That's good to hear Kathy.

I know very little about him. Does he have a TMI background? Is he an afterlife realm explorer?

Regarding people asking him a question and then just accepting it, I figure this can happen to just about any source of information. One of the things I like about Robert Monroe and Bruce Moen is that they don't seem to be in the believe me mode. They would be more inclined to suggest that people find out for themselves.

I do believe it was misleading for Tom Campbell to tell somebody Seth is a light being without explaining why he believes this is true.   Because an explanation wasn't provided, the questioner might assume that Tom Campbell has a way of knowing about Seth that is beyond opinion. When people such as myself stated things against Seth in the past, at least ways we provided explanations, rather than expecting people to simply take our word for it.

Regarding the post you provided, it seems as if he provided an explanation for his way of thinking. Whether or not people agree with it is another matter.

Lights of Love wrote on May 11^th, 2009 at 3:32pm:

Yes to both questions. He helped Bob develop the technology back in the 70's. There's thousands of taped recordings of contact with other entities that was made during various sessions including those with Rosie MacKnight and others. The ones I've listened to were very interesting and informative.

I don't recall TC saying Seth is a "light being" whatever that label means. We are all light beings as far as I'm concerned. We are all "chips off the ol' block" of God consciousness. What I recall is he said the Seth entity does exist and that Jane Roberts misinterpreted a lot of what Seth was trying to communicate to her. I can accept that even though I've never had personal interaction with Seth.

I think most people that have read his books and participate in his forums consider him to be an authority on his theory, since afterall, he is the one that wrote it.

Kathy

Kathy:

Now that you mentioned the explorer sessions, I remember seeing Tom Campbell's name in Far Journeys. Regarding his being an authority on his theory, well that makes sense. I haven't read it, so I don't know what it's about.

Regarding Seth, perhaps I worry too much. If as I believe, for a number of reasons, Jane Roberts made up Seth, then perhaps their is no ill intent behind Seth, it is a matter of what Jane Roberts and her husband Robert Butts came up with.  Much of what they had to say wasn't new.

As I'm sure you know, I believe they mischaracterize Jesus' life in various ways, including when they stated that a drugged and mentally disturbed man was crucified in his place. Going by what my heart and the spiritual messages I received say, Jesus was crucified. For reasons I believe are reasonable, I'm inclined to believe what my own intelligence, heart and messages have told me before I believe Jane Roberts. After wondering about her quite a bit, I received spirit messages that seemed to suggest that Jane made up Seth. There are other reasons for believing this is the case. If Tom Campbell believes Jane Roberts actually channeled Seth, perhaps this shows that he is infallible just like anybody else.

I believe people go too far when they sugggest that a channeler got some things wrong, because he or she misinterpreted what a supposed channel being is saying. In the case of Jane Roberts, supposedly Seth spoke through her body. This being the case, how could mistranslation take place? When Seth supposedly smoked cigarrettes and drank wine while supposedly speaking through Jane's body, was this a mistranslation?  Plus, some of the things channelers tend to say are very specific. For example, Jane Robert's crucifixion hoax "fable" has a lot of details.

If information from a channeled being can be misinterpreted by a channeler to such an extreme where a person goes from being crucified to not being crucified with an illogical explanaton provided, then I don't see how the process of channeling can considered to be reliable.  Sometimes it is important to consider whether an explanation is a matter of convenience, or factual.


Lights of Love wrote on May 11^th, 2009 at 4:37pm: