Evidence of the return of the Christ personality?

[Sena]

If Seth is suggesting that the return of Christ has something to do with Paul, I cannot accept it.

"To achieve his goals, Paul needed more than the death on the cross, what he needed was the resurrection. This was the ultimate weapon of control in Paul's armoury. It served to enslave Christians with guilt and self-loathing during their life on earth, in the hope of achieving salvation after death!–'the most contemptible of all unfulfilable promises, the shameless doctrine of personal immortality'. Paul's central dogma of Christianity was cleverly underpinned with one of its most irresistible claims: that God sacrificed his only son for us in forgiveness of our sins. 'Sacrifice for sin, and in its most obnoxious and barbarous form: sacrifice of the innocent for the sins of the guilty!'    "

http://www.cynicalreflections.net/2012/04/nietzsche-anti-christ-not-anti-jesus.html

I need to clarify what is meant by "personal immortality" in the above quote. This is clearly not a Seth teaching. Personal immortality means Jane Roberts remaining as Jane Roberts for all eternity. Seth was absolutely insistent on referring to Jane as Ruburt (her Inner Self). It is Ruburt who may be immortal (I am not sure), but certainly Jane Roberts is not immortal.

[Deb]

OK, let me start out by apologizing for the length of this response. I kept finding so many quotes to help me explain myself that this kept getting longer. I know the quotes I'll add here are not new to any of you, but I thought they were important and also helped me organize my thoughts and interpretation of what Seth has said about Paul and the return of the CP. Sena you're always so efficient with getting a point across with a minimum of words. I'm just the opposite.

If Seth is suggesting that the return of Christ has something to do with Paul, I cannot accept it.

I don't have a problem with it because the quotes below (from session 586, skipping around a bit) explain the situation to me. At least, my interpretation is:

Seth was clear that Paul completely failed at what he came here to do and was aware of that after the fact. (The Nietzsche article seems right in alignment with Seth, but Seth is more objective. I'd love to find the complete article.) The return of the CP will not be Paul as himself, but a "new psychic energy" that has been transformed, and will be a catalyst for the transformation on the human level as well. Paul messed up big time, but maybe as murderers and other violators then become victims, Paul (in some form) will right what he did wrong.

Seth: The third historical personage, already born in your terms, and a portion of the entire Christ personality, took upon himself the role of a zealot. This person had superior energy and power and great organizing abilities, but it was the errors that he made unwittingly that perpetuated some dangerous distortions. The records of that historical period are scattered and contradictory.

The man, historically now, was Paul or Saul. It was given to him to set up a framework. But it was to be a framework of ideas, not of regulations; of men, not of groups. Here he fell down, and he will return as the third personality, just mentioned, in your future.

. . .

When the third personality reemerges historically, however, he will not be called the old Paul, but will carry within him the characteristics of all the three personalities.

Paul tried to deny knowing who he was, until his experience with conversion. Allegorically, he represented a warring faction of the self that fights against his own knowledge and is oriented in a highly physical manner. It seemed he went from one extreme to another, being against Christ and then for him. But the inner vehemence was always present, the inner fire, and the recognition that he tried for so long to hide.

His was the portion that was to deal with physical reality and manipulation, and so these qualities were strong in him. To some extent they overruled him. When the historical Christ "died," Paul was to implement the spiritual ideas in physical terms, to carry on. In so doing, however, he grew the seeds of an organization that would smother the ideas. He lingered after Christ, [just] as John the Baptist came before. Together the three spanned some time period, you see.

John and the historical Christ each performed their roles and were satisfied that they had done so. Paul alone was left at the end unsatisfied, and so it is about his personality that the future Christ will form.

The entity of which these personalities are part, that entity which you may call the Christ entity, was aware of these issues. The earthly personalities were not aware of them, although in periods of trance and exaltation much was made known to them. Paul also represented the militant nature of man, that had to be taken into consideration in line with man's development at the time. That militant quality in man will completely change its nature, and be dispensed with as you know it, when the next Christ personality emerges. It is therefore appropriate that Paul be present. In the next century, the inner nature of man, with these developments, will free itself from many constraints that have bound it.

His ego was necessarily stronger than those of John and Jesus, because of the huge task ahead of him. Unfortunately, I think he let his ego get in the way and he ended up creating the Christianity, the dogma and all the problems associated with it. [Maybe Paul symbolically represents the human ego, John and Christ as the inner self and entity?] He will get another chance to correct his mistakes that have affected humanity as a whole (as either the people choosing Christianity, or their victims) for the past 2,000 years.

But Seth also said the "return" will not be the same entity/gestalt:

This personality will refer to the historical Christ, will recognize his relationship with that personality; but within him the three personality groupings will form a new psychic entity, a different psychological gestalt. As this metamorphosis takes place, it will initiate a metamorphosis on a human level also, as man's inner abilities are accepted and developed.

So while the fragment of the entity known as Paul will be still in the mix, it will not be the Paul that we 'know', but new and improved, the metamorphosis of which will be mirrored by mankind.

I enjoyed the article about Nietzsche. I'd never read him but I think I'd get a lot of enjoyment out of The Anti-Christ book. The article says the book is full of paradoxes and of course the book is Nietzsche's opinions about Paul and his interpretations of what is written in Bible. Reading his claims about Paul make me think that Paul may have been mentally ill, narcissistic, ego-driven, or at the very least self-serving.

It is Ruburt who may be immortal (I am not sure), but certainly Jane Roberts is not immortal.

I write this book through the auspices of a woman of whom I have become quite fond. To others it seems strange that I address her as "Ruburt," and "him," but the fact is that I have known her in other times and places, by other names. She has been both a man and a woman, and the entire identity who has lived these separate lives can be designated by the name of Ruburt.
—SS Chapter 1: Session 511, January 21, 1970

So then the entity/oversoul is named Ruburt. Seth has indicated that he, Jane, Rob and all of their various incarnations, probabilities etc. are parts of the same entity. Seth from his standpoint was privy to much more information than Jane, Robert and the rest of us here.

I don't recall Seth ever saying Jane was immortal. But he did say that every one of us is eternal (pretty much the same thing to me). The individuals we know as ourselves, right now, are merely a fraction of our greater self. Even when our individual reincarnational cycles end, we do not cease to exist. We may return to the entity, but we/the entity remember all events from our incarnations and more in the way I now remember things that happened to me over this lifetime. I think that's why so many people who have had NDEs say they felt there was "so much more," a feeling of expansiveness or intensity, expanded awareness while being in the afterlife.

From NoPR session 637:

  (Pause at 9:20.) The you that you consider yourself is never annihilated. Your consciousness is not snuffed out, nor is it swallowed, blissfully unaware of itself, in some nirvana.* You are as much a part of a nirvana now as you will ever be.

   To some extent, we have discussed your body and its composition of cells (in the 632nd session in Chapter Seven, for instance). All of the cells that now make up your physical form obviously exist at once. Imagine that you have many lives enduring in the same fashion. Instead of cells then you have selves. I told you that each cell has its own memory. The self-memory is, of course, of far greater dimension.

   Think of the greater you, call it the entity if you want to, as forming a psychic structure quite as real as your physical one, but composed of many selves. As each cell of your body has its position within your corporeal space and boundaries, so each self within the entity is aware of its own "time" and dimension of activity. The body is a temporal structure. The cells, however, while a part of this body, are not aware of the entire dimension in which your consciousness dwells. They do not perceive all of the elements that are available even in three-dimensional experience, yet your present consciousness, seemingly so much more sophisticated, physically rests upon cellular awareness.

   So the entity or "greater" psychic structure of which you are a part is aware of much larger dimensions of activity than you are, yet in the same way its more sophisticated consciousness rests upon your own, and one is necessary to the other.

Phew, again I apologize.

[Sena]

But it was to be a framework of ideas, not of regulations; of men, not of groups. Here he (Paul) fell down, and he will return as the third personality, just mentioned, in your future.

