The Nature of Personal Reality

[Carrie]

Since Sidney keeps recommending this book, maybe we can post from it and
discuss it as we go along?
I found several sources of downloads, online, but I have the actual book
right here. I also have another Seth book "The Nature of the Psyche". But
maybe personal reality should come first...

from the introduction by Jane Roberts...

"I had no conscious work to do on the book at all. I simply went into
trace twice a week, spoke in a 'mediumistic' capacity for Seth, or as Seth,
and dictated the words to my husband, Robert Butts, who wrote them down"

"My idea[about the material and what it means] briefly is this. Our
usual orientation is focused pretty excluseively in what we think of as the
'real' world, but there are many realities. By shifting our consciousness,
we can glimpse these alternate realities, and all of them are the appearance
that Reality takes under certain contions. I don't believe that we can
necessarily describe one in terms of another"

She says she had no idea WHAT she said, or was written down, until after
when she would read the manuscripts.

I didn't plan to read this and compare it to ACIM because Sidney has
indicated over and over it's not at all the same. But so far, it sounds just
like what Helen experienced, only she took down what she "got" herself, in
shorthand. Which is called scribing, becuase it's written, not channeling
which I guess is spoken (and written down by someone else)

The idea that we can change our mind and what we see/experience of "the
world" (reality) is similar, too.

But, I am only on page one. It would be good, if going over this page
by page to stick to the page we are on (or I am on, and anyone else who
might be reading here is reading that I post)

Maybe his will and can turn into a real discussion? I don't know
about cults, but from what I've h eard and seen (and there are YouTubes of
Jane actually channeling this, in a trance) it seems she had quite a group
of followers, and still does, though she is no longer in a body.

A cult is supposed to have a guru or leader, would that make "Seth" the
leader, or maybe Jane? Can a guru/leader not be in a physical body? And who
is the guru/leader involved with the ACIM "cult" which is also a book?

[Kaydon]

Post by Carrie
Since Sidney keeps recommending this book, maybe we can post from it
and discuss it as we go along? I found several sources of downloads,
online, but I have the actual book right here. I also have another
Seth book "The Nature of the Psyche". But maybe personal reality
should come first...
from the introduction by Jane Roberts...
"I had no conscious work to do on the book at all. I simply went into
trace twice a week, spoke in a 'mediumistic' capacity for Seth, or as
them down"
"My idea[about the material and what it means] briefly is this. Our
usual orientation is focused pretty excluseively in what we think of
as the 'real' world, but there are many realities. By shifting our
consciousness, we can glimpse these alternate realities, and all of
them are the appearance that Reality takes under certain contions. I
don't believe that we can necessarily describe one in terms of
another"
She says she had no idea WHAT she said, or was written down, until
after when she would read the manuscripts.
I didn't plan to read this and compare it to ACIM because Sidney has
indicated over and over it's not at all the same. But so far, it
sounds just like what Helen experienced, only she took down what she
"got" herself, in shorthand. Which is called scribing, becuase it's
written, not channeling which I guess is spoken (and written down by
someone else)
The idea that we can change our mind and what we see/experience of
"the world" (reality) is similar, too.
But, I am only on page one. It would be good, if going over this
page by page to stick to the page we are on (or I am on, and anyone
else who might be reading here is reading that I post)
Maybe his will and can turn into a real discussion? I don't know
about cults, but from what I've h eard and seen (and there are
YouTubes of Jane actually channeling this, in a trance) it seems she
had quite a group of followers, and still does, though she is no
longer in a body.
A cult is supposed to have a guru or leader, would that make "Seth"
the leader, or maybe Jane? Can a guru/leader not be in a physical
body? And who is the guru/leader involved with the ACIM "cult" which
is also a book?

Anything is Everything. Everything is All. The difference in All The
Anything's isn't Everything. The difference is the illusion that
Anything is somehow different than Everything else.

Due, I suppose, to egotistical belief that appelations matter. They
don't. It's the interpretation that one puts on a certain appelattion.
Tyme to sleeps!! Bai!

<3
xoxoxoxoo

[Carrie]

Post by Kaydon

Post by Carrie
Since Sidney keeps recommending this book, maybe we can post from it
and discuss it as we go along? I found several sources of downloads,
online, but I have the actual book right here. I also have another
Seth book "The Nature of the Psyche". But maybe personal reality
should come first...
from the introduction by Jane Roberts...
"I had no conscious work to do on the book at all. I simply went into
trace twice a week, spoke in a 'mediumistic' capacity for Seth, or as
them down"
"My idea[about the material and what it means] briefly is this. Our
usual orientation is focused pretty excluseively in what we think of
as the 'real' world, but there are many realities. By shifting our
consciousness, we can glimpse these alternate realities, and all of
them are the appearance that Reality takes under certain contions. I
don't believe that we can necessarily describe one in terms of
another"
She says she had no idea WHAT she said, or was written down, until
after when she would read the manuscripts.
I didn't plan to read this and compare it to ACIM because Sidney has
indicated over and over it's not at all the same. But so far, it
sounds just like what Helen experienced, only she took down what she
"got" herself, in shorthand. Which is called scribing, becuase it's
written, not channeling which I guess is spoken (and written down by
someone else)
The idea that we can change our mind and what we see/experience of
"the world" (reality) is similar, too.
But, I am only on page one. It would be good, if going over this
page by page to stick to the page we are on (or I am on, and anyone
else who might be reading here is reading that I post)
Maybe his will and can turn into a real discussion? I don't know
about cults, but from what I've h eard and seen (and there are
YouTubes of Jane actually channeling this, in a trance) it seems she
had quite a group of followers, and still does, though she is no
longer in a body.
A cult is supposed to have a guru or leader, would that make "Seth"
the leader, or maybe Jane? Can a guru/leader not be in a physical
body? And who is the guru/leader involved with the ACIM "cult" which
is also a book?

Anything is Everything. Everything is All. The difference in All The
Anything's isn't Everything. The difference is the illusion that
Anything is somehow different than Everything else.
Due, I suppose, to egotistical belief that appelations matter. They
don't. It's the interpretation that one puts on a