Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

It is my opinion that if a person feels they are speaking on behalf of a different person the most likely explanation is that parts of themselves have become separate and they are communicating with themselves. Maybe they find it hard to talk of metaphysical things and create an 'other' to do it for them while they tend to daily life. The possibility of an actual spirit seems very 19th century and needs incredibly strong evidence to be deemed likely or correct. So someone who doesn't take it on or give it detailed analysis has a reasonable and rational basis to do so. 

The fact that you have never seen/heard a spirit is not evidence that some other people cannot see/hear.

If you think that all the people who have seen/heard a spirit are mentally ill, perhaps you have a prejudice. 

Perhaps, removing that prejudice just for a short while could give you another perspective. 

We are not talking about blind faith here, and you would admit that having a strong prejudice is not the right attitude to understand what Seth , or anybody says.

Btw, we are looking at the finger here, and not at the moon, so to speak.

J.Roberts and Seth are just the messengers of a cosmic vision; i have no intention, at the moment, to study Seth's message intensively, but what I've read so far makes enough sense to me.

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

4 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

The fact that you have never seen/heard a spirit is not evidence that some other people cannot see/hear.

If you think that all the people who have seen/heard a spirit are mentally ill, perhaps you have a prejudice. 

Perhaps, removing that prejudice just for a short while could give you another perspective. 

We are not talking about blind faith here, and you would admit that having a strong prejudice is not the right attitude to understand what Seth , or anybody says.

Btw, we are looking at the finger here, and not at the moon, so to speak.

J.Roberts and Seth are just the messengers of a cosmic vision; i have no intention, at the moment, to study Seth's message intensively, but what I've read so far makes enough sense to me.

 

2 alternatives I suppose. You could think the words have some wisdom but consider the source being the spirit unlikely. Or you could take the whole package and say they are either both worthwhile or not worthwhile as the truth crumbles if part of it is false.  On the theory that it is simply her it could be that in separating from herself she opens up something else within herself like an unconscious voice that might show a different point of view to the norm. 

[save the frogs]

27 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

J.Roberts and Seth are just the messengers of a cosmic vision;

or they could be false prophets.

 

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

2 alternatives I suppose. You could think the words have some wisdom but consider the source being the spirit unlikely. Or you could take the whole package and say they are either both worthwhile or not worthwhile as the truth crumbles if part of it is false.  On the theory that it is simply her it could be that in separating from herself she opens up something else within herself like an unconscious voice that might show a different point of view to the norm. 

Not necessarily. 

It doesn't matter to me if it's Seth or J.Roberts talking to herself. 

There are many cases in literature where people claim to be in contact with spirit, some may be charlatans of course, but others may be not.

 

As i said, comparing Seth's words with various other spiritual masters' and texts', i have a positive impression that that wisdom, although with different words, images and metaphors, is worth at least some consideration. 

Incidentally, I've had enough experiences with the supernatural not to discount or dismiss anything, and i would add that,  generally, drinking alcohol, even in small quantities, limits drastically the opportunity to get in contact with supernatural beings. Perhaps medicaments and other intoxicants have similar effects, but I'm not sure about that.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, save the frogs said:

or they could be false prophets.

 

Well, to be honest, I'm aware of that possibility, a false prophet could give his followers mostly correct informations to gain their trust, and then completely mislead them.

So being skeptical is not a bad thing at all.

[Sunmaster]

I've read 3-4 Seth books and found them very clear and insightful. But then, I have no problems accepting the fact that a person can channel or receive information from such a source. 

[save the frogs]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

I have no problems accepting the fact that a person can channel or receive information from such a source. 

even if you accept that, it doesn't necessarily mean all the information is "enlightened". we still have no clue what that "spirit" is exactly. 

 

also, is every word being channeled? what if part of it is and part of it is made up? there is no way to know.

then you also need to trust the person doing the channeling to have integrity.  

 

 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

even if you accept that, it doesn't necessarily mean all the information is "enlightened". we still have no clue what that "spirit" is exactly. 