Deb, thanks for the quotes. Why does this guy Paul, responsible for 2000 years of evil, have to return? Aren't there better individuals or entities in the history of humanity? What about Hypatia of Alexandria, Joan of Arc or Giordano Bruno (all three murdered by Paul's followers)?


2009 infiniti fx50 0 60

(Giordano Bruno burnt alive)

[Deb]

Why does this guy Paul, responsible for 2000 years of evil, have to return?

Right? May as well be Hitler. Maybe it has to due with value fulfillment. He screwed up, now he has to clean up his mess or at least complete the task he had set for himself.

But we can also blame 2000 years of Christians for keeping his doctrine alive. From the article you linked to above (I thought this was terrific):

"If it had been possible for Paul to promote the idea of a Christian god, Nietzsche found it incredible that two thousand years had come and gone and we had not invented for ourselves a single new god!  He criticised us for not having had the courage to confront the moral dogmas that have been passed on from one generation to the next and he challenged the belief that equates strong moral convictions with virtue. He substitutes the popular saying 'to have the courage of one's convictions,' for one that would free us from received morality: 'to have the courage to attack one's convictions', as for Nietzsche, 'convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.'"

[Sena]

He substitutes the popular saying 'to have the courage of one's convictions,' for one that would free us from received morality: 'to have the courage to attack one's convictions', as for Nietzsche, 'convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.'"

Deb, yes, Nietzsche was a smart cookie.

[Jack]

Deb,

Sorry it's taken so long, but here's my reply to your Reply #49 above:

That's a good point about mostly Christians talking about the Antichrist.  So, I did a quick search on "Islam false prophet OR antichrist" and found this Wikipedia article entitled "False prophet".  According to this article of unknown accuracy, Islam says that the last of 30 false prophets will appear before the return of Jesus Christ, and this last false prophet and return of Jesus story sounds a lot like the Christian Antichrist and Christ story to me.  But, I imagine if one of the main characters in a religious drama has an opposing character in the finale of that drama and the start of another one, the people most involved in that particular drama would be the ones to see and/or discuss any characters in it, whether in the past, the present, or the future.  So it makes sense Christians talk about the Antichrist the most.

How would you define an Antichrist (just curious), what's your perspective?

I think the Antichrist and the Christ are exactly the same in this respect:  they are both just personalities of entities that have agreed to play a part in the drama we all have called out for.  When I was younger, I don't know that I gave it much thought, but I've always enjoyed watching movies (and The Stand miniseries) that portray the Antichrist in various ways - a business man, a mysterious evil guy, etc., etc.  But the concept of good vs evil doesn't really make any sense to me.  I think the Antichrist will be one specific person who many people will find to be someone who is a positive influence on the world.  I think these people who feel this way will be followers of the status quo:  government, religion, science, technology, etc., all based on current spiritual ideas.  This Antichrist will probably attain a certain level of influence and power.  What he does with that influence and power, I'm not too clear on.  Does he really continue to try to benefit humankind, or does he start to abuse that power in ways many of us would not approve of?  I don't know.  Maybe things just get to a point where it's clear he's not really helping, but hindering our progress as a global community.  What we do think we know from most stories is that eventually his power and influence decreases while that of the returning Christ personality increases.

Seth did say there were "others" coming before the return of the Christ personality, to prime the pump.  Is the following what you were thinking about when you wrote "I believe Seth said something along the lines of other prophets have been, and will continue to be, describing what is to come, and who" ?

Definitely not:  It never once crossed my mind to connect the Antichrist with the several others Seth said will re-arouse man's expectations.  And it really struck me that you made a really interesting connection with that, and it kind of bothered me that I never even got close to that connection (while making me appreciate this forum and your posts all the more).  However, as fascinating as that connection is, I don't think these people who will re-arouse man's expectations are related to the Antichrist.  I think they are much, much more similar to what the third personality of Christ will be.  I agree with what you said about the "predecessors around the planet", and I think it's entirely possible they do things that will make Paul's job possible, where it might not otherwise be possible; whereas the Antichrist will probably be doing little to nothing that will help Paul get his job done.  If I had to guess, I'd say these predecessors could possibly do Paul's job if that were the agreement on the framework level for this drama.  Maybe it's one of their turns in the next drama.  I too would be curious to know who the predecessors to Paul would be; however I don't know that they would be considered prophets so much as teachers.  It doesn't really sound like Paul will be considered so much a prophet as a teacher, but I could be wrong about that.

Can you explain how you feel distortion has its uses in educating us all? I'm having a hard time seeing distortion in a positive light.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone else describe distortion as useful, so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, but this is how I see it.  The example I used in my really long post earlier in this thread is the Christian religion.  We all, as a group of entities and personalities connected to earth, chose this current religious drama which produced this religion.  According to Seth, Paul's tendencies which helped create this religion, and its resulting distortions, were known at the level of his higher entity, and it sounds like they were part of the framework for this drama.  We all called out for this drama, so we could learn from the Christian religion, including its distortions.  I think the main reason, and maybe the only reason, we are here on this planet is to learn.  We chose to learn from a drama we created which included distortions.  And we have learned a great deal I would say.  Some we might look at as positive, and plenty we might look at as negative.  But we learned.  And learning is "positive", based on the premise that we are here to learn.  Therefore, distortion has proven useful in our learning.

Another way to look at distortion being useful is in trying to understand descriptions of the future.  A number of channellers, psychics, prophets, etc., have looked into and described our future.  What they saw, or said, or felt, and described has some similarities and many differences.  Some of these differences and discrepancies are said to be from our free will and the making of future choices.  However, from what we've seen of Seth's talking about Paul, Seth would not provide detailed information about who Paul is in this lifetime, but he clearly indicated that he could if he wanted to.  From what I've seen of the various descriptions of our future, I would say that the personalities receiving the information have agreed at some level to have distortions in what they receive and/or how they describe it.  This is slightly different from Seth or Paul Solomon just flat out saying (paraphrasing here) "no, you can't have that information", but it's the same idea - we get some clues, like we would from any good instructor or teacher, but ultimately we have to think for ourselves to learn.  I think the information from various people who have described our future is distorted by agreement from a higher level.  And with that distortion, we get some clues that lead us down a road, but to figure out where that road really goes and how to travel it, we have to think for ourselves, and therefore learn.  So in this case, distortion again is good, as it forces us to think for ourselves and learn.  This is kind of like going to your favorite local psychic and they give you some information that is accurate, but maybe from a restriction on a higher level they don't have access to information that would make it too easy.

I have a feeling we average citizens are not supposed to consciously know and also wonder if there will be guides or speakers that will be in place specifically to facilitate this mystery man. Even then, they might not know on a conscious level what their role is.

I agree with this.  I've seen on another topic on this site where posts discuss whether or not Paul will know who he is.  Perhaps these speakers will help him realize who he is, and help him get his job done.  It makes sense.  And for a little fun with this idea, what if from another level Paul's personality or his entity was collaborating with these other speakers on how to do this?  Here's an imaginary higher level (dream state, pre-birth state, or something like that) conversation between Paul and say for example a speaker named Martha who is going to write a book that will help Paul figure out who he is:  Martha:  "hey Paul, what if I say that you will be born in the East?"  Paul:  "East?  East what?  East Asia?  East Milwaukee?  I'll never figure that out!  How about something easy...like maybe the exact date and time?"   Martha:  "Come on, you know we'll never get away with putting that in there!"  Paul: "OK, how about adding at least a continent?  Or maybe a country, come on - a country is not THAT easy!"

I wonder if the people you mentioned (Montgomery, Dixon, Solomon) were just relying on the biblical version of the return with the Antichrist/Christ stuff, due to their own beliefs or background?

Their descriptions are quite different in some ways, so I don't think they were just relying on the biblical version of the story.  However, I'm guessing their focus and the details of their descriptions were very much influenced by their beliefs.  I think this is where we kind of read between the lines, trying to match up their descriptions with a bigger picture and see what fits.

"That personality will indeed be multidimensional, aware of all its incarnations. It will not be oriented in terms of one sex, one color, or one race."

I'm trying to get a visual on that.

