Hello Detheridge:

I figure that God didn't create us as a bunch of mindless automatons that have no choice over what we become. We come into this World and are exposed to a mixture of influences, and sometimes people have a hard time listening to their higher self. We end up creating a bunch of incarnation possibilities that aren't preferable but have to be lived because we create them.

I don't know who Barbara Hand Clow is, but I agree that the human race has gone through some difficult times, and it is time that we get back with the rest of "our family." That's a nice way to put it. I received spirit messages which stated that if a limited number of people get to the point where they live according to love to a significant degree, they'll have a positive effect on the rest of the World to a significant degree.

This is one of the reasons I don't like misleading sources. They interfere with the growth process of people who could make a difference. If people close down their hearts to the problems of this World, they close themselves off to a very strong impetus for spiritual growth.  If an unfriendly influence wanted to find a way to curtail the spiritual growth of this planet, if would find a way to get people to limit their growth, without them realizing that their growth is being limited. A system of thought that in some way minimizes the fact of how many people (and animals) suffer in this World, could prevent a person's heart from fully blossoming.

Regarding guilt, people often feel guilt when they don't have a reason to feel guilty. On the other hand, sometimes they feel guilty because their conscience causes them to do so. When people don't listen to their conscience, they do immoral and unloving things.  

Recoverer,
"Going by your line of reasoning, if man A pays man B to kill man C, man A is innocent,  because man B pulled the trigger."

Getting someone to do ones dirty work doesn't make one innocent to me. So that's going by your line of reasoning, not mine.

"Regarding your comment about people sending bombs in the name of democracy and peace, your line of reasoning suggests that if man D pays man E to kill man F, then man A becomes innocent."

The suggestion and reasoning is all yours.

"Your last comment is a form of moral relatavism that justifies murder.  When it came to Hitler, there was more involved than the numerous people that were killed during World War II. Many people sufferred in a manner that served no purpose."

What extra you put into a rather obvious observation about the short lifespan of a body is just that, what you put into it. There are choices that are right for me, and there are choices that are wrong for me. During the mandatory enrollment for the military in the country where I am located, I didn't comply and was erased from their database. MY choice. Others? THEIR choices. I don't think any experience serves no purpose, but that doesn't mean that I want people to suffer. The oversouls of the bodies and spirits KNOW the whys of any suffering in this situation, and others can guess and believe the purpose. Some might think the oversouls shouldn't have allowed this to happen, and yet they did.

"Even today there are skin heads, nazis and KKK members who take part in hate crimes, partly because they are influenced by what Adolph Hitler said and did."

If somebody is influenced by barney to dress up in a purple dinosaur outfit, that's their responsibility. They can say barney made me do it, but that's victimhood mode.

"In the past, if I remember correctly, you defended Val Valerian. If he played a part in your forming your way of thinking, perhaps you should consider what he said, even though he claims that people who aren't in their last incarnation as he is, don't have the ability to question what he says. It is really sad how new age sources lead to moral relativism to the extent they do."

I defended my right to read whatever my heart desire, though efforts were made to try to get me to defend another's views, which is something I don't do as I can't speak on the behalf of anybody but me, so you're not remembering correctly. If you knew the material, not basing it on hearsay or second-hand opinions, you'd know which books valerian wrote and which he didn't. New agey? Not even a little bit.

Related to what I just wrote to Volu, would it be reasonble for a drug pusher to tell a judge, "Hey your honor, if those people would've refused to take drugs, I wouldn't be guilty of anything"?

Rondele and Recoverer are stating the truth and sometimes the truth hurts badly.