 

also, is every word being channeled? what if part of it is and part of it is made up? there is no way to know.

then you also need to trust the person doing the channeling to have integrity.  

 

 

You are quite right in being suspicious. One is always advised in being cautious, especially with these kind of things. There are plenty out there who will intentionally try to manipulate people. There are a few good documentaries about such sect leaders on Netflix and YouTube.

Then there are those who are not even aware of harming others until it becomes blatantly obvious. Andrew Cohen, a spiritual teacher who abused his students, comes to my mind.

 

I like to think that after 25 years of research, my BS detector is pretty fine tuned. That, coupled with my own intuition and experience, makes up for a pretty effective safeguard against such "unenlightened" sources.

 

IMO, Seth is not one of them. And neither is Paramhansa Yogananda or Ramana Maharshi. These 3 sources I trust the most.

But like I always say, there is nothing more effective than personal verification through practice.

[save the frogs]

ok fair enough.

we don't have to agree on everything.

and anyway, your comments are stimulating discussions.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

11 hours ago, save the frogs said:

or they could be false prophets.

 

8 hours ago, save the frogs said:

even if you accept that, it doesn't necessarily mean all the information is "enlightened". we still have no clue what that "spirit" is exactly. 

 

also, is every word being channeled? what if part of it is and part of it is made up? there is no way to know.

then you also need to trust the person doing the channeling to have integrity. 

 

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

You are quite right in being suspicious. One is always advised in being cautious, especially with these kind of things. There are plenty out there who will intentionally try to manipulate people. There are a few good documentaries about such sect leaders on Netflix and YouTube.

Then there are those who are not even aware of harming others until it becomes blatantly obvious. Andrew Cohen, a spiritual teacher who abused his students, comes to my mind.

 

I like to think that after 25 years of research, my BS detector is pretty fine tuned. That, coupled with my own intuition and experience, makes up for a pretty effective safeguard against such "unenlightened" sources.

 

IMO, Seth is not one of them. And neither is Paramhansa Yogananda or Ramana Maharshi. These 3 sources I trust the most.

But like I always say, there is nothing more effective than personal verification through practice.

Let me ask you, save the frogs, do you believe yourself capable of discerning what's true from what's not?  Or do you believe you could easily be misled by a false prophet?

When you go through the day's news do you resort to fact checkers to tell you what the truth is?

Sunmaster talks of his BS detector.  I've got one, too.  The BS detector is nothing more than common sense.  One clue that someone is full of BS is when your common sense makes you aware of contradictions.  Contradictions are always a wonderful tell.  When Seth speaks of simultaneous time, for instance, that may appear to you to be a contradiction.  But it's not a case of Seth contradicting himself as he speaks more often in terms of time.  But he must relate to who he is talking to in order for it to make sense to them.  Which happens to be us humans whose experience revolves largely around the experience of time as consecutive moments.

Now you may consider simultaneous time to be a contradiction to your experience.  And it is.  What needs to be understood is that it's only a seeming contradiction that's forced to appear so because you are immersed in a reality in which the experience of time exists for us as it does.  It should be understood that the key take away, or the key understanding to be had, is that time is only  . . . only . . . something that is experienced as such and such or so and so.  Seth explains what time is and why we experience it as we do . . . one moment following another with each passing moment seemingly fading into what we call the past . . . in great detail.  He also explains why we do not perceive the future, despite the fact that the future exists now.

He goes much further to explain the relationships and interactions between our perceived past, present and future.  He describes in great detail why and how our experience of time is what it is.  The fact that our very biology is geared towards the experience of one moment forever following another moment.

Now he also points out a fascinating fact.   A fact which you can easily verify yourself.  Despite the "fact" that per our experience there exists past, present and future our experience is always in the present moment and never outside of it.  We find that we are always operating in what Seth calls the spacious now.  There is nothing other than NOW.  Time is in the truest sense, therefore, an illusion.

I've had quite vivid dreams of future events which then occurred.  Now if our limited explanations of time as we understand it were true then it would be an impossibility for anyone to see the future before it happens since the future doesn't exist yet.

