wrapped up in the character of Jesus in the stories...not in what he says or how he acts, but in how his words and actions effect others. I think that is because the scriptures were written by men with an agenda. All the fear inducements and follow the leader, but they are really asking that you follow the rules in the Bible or so it seems to me. Don't mistake me here, there are marvelous passages as we all know...brilliance in fact, but It's not important to my growth whether Jesus performed miracles. What's important to me is that he understood that there can be no separation of one to another. We all swim in the same universal pond. The Light reaches you. It just does and it's not meant for everyone to be reached in the same way. The Golden Rule for me is where the source lives. If I could come to the understanding that it necessitates there would be only bliss....but I'm not sure I'm ready for total bliss yet, you know? But I get that anything done to another is done to me and Jesus is not asking me to go to war with anyone. That is wrapped up in that fear mentality of the Bible and the Koran and really any doctrine that is taken for the word of God. I say it's all the word ultimately because the ability to communicate comes from that same source. Even doubters are on their path and it used to get under my skin when someone said, "I think we just die...we cease to exist". Because I can't comprehend that at all and I'm sure you find that to be the case or we wouldn't be here, but if there is only ONE then it's either on or it's off...I say it's on and our lives prove that...even if we are living in an illusion, which is entirely possible to me. Well so much for these stream of conscious ramblings.

I don't get up to Virginia very often but I certainly will if Bruce holds a workshop there. I hope we can meet up sometime. That would be very cool. It's great talking with you. I can clearly see that your impressions of Yeshua are quite different from the ones thrust on me over the years.

Beau

It's interesting that you or Seth use the word Speaker. I think that's very important. I believe there are many with the understanding who never say anything. They simply wish to observe and serve another time around. And perhaps all the 30 great speakers are the same persona. Ultimately it seems to me that that's where we are headed. As the universe spreads out the consciousness grows closer together and the evolving of consciousness represents the physical metaphor for the expanding universe. I like metaphors a lot, but I'm often told that I use them too much and it can get confusing...well, I'm sure I'm the one who is confused when it happens. I like to be clear, but I find that when I start writing about this stuff it kind of takes on a mind of its own, which is nice too. I don't know much about Seth. I've run across some excepts on other websites and I've seen the name come up a few times in here.

As far as the belief system planet and duality, I think any physical existence has duality. To rise above the duality and be able to see the completeness of the ONE even when faced with the illusion of separation and duality is one goal I find perplexing and also attainable in short bursts. Each time I can feel it my whole life begins to reflect back to me what I've learned and be a constant reminder to help me get thru those down turns that are inevitable after the shock of oneness leaves and I have to get up and brush my teeth or whatever. Those moments are certainly a gift, but one that I strove for for such a long time, but did it without guidance for a long time and it made some folks in my life very nervous. This animal that I'm trapped inside is still weird to me. It craves things I do not understand, but I feel the same way about the spirit too. I guess I'm still playing the middle man most of the time.

Thanks for your post Rain. I hope to hear more from you.

You weren't directing this at me, Justin, but I would have to say that no channel is infallible. Because no receiver is infallible. I would have to say that a channel that is purposefully distorting the truth makes the truth more elusive but still not unknowable. These battles or discussions over who's right and who's wrong are how we wound up further and further separated. To tell someone their source is wrong or misinformed can cause great damage to someone who is reaching for the light or just unnecessary animosity. I think there was a time for defending the honor of our sources but perhaps that time has passed and now is the time for acceptance. And of course, that doesn't mean agreement. And if a source has no acceptance within it then perhaps that is something that needs further looking into. One thing I've learned is that you can't beat people over the head with what's true and have a friend at the same time. I say it's not my job to keep so and so on the right path and it's not my job to defend truth as I find it. "When you know, you know"--John Lennon. So in answer to the question I would say the answer is no. Better to share from your source without defending it, because defense will mostly be taken as an attack. That's just the nature of it.  If it is truth it needs no defense. Discussion it seems to me does not have to be a defensive technique. When I started this, I thought it was a pretty good answer, but as I'm finishing up I'm not so sure. But that's how I feel about it. Otherwise you end up running people off and that isn't really productive either.--just my two cents

 Hi Beau,

 I made my reply to Alysia, about as nice, diplomatic, and gentle as i possibly could make while still disagreeing with her subtly and hoping she might question certain preconceived notions.  

U wrote, Quote:


Very true, and something i oft point out, even about the sources i trust a lot, and also about myself.  As i said earlier in this thread, since i'm not yet completed as per Monroe's terminology, take the following info with a grain of salt.   I also always say its a much better idea to instead of just completely believing in outside sources, to go within and hook up to the highest within self, to get the truth.   Particularly in deep, still meditation.  

U wrote, Quote:


Rather i would say, the truth needs no negative, hurtful, and unloving defense.  Whether an action, a deed, a speaking to others is spiritual and constructive, or not so, depends more on the inner intents, motivations more so than anything.  I can assure you that unless you are a near or completed being yourself, and can fully and totally read my heart/mind, you cannot say what this is or not for sure.  All i can tell you is that from my perspective, that my intentions and motivations are of the highest and most loving.  

Back to the above, was my reply to Alysia negative, belittling, hurtful, and unloving in nature.   People cannot ever disagree with or question others about anything?

 If the truth never needed defense, and never WAS defended by the likes of Yeshua, Susan B. Anthony, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and various others who stood up to and spoke out against the mistruths of their relative times, just think of how this world would be with just a super passive and blase saying leading the way.   Truly would this world be a much, much darker place without the like of such outspoken and truth defending people.  People who vocally disagreed with the beliefs of the times, despite that no doubt those beliefs were clung to and "sacred" to those people who erroneously held them.  You know, things like slavery is ok because black people aren't really human.    

 The important part is that the above people did defend the truth, and they did so well because they did it in a more positive and nonjudgmental of the actual people who held those beliefs way.  There are ways to defend the truth, and to actively promote same which don't involve putting others down or judging the person.  It alright to judge things and beliefs, but not spiritual or loving to judge people themselves.   I was not judging Alysia, but i'm judging the veracity and helpfulness of a source she has for some reason been lately promoting a lot.  

 Subtle to see at times, but important and big difference imo.  

Okay, The truth of Human Rights needs defense. But I am not talking about that. I was, and I thought we both were, talking about spiritual growth. Perhaps you view all these things as one, and if so then my point is mute. A good defense does not a truth make. That's really my point. And we're not really talking so far off base from each other. My emphasis would be on the word "needs". It needs no defense. In other words I would have to ask how much of the defense is of the ego...I'm only making a point and not by any stretch meaning to offend here. We've only just started our dialogue, I think you know that. I struggle with these questions everyday and your opinions I value.

I was answering your question because I thought it was a good one. I don't have an answer for a higher road. Just putting out my thoughts. I don't think you are wrong. As I said, I was just answering your question. No worries, mate. I don't know where the thread started anymore, you're right about that for sure