Me too.  It seems like it would take a lot of time to be aware of all of one's incarnations - I'd love to understand a fast way to do this!  Maybe "...not be oriented..." would be better said as "...not be historically reincarnated in terms of just one sex, one color, or one race".  Or maybe it's that it will be obvious that he understands no sex, or race or color is any more or less valued than any other.

And what type of event do you suppose would be big enough to unite the world? Alien invasion? Asteroid? Maybe something we can't even imagine.

I think you added your post before I wrote a summary of what I was taught this event might be.  I explained who taught me, and a bit about him in the member-only "Welcome & please say hello" section topic, here, so I hope it's OK to copy my description of the event here:

"I guess this might be a good place to summarize very briefly a little of what Josef explained about this event.  It's been a long time since I've tried to explain this in any detail, so I'll stick to the bigger picture here.  From his view, and I've only become more and more convinced over the last 30 years that he has the clearest view, it's a natural event.  He calls it the light change.  Every period of some thousands of years (I don't recall the exact number), the primary influence, or light source, of the earth changes.  I imagine this is somewhat related to the Astrology idea of influences, but I am not that into Astrology.  The primary influence naturally moves to a higher vibration source.  It's starts off slowly, taking years, and then very quickly, the shift connects to the new source and the light on our planet is much brighter, and there is a great deal more energy here.  And we have to adjust to it quickly.  Apparently, knowledge of the structure of light and energy can help us increase our vibration and make this adjustment to the new level.  So basically, if he's right, a good thing for us to be doing would be to raise our vibrations as much as we can.  And this is what I think we need to learn to be doing for ourselves.  From my view, working with dreams is an easy entry point to this, and that's part of why I'm interested in getting more people working with their own dreams.  We can learn a lot there.  Plus, the things we learn there could easily help us as our environment changes more and more.  And anyone can learn to get information from their dreams.  In the best case scenario of this event being an imaginary tale, learning what we can from working with our dreams is still a uniquely valuable thing to be doing, and the experience is something we can use across any lifetimes."

Sorry about the length of my post(s).  I'm apparently not so good at being succinct.

I'm out of time right now, but I expect to come back and post something (shorter) in response to Sena's posts as soon as I can.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

This is in response to your comments about "personal immortality" in Post #50 above.

I think this concept is a dilemma for those who think of time, in terms of how it appears to operate in our physical reality. 

On the other hand, Seth tells us that time, as we think of it, does not exist.

If what Seth tells us, is, in fact true, then Nietzsche's comments regarding "personal immortality" have a much different implication and perhaps are actually just a mute point.

What does immortality mean if all time is simultaneous in the spacious present?


Here's what Seth had to say about time and the spacious present in "The Early Sessions, Book 2, Session 54".

There is indeed no contradiction, though it may appear so, in the fact that all entities existed before your planet was formed, and the fact cause and effect is faulty and antiquated, and I have said that the cause and effect theory is logical only as a result of your theory of time and continuity. If time as you think of it does not exist, and it does not, then the cause and effect theory does not follow.

I have told you that all consciousnesses exist in the spacious present, which is spontaneous while also durable. Then it is no contradiction to say that entities existed before the birth of your planet, though in your time it seems that new ones are being brought to consciousness.

In their materialization upon your plane, and as seen from your own camouflage perspective, you seem to be aware of new entities, but this is because of your own limited viewpoint. In your time scheme entities have had time to produce more fragmentary personalities, but in truth from your viewpoint these personalities can be seen to have changed long ago.

The old analogy, rather trite I'm afraid, is still a good one. Walking through a forest you find many trees. Time can be conceived of, truly, as the entire forest. You however see a tree in front of you and call it the future. You think that the tree was not there because you had not come to it yet. The tree behind you, you call the past. You are walking so to speak along one narrow path, but there are many paths. The forest exists as a whole. You can walk forward, so to speak, and backward, though you are only now learning how.

We will carry this analogy a giant step further. Now we will call the whole forest, if you can conceive of it, the spacious present. The trees are compared to consciousnesses, all existing simultaneously; and yet this forest of spacious present does not take up space, as you think of space.

There is no past, present or future in your terms within it, but only a now. Because of the endless possibilities within this now, durability is maintained in terms of value fulfillment, the fulfillment of literally endless values. Therefore the forest is constantly expanding. Remember your expanding universe theory, but not in terms of space or indeed in terms of time, but in terms of fulfillment of abilities and values that may be constructed upon various levels and in various guises, your present plane of existence being one.

And in each of these planes of existence there is a reflection of the basic laws of the spacious present itself, which I am in the process of giving you. Therefore there is no need, really, to think of a given group of entities before the birth of your planet. I have said that all the entities who would ever dwell upon your plane did exist, and actually have a hand in on the creation of your planet, that would ever dwell upon it.

I also said that new entities were being formed, but in the framework of the spacious present all this is spontaneous. The contradiction seems a contradiction only on your terms. On my terms there is none. For practical purposes you may say, in truth on your own terms, that entities simply have had time to develop further personalities. But I want it understood that this is true only within your own time framework.

There is much yet to be covered dealing with a spontaneity that is nevertheless durable. I have also said that your own present existence occurs simultaneously. You only perceive it in slow motion.

I suggest your break, and if this hasn't broken you up then nothing will. You are indeed as you can see broken up a million times, and put together in many various manners; and yet you retain the inner ego, and in other words your own identity. But this identity must change. This again is no contradiction. Nothing can be static, and believe it or not, nothing is.


jbseth

[Sena]

I have told you that all consciousnesses exist in the spacious present, which is spontaneous while also durable. Then it is no contradiction to say that entities existed before the birth of your planet, though in your time it seems that new ones are being brought to consciousness.

jbseth, thanks for this quote. "Existing in the spacious present" is an excellent alternative to the delusion of personal immortality.

[Deb]

Yes, that simultaneous time thing is something to be considered and I still don't completely understand that on the deepest level, there are so many ramifications. Yet Seth did always talk about the survival of the personality (Eternal Validity of the Soul). And if we are to believe Seth was real, then we have to consider that he was "located" in a post-earth life existence. The other option is to think Jane* was faking it all or was schizoid as some have accused her. In the beginning she doubted her own sanity and I think had herself checked by psychiatrists.

I also have to consider that Nietzsche was a nihilist and so Paul's introducing the concept of immortality, among other things, would be offensive to him. What a perfect way to control people! Tell them they are immortal and will go to Heaven or Hell depending on their adherence to the Christian dogma. And people being people, often fall off the wagon. Make them believe in Heaven and Hell and then give them confession to absolve them of their indiscretions to get most of them back on the path to Heaven. I just realized I have no idea what the Jewish religion believes about life after death.

Saw this Second Coming photo on Facebook the other day, I couldn't resist. Dog shaming.

*If Jane was faking it, then Rob would have been in on that. And all of the publishers, class attendees and steady stream of scientists, intellects, physicists and more were duped. But then... Christianity has survived and grown for 2000 years based—solely?—on Saul/Paul's teachings. Regarding Jane/Seth, it is less important to me where the information was coming from than the message, and Seth's messages were the complete opposite of religion in that they were teaching that we make our reality, we are not victims, and we should listen to our inner selves rather than some preacher. Responsibility, accountability, independence from a higher/smarter power.

[jbseth]

Hi All,

In Seth Speaks, Chapter 21, Session 586, in talking about the future coming of the Christ personality, Seth says the following:


[...] That personality will indeed be multidimensional, aware of all its incarnations. It will not be oriented in terms of one sex, one color, or one race.

(11:20.) For the first time, therefore, it will break through the earthly concepts of personality, liberating personality.  It will have the ability to show these diverse effects as it chooses.



I've always wondered if this might mean that this personality, while alive here on earth, will literally change its physical appearance from moment to moment showing each of its many multidimensional personalities. Kind of like the morphing from person to person that occurs starting at about 5:30 into Michael Jackson's "Black or White" video (see link below).




jbseth

[Sena]

I also have to consider that Nietzsche was a nihilist and so Paul's introducing the concept of immortality, among other things, would be offensive to him. What a perfect way to control people! Tell them they are immortal and will go to Heaven or Hell depending on their adherence to the Christian dogma. And people being people, often fall off the wagon. Make them believe in Heaven and Hell and then give them confession to absolve them of their indiscretions to get most of them back on the path to Heaven. I just realized I have no idea what the Jewish religion believes about life after death.

I agree, Deb. The fear of hell is also a nice way for the Church to make money. The teaching is that the more money you give, the less likely you are to go to hell.
There is no hell in Judaism, only "Sheol". Hell was invented by the Christian New Testament.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13563-sheol

[Jack]

Hi Sena,

I think Nietzsche would like what you've done on this topic.  In a post from September of this year, you say:

The only Christ I would accept is one that was completely different to the one fabricated by Saints Paul and Augustine and the Catholic Church. We have a good test for the second Christ, because he will say, "I agree with everything Seth said".

This sounds like a fairly strong conviction you felt at that time.

But then a week or so ago, it seems to me you question your conviction...

If Seth is suggesting that the return of Christ has something to do with Paul, I cannot accept it.

So, it seems you have updated your conviction towards Seth's material by questioning it, which according to the article referenced above on Nietzsche (link to the same article), is a critical thing for us to always be doing.

This questioning of convictions seems like an important part of a better future; no matter what the convictions are and no matter how we arrived at them.

For me, something I completely believe to be true that I can not prove, or can not find proof of, I try to hold in my mind as something I am 100% sure I am supposed to believe as true right now, rather than something that is an absolute.  Sometimes I'll consider an estimate in my mind of a probability as to whether it really is true or not.  I think this helps me give myself the flexibility to question that belief, whatever it is.

Your questioning of Seth's material by rejecting Paul brings up another point.  If some of us don't really agree with some parts of what Seth says, then will Paul be expected to agree with all of it?  Some of it?  None of it?  It seems like it's going to be hard to pin down who he is, since we may have a lot of variances in our ideas of what we expect him to be like, and what we expect him to believe, and to do.

Maybe he can get a twitter account that might help us: @realReturnOfPaul.

[Sena]

If some of us don't really agree with some parts of what Seth says, then will Paul be expected to agree with all of it?

Hi Jack, thanks for taking the trouble to analyze my posts. As for your question that I have highlighted, I think it is a purely hypothetical one as I don't think Paul will be coming back.
Do you think Seth is infallible like the Pope? I think Seth gave us some useful teachings, especially about the Nature of Personal Reality, but he appears to have been confused about some other things.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena,

In Post #50 above, you said, "If Seth is suggesting that the return of Christ has something to do with Paul, I cannot accept it."

Ever since you've made this comment, I've been wondering about it.

If you don't mind to much, would you please give us a little insight as to what's behind your thinking on this. I'm not interested in arguing with you about it or anything like that, I'm just interested in hearing specifically what your thinking is on this.

Thanks

jbseth

[LarryH]

Just my two-cents worth, but the way I understand it, it will not be the same personality, faults and all, of the original Paul. Seth said that this would be the dominant component, but would have elements from the other two as well. Thus, a different mixture of the entity. Further, I can only presume that the personality Paul has done a great deal of work in his current state to understand where he erred, and this along with the influence of the other entity components, ensures that the "Paul" as manifested in the past will not be what we get the next time around. Just as we manifest differently in different incarnations and grow from them, so will "Paul".

[Sena]

If you don't mind to much, would you please give us a little insight as to what's behind your thinking on this. I'm not interested in arguing with you about it or anything like that, I'm just interested in hearing specifically what your thinking is on this.

jbseth,
Thanks for asking. I think the whole idea of being able to predict the future reincarnation of an individual who has lived in the past is contrary to common sense. Can you give an instance of Seth or anyone else having correctly made such a prediction?

[LarryH]

I think the whole idea of being able to predict the future reincarnation of an individual who has lived in the past is contrary to common sense. Can you give an instance of Seth or anyone else having correctly made such a prediction?

Interesting question. The Sethian idea (and quantum physics for that matter) of time being an illusion is "contrary to common sense", yet there is evidence. I don't know how quantum physicists came to that conclusion, but any accurate prediction of the future (a precognitive dream, for instance) does suggest that probable futures exist "now". Practitioners of hypnotic regression have stumbled upon "progression" to future lives among their subjects, though this would be hard to prove, since we would need to wait until the dates or eras revealed to check out the accuracy. Hypnotic regression to past lives are easier to check out, and many have been found to be accurate. To Seth, the future is as real as the past. That being said, he also says that the past is a changeable as the future. That one is hard for me to wrap my head around (again contrary to common sense). But I have learned that when something is contrary to common sense, that is not a reason to reject the possibility. Quantum theory is contrary to common sense, and yet the evidence for quantum theory is overwhelming.

[Jack]

Hi all,

Sena - You're welcome on the post analyzing thing.  I just thought you gave us a good example of questioning everything.

Do you think Seth is infallible like the Pope?

I love this question.

Yes, I think Seth is infallible like the Pope.  Absolutely.

What does infallibility of the Pope mean (Wikipedia)?  To sloppily paraphrase the link, it means when he's creating church doctrine as part of his job, he can't make a mistake. 

From a normal view, to me, this is ridiculous.  So to me, Seth is absolutely infallible exactly like the Pope, because the Pope is not infallible, and neither is Seth.  But, also like the Pope, some people probably do believe Seth is infallible.  Just not me.  So yes, to me Seth is infallible in exactly the same way as the Pope.

But this entire line of thinking might not be very useful from my view.  It assumes the possibility of making mistakes.  I don't really believe in mistakes, only learning.  Certainly I've done (and continue to do) a large number of things that one might normally consider mistakes, but are they really?  Who defines what is correct and what is a mistake; what is right, and what is wrong?  A religion?  The government?  Your community? Your parents?  Your spouse?  You?  And if the accepted definitions of right and wrong change over time, then are they real?  While I realize with the current level of awareness of most of us, our civilization needs rules and consequences, what I consider a more correct view for me is what is usable, and what is not?  If Seth (or the Pope) relates something that has more light or truth in it, it is more usable to me.  If they relate something that has less truth or light, it might be a good lesson in discerning what has more light and truth and what does not; rather than simply a mistake.  I think we learn multiple aspects of an activity over multiple lifetimes; we learn that killing and being killed are not very usable ways to live; stealing and being stolen from are not very usable ways to live; etc., etc.  The point being that sometimes we learn how to treat each other as we'd like to be treated from our "mistakes", so if the point of being here is to learn, then are they really mistakes, or just part of the curriculum?  Some of my biggest mistakes have led to some of my greatest learning; not painless learning, but learning.

So maybe Seth really is infallible, as is the Pope, as are all of us.  It just doesn't look like it, and it sure doesn't feel like it sometimes.  Yes, this might seem like Semantics, but how we look at the results of, and the making of "correct choices" or "mistakes" is the basis for a lot of pain and suffering in our world, and is connected to how we judge ourselves and others; over this lifetime, and ones that have come before.

Seth said in the future when we are dramatically more aware of our past lives, and the past lives of others, we will see that heroes and villains change places over lifetimes.  When that happens, I think we will see more clearly the various patterns of learning we all go through, and we will respect and honor each other's lifetimes and their "mistakes". 

This concept keeps coming to mind when I see comments about the result of Paul's lifetime 2,000 years ago.  It appears we don't select one lifetime at a time; we have sets of lifetimes that are very related and selected outside of our time.  So Paul had one job to do 2,000 years ago, and like Larry mentioned above, he's almost certainly been doing a lot of work to further his learning for his job this time around.  I feel quite sure he's had a number of lifetimes since then learning and working on a variety of things, as part of a set of related lifetimes.  And I've never seen anything to indicate he's not been here since his visit 2,000 years ago.  The brouhaha about this particular upcoming lifetime is likely related to all the changes that seem to be coming around this next lifetime's time frame.

Further, consider what you have learned in this one lifetime.  Then consider what you might learn in five or ten or who knows how many lifetimes.  Of course Paul will be different this go-round.  We are all different from even one lifetime.