What you are struggling with is the "fact" that simultaneous time seems to be a direct contradiction to your experience of time.  And that alone is what makes the idea appear to be false to you.  Or ludicrous as it flies in the face of your experience and understanding and even more importantly your beliefs about what is true or not.  Once it's understood that ours is merely one way of experiencing time then it all makes perfect sense.

Another clue that time is more than what our usual definition defines it to be . . . clock time . . .  is when time seems to speed up or slow down for us.  I'm sure everyone has experienced that at one time or another.  That experience, though, despite having validity, can always be dismissed as perhaps a psychological phenomenon that isn't real by those refuse to consider any other idea than that which they believe to be true . . . and believe to be the only "truth."

Now this dovetails perfectly into that which is exactly what I've been saying here now forever.  Beliefs are ideas which are subscribed to and held to be "true" by those subscribing to the belief.  The belief is no longer considered a belief about reality but a condition, or fact, about reality.  You, my dear save the frogs, believe in past, present and future as conditions of reality and therefore true.  There can, then, be nothing else that is true.  And so when confronted with an idea which challenges your belief as to your accepted "truth" you quite naturally dismiss this contrary idea as false.

Beliefs, therefore create one's reality.  The magician's illusion here is precisely that.  Whatever one believes to be true is for all intents and purposes true.  And since the belief creates the experience and the experience it creates therefore reinforces the belief in a never ending cycle then once it is understood what creates the illusion one can finally understand it and use beliefs consciously to create what they want rather than creating by using beliefs in an unconscious manner.

For as long as folks have beliefs which they believe to be true, beliefs which again are thought to be conditions of reality rather than beliefs about reality, it will never, ever occur to them to question the validity of their beliefs, for the "truth" of their beliefs is exactly that which prevents them from doing so.  And so they will create their lives, their experience, by default through not examining the beliefs they hold.  I am poor is a belief.  I am wealthy is a belief.  Each belief creates the corresponding experience which matches the belief.  The experience reinforces the "truth" of the belief.  The belief is taken as a condition of reality, not as a belief about reality.  Being poor will be the only "truth" for the person who subscribes to it and holds it.  And to suggest there are indeed other "truths" is then seen as nonsense, or an attempt to mislead, perhaps by a false prophet.

Do you begin to see what's happening here, save the frogs?  Once it becomes apparent it is so self evident that trying to deny it as like trying to deny the nose on one's face.  That is why I claim to know rather that say things like, "Well, I think so and so to be true," or "What my experience hath shown me is so and so," or "What I believe is this and that," or "What I've found to be true is this," etc.  I know what I know is true, is bedrock reality, and I am not afraid to say that I know.  I'm not playing that game of pretending to not really know when I do know any longer.  And for the simple and only reason being that folks can't accept that people can know what bedrock reality is.  Say you can never know and so it shall be.  You will never know.

 

[Tippaporn]

One thing that can be said about me is that I am not milk toast.  I actually love to stir the pot!  To get people to start using their noodles in ways they don't even suspect.  It's a good antidote for boredom, too.  Controversy is a good thing.  And good controversy leads more often than not to confrontation.  It's all good. 

[Tippaporn]

Always remember, folks.

Opinions are good!!  Just don't pretend to know anything.  

[save the frogs]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Do you begin to see what's happening here, save the frogs? 

what's happening is:

- my new nickname for you is Mr. Bullsh*t

- I'm out of this thread

[Tippaporn]

15 hours ago, save the frogs said:

maybe you talk too much?

and you can't even remember half the things you're saying?

or you don't know what you're saying half the time?

do i need to sift through your volumes of text to find it?

i'm too lazy. 

 

15 hours ago, save the frogs said:

https://www.the-office.com/seth/

 

“How about karma?”

No, Seth does not advocate the concept of karma, or “paybacks” carried from one lifetime to the next. Seth speaks of physical lifetimes arising from a timeless, spaceless realm of Consciousness. In these terms, multiple lifetimes essentially occur simultaneously. Lessons not learned in one lifetime will be learned in another. Love not practiced in one lifetime will be practiced in another. However, there is no “karma” carried between linear lifetimes in the traditional sense of eastern religions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, Tipaporn has quoted this teaching in one of his posts.

And then, when I said he was dismissing the concept of karma, he denied it.

But here it states that the Seth teachings do dismiss karma. 

So, you are contradicting yourself.

You don't even know what you're saying half the time.

You're the expert on the Seth teachings and you're contradicting what they're saying. 

 

Also, if you believe that "lifetimes occur simultaneously" 

... then maybe you're .... gullible?

 

 

14 hours ago, save the frogs said:

you are starting to come across as a complete joke to me.

you are a self-proclaimed expert on the Seth teachings, yet you claimed you weren't dismissing karma.

when in fact, that's one of the most important part of the Seth teachings.

I won't be reading your Seth nonsense anymore.

  

On 3/7/2023 at 5:17 PM, Tippaporn said:

Also, re Karma, if time is simultaneous and all reincarnational selves exist at once then Karma can't possibly work as supposed, which is to do penance for "bad" deeds in a former life.  And if one considers that Karma is at work in the present reincarnational existence then Karma would apply to all reincarnational existences.  Sounds like never ending hell to me.   Every reincarnational self has to suffer for what another one it's reincarnations is responsible for.  And where is free will in all of this?  It's conveniently missing.  Between simultaneous time and free will Karma's supposed functioning is utterly destroyed.

I'm not too lazy.  Of course to say you're too lazy is just an excuse.  An excuse which is acceptable to many.  Not to me, though.  It is what it is.  an excuse.

So you claim that I am dismissing your precious Karma.  And that I contradict myself.  Then read my above quote.  Where's the denial that Karma doesn't exist?  Or is it your belief which then leads you to interpret "as supposed" to mean "doesn't exist?"  It's a fair question, isn't it?

". . . when in fact, that's one of the most important part of the Seth teachings."

What?!?!?!  How in the world do you arrive at that conclusion?  Let's see here . . . You admit you've never read any of Seth's works . . . only perused a few quotes.  But then you make the claim that Karma is a cornerstone of Seth's explanation as to who we are and what the true nature of reality is?  Lordy, lordy.

 

My most accurate assessment is that you have concluded Seth is bunk because you're too lazy to investigate it thoroughly and objectively and now you're on a personal mission to prove yourself correct to everyone?  Again, despite the fact that you've never read any Seth and even still, knowing that you don't know anything about Seth, claim to know what Seth is all about.  You're writing a critique on a book you've never read.  A movie you've never watched.  Perhaps you are the false prophet here?

It's a fair question, isn't it?

 

[mauGR1]

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I actually love to stir the pot!  To get people to start using their noodles in ways they don't even suspect.  It's a good antidote for boredom, too.  Controversy is a good thing. 

I was typing a long ( for my standard) post about bedrock reality, but it went accidentally deleted, so, forget it ????

Yes, stirring the pot is ok, and controversy is good.

But we still can agree to disagree on almost everything, what is left is probably bedrock reality ????

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

what's happening is:

- my new nickname for you is Mr. Bullsh*t

- I'm out of this thread

It's okay, save the frogs.  There are many who have come and gone on this thread because they eventually back themselves into a corner from which they cannot come out of without losing face.         

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

I was typing a long ( for my standard) post about bedrock reality, but it went accidentally deleted, so, forget it ????

Yes, stirring the pot is ok, and controversy is good.

But we still can agree to disagree on almost everything, what is left is probably bedrock reality ????

I've always admired your honesty, mauGR!. 

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

I'm out of this thread

Deja vu n. 5 ????

[Sunmaster]

15 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

what's happening is:

- my new nickname for you is Mr. Bullsh*t

- I'm out of this thread

 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Couldn't be more apropos, Sunmaster.  Kudos! 

 

[Tippaporn]

The truth is often not what people think the truth to be.  The proof is always in the pudding.  If what we think as being true is true then why are so many running around asking, "What the f is going on here?"  Why haven't we yet found out what happens when we die, for instance?  Is that maybe, just maybe, just maybe it's because so many answers we think are true are not?  Might that be a possibility?