A deceiver of will mimic almost exactly the real truth and then add a little cyanide to the bottle of truth so that IT can stand back and watch you die, both spiritually and physically





A deceive like the cunning "jesus of ACIM" will mimic almost exactly the person of the real Jesus, including . love, compassion, everything is saccharine sweet artificial lovey duvy, lovey duvy nonsense,

The fake demon jesus of ACIM tells you "what you want to know"





The real Jesus tells you love costs you something , love is a sacrifice

There is a war of light and dearness, good and evil raging not only on earth but in the heavens(the universe)

Recoverers Alien and devil are real not delusions

Recoverer,
"Perhaps you wrote what you didn't mean. When you said:"

Nope, I wrote what I mean.

""The incarnations who chose to follow the words/orders of hitler did most if not all of the killing as far as I know. A soldier might blame a leader, to whom the soldier probably is mere cannon fodder, but the responsibility for the action is that of the doer. The lips move, the forked tounge flicks, but one still has a choice.""

"I figured you excused a man such as Adolph Hitler for his actions, by placing the blame on the people "Adolph" instructed."

You can figure and assume, but that doesn't mean I fit your projection. I responded to the notion that hitler was a mass murderer, because for me, that leaves out the soldiers and the public swayed by lame setups like the reichstag fire. Hitler was responsible for HIS actions, and the henchmen responsible for obeying and carrying out his plan. So, in conclusion, I think that responsibility lies with more than just one figure.

""Nowadays some leaders dub warfare peace operations, and say they are spreading freedom and democracy (with bombs).""

"I figured you were trying to minimalize what Adolph Hitler was responsible for, by stating what other people do. I figure one thing has nothing to do with the other."

Drawing parallels between linear then and now isn't about minimizing anything, that's your assumption on my behalf.

""Bodies have died in numerous ways throughout the timeline, bodies will continue to so, it's the destiny of a body to die, and the sparks that gave the bodies life move on to different areas of the astral.""

"I figured you were saying that the many deaths Adolp Hitler is responsible don't matter, because all bodies die."

Adolf and his henchmen. It's a response to wailing over dead bodies. In a deeper sense, yes, I don't think non-animated bodies are sacred, but disposable vehicles for experience. All bodies die indeed. But that doesn't negate what you choose to do while in the body will imo either retard, halt or further your progression.

"I figured this way, because you were responding to the below quote from Alan. Considering the context, it is hard to figure that you meant something else."

If you think it's hard to figure otherwise, that's your challenge.

"If you meant to say that Hitler, those who followed him, and other people who start wars are responsible for what they do, then I figured you would've made at least one statement about how Adolph was responsible for the many negative things that happened when he was in this World. A person who starts a negative chain of reactions is responsible for doing so."

You may figure that I should do this or that, but that doesn't mean I am going to do it. I don't conform to what others think I should do, unless I think it's the right thing to do.

"Related to what I just wrote to Volu, would it be reasonble for a drug pusher to tell a judge, "Hey your honor, if those people would've refused to take drugs, I wouldn't be guilty of anything"?

What would happen in a court of law is obvious, as the pusher did his part, he's responsible for selling the drugs. The druggie is responsible for buying, and his actions while under the influence. If a store clerk sells a spade to a customer, and the customer uses the spade to make a point to his friends, by holding it up and and telling them, 'Yes, I am calling a spade a spade, so there you have it!', the store clerk cannot be held responsible for that action.

I find such arguments as the one above threatening and repulsive. With all due respect, Alan, your reply to Volu seems inappropriate to me. It is too forceful, in my humble opinion. I have had to listen to so many such arguments, and have been forced to respond to such 'yes or no' queries under pressure by those more powerful than me, and it really upsets me to read such things anymore. You don't have to understand me, and I have no intention of going into my background on this. Enuff said.

Whether or not writing about the shortcomings of some channeled sources is useful to others it is useful to me, because I'm writing a book, and there is a good chance I won't say anything about channeled sources, because it doesn't seem to be productive to do so. All you end up doing is turning people off.

I'm not suggesting that people can never speak about false channeled sources, but it'll probably serve my book better if I don't say anything about them.

Say for example I believe that the suffering in this World does matter regardless of what some sources say. I don't need to name such sources in order to make my point.