Here's a question for us all:  if we participated in the growth of any Christian church in one or more lifetimes in the last 2,000 years, how should we feel about this?  Should we judge ourselves as unfit to try to change the spiritual situation around us now?  Or maybe should we congratulate ourselves on having learned through what might have been a very difficult experience that the Christian church is not really what we want to be a part of?  I'm pretty sure I have contributed to the church's existence and growth over more than one lifetime.  And I've got a pretty strong feeling I've been persecuted by at least one Christian church in other lifetimes.  My guess is that many people on this forum have learned from both sides of the Christian church - both for it, and against it, in lifetimes before this one.  And for me, this not only doesn't preclude us from being qualified to help change the spiritual focus and education in our civilization now, it makes us particularly well suited for this work.  The more religions and the wider our spiritual focus has been over multiple lifetimes, and probably the more "mistakes" we've made, the more well trained we are for these roles now.

As far as Paul's apparent assignment for this coming lifetime...forgive the (American) football sports analogy...but say you're trying to win over a team who's won the Super Bowl for most of the last 2,000 years.  You can't get the guy who invented the game (Jesus), but you could get a quarterback with maybe some experience, or maybe your team could actually get the starting quarterback (Paul) who not only played for the other team, but created much of the playbook for their wins for the past 2,000 years, and he really, really wants your team to win the Super Bowl for the next 2,000 years.  Which one do you pick?  My money would be on the guy who created their playbook (especially if it's flawed and he's got a better one for this game).  And one of the best bookies you know (Seth) has already seen all the players, the new playbook, all the new rules and the field for the game and he's saying something like the odds are 95% in favor of your team with this quarterback.

[Jack]

...but the way I understand it, it will not be the same personality, faults and all...

Hi Larry,

From SS Chapter 21: Session 586, July 24, 1971:
"This personality will refer to the historical Christ, will recognize his relationship with that personality; but within him the three personality groupings will form a new psychic entity, a different psychological gestalt. As this metamorphosis takes place, it will initiate a metamorphosis on a human level also (emphatically), as man's inner abilities are accepted and developed."

This seems to me that Seth is saying it will initially be the personality of Paul, which I agree will be somewhat different due to his learning since then, and that somehow he undergoes the "metamorphosis" mentioned above where he's essentially something new.  I think this means that he's alive a while, and then this metamorphosis happens while he's alive, but Seth doesn't seem to explicitly say that anywhere that I've seen.

[Jack]

Sena,

Can you give an instance of Seth or anyone else having correctly made such a prediction?

You're like the king of good questions.  I've never thought of this question, nor have I ever seen it asked.

I think Larry's reply to your question is excellent.

For me, I don't know that I would have become interested in all this stuff without having read some amazing personal stories of spiritual adventures when I was first getting into it.  I still love hearing good stories about it.

I know of an unpublished story that may or may not help.  It's about a couple who were born in the 1800's, died, and came back and eventually met and became close friends in the 1900's.  They were told in the 1900's by a friend who was a psychic that they were connected to that lifetime, and they determined that it was very likely to be true.  The husband in the 1800's was close to a different woman before they were married, and remained somewhat connected to her throughout his life.  The couple died long before this other woman.  The woman wrote a book about her life and some about the couple before she died in the 1900's.  She wrote it due to having a dream that the souls of the couple born in the 1800's were coming back.  In his current life, the husband from the 1800's was born in the year the author dated the prologue in her book, and he's still alive, as is his friend.

This is a story about a precognitive dream describing the return of some personalities and via a nice little synchronicity, connected it to the year one of the personalities was born; the personality she was closest to.  There is a lot of detail to the story, and if you think the details might help you with your question, I can make more of the story available.

There may be far better stories than the one above, but I can't recall any other stories at all, except for how the Buddhists know when the Dalai Llama is back and they go find him.  I was hoping someone else on here could point us to a story, as I'd like to hear a different one too.

[Jack]

Larry,

That being said, he also says that the past is a changeable as the future.

I had exactly one moment in my life where I thought the past had changed.  It felt like I'd been the one messing around with it, possibly from another level.  It was a strange feeling.  There was something I saw that didn't feel like it should have been there, yet it made sense to me that it was there, even though it did not seem to make sense to anyone else.  It almost felt like that scene in the Matrix movie where Neo saw the cat, and then he saw what seemed like the same cat again, and they said it was that something had been changed in the Matrix.  Except in my case, I don't remember ever having seen the first "cat", only the second one, but I felt strongly that something had changed.

This one hurts my head as much as trying to understand free will.  I think you can't understand changing the past without totally understanding the structure of free will, whatever it is.

All of it has to relate very precisely to thoughts.  If any part of any probable future exists now, then so do the thoughts that we use for our actions in that future.  If there is no time, then all the thoughts of all the futures and all the pasts exist now.  So the question becomes, how is thought created, and where, and when?  What makes this even more interesting is if all those thoughts exist, and the probable future path taken is only choosing a thought or set of thoughts, then thoughts themselves have to be quite literally real.  The key would be to understand precisely the difference in a thought and an action based on a thought.  There might not be any (significant?) difference, which could then place it all in a fairly simple structure of a single universe of various levels with what seems like infinite possibilities based on the sets of thoughts that exist in it and are constantly created, however their creation works.  All the thoughts are there, and the pasts and the futures of our experiences can be changed by moving our focus through different thoughts or sets of thoughts, in any apparent direction of time, since time is not real.  If there is no thought to do something, we can not do it, so that implies that if there are limits as to what we can choose, then the controls are at the level of the creation of thought.

[Deb]

WOW. Lots to digest. Brilliant, all of you.

At least Seth said this much about the Return:

"Events are not predestined. The framework for this emergence has already been set, however, within your system of probabilities. The emergence of this third personality will directly affect the original historical drama of Christ as it is now known. There is and must be interactions between them."
—SS Chapter 21: Session 586, July 24, 1971

The Return of the Christ Personality sounds like a super being. The original appearance was achieved with three distinct personalities (John/Jesus/Paul) because supposedly one being could not sustain all three. It seems like the new and improved personality will be strong and vigorous enough to handle the combined personalities—or a direct representation of the entity. To me that means this new being will be extraordinary and not limited to ordinary human qualities or weaknesses.

I need to think about this more. Just had to jump in and save space for my thoughts.

[Sena]

The Sethian idea (and quantum physics for that matter) of time being an illusion is "contrary to common sense", yet there is evidence. I don't know how quantum physicists came to that conclusion, but any accurate prediction of the future (a precognitive dream, for instance) does suggest that probable futures exist "now".

Hi Larry,
If you quote quantum physics in support of your belief that Paul is coming, then absolutely ANYTHING is possible in the future. I shall choose a future without Christ and Paul.

[LarryH]

If you quote quantum physics in support of your belief that Paul is coming,,,

Sena, that is a mischaracterization of both my purpose and belief. I used quantum theory as an example of something that is contrary to common sense and yet largely proven. It was not to support a belief in something else, but to suggest that something being contrary to common sense is not a reason to deny its possibility. I don't believe or disbelieve what Seth has said about this future Paul, I just allow for the possibility.

[Sena]

I don't believe or disbelieve what Seth has said about this future Paul, I just allow for the possibility.

Larry, thanks for clarifying that.

[Sena]

I have had a further thought/feeling about why I shall choose a future without Christ or Paul. I don't have a clear recollection of my previous lives, but I have a feeling that in one of these lives I may have been put to death by followers of Christ and Paul. It is a fact that hundreds of thousands were put to death for "heresy", especially in Europe, Central America, and South America.

[Deb]

I have a feeling that in one of these lives I may have been put to death by followers of Christ and Paul.

Because of your strong feelings about Jesus/Paul, I think you're onto something here. 

I'd always found it ironic that Jesus, as far as I could tell, was against religious dogma and tried to teach people that "god" was within them. Then there was an entire religion created around him, totally ignoring and distorting his message.

