Does Seth fail to take evil seriously?

[LarryH]

Deb, according to the writer David Wilcock we can take as truth only 5% of channeled material from any one source. What I infer from that is that we may need to combine material from different sources. If there is agreement between sources on certain matters, we can take note of the agreement.

If that were true, then take any twenty statements by Seth and try to figure out which one statement is true (5% of 20). And there are far more than 5% of Seth's statements that are shared by other channelers, especially those who are faking and simply repeating Sethian concepts. It would be pointless to pay any attention to any of these sources with that track record. I can get far more than 5% accuracy from my nutty neighbor. And I would concur with jbseth's assessment of David Wilcock. I read one of his books, and it seemed like pure rubbish.

[Kyle]

There are a lot of things in this world that groups of people are 100% convinced are true that I simply do not believe.  I'd imagine it's the same for all of us.  Their belief in the existence of something is just as strong as my belief that it doesn't exist.

It makes me wonder about how Seth talks about our shared reality but how we each create our own world and how I can't create in yours and you can't create in mine.

In this case, sentient cucumbers exist in their world, but not in mine.

This is a fruitful question (even though cucumbers are a vegetable ;-).

It just struck me that in the world of sentient cucumber believers, the idea of "exist" and/or "sentient" must actually be different from what it is in your world or mine. That's because, in their world, the rules for recognizing "sentient existence" would have to be more open to whatever interpretations they prefer.

This is just an example of what happens when "shared" realities are no longer recognizable as belonging to the same world.

[usmaak]

This is just an example of what happens when shared realities are no longer recognizable as belonging to the same world.

This feels like far too common an occurrence these days.  I often feel like my reality went left while so many others have gone right.  And no, this is not meant to be political.  I just feel like I belong to the majority less and less as days pass.

[Deb]

usmaac, don't worry about hijacking threads, we're usually all over the board on topics, they have a flow, a life of their own, rather than a rigidity and I think most like that. Unless you suddenly start trying to convince us all that the Pastafarian (Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) beliefs are the one truth, and aggressively attempt to recruit those of us who don't agree. That would be a highjack.

Deb, according to the writer David Wilcock we can take as truth only 5% of channeled material from any one source. What I infer from that is that we may need to combine material from different sources. If there is agreement between sources on certain matters, we can take note of the agreement.

Wow, 5% seems a pretty low average, I wonder how he came up with that figure. We'd do better just guessing! And how much do we combine from various sources? I think it still comes down to personal preferences, beliefs and gut feelings. There may be one truth, but I wouldn't recognize it if it smacked me in the face. Other than what feels right. But then, I have to admit, there are some messed up people who act on what feels right for them (such as the Epsteins and Dahmers, etc.) and is wrong for everyone else, but as I mentioned earlier I see them as mentally ill and not your regular Joe. That reminds me of a despair.com poster, "It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others." (Not every life can be a success, just like not every vessel can be seaworthy. But there's no shame in being one spectacular shipwreck.) Everyone has a purpose.

The only reason that I can think of, for combining them, is if it was believed that only by doing so, would the common ideas found in all of them be brought to light.

I do admit that when I take the time to read materials from other channelers, I tend to look for things that support the Seth materials. It's that old idea that when we make a decision, or believe something, or accept something that makes sense to us, we look for more data that supports that and resist that which does not. While the Seth material is not a "religion" for me, I still feel that Seth said it best—for me.

There are things out there that people absolutely 100% believe.

That worries me, people that don't question what they hear, read, etc.

I know that sentient cucumbers don't exist.

Ha ha. A long time ago we had a topic on to eat meat or not, and it may have come up in that topic that everything is conscious and to a degree sentient (as you mentioned), plants, trees, rocks... and so is it any worse to eat meat than a tomato or, say, a cuke? Seth said that trees recognize people, and I think he said they feel pain. Too lazy right now to look for quotes, but I can find them if need be. The decision then is to feel guilty for existing at all and needing to eat, or feel less guilty about eating animals because you can't win. There's a lot of stuff out there that seems outlandish to me, some things even presented as science (such as talking to plants, playing music for them, saying abusive things to water to change the molecular structure). We get to pick and choose what makes sense to us. The Band said it well, "take what you need and leave the rest."