For if the actual truth lies in the opposite direction of the truth that is believed to be true then isn't the actual truth in plain sight and only hidden in plain sight because of the truths we believe to be actual truths yet are contrary and even contradictory?

This magical illusion is no more hidden than the nose on your face.  Erroneous or relative truths serve to blind actual truths.  And that is the truth.  Truth be told.

I'm being a bit playful with the above. 

[Tippaporn]

I'll keep pounding away as long as I'm here. 

[mania]

This Topics page count is approaching half the total pages of the king james bible ????

 

Not surprisingly with about the same result of controversy. difference of opinion, belief etc etc etc

 

Some folks love a good "religious" debate as do I (in a form of "wondering)

 

but then again I have often thought of how silly it is for us folks

to try & explain the infinite with our quart jar sized limited understanding/existence ????

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

I will say Tippaporn's argument seems extremely weak on this linkage between beliefs and actuality. There are people who believe they are poor, and in their mind their capacity to make money is limited, and it makes them save and invest, and they die with millions. Others believe they are rich or can become rich but don't because they are not smart or too much of a dreamer or whatever. 

But somehow in this theory there is this point where a belief is no longer considered a belief about reality but a condition, or fact, about reality and then somehow beliefs therefore create one's reality. 

All told by a lady with an apparent spirit giving her words. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/18/2023 at 12:49 PM, save the frogs said:

well, she's talking about ego.

maybe that particular quote shouldn't be taken out of context.

 

but just because people limit themselves, doesn't mean what SETH is teaching is what people should open their minds to.

what's worse? narrow-mindedness or filling your head with nonsense?

 

LOL. if I want my mind filled with nonsense I only have to listen to the local "news" or listen to parliament.

 

If one can't read something and have an opinion about it without wanting to burn books one needs to chill, a lot.

Minds are pretty unique in that they can keep things they agree with and discard things they disagree with.

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

But somehow in this theory there is this point where a belief is no longer considered a belief about reality but a condition, or fact, about reality and then somehow beliefs therefore create one's reality. 

I consider this to be very sound reasoning, long before hearing about Seth.

If we take time out of the equation, one may even say that matter and thought are the same thing, just with a different frequency. 

[thaibeachlovers]

17 minutes ago, mania said:

but then again I have often thought of how silly it is for us folks

to try & explain the infinite with our quart jar sized limited understanding/existence

That has to be one of the best comments I've read on here.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I consider this to be very sound reasoning, long before hearing about Seth.

If we take time out of the equation, one may even say that matter and thought are the same thing, just with a different frequency. 

That's pretty good post.

 

Made me think that if we were to give God human qualities it could be that God imagined a universe filled with stars and planets and such like, and because God is the creator of all it just came to be.

The question then is whether God imagined what would live on the planets and what they would become, so was invested in the creatures on the planets, or if God left it up to evolution and didn't interfere with whatever happened.

[KhunLA]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That has to be one of the best comments I've read on here.

Yes.  562 pages of 'discussing' something that is impossible to prove or disprove exists ????

 

Science can only disproved how it was written about and sold/preached to those needing.

 

But is there a GOD ... we'll just have to wait until we krap out for the sequel.

[mauGR1]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The question then is whether God imagined what would live on the planets and what they would become, so was invested in the creatures on the planets, or if God left it up to evolution and didn't interfere with whatever happened.

Thanks for understanding the meaning of what i was trying to say.

Well, i believe that there's a hierarchy from the point of view of small beings, living on a small planet in the vastness of the visible universe.

It's fair imho to say that smaller beings can operate changes and transform smaller realities, in the same way, higher beings can transform higher,  or bigger realities. 

I know that for most this is complete nonsense, but what can i do..

As for Seth's concept of 'bedrock reality ' i can compare it to the Hindu vision of the trinity, which somehow i find easier to understand than the Christian trinity, we can see the solar system as a tiny atom, with a sun as nucleus, the planets orbiting, and last but not least the force of attraction ( which can be defined as love) which keeps everything together. 

This repeating pattern can be called God.