If there is a return of the Christ personality, I don't think I (this me) will be around to witness it. But it is interesting to ponder. And not just for us members. If you look at the forum status, the most popular topic is The Return of the Christ Personality by both # of posts and # of views. That topic is separate from this one, plus we have one or two other Christ related topics on the forum.

I shall choose a future without Christ and Paul.

Good point, we have choices in this existence.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena,

Thanks for responding to my question about your comments on Seth and the Return of the Christ.

Before you answered, I was wondering if perhaps your comment had to do with Paul himself, i.e. Jesus, not Paul, was suppose to return, of if perhaps it had to do with the Return itself, i. e., I think the whole idea of Jesus returning again was some sort of Christian mythology or misunderstanding or if your comment had some other basis.


I've noticed over time that you seem to have a very deep-seated dislike of almost all things that have to do with Christianity and I'm definitely not saying you are wrong for this. The Christian Church has definitely done some horrible things over the last 2,000 years.  The feelings however, behind this dislike "may" have a big impact on how you view things; such as with the comments that LarryH made.

I think LarryH's comments were spot on, but the feelings you have behind your dislike of Christianity, may have kept you from seeing this.

jbseth

[LarryH]

The strong belief in prophesies of the arrival of a messiah in old testament times led to the en masse creation of the events that were then interpreted as fulfillment of those prophesies. However, the stories that grew out of that event suggest that the prophesy was fulfilled in a way that was unexpected: instead of a King of the Jews vanquishing their enemies, the stories indicate a man whose main message was one of love and peace. As with many 'man-gods' prior to his presence, he had to be "born of a virgin", perform miracles such as healing the sick, be killed, and rise from the dead (the stories arose from mass consciousness regardless of what actually happened).

There is a school of thought that says that most of the 'end times' prophesies attributed to Jesus were fulfilled within about 70 years of his life. I forget the name of that school of thought, but it begins with a 'P'. That being said, it is a minority, and the majority of Christians expect the event to be in our future. 

This strong expectation among many of the return of Christ, not to mention the long-awaited Jewish Messiah and similar prophesies in Islam suggest that mass consciousness might result in something that can be interpreted by most in these groups as the fulfillment of their prophesies. It would also be fulfilled in ways that are unexpected, not exactly matching any of those expectations, but perhaps being different in the same sense that the stories of the "King of the Jews" with the unexpected messages of love, peace, and forgiveness did not meet the desires of those who expected a king who would vanquish their enemies. I see this possibility based on Seth's concepts of mass events and group consciousness. It does not even need his direct suggestions of such an event. It is not unusual to have desires and expectations be fulfilled in unexpected but helpful ways. Just look at the synchronicity thread for examples of that. 

[Jack]

Sena,

I shall choose a future without Christ and Paul.

In my question below, I'm referring here to the you as the level of you that reincarnates here multiple times, which I think would be a personality in Seth's terms, so I'll use "your personality" in the question.  I am not referring to the level of you that is reincarnated in a past lifetime and may not have been aware of living beyond one life.

For the purpose of this question, let's assume you were definitely put to death by the followers of Christ and Paul in a previous life.

If you don't mind my asking, do you feel like the death you experienced at the hands of the church was a choice made for your personality or by your personality?

Maybe this isn't something you feel like discussing here, but it might be something to think about and maybe explore a bit.  It's totally up to you of course.

[Sena]

If you don't mind my asking, do you feel like the death you experienced at the hands of the church was a choice made for your personality or by your personality?

Jack, thanks for asking. I think it must have been a choice made by my Inner Self. For what purpose? So that it could disprove the historical Christ and expose Paul for the conman he was.

[Jack]

So that it could disprove the historical Christ and expose Paul for the conman he was.

Sena, thanks for answering.  To me that feels like an answer that you feel to be pretty solid for yourself.  A good kind of answer when we can get to one that feels like that.

Sometimes I'll get to an answer for myself, and then I beat it to death until it's not clear, and sometimes that leads to a new one, and sometimes not.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena,

I'm not sure I get the connection here, in another life, how does your having been put to death by followers of Christ and Paul, disprove the historical Christ and expose Paul for the conman he was?

jbseth

[Sena]

Hi Sena,

I'm not sure I get the connection here, in another life, how does your having been put to death by followers of Christ and Paul, disprove the historical Christ and expose Paul for the conman he was?

jbseth

jbseth,
False beliefs, such as those which venerate a mythical Christ as God and Paul as a saint, cannot usually be altered by reason alone. Hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by those beliefs may cause some people, though not many, to question those beliefs. The moral principle here is that truth is a good thing, sometimes worth dying for.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena,

When the Moslems overran much of North Africa and the Middle East, killing many people in the process, this was not based upon the false beliefs of Christ as God and Paul as a Saint.

When the Mongols overran much of Western Asia and parts of Europe, killing many people in the process, this was not based upon the false beliefs of Christ as God and Paul as a Saint.

When the Aztecs, started a war with their Native American neighbors, so that they (the  Aztecs) could capture live slaves, many of which were used as human sacrifices to the Aztec gods, killing many people in the process, this was not based upon the false beliefs of Christ as God and Paul as a Saint.

Instead, I would I would maintain that what drove many of these actions was the belief that it was OK to kill others if they had something that was desired (land, human bodies for slavery, etc.) or if they were doing something that was viewed as being wrong (practicing a different form of religion).

Furthermore, I would maintain that it was these types of beliefs that drove the Vikings to kill many people when they invaded both Eastern and Western Europe and it was these same types of beliefs that drove the Christians to kill many people when they went off on the Crusades and when they performed the inquisitions.

Personally, I don't believe that any of these actions really had anything to do with the false beliefs of Christ as God and Paul as a Saint.

jbseth

[Deb]

Wow, it just seems like mankind is looking for any excuse to kill. What a murderous lot we can be. And it doesn't have to be the killing of other people, we will eradicate insects and other pests to protect crops, hunt animals to extinction (for reasons other than food), overfish the oceans, poison bees. We kill the very things that sustain us, the way diseases kill the body they inhabit (killing themselves in the process).

It's crazy.

[T.M.]

Hi All,

I think the 3rd Christ is Gregg Braden

[Sena]

Hi All,

I think the 3rd Christ is Gregg Braden

Gregg Braden has some very interesting ideas, but I think the last thing he would do is to claim to be a mythical figure.

[Sena]

When the Mongols overran much of Western Asia and parts of Europe, killing many people in the process, this was not based upon the false beliefs of Christ as God and Paul as a Saint.

Hi jbseth,
You have mentioned a number of mass killings, but not the relatively recent case of the Holocaust of 6 million Jews. Why do you think these 6 million chose to be born to face starvation and death? Was it to prove that Pope Pius XII was a Nazi sympathizer? Have you read "Hitler's Pope" by John Cornwell? Are you aware that the Vatican helped thousands of Nazi war criminals to escape to South America?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/25/nazis-escaped-on-red-cross-documents

[Deb]

Wow Sena, I'm stunned. You always find interesting information on the internet. This was shocking:

"The documents – which are discussed in Steinacher's book Nazis on the Run: How Hitler's henchmen fled justice – offer a significant insight into Vatican thinking, particularly, because its own archives beyond 1939 are still closed. The Vatican has consistently refused to comment.

"Steinacher believes the Vatican's help was based on a hoped-for revival of European Christianity and dread of the Soviet Union. But through the Vatican Refugee Commission, war criminals were knowingly provided with false identities." 

According to this, while 6 million Jews were killed by Nazis, 8.65 million Soviet civilians and prisoners of war (Jews not included in this figure) were killed, but no one talks about them.

It appears the Vatican is accountable to no one. Even the God it worships. It is above the law. Something needs to be done about that.

BTW The author of the book is rock solid.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena,

I just took a look at my last post, post #84, and as I read it, it sounds like I'm attacking you.  Please accept my apology if you've taken this that way, that is not my intent here at all.  Actually, I really like you and enjoy your comments and the insights that you share with the rest of us, they make me think. 

What I'm actually trying to do here is walk myself through an idea I have about Christianity / Christians and all of the killings that they have participated in. I don't think this really has to do with religion or religious beliefs. Instead, I think it has to do with spiritual ignorance.

