R,

My point was that if we are able to express love, then the whisperings of low level entities are not likely to have as much effect. 

Also, I sense in your writings a holding of things as inviolate that we must follow our inner nature.  While that is true, to some extent, I don't think you pick up from ES that our inner nature can be "cultivated" while on earth.  Otherwise our choices, actions and karma would be meaningless.  If we have a nature bound for heaven and hell, then why do anything at all?  What would the purpose be in learning in a spiritual sense? 

So my take on ES and our inner nature is - yes that is ourself in our truest sense.  But nothing in the universe is unchanging, and while on earth, we can either indulge our baser nature and have it grow, or see the value in love, and cultivate it - allow it flow is more like it, instead.  I may be an eternal optimist, yet I rebel against anything implied in ES' writings that our inner self is forever written in stone!

M

Yes, Roger,

You see my take on ES is that he is correct - we have our own inner loves and nature, but the loves can still be used to allow love from God to flow, or to harm others and turn away from love.

So I may have an inner nature with a tendency toward    certain loves.  But if I follow it self indulgently and block off love that comes from God, I go down a path that might lead me toward a self indulgent hellish plane when I die.  If, on the other hand, I cultivate my life and thoughts to give service to others, or to follow the golden rule, perhaps that allows me to be open to whatever love I can express. 

So yes, ES says we must follow our inner callings.  But how have you cultivated your inner garden?  Did you allow weeds to grow in it while alive in the physical, or did you open yourself up to God's love?


M

recoverer wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 12:41pm:


That is about the best argument to throw the old books away.
The conscious of people has evolved, so they are ready for new knowledge. You shouldn't stick with the old.
Just like eating old bread instead of fresh because it would be considered a sin to waste that.

Rondelle:

I'm not willing to rely on any book.

rondele wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 1:51pm:

Don,

Ok, yes I do seem to recall Bob Olson going off in that direction and Natalie saying yes to what he was saying, but I'm not so sure she really meant to agree with him as I don't recall any mention of past lives, etc. in the book.  I have a meeting tonight and need to eat something since I missed lunch today.  I'll try to listen to the interview again in the morning.

She doesn't really discuss PUL in the same way as most NDEr's do, but yes, she does describe this in some ways.

There are things she says that I would disagree with.  Accountability in the afterlife is one of them.  There's a sense of it, as I recall, but you'd need to pay close attention to what's she's saying to understand it in that way.  That everything is planned is another.  She sort of touches on some of the above, but doesn't really get the point across in an obvious way.  I see agreements in much the same way Albert does.  Some things are planned... agreed upon, most is not.  Freedom of choice comes into play here.  I've never read any Seth or ACIM material and don't remember what all RAM said in his first book.  I think that's the only one I read years ago.  So when you and Roger talk about the concepts from those sources I really don't know what they are.  Now days there's so many people that have picked up "New Age" concepts from who knows where as one tends to repeat another over and over to the point that the original source of the concept is lost.

She could be using descriptions / metaphors from others to express her experience.  That's not surprising.  I'd say we all do that.  Some are more "correct" that others i suppose, but the ultimate question is: "Are our descriptions useful in the growth of our inner being towards love?"

Kathy

From a writer's perspective, I just want to say thanks to Lucy for the mention of the book.  I put it on my long to-get list of books.  And thanks to Rondele, Lucy, Kathy and others for their reviews and opinions of the book.  I don't know if I'll like it or not, but after reading all the thoughts and discussion here, I gotta check it out for myself.  My interest lies more with seeing how other people talk about and describe their spiritual experiences than with reading to make me believe their story.  Like from Rondele's description of her taking things from others she's read and heard....it makes me feel more appreciation for my own style of writing.  I still write very naively and straight forward most of the time, but the effect I'm going for is showing my raw honesty and awe of what I've experienced.  My effect is certainly not to impress anybody, nor to teach anyone anything for that matter. 

From a spiritual curiosity perspective....After reading all the reviews here, I have no idea what I'll think of the book or the writer's validity.  But you have all piqued my curiosity about it.

Vicky

Kathy-

She would make an excellent politician!

R

Made me chuckle.... cause it's true.

It's more like Afterlife Debate than Afterlife Knowledge most of the time, except for those that are on the same page and belief system.