I similarly make a distinction between discernment and judgement, and have directly tackled Nanci about this very subject. When Nanci attempts to qualify her statement that Source does not judge human behaviour, and is inherently incapable of doing so because of lacking discernment, she basically explains it in terms of differences of perspective. Source has a broad enough perspective to realize two things – i) human life is not real and ii) humans are effectively fictitious characters in Source’s own mind. So the crucial question this prompts is whether or not Source would make the discrimination between good behaviour and bad behaviour if the consequences were real from its own Source-level perspective. According to Nanci it may well be the case that Source is just one of a race of similar entities. So perhaps this question has some direct relevance. But even disregarding this, Source must nonetheless be able to concoct hypothetical scenarios in its mind and see how it feels about them. It could surely imagine entities that are genuinely separate from itself whose actions result in consequences that are real from its own perspective. It must then in turn have some kind of personal insight into how it would feel about the behaviour of such entities and the ensuing consequences of their actions. Would Source not form some kind of judgement on entities that are genuinely separate and independent from itself, and whose malicious and hurtful behaviour resulted in consequences that are real from its own perspective level?
It is useful at this juncture to make a distinction between two kinds of judgement. One is of the finger-pointing kind, where the judgement is directed specifically at the person. The other is directed more on the behaviour of that person, much like when we chastise children for naughty behaviour. Generally speaking we do not brand a child we are reprimanding as bad or evil (although that might depend on the child) so much as make a statement about the negative effects of its behaviour – a big difference! Accordingly Source might also have the potential under the appropriate circumstances to form these kinds of judgements. I would like to think so anyway. 
Nanci responded to my query by stating that she did not know the answer to this, and in affect admitted that she does not really know whether Source lacks discernment. This is because the issue of whether Source possesses discernment is inextricably bound up with the answer to the above question. At the moment Nanci’s entire qualification for Source not possessing discernment is that Source regards human life as a figment of its own imagination, so will no more judge behaviour as right or wrong anymore than we do when we watch an actor/actresses’ behaviour in the context of a movie. But of course, as noted above, this still leaves open the possibility that it possesses discernment in the relevant sense (and here I use the word ‘relevant’ in relation to the issue of whether Source is a sociopath).
Another issue is moral relativism. There are admittedly some powerful philosophical arguments which appear to support the moral relativist position, some of which Nanci has been quick to seize upon to help support her case. One of these arguments is how human perception of what is right and wrong is in a constant state of flux, and is often contradictory (or at the very least inconsistent at times). All this is true of course. But there are nonetheless certain things which are almost universally accepted as being wrong. What will often complicate human perceptions of what is right and wrong are utilitarian considerations. People frequently disagree in circumstances which call on them to decide which are the lesser of two evils between two separate courses of action. Whether a particular war (or sometimes war in general) is seen as justifiable is often heavily influenced by utilitarian thinking, socio-political issues, level of accurate information one has access to, allegiances, empathy, and a myriad of other factors. And other issues are clouded by separate (albeit related) concerns. For instance, the foggy area of what exactly constitutes life influences how one thinks about the issue of abortion. But that does not mean that such people necessarily disagree that it is wrong to murder people. It normally means they are essentially disagreeing about the nature of a foetus – is a developing embryo just an inanimate bunch of cells or is it a sentient being? (There is of course the intermediate view that it is an inanimate object but  has the potential to become life, so should therefore not be terminated on this basis).
One way of identifying the underlying continuity of human thinking regarding what is right and wrong is to consider what societies (spanning vast temporal and geographical domains) consistently teach their children. It is almost universally accepted to teach children that it is wrong to lie, steal, engage in hurtful and violent behaviour and so forth. The reason for this continuity - as opposed to the more confused and disparate adult level thinking - is that we generally don’t instruct young children about utilitarian ethics and all of the moral quandaries associated with the multitude of grey areas relating to ethical issues. That comes later!
So the upshot of all this is; although the philosophical arguments supporting the moral relativist position do hold water in some respects, they are in fact quite limited in scope. More specifically, they address the confusion and disagreements relating to the grey areas of ethical issues rather than successfully inflict damage on the view that there is a high level of uniform agreement lurking beneath the fluid-like surface of apparent moral dissent.   