I think where I heading here has to do with pinning down the relationships that exist between people's actual practiced beliefs, (its ok to start a war and kill others if they have something you want), their religious beliefs, their beliefs having to do with the concepts of exclusivity / inclusivity thinking, and the level of their spiritual thinking (are they spiritually ignorant).


I'm somewhat of a history buff and as such, I am pretty familiar with much of what occurred during WW2. Regarding why the 6 million Jews chose to be born at that time, my feeling is that there were many reasons. I think that each person probably made the choice to be born at that specific time for their very own specific reasons. Furthermore, while many of them may have done so for similar reasons, I don't think that they were all done for any one specific reason alone.



In "Seth Speaks", Chapter 21, Session 586, Seth talks about spiritual ignorance. In this session he says the following:

[...] Many of your problems now result from spiritual ignorance.

Further down in this same session, he also says:

I am including this information in this chapter on religion because it is important that you realize that spiritual ignorance is at the basis of so many of your problems, and that indeed your only limitations are spiritual ones.






Now, in this same session, session 586, Seth talks about the types of behaviors of people who are not spiritually ignorant. He says:

No man will look down upon an individual from another race [...]

[...]

No sex will be considered better than the other, [...]

[...]

An open-ended consciousness will feel its connections with all other living beings.


I interpret these 3 statements as follows: 1) people who look down on individuals from another race are spiritually ignorant, 2) people who look down on individuals from another sex are spiritually ignorant and 3) people who don't grasp the sacredness of all life, are spiritually ignorant.  Now, along with this, I would say that anyone who practices some form of exclusivity, is also spiritually ignorant.


There is a connection between religious beliefs and spiritual intelligence. Unfortunately it's not necessarily a one to one connection and I think that this is an idea that many people don't grasp. People can be members of a religious belief system and yet still be very spiritually ignorant. 

An extreme example of this is the Westboro Baptist Church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

https://religionnews.com/2018/07/17/theyre-still-here-the-curious-evolution-of-westboro-baptist-church/

This is fundamentally a "hate" group, although these people consider themselves Christians.  While they do have Christian based religious beliefs, and they are very spiritually ignorant.

I would also say the same thing about the Ku Klux Klan. It is my understanding is that some of the people who participate in the KKK, are practicing Christians, who attend a Christian Church on Sundays. These people are also spiritually ignorant.


In my previous post, I mentioned the Moslems, the Mongol's, the Vikings, the Aztec's and the Christians who participated in the Crusades and in the inquisitions.  These people all had their various religious beliefs, but they were all spiritually ignorant, and this, I think is the real problem.


For a comparison, I would say that Mahatma Gandhi, who had Hindu religious beliefs, was an example of a person who wasn't spiritually ignorant. Furthermore, I would also say the present Dalai Lama, who has Buddhist beliefs, is also an example of a person who isn't spiritually ignorant.


Thus, people can have various religious beliefs and be either spiritually ignorant or not.  The fact that a person has a certain set of religious beliefs doesn't guarantee that they won't be spiritually ignorant.


The bottom line here is this. I think that the Christians who participated in the various killings that occurred over the years were spiritually ignorant. This wasn't really an issue of Christianity, Christ, Paul or anything like that. It was an issue of spiritual ignorant.

This however, is my belief on the subject, and I'm OK with it, if you or anyone else here doesn't see it this way. We all come from different backgrounds and experience. I just wanted to clarify my understanding of this issue because it is different than yours. 

jbseth

[Deb]

Regarding why the 6 million Jews chose to be born at that time, my feeling is that there were many reasons.

Not just Jews either, a conservative estimate according to my link above shows 17,283,900 people killed, with no figures for German political opponents and resistance advocates and homosexuals. A side thought: The Jews were Jews in this existence, F1, but in F2 there are no things such as gender, race, religion. So the conscious beings that chose to incarnate as Jews during that time period would could have done it for non-religious reasons. Something bigger than that. Did it work?

When I was reading your post about all of the wars and killing throughout history, and knowing it was just a small representation of the slaughter humans have been responsible for through the ages, it really depressed me. Because only humans will do things like that (oh jeez, I was reading about the history of the Catherine wheel the other day), and I realize just how spiritually ignorant or bankrupt we have been all this time. It feels like we are SO impossibly far away from waking up spiritually.

But then the thought occurred to me that since the Holocaust happened, hopefully many people who know enough about it have been horrified enough to not repeat that type of atrocity. People are constantly being compared to Hitler. Yet I actually read a while ago that only about 50% of the world population has even heard of the Holocaust. And only 1/3 of US millennials!  Here's just one link: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/05/half-of-people-surveyed-by-the-adl-dont-know-what-the-holocaust-is/370801/ And yet, I do read stories about genocide being alive and well in other countries and that pulls me down as well.

As a non sequitur: I have to say I've always had a "bad" feeling about Saul/Paul. Well, I mean since I read the NET (New English Translation) bible during my brief religion study period (prompted by living in a BA Christian neighborhood—"what am I not getting?"). He was not a likable person from what I read about him back then, was a zealot, against Jesus and then fanatically for him. He just didn't seem stable. I'm not sure whether any of the people in the New Testament actually ever existed, but I made room for the possibility that it's possible and I have no way to prove anything. If I can be open to the idea that John or Paul existed, then I can also be open to the idea of Jesus existing. But in no way resembling the idol he was made into.

I especially dislike the idea of a "new religion" (yes, Session 586 again) because I am totally turned off by religion in any shape or form. I'm hoping that was something Jane's filters inserted into Seth's message. If there is a second coming, I hope it's someone who can wake us up to the nature of reality rather than introducing another religion.

"Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

Nope. No worship for me. Even as a child that seemed unnatural to me.

[jbseth]

Hi Deb,

In your post above, you said, "So the conscious beings that chose to incarnate as Jews during that time period would have done it for non-religious reasons. "

I wouldn't necessarily have come to that conclusion. Nor would I be able to say, with any confidence, how many may have come for any of the various reasons that were chosen.

Was there some thinking behind this statement that I may have misunderstood?

jbseth

 

[Sena]

What I'm actually trying to do here is walk myself through an idea I have about Christianity / Christians and all of the killings that they have participated in. I don't think this really has to do with religion or religious beliefs. Instead, I think it has to do with spiritual ignorance.

jbseth,
No need to apologize. I think religious belief is actually the problem. The problem is monotheism, so it is not restricted to Christianity. One of the great things about Seth is that he has got rid of monotheism. "All That Is" is inclusive, not exclusive. Monotheism is exclusive. Monotheists are saying "My God is the only God. Your God is false." Monotheism leads to violence.

[Sena]

It appears the Vatican is accountable to no one. Even the God it worships. It is above the law. Something needs to be done about that.

Deb, the one billion Roman Catholics should stop giving money to the Vatican, and governments should stop giving tax exemptions for these donations.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena,

Thank you. I'm glad to here you didn't think I was trying to attack you in any way. That was definitely not my intention.

Regarding this topic, I'd say that the problem here is a lack of the following of a certain set of principles.
To avoid any confusion with spirituality and spiritual principles, I'll call these principles, CLR (Compassion, Respect and Love) principles instead.

I'd also say that these CLR principles, such as the "Golden Rule", do exist and are a part of most of the world's major religions. It's just that many of these CLR principles are often not practiced by people of various religions, when they get in the way of what these people want to do.

I'd say that it's the lack of practicing these CLR principles that allows people of various religions to practice exclusivity. I'd also say that it's the lack of practicing these CLR principles that allows the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, to practice their brand of hatred, while still identifying themselves as Christians.


In regards to monotheistic beliefs, I'd say that a belief in "All That Is" is a monotheistic belief. It's just that, a belief in this concept, as Seth describes it, is inclusive, while many of the members of the world's monotheistic religions practice exclusivity instead. Again, this practice of exclusivity, does not follow the CLR principles.

jbseth

   

[Deb]

In your post above, you said, "So the conscious beings that chose to incarnate as Jews during that time period would have done it for non-religious reasons. "

I wouldn't necessarily have come to that conclusion. Nor would I be able to say, with any confidence, how many may have come for any of the various reasons that were chosen.

