Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
i'm always looking at the seth material as how can i use this day to day, to create the reality that i want. as he says, this physical reality is for learning to manipulate energy. so i want to do that even better than i do right now.

now - thanks to Tob who mentioned that TES (sessions 50-64) contained seth talking about matter and creation pretty extensively, i dug in there to figure out a couple of things for myself.

i first read it some 15 years ago, and as usual when i go back into a lot of the seth material - it again just blew my mind open. so that's awesome.

in it, my takeaway was that matter first of all exists as consciousness, in patterns as he says (psychic patterns). then from there, energy enters those patterns, which finally ends up creating matter in our physical reality. a very simple summary.

and the energy he talks about that comes in and creates physical matter, is his classic pulsing energy. the energy pulses.

my question is - that pulsing energy - what is your understanding of what it is? is it something that i control, or manipulate, to send it into those psychic patterns to then create my physical realty? (my working knowledge/belief is that those patterns/psychic patterns, are simply the thoughts/beliefs/expectations that i hold)

or is that energy simply always there, always on - perhaps the very energy of all that is - that by its nature pulses out and fills up whatever patterns are in my psychic reality, which then projects those patterns into my 3d physical reality?

i'm trying to keep this as simple as possible. a kind of 40,000 foot view to not get caught up in the minutiae.


many thanks
 
2
Seth-Related Discussions / Re: Does Seth fail to take evil seriously?
« Last post by jbseth on Today at 02:31:43 PM »
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
3
Seth-Related Discussions / Re: Does Seth fail to take evil seriously?
« Last post by usmaak on Today at 01:45:06 PM »
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.
4
Seth-Related Discussions / Re: Does Seth fail to take evil seriously?
« Last post by LarryH on Today at 01:35:40 PM »
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.
5
Seth-Related Discussions / Re: Does Seth fail to take evil seriously?
« Last post by jbseth on Today at 12:29:08 PM »
Quote from: Sena
Quote from: Deb
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





6
Seth-Related Discussions / Re: Does Seth fail to take evil seriously?
« Last post by jbseth on Today at 12:15:06 PM »
Quote from: usmaak
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




7
Seth-Related Discussions / Re: Does Seth fail to take evil seriously?
« Last post by usmaak on Today at 10:47:40 AM »
Quote from: jbseth
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.
8
Seth-Related Discussions / Re: Does Seth fail to take evil seriously?
« Last post by jbseth on Today at 10:35:02 AM »
Quote from: usmaak
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




9
Seth Related Questions / Explanations / Simultaneous Time Analogy
« Last post by jbseth on Today at 10:03:57 AM »
Hi All,

Recently, I’ve come up with what I think, is a great analogy for Seth’s idea of simultaneous time. Here’s this analogy.


Whenever I look out upon my experience here on earth, the following all appear to be true.  The earth is not moving (as in, moving through space) the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, every day.  Along with this, the moon, planets and stars also all appear to be rise in the east and set in the west.


However, using my mind and my imagination, I can perceive that this may not in fact be true. Seeing things from a different perspective, in my mind, I can imagine that I’m on a spacecraft, high above both the sun and in the earth.  Furthermore, when I look out the window of this spacecraft, this is what I see.

Both the sun and the earth are hurdling through space.  As they do this, the earth revolves on its axis, once every “day”. Furthermore, along with this, the earth also revolves around the sun in an elliptical orbit, completing one revolution, in approximately one “year”.


The fact that the sun “seems” to rise in the east and set in the west every day, while here on earth, doesn’t preclude the possibility that the actual truth here is this. The earth is actually moving through space and as it does so, it’s revolving on its axis, once a day, as its revolving around the sun, approximately once a year.



In a similar fashion, perhaps the fact that time “seems” to occur as a consecutive sequence, while here on earth, doesn’t necessarily preclude the possibility that the actual truth here is this. All time is simultaneous.

There is one more factor that I would like to add to this analogy. If, in fact time really is just a consecutive sequence, as many of us seem to experience it, here on earth, then Einstein’s, “Theory of Relativity” where he tells us that time is “relative” also wouldn’t seem to be true either. However, if Einstein’s theory really is valid, then maybe time, as we perceived it here on earth, isn’t what we think it is. Maybe what Seth tells us about time, that it is simultaneous is actually true as well.

This is one of the main reason why, I, personally think that Seth may be onto something, when he says that all time is simultaneous.

-jbseth



10
Seth-Related Discussions / Re: Does Seth fail to take evil seriously?
« Last post by usmaak on Today at 09:53:22 AM »
Quote from: jbseth
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>
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10