To me, I've always equated channeling to things like crystals and chakras and things like that.

I struggled with that for the longest time, but eventually came to the conclusion that it really doesn't matter where the Seth materials came from, they still make sense to me and the scope and volume of the information is mind boggling. I still have Jane's (and some of Rob's) personal journals to read, things I'm sure they never thought would be public. I'm looking forward to getting into their heads. They are not extremely personal, mostly impersonal comments about what happened during any particular day. Just recently I found more things that are worthy of publishing. I just wish Laurel was more on board. I'm working on it.

[jbseth]

Quote from: jbsethThe only reason that I can think of, for combining them, is if it was believed that only by doing so, would the common ideas found in all of them be brought to light.I do admit that when I take the time to read materials from other channelers, I tend to look for things that support the Seth materials. It's that old idea that when we make a decision, or believe something, or accept something that makes sense to us, we look for more data that supports that and resist that which does not. While the Seth material is not a "religion" for me, I still feel that Seth said it best—for me.

Hi Deb, Hi All,

Yeah, me too Deb. That is, I also feel that Seth said it best—for me. Merging his awesome material with something like the material of "A Course in Miracles", for example, just strikes me as being really wrong. Why not just merge it with the Bible. Not.   

-jbseth

[usmaak]

Merging his awesome material with something like the material of "A Course in Miracles", for example, just strikes me as being really wrong. Why not just merge it with the Bible. Not.   

According to ACIM, we've all just been reading the bible wrong.  What was said was meant to be taken a different way.

I intensely dislike religion.  I'm not selective about the ones I dislike.  They're all in that category, at least the ones that I'm acquainted with.

[Kyle]

Hi Deb, Hi All,

Yeah, me too Deb. That is, I also feel that Seth said it best—for me. Merging his awesome material with something like the material of "A Course in Miracles", for example, just strikes me as being really wrong. Why not just merge it with the Bible. Not.   

I am with you guys, reading Seth is like sipping an exquisitely fine wine. Mixing Seth with lesser "spirits" (don't hit me!) would be like dumping that fine bottle into a tub of Purple Jesus! Which sort of fits if we're talking ACIM.

[Sena]

Wow, 5% seems a pretty low average, I wonder how he came up with that figure.

Deb, even 5% is pure gold if it is indubitably true. I think I can accept 5% of the Bible or 5% of the Bhagavad Gita.

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

"The Gita adopts the Upanishadic concept of Absolute Reality (Brahman)" - Fits well with Seth's concept of All That Is.

[usmaak]

I think I can accept 5% of the Bible

It would depend on which 5%.  There's a lot in there that I'd like to be not true.

[LarryH]

Deb, even 5% is pure gold if it is indubitably true. I think I can accept 5% of the Bible or 5% of the Bhagavad Gita.

If 5% of channeled statements are true, the question is, which 5%? Of 20 statements, which one statement is true? If you go with the one statement that resonates with you most or the one that has the most independent evidence, then it is probably a statement that you already believed in. But out of 20 statements, it is fairly likely that the one true statement is one of the other 19.

[Sena]

Deb, even 5% is pure gold if it is indubitably true. I think I can accept 5% of the Bible or 5% of the Bhagavad Gita.

If 5% of channeled statements are true, the question is, which 5%? Of 20 statements, which one statement is true? If you go with the one statement that resonates with you most or the one that has the most independent evidence, then it is probably a statement that you already believed in. But out of 20 statements, it is fairly likely that the one true statement is one of the other 19.

Larry, yes it all depends on how much of All That Is we carry within us. The Christian Bible (or a part of it) assumes that the majority of human beings do not have a built-in truth discerning facility. That is why the Bible tries to impose the ten commandments on us.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

What I've been thinking about here, is this.


One:
Why of all the people in the world, would anyone choose Dave Wilcox, to be a reputable source of how much of the channeled information was true?

Not that I would be looking for someone who might be an expert on channeling, but if I was, I might be inclined to think about someone like Jon Klimo, wrote an incredible book on "Channelling". Maybe he would be a good source. There may be other people as well. Perhaps someone like Dean Radin of Noetic Sciences who's done some work with parapsychology or perhaps someone like Stanislav Grof, who's researched non-ordinary states of consciousness.


Two:
Why is 5%, the golden number?

When I look at something like "Seth's" channelings, I think that 5% is way too low. Even when I look at some of the other channeled messages, like JZ Knights "Ramtha", which I don't particularly resonate with, I still think that 5% is way too low.

When I think about the material in "A Course in Miracles", who messages are way to "Christian" for my taste, I also think that the number 5% is too low. Then there's people like Elizabeth Clare Prophet, whose messages I really don't resonate with, and even here I think that the number 5% (1 of 20 as Larry H says) may be too low. The number 5%, means that 95% are not true. 


To me this 5% number sounds a lot more like some comment that David Wilcox may have made, off the top of his head, without even thinking about what he was saying.


Sena, I'm really surprised that of all of these other potentially good sources of information, you chose David Wilcox, of all people, to be the person whose comments you would go with on this topic.  All I can think of here is this. Maybe you did something that I do sometimes, which is to speak out, before you really thought about what you were actually saying?

-jbseth

[usmaak]

When I think about the material in "A Course in Miracles", who messages are way to "Christian" for my taste, I also think that the number 5% is too low.

If you can get past the religion in it and the non-stop God talk and the fact that, in theory, the channel is channeling THE Jesus, then there are quite a few similarities to the Seth material.  But if you have any kind of issues with religion at all, as I do, you won't be able to get very far with it before you want to throw the book into the trash can.  I even bought other books that tried to put it into a more secular viewpoint, but I just couldn't do it.  I love these books that call themselves non-denominational, that state that if you have a problem with the words used to just substitute your own words, and then proceed to beat you over the head with outright religion. </rant>

[jbseth]

If you can get past the religion in it and the non-stop God talk and the fact that, in theory, the channel is channeling THE Jesus, then there are quite a few similarities to the Seth material.  But if you have any kind of issues with religion at all, as I do, you won't be able to get very far with it before you want to throw the book into the trash can.  I even bought other books that tried to put it into a more secular viewpoint, but I just couldn't do it.  I love these books that call themselves non-denominational, that state that if you have a problem with the words used to just substitute your own words, and then proceed to beat you over the head with outright religion. </rant>            

Hi usmaak, Hi All,

I think that, "A Course in Miracles" has its place. I think that there are probably some former Christians, who have decided to leave their previous belief system and are looking for something else to guide them. For some of these people, this Christian slant will speak to them, and in being familiar to them, it may ease them on their new path. And so understanding this, I think that ACIM can be helpful to some people.


I'm not sure that "Seth" would be helpful to some of these people. His information might be too big of a change for them to make.


On the other hand, I'm not in their position, and I don't need this "Christian" reassurance.


Somewhere in the, ACIM literature, they say something to the effect that you "must" complete this course.  I find that type of "determinism" to be quite offense. To me, this rings the alarms of the type of thing that the Christian church insists that you believe.

Many Christian Churchs (not all) say that you are a sinner and you will go to hell after you die, if you don't tow the line (a line of BS I might add) that they are trying to get you to believe. The way I see it, this is all some really sick idea having to do with the Christian Church having power and control over people and it's not either healthy or life affirming.

Give me healthy and life affirming. This is why I like Seth, instead.


-jbseth

[usmaak]

Somewhere in the, ACIM literature, they say something to the effect that you "must" complete this course.  I find that type of "determinism" to be quite offense. To me, this rings the alarms of the type of thing that the Christian church insists that you believe.

It says this:
In-1. This is a course in miracles. 2 It is a required course. 3 Only the time you take it is voluntary. 4 Free will does not mean that you can establish the curriculum. 5 It means only that you can elect what you want to take at a given time. 6 The course does not aim at teaching the meaning of love, for that is beyond what can be taught. 7 It does aim, however, at removing the blocks to the awareness of love's presence, which is your natural inheritance. 8 The opposite of love is fear, but what is all-encompassing can have no opposite.