Was there some thinking behind this statement that I may have misunderstood?

Sorry, it was a half-formed thought and I wasn't clear. I also should have written could rather than would. Where my mind was headed when I wrote that is: my impression of F2 is that "we" exist as consciousness in that plane and would not have gender, age, race, creed, political bias. So our decision to incarnate into a situation like the Holocaust would not be solely to further our individual beliefs and biases, but instead work for the greater good. I associate all those things that we define ourselves by here F1 (race, religion, etc) as F1-based characteristics.

Growing up, it was only stressed that the Holocaust was about race and religion: Hitler hated Jews and his goal was to eradicate them. But Hitler, the Nazis, didn't only kill Jews. They killed anyone who didn't support Hitler's agenda or fit within his ideal of the perfect human. It's a little confusing for me, as Hitler didn't appear to be a Christian. Some historians say that while he was raised a Catholic, he appeared to be an atheist. Yes he targeted Jews, but also killed Orthodox Christian Serbs, Muslims, gays, Soviets (forced to be atheists), political conservatives, disabled people, gypsies, intellects, Jehovah's Witnesses, priests and pastors, blacks. It's hard for me to see the Holocaust as a completely religion-based event, and so those that participated would have had various reasons (aside from religion) to do so. But you're right, I couldn't venture to say what reasons individuals choose to take part in something of that magnitude and horror.

My hope is that the event has taught and will continue to teach more people about compassion, respect for life and that people are more than their appearance or beliefs. But reading some articles about how the Holocaust is being forgotten already, or downplayed, and not taught in schools worries me.

[jbseth]

Hi Deb,

Thanks for your reply. I thought that maybe there was something in your statement that was probably not quite what you meant.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying. Growing up all I remember hearing from history class was how "Hitler" was so horrible for his "madman" genocide practices. Nobody ever talked about where or how he may have come up with these ideas; he was just a madman. I don't recall ever hearing anything about the eugenics movement and how it was practiced right here in the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, and most European countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I would say that Hitler probably got some of his "madman" practices directly from this movement. He just took them to the extreme. I would also say that this eugenics movement was very much an "exclusivity" movement, where people held the belief that "they" were better than "them". The principles of eugenics, are not principles that came from a CRL (Compassion, Respect and Love), point of view and thus I'd say that they definitely weren't spiritual principles.


Back around September and October of last year, a lot of things about the Vietnam War, seemed to be showing up in my life. As a result of this, I spent some time digging into this subject in a little more detail. While I grew up during this war and remember seeing it on the TV news, (I had 2 older brothers who were stationed in Vietnam during this war and so I had a little more interest in it, at that time, than some kids my age) I didn't necessarily understand all the implications of many of the issues involved in it such, as the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident and the "Pentagon Papers". As a result of this, I spent some time watching the 10 part Ken Burns special on, "The Vietnam War", which I found at our local library in DVD format.

The neat thing about this special is that not only did they interview many Americans, but they also interviewed many people who were members of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army.  Today in Vietnam, the vast majority of Vietnamese citizens are people who were born after, and some, well after this war. The old timers, the people my age, say that many of these young people have no real understanding of the extreme hardships that these old timers went through, during this war.

I think that between this type of situation and the situation where people no longer learn about the "Holocaust", there is the risk of people in the future, repeating the same mistakes that were made in the past. The hope we can have, is that enough people will continue to share what they know about history, so that this doesn't occur.

jbseth

[Deb]

Well there you go, thank you for that. I had not looked into eugenics before, but Hitler was aware of it. He must have thought he was God, even if he didn't believe in a God. What a horrendous ego he had.

I would also say that this eugenics movement was very much an "exclusivity" movement, where people held the belief that "they" were better than "them".

I too feel exclusivity is the key, it seems to be the biggest problem in society these days. Maybe it always has been. The Us vs Them helps people rationalize criminal acts. It makes it easier to harm others if we believe that we are right, those who don't fit within our narrow beliefs are wrong—or bad. Good vs Evil again. This fits with your Divisiveness topic, something else that's been on my mind a lot due to the current extreme political polarity lately. You quote fits nicely here (here's half):

I spoke earlier of rigid concepts of right and wrong. There is only one way to avoid this problem. Only true compassion and love will lead to an understanding of the nature of good, and only these qualities will serve to annihilate the erroneous and distortive concepts of evil.

Less Than Human: The Psychology of Cruelty, mentions Nazis and Jews quite a bit. This book looks extremely interesting but would be too painful to read. There's an excerpt from the book after the article. It's all about dehumanizing people in order to be able to make harming them easy and even virtuous:

"From the beginning, Hitler and his followers were convinced that the Jewish people posed a deadly threat to all that was noble in humanity. In the apocalyptic Nazi vision, these putative enemies of civilization were represented as parasitic organisms — as leeches, lice, bacteria, or vectors of contagion."

From Silence of the Lambs: "it rubs the lotion on its skin" (my first exposure to dehumanization).

I've been trying to find the quote where Seth talks about how science views animals used for experiments. To do so without guilt the animal has to be thought of as an expendable object and not a living, conscious being.

I've been skim-reading Joe Salatin's Folks This Ain't Normal, a great book about sustainable farming, promoting better treatment of farm animals, better farming practices, the decline in the Western world's quality of food and health because of current farming practices. At the same time, I've been jumping around in Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma and then came across this:

"When I was at the farm I asked Joel [Salatin] how he could bring himself to kill a chicken. 'That's an easy one. People have a soul, animals don't. It's a bedrock belief of mine. Animals are not created in God's image, so when they die, they just die.'" That really shocked me. That statement made me lose some admiration for Joel as a person. Plus I don't understand his rationale at all. When they die, they just die? Why does that make it any easier?

On a happier note, I have a friend who just took off for a 6 week drive around the western states and coast. She plans to visit coffee shops along the way and is asking people, on video, what they feel is already great about America. No politics or complaining allowed! She'll either make a documentary or a book about it. Common Grounds. I kinda wish I could go with her, I think it's an excellent idea and would be very uplifting and refreshing.

Interesting about your Vietnam connections lately. I just realized today that while I've spent my entire life only hearing occasionally about the World Wars, within a few months I saw the new WWI documentary, went to that concentration camp in Linz (I had never heard of it before), spent 8 days exploring Linz (Hitler's home town, I didn't realize that at the time) and Vienna (where he later lived and was rejected by the art school. Twice.) He actually was a good artist:

"I am an artist and not a politician. Once the Polish question is settled, I want to end my life as an artist." I wonder what happened to that Adolph Hitler.

[Deb]

In regards to monotheistic beliefs, I'd say that a belief in "All That Is" is a monotheistic belief. It's just that, a belief in this concept, as Seth describes it, is inclusive, while many of the members of the world's monotheistic religions practice exclusivity instead. Again, this practice of exclusivity, does not follow the CLR principles.

Interesting thought! I agree, but then I have to also add that it depends on your definition of God. Monotheism is the belief that there is only one God. I don't see ATI as being a "God" under most people's definition. And yes to it being inclusive.

Wikipedia says: "The concept of God, as described by theologians, commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), omnipresence (all-present), and as having an eternal and necessary existence." While a part of that sits fine with my interpretation of ATI, religions have added on a lot of baggage that I can't accept -- the vengeful and punishing God of the Old Testament, the obligation to worship a deity (most if not all religions), necessary sacrifices to appease that deity (humans, animals, fasting, money), then all the added doctrines, rituals, tithing, structures and levels of organized religion. That all comes down to there's one supreme being that is in control of everything and everyone, we are powerless, and must appease the God or we will be punished.

In my mind ATI is just benign and impartial source energy underlying everything. As impartial as, say, electricity. The building blocks for everything, but building blocks with consciousness and we are the ones in control of creating reality. Maybe I need to start a new topic about ATI, I feel the need to clarify my thoughts about what it is.