Another point to consider in this discussion is that Source, by implication of various statements found in Nanci’s Backwards books, is fully capable of discriminating between loving and non-loving conduct. Nanci’s Backwards books are choc-full of examples of each type of behaviour, comparing and contrasting between these two categories of conduct. If this writing is indeed based on Nanci’s assimilation of knowledge from the afterlife, as it is claimed to be, then at the very least Light Beings have discernment in the above sense. And this is an important point since Nanci states in other parts of her books that Light Beings, like Source, do not possess the faculty of discernment. I do not point this out as a criticism, or to imply that Nanci is contradicting herself! So do not misunderstand my point. But the point here is that this starts to hone in on what exactly Nanci means by the word ‘discernment’. I think this is really the issue that is being discussed here – clarification on Nanci’s use of terms. As far as I can tell, after conversing with Nanci at some length on this topic and what exactly she means by the word ‘discernment’, she means something like the following; Source and LBs are able to discriminate between good and bad behaviour in the sense that they are able to intellectually understand what it is like to view things from a human perspective and correspondingly make the distinction between good and bad behaviour from that perspective. But Source and LBs do not share the same human emotion about the outcome of hurtful behaviour. Again, this basically boils down to a difference in perspective. Source and LBs knows none of it is real. Also, from this higher perspective level they can see the broader picture and realize that the suffering serves some beneficial purpose in the long run.
But this is the important point! If this assessment of what Nanci is saying is accurate (and I think it is) there are a couple of issues that still need to be addressed. For one thing it does not seem quite appropriate to say that the above fact entails a lack of discernment on the part of Source and LBs. When we watch a movie and neglect to make a moral judgement on the actor’s behaviour (in the film!) because we know it is not real, we are not thereby demonstrating a lack of discernment. We can potentially walk out the movie theatre at the end of the film and see someone perform the same act of violence we might have just witnessed in the movie. And we would still make the same judgement that the behaviour is bad. Likewise it would appear Source might also view things very differently in a different context (i.e. in a context that is real from its own perspective). Also, although having a longer range view of things, (i.e. seeing some kind of latent long-term benefit in bad/evil behaviour) there does seem to be a vast difference between the two different attitudes captured by the following statements: i) “that is a really crap thing to do to someone, but never mind. It is ultimately for the greater good”, compared to ii) “that is really a crap thing to do to someone, but who gives a shit. Not me.” Again, the first statement simply reflects a difference in perspective, whereas the second statement reflects a genuine lack of moral discernment.
It is noteworthy that Nanci does agree with Neal Donald Walsch that Source is attempting to appreciate the positive by experiencing the negative. Source apparently came to the realization at some point that in order to truly appreciate the sweet you also have to taste the bitter – ergo planet Earth! However IMO Nanci greatly downplays the significance of this, preferring instead to emphasize over and over (and over and over and over.....) that Source is motivated primarily by an insatiable curiosity to experience everything it can, even including all negative experiences if that is what it takes to experience absolutely everything. The two motivations are not strictly mutually exclusive of course. But it stands to reason that one motivation is more fundamental than the other, namely the motivation to more fully appreciate the good. Curiosity is fine, but would you have ever gone into Earth life just to satisfy your curiosity about what it is like to have a really crap experience? You might conceivably do so on the basis that after having gone into human life on Earth, and then returning to the afterlife afterwards, you are likely to think to yourself: “Wow, this afterlife is so awesome and wonderful, particularly in contrast to the experience I have just had of living 80 or so years of complete crapness on planet Earth”.   
The most disturbing element of Nanci’s depiction is that of Source being somewhat reminiscent of V’Ger from the original Star Trek movie - an entity driven entirely by insatiable curiosity (at all costs) but completely lacking in moral fibre (which didn’t work out too well for the Starship Enterprise!) According to Nanci, what really gets Source out of bed in the morning is the desire for new experiences. It needs to constantly feed itself on anything and everything it can possibly imagine – even the experience of say being a toilet brush. Nanci describes Source’s love on the other hand as being something more akin to an energy force-field. Source apparently emits an aura that just happens to feel good (by pure happenstance apparently) if you happen to be in the vicinity of it. I get the fact that Source’s unconditional love it is not like human emotion. If it were similarly a response to someone or something, as human emotion always is, this in itself would make it intrinsically conditional. But I was kind of hoping for something slightly more meaningful than some kind of magnetic force-field which pulls you in like a tractor beam, and gives you a bit of a warm fuzzy feeling inside as a side-effect of being enveloped by it. Don’t get me wrong, it sounds quite nice. But ultimately it lacks meaning. And why use the word ‘love’. You might as well substitute the word ‘love’ by the word ‘blue-cheese’ for all the relevance it has.   
To just quickly address the other post relating to Nanci’s motives for invoking biological principles to explain human behaviour - I agree that understanding is crucial when it comes to empathising with other people and their wayward behaviour. Nanci’s heavy use of evolutionary concepts is ostensibly to generate understanding for the human condition, with the above aim in mind. But I have the sense that in reality we are getting some kind of fusion between Nanci’s afterlife memories and her 1970’s biology textbooks. But that is for another discussion I guess.

Helko MarkyG:

You wrote a long post and I want to read it thoroughly before I respond about it.

MarkyG:

I read your last post. It is quite long so I won’t comment on every point. Overall, I get and appreciate what you are saying.

When I make contact with beings of light I don’t get the feeling that I am in contact with some moronic beings who are incapable of discernment and radiate nothing more than an energy that feels good but has no wisdom-based value.

Divine love is much more than a feeling.  It is a way of being that contains much wisdom and value.  It enables us to care for each other deeply and value each other to an extent where we treasure each other.

How could Source radiate such love and at the same time be a nimcompoop who doesn’t understand the value of love-based behavior?

Regarding human values versus Source’s values, well as Nanci states, we are more than animals. We are also light beings! Therefore, we are capable of having values that are more than human-based ignorance.  Love, humility, honesty , respect for others and loyalty are values that have meaning not only here in this World, but also in higher realms no matter how high they get, otherwise they wouldn’t be that high.

Regarding the end justifies the means viewpoint, well, that’s one of the reasons I provided a quote by Eban Alexander.  In order for our Souls to be able to evolve in a way that is complete, we have to have free will.  To a significant extent, on our own, we have to learn what ways of being are favorable not just for ourselves, but for others. In order for free will to exist the possibility of negative activity has to exist.  If such a possibility is going to exist, then it might exist to an extent that isn’t preferable. For example, how many kids need to be bullied in school in order for Source to get to the point of what bullying is all about? I figure that much more bullying has taken place than is needed. It is worth adding that Source couldn’t understand what bullying is all about, if it didn’t understand about compassion and the value of treating others with love.

Regarding us being nothing more than Source’s play things, I believe that Source lives according to love so completely that he treasures us.

Regarding us being nothing more than Source’s thoughts, it is more of a matter of whether something exists, rather than whether something is real. Some forms of creation aren’t permanent, and some are shared with more beings than other forms; nevertheless, that which exist does in fact exist, even if just one Soul experiences it.  After all, since everything comes from Source, how could anything be unreal in the way that some people state? Such people might as well say that Source isn’t real.

When each of us reaches the point where we are able to live completely according to love and concept free wisdom, why would Source be incapable of appreciating this? I figure he would, and therefore he would view us as much more than temporary thoughts that he brought into existence. He would understand that our beingness is made up of the same qualities as his existence: Consciousness, the ability to remember, to learn, discern, make decisions, and create accordingly.

Anything can become a concept, including the concept that Source doesn’t care what we do, even if such a concept is based upon some degree of truth when considered in the correct context. If one wants to make certain that one isn’t limited by such a view, one might try to find if there is a more expansive and inclusive way of viewing things that considers both Heaven and Earth.

Albert

Thanks for the really great posts in response to my post above Seagull & Recoverer. You both make some really good points, and I find them reassuring.
One of the things which keeps coming back to me is Nanci’s Light Being friends chanting “love is all that matters, love is all that matters” over and over as Nanci attempts to remember as much from her experience as she possibly could before coming back to Earth to tell everyone about her experience in the afterlife. Sometimes it is said that a little bit of knowledge is dangerous, meaning that sometimes it is better to have no knowledge at all than a snippet of information that by itself can potentially be highly misleading. And perhaps it applies in this case too. Maybe Nanci’s Light Being friends knew in advance that Nanci’s attempts to describe in human terms the full range of ideas and concepts that she has attempted to was doomed to failure. That is not to say that some people have not fully embraced her message and have no problems with what she is saying. But for every person that does so there are perhaps many more like me that find some aspects of what she is saying quite disturbing. Perhaps the main difference between the other people who don’t like what she is saying and me is that often people are inclined to simply disregard what they don’t like to believe (a very useful Freudian defence mechanism as it turns out) whereas I am not generally in the habit of doing that. I am not trying to put myself on a pedestal when I say that, as like I said this is a very useful coping mechanism for dealing with unwanted things, and can sometimes be the best thing to do as it doesn’t always serve one to believe things that disturb one’s peace of mind. But in trying to rise above this impulse I have perhaps done myself no favours. Nanci IMO has made a very convincing case, not just that she has had an NDE, but that hers has been more extensive than most, and that she has managed to retain far more information about her experience compared to many other typical NDE cases. I understand as well why she hasn’t been coy in promoting her NDE as such, as for one thing she has managed to meaningfully explain certain discrepancies that typically occur across NDE accounts. So it was not wrong for her to present her experience in the manner that she has chosen to. But the flip side of the coin is that this can make it very difficult for people like me who don’t necessarily resonate too well with what she is saying to lightly dismiss her experience and the conclusions she has come to as a result of having that experience. It is not that it is impossible (at least from my point of view) that she could be genuinely mistaken about certain things, but the problem is I cannot be sure that what she is saying is not the truth. So I guess it consumes my thoughts somewhat not because I think what she is saying is definitely true, but because of my inability to conclude that what she is saying is definitely not true. No matter what, the possibility still remains that what she is saying might be completely accurate. And it is hard to escape that fact.
I relate well to your comment Seagull that you are just relieved there is an afterlife, if nothing else. The idea of just popping out of existence at death has never held much appeal to me either. Also, I have never had any kind of affinity for the idea that there is some form of judgment waiting for us in the afterlife and people will be punished for their sins. Certainly Nanci’s message is a million million light years from that kind of idea of the afterlife. So it is not all bad. But I would still nonetheless have preferred the idea of a God with some kind of a conscience. But never mind. You can’t have everything I suppose.
Nanci’s speciality, as far as I can see, is to simplify as far as conceivably possible the afterlife concepts that she is relaying to people. This can be both a positive and negative thing. It is positive in the sense that it can enable people to form some kind of semi-meaningful concept of something which otherwise would be completely incomprehensible to the human mind. But it can be potentially negative if the simplified concept starts misleading people because of the unavoidably negative connotations which result from conceptualizing things in such a simplified manner. I guess, like most things, it probably suits some people but not others.
Having said this, I spoke to her once where she bought up the fact that we slaughter animals for food. She said that it didn’t bother her if animals suffered because she was at the Light Being level of thinking rather than the human level, explaining that as a result of this higher perspective she didn’t judge. “It just is” she said. Then, almost as an afterthought she added “And I know it is not real. It is real from their perspective, but I am not at their level of perspective.” These kinds of statements lend weight to the idea that rather than lacking the relevant concepts it is simply a matter of not caring. It is statements such as these that discourage me from believing that I am bothered by what she is saying simply because I lack the appropriate level of understanding. Couple this with what she states on the NDERF website in response to the question: “Was your experience hard to express in words?” She replies “The greatest gift I have been given by this experience is the ability to express much of it in words, often through analogies. I believe one of the reasons I personally had this experience is because I am an attorney, and have used words to communicate difficult concepts and emotions as part of my work.” So again this doesn’t lend itself to the idea that I don’t understand where she is coming from. But who knows. Maybe I am just too much of a thick-head to grasp what she is saying.   
I hope you are right in what you are saying Albert. Everything you state in your post makes complete sense to me. Those points I definitely resonate with. There is part of me, both emotional and intellectual, that constantly screams out at me that what Nanci is saying (or at least my understanding of what she is saying) cannot possibly be correct, and things can’t really be quite how she is depicting them. But this is always accompanied by another part of me that whispers in my ears that there is still some finite chance that she is perfectly correct in what she says. And I guess it is this whispering voice within me that keeps me constantly chomping at the bit, either trying to get a better understanding of what she is saying or finding some valid reason to discard it. And at this stage I am not particularly fussed either way, so long as one or the other happens. I guess in the meantime I just have to live with it.

(BTW the ‘modify’ button does keep disappearing. I managed to do a slight edit on my previous post earlier but now the ‘modify’ button is nowhere to be seen again. They need to get this sorted.)   

MarkyG:

I believe it is key that at the end of her experience Nanci was told that the only thing that matters is love. I believe that love inspires one to be empathetic to what others go through.

I'm not a Tom Campbell expert, but I know that he speaks of losing entrophy so one can live according to love.

So love is a theme, as is listening to our hearts.  If something doesn't feel right, don't go with it.

It is important to remember that humans are imperfect when it comes to knowledge, and sometimes well meaning people get it wrong.

My claim is that one lesson with a lot of subdivisions is experienced from every possible angle throughout all lifetimes spent on earth as human bodies; balance. Most often the consequences of not being able to attain balance.

Reality is that some kind of physical expression of life force will have to be consumed for animal and human bodies to animate. I've heard and read about other possibilities for sustenance. Some of them can be very cute but not how this reality works. Earth, a poor design? A Dicken's Cider or self (body) loathing goes a long way.