If this is what you are referring to, it means that everyone will go through the course at some point, and it's your choice as to when.  Like I've said, it has an "ascension" sound to it.  It means that we're all headed in the direction the course gives and we can choose to go willingly, or kicking and screaming.  At least that's how I read it.

[jbseth]

It says this:In-1. This is a course in miracles. 2 It is a required course. 3 Only the time you take it is voluntary. 4 Free will does not mean that you can establish the curriculum. 5 It means only that you can elect what you want to take at a given time. 6 The course does not aim at teaching the meaning of love, for that is beyond what can be taught. 7 It does aim, however, at removing the blocks to the awareness of love's presence, which is your natural inheritance. 8 The opposite of love is fear, but what is all-encompassing can have no opposite.

Hi usmaak, Hi All,

Thanks for that. Yes, this is exactly what I was referring to.

Here's the thing. The statements being made in this material, may be legitimate providing that they are true.

However, just because some channel says something like this, this doesn't necessarily make it true, and I'm not necessarily convinced that it is. Where's their proof?

Sometimes I default back to the idea, that in regards to some belief, you can make an error in two ways. One, you can believe something is true when it isn't, and two, you can believe that something isn't true, when it is.

-jbseth

[jbseth]

Wow, 5% seems a pretty low average, I wonder how he came up with that figure.

Deb, even 5% is pure gold if it is indubitably true. I think I can accept 5% of the Bible or 5% of the Bhagavad Gita.

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

"The Gita adopts the Upanishadic concept of Absolute Reality (Brahman)" - Fits well with Seth's concept of All That Is.

Hi Sena, Hi All,

With some of the comments that you've been posting lately in the forum (you don't believe that Seth comments on evil is legitimate, you don't believe in Seth's ideas about probabilities) I'm curious, does this mean that you think that only 5% of the Seth information is true as well?

If not, then how much of it do you actually believe is true?


If you say 5%, I'm not threatened by that, but I might wonder why you would bother to participate here, if that was really the truth. On the other hand, at this point if you said 99%, I'd have a pretty hard time believing that, that was really true.

-jbseth

[LarryH]

It would be interesting to analyze the probability that the New Testament is an accurate portrayal of Jesus. Questions in the analysis might be:

*What is the evidence that Jesus actually existed?
*Assuming that he existed, what is the likelihood that what he said and did was accurately
  remembered by the witnesses and accurately written down decades later?
*What political pressures may have influenced the writings and the selection of books that were to be
  included?
*Through how many translations, and with what level(s) of expertise, were the original writings
  modified?
*How many English translations exist, and does each sentence in each translation align with the
  next in meaning?
*How do we assess whether various stories are meant to be taken as literal vs. figurative?
*How many contradictions are included in the various books of the New Testament?
*Are the books that follow the first four consistent with what Jesus has allegedly said and done in
  those first four?

I have always been intrigued by the claim of believers that the Bible was God's inspired word because "it says so in the Bible". Aside from this classic example of circular reasoning, I have to wonder (assuming that it does say that somewhere in the Bible), did the author know in advance that his writing would one day become just one book among 65 others that would be included, and that his claim would be applied to all of them?

As for the Seth material, we English speakers have the luxury of avoiding the translation issue. Since the material was created fairly recently, we also have the luxury of knowing how the language was used, the issues of the day, the culture within which it was formed. The material has been translated into several languages. It would be interesting to re-translate some of those translations back into English and see whether the meaning has changed from the original.

[usmaak]

I remember reading a book somewhere about how Emperor Constantine affected different books in the bible and what made it in and what was removed.  Now I don't know how much fact there is to that.  The book may have been biased somewhat.  But I have to imagine that over the many intervening years, interpretations have changed significantly.

[jbseth]

Hi Larry H, Hi All,

In the 1980's and 1990's there was a large group of biblical historical scholars who got together and tried to come up with a way to answer some of the questions that you were just talking about. This organization that they named themselves was the "Jesus Seminar".  You can read about this organization, the "Jesus Seminar" here.

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


One of the findings of this "Jesus Seminar" was that 82% of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him. You can find this result at the bottom of this link.

https://www.westarinstitute.org/projects/the-jesus-seminar/jesus-seminar-phase-1-sayings-of-jesus/


This means that 18% of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were spoken by him. This number, 18%, is still much higher than Sena's 5%.

-jbseth

[Deb]

I think that there are probably some former Christians, who have decided to leave their previous belief system and are looking for something else to guide them. For some of these people, this Christian slant will speak to them, and in being familiar to them, it may ease them on their new path.

Yep, good point. I was once told by a neighbor that anything that does not praise the glory of God (or something like that), be it a book, song, or even news station, is a creation of the devil. I gave her a Basha CD once, before she'd said that to me, and she gave it back to me the next day saying she could not listen to it. She's probably not the only one to feel that way, so I can see someone like her maybe trusting ACIM if she was considering giving up her stranglehold on religion.

*Through how many translations, and with what level(s) of expertise, were the original writings
  modified?

All great questions, but this one alone would take the cake. Years ago (2003 or 5?) I read an enormous book called the NET Bible -- New English Translation, comparing, I think, the King James bible to an original Greek version. It mostly consisted of marginal notes (more than 60k of them). https://netbible.com/ So that's just ONE translation, Greek to English.

This means that 18% of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were spoken by him.

I'll look at the link in a bit, but I wonder how the heck they know the words were actually spoken by Jesus? There are no writings from back in his day, and I think the New Testament started being written 40 years after he supposedly died.

And let's not forget the apocrypha, books that we know about that were left out of the NT because someone felt they didn't fit with the narrative: Esdras, Book of Tobit (the Vulgate, and Luther call it "Tobias"), Book of Judith, Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Susanna, 1st & 2nd Maccabees, Esther, Sirach, a few others I think.

Who knows what else has been done to the book over the centuries.

[LarryH]

One of the findings of this "Jesus Seminar" was that 82% of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him...

...This means that 18% of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were spoken by him.

This should have probably said, "At least 82%...were not actually spoken by him".
We cannot conclude that the other 18% were spoken by him.

[jbseth]

I'll look at the link in a bit, but I wonder how the heck they know the words were actually spoken by Jesus? There are no writings from back in his day, and I think the New Testament started being written 40 years after he supposedly died. And let's not forget the apocrypha, books that we know about that were left out of the NT because someone felt they didn't fit with the narrative: Esdras, Book of Tobit (the Vulgate, and Luther call it "Tobias"), Book of Judith, Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Susanna, 1st & 2nd Maccabees, Esther, Sirach, a few others I think.Who knows what else has been done to the book over the centuries.

Hi Deb, Hi All,

This is largely based upon multiple forms of "criticism".  Here, the term "criticism", is not used in terms of criticizing (or insulting) someone. Instead, it is used in a way to indicate that a "critical" or honest assessment of something has been made.

Scholars use multiple forms of criticism to assess this information.

Generally, this is based upon an analysis of what is sometimes called literal-historical criticism and textual criticism. This also involves many other types of criticism, such as source criticism, form criticism and redaction criticism to name just a few.

Here's a wiki site that talks about the various forms of criticism that scholars use.

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


Scholars have not only looked at the books of the New Testament, what's called the Old Testament, or Hebrew Bible and the books of the Apocrypha. They also look into other books and manuscript that were written and have never made it into any Bible.

Then along with this, they also look into the other things, like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic Gospels such as those found at Nag Hammadi.  Along with this, they also research the writings of the ancient Greeks, the Romans and other people like Josephus and Philo.

There's a huge amount of work and activity that's actually involved in all of this and I suspect that most people have absolutely no idea that any of this research has taken place and actually occurs.

Much of this scholarship takes place via various universities all across the world and these people generally hold huge conferences where a lot of this information is discussed. Sadly, a lot of this information remains largely unknown to the general public.

I learned about this, several years ago by reading several books by Bart Ehrman, and others, who are some of these scholars.

-jbseth

[usmaak]

Yep, good point. I was once told by a neighbor that anything that does not praise the glory of God (or something like that), be it a book, song, or even news station, is a creation of the devil. I gave her a Basha CD once, before she'd said that to me, and she gave it back to me the next day saying she could not listen to it. She's probably not the only one to feel that way, so I can see someone like her maybe trusting ACIM if she was considering giving up her stranglehold on religion.

Go to any of the various ACIM books on Amazon.  There's more than one version.  There are one star reviews that go on about how this isn't the work of God and it's the work of the devil.  Christians, at least the hard core ones, dismiss anything other than the bible as attempts by demons to lure them into the fiery pit.  I've ran into people who also think that things like yoga and meditation are forms of evil. 

I've seen the exact same review on many of the Seth books.  They always start out with a warning to be careful.

This conversation assumes that Jesus was actually a person.  I'm not convinced.  How much of history, especially ancient history, is even factual?  2000 years from now, assuming that humanity still exists, how much of the history that people know will be factual?

[DylansDad]

I am just jumping in here out of the blue as a new poster.  I think many truly evil (in description) acts come from psychopaths. When the brains of such people are studied, medical scientists have found that the area of the brain (amygdala) that is responsible for the feelings of compassion, love, kindness, spirituality, empathy is dead and always was dead since birth. The theory is that up to 6% of babies are born with this area of the brain dead on arrival. So they have no chance to feel these lovely traits. They learn how to fake feeling these traits, but have no physical means to feel them.  They feel no guilt when they do horrible things to others.

In that sense, you could claim that evil is a birth defect of the brain.  I doubt that all evil is so easily summed up as a dead amygdala in the brain, but from Seth's viewpoint, perhaps he has alternative explanations for what we call evil.  Evil actions obviously exist and it is obscene for anyone into New Age channeling to deny this obvious reality. What I often find in channeled material is that author like Seth is speaking from a non-dual blissful dimension.  From that stance, evil as an eternal opposing force to God and good may not exist. But what we describe by evil certainly exists in our 3 dimensional reality. 

I take from Seth what seems helpful and ignore the rest when he totally ignores the reality of 3 dimensional reality.  I just tell myself that Seth may have explanations for evil at his vantage level that we cannot see until we join him there. Until then, the word "EVIL" is very authentic and real.  If someone was born without the ability to feel spiritual loving emotions, I can understand that. But that does not excuse their actions. We aren't going to allow people to go on a murder spree just because their amygdala is dead!

[LarryH]

I take from Seth what seems helpful and ignore the rest when he totally ignores the reality of 3 dimensional reality.  I just tell myself that Seth may have explanations for evil at his vantage level that we cannot see until we join him there. Until then, the word "EVIL" is very authentic and real.  If someone was born without the ability to feel spiritual loving emotions, I can understand that. But that does not excuse their actions. We aren't going to allow people to go on a murder spree just because their amygdala is dead!

Hi DylansDad, and welcome!

Just the other day, I read the following passages in The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, Session 860:

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

I think the spoiler is one example of how we don't have to wait to leave physical reality in order to understand Seth's perspective on what we call evil. And I don't think Seth or anybody here is suggesting that such explanations are reason to "allow people to go on a murder spree."

[Deb]

I am just jumping in here out of the blue as a new poster.  I think many truly evil (in description) acts come from psychopaths.

Hi @DylansDad, welcome to SoS and thank you for jumping in! That's pretty much how I feel, that people that do bad things are not evil (in the sense that evil is a force in opposition to a force of good), but are mentally ill. I suppose they too serve a purpose in this drama we call reality. In the Sethian way, it would take a special consciousness that is willing to take on such a heavy role, playing a depraved villain whose intent is to harm others, and be hated by many.

Many--not all, now--criminals possess the same characteristics you ascribe to heroes, except that the heroes have a means toward the expression of idealism, and specific avenues for that expression. And many criminals find such avenues cut off completely.

I've read Mass Events a couple of times, and that just jumped out at me now. Wow. Now I'm thinking about all the super hero movies, the heroes killing off bad guys that's so satisfying. But... killing is killing, and yet in those movies (or real life), "good" winning over "evil" excuses that.

Ideals seem to trip us up just as much, if not more, than egos.

[DylansDad]

The difference between heroes and villains may not be technique but intent. To borrow from the RA LAW OF ONE Channelings, the hero is polarized to the Service to Others team. The villain is polarized to the Service to Self team.  We idealize those who have a sense of decency, ethics and seek to serve.  We, at least until a certain President seemed to popularize narcissism, greed, and self-glorification, villainized those who only seek to serve themselves devoid of any consideration of anyone else or the planet as a whole, e.g., corporate short term greed at the expense of the eco system. So although both superheroes and supervillains may resemble each other, their intent is drastically different, at the extreme opposite poles from each other. While you may say that this is duality, the reality is that duality reigns in our dimension.  Channeled entities from higher planes can sermonize about how everything is ONE, but within our grubby little dimensional neighborhood, duality rules.  Certainly, in brief moments of deep meditation, we can transcend this neighborhood and experience ONENESS, but we have to return back to this world of duality to effectively function.  While there are guru's out there who claim to always be functioning from a level of ONENESS, I find this very suspect.  Even Jesus seemed to shift from ONENESS to duality in his life time. One moment he was speaking from ONENESS and the next time he'd be speaking from duality.
The modern superhero movies are extremely violent. I think they seek the male teenage viewing audience. I can't watch them anymore because I find long scenes of fighting and destruction boring. I remember the ancient Superman TV show (yes, I am that old). Superman never killed anyone. He always just brought the culprits to justice. He was never his own judge, jury and executioner. But there is a strong mental force in this country that wants blood because they have lost faith in the justice system.

One thing I've noticed is that people who are relatively new to metaphysical information can be tempted to speak from a higher dimension than they may practically experience.  For example, there are New Agers who sort of float through life in a blissful trance talking about ONENESS, as if they are a 6th dimensional entity.  I've known such "Bliss Ninnies", as they are fondly called in some circles. But when an event comes along that challenges them, e.g., a parent becomes very ill and needs constant caregiving, suddenly these fake 6th dimensional people crash back down to 3 D reality and must cope (as we all must) with living in a duality of sickness and health, life and death, wanting to float through life with a Mona Lisa smile versus needing to change your dad's diapers!

When you speak from a higher dimension than you currently inhabit, you are just waiting for a pie in the face from duality. LOL

Seth has earned the right to speak from ONENESS because he is there.

[usmaak]

The modern superhero movies are extremely violent. I think they seek the male teenage viewing audience. I can't watch them anymore because I find long scenes of fighting and destruction boring. I remember the ancient Superman TV show (yes, I am that old). Superman never killed anyone. He always just brought the culprits to justice. He was never his own judge, jury and executioner. But there is a strong mental force in this country that wants blood because they have lost faith in the justice system.

This is interesting.  I find myself going through a similar change.  I watch a lot of TV shows and a lot of them are cop shows.  I find the over the top violence to be more and more trying of my patience.  Maybe it's because I'm getting older or maybe it's a shift in the way that I see the world.  There is already enough real life violence in the world.  I'm questioning why I bother watching shows having to do with fake violence.

And it's been years since I've seen a movie.  Any kind of movie at all, really.

[strangerthings]

How about new consciousness in the universe?

And people just coming into their individualized power?

Some having their first experience with an ego.

There are cycles of consciousness according to Seth.

For example:

TES 9 session 498

[Mik]

Hello,

The most basic truth:

       You create your (the) reality.

If you believe in evil, then evil exists. You may be even helping it thrive. Not that you're doing anything wrong as far as your own sense of right and wrong. But when you focus your energy on "evils" then you're increasing their presence and power in the universe. Which is a mistake.

Focus on the Good Things that are happening in the universe; Doing Good; Giving love.
--- then you're part of the solution.



Always remember . . .


             ---Give Love.---



(Joy and) Happiness,
      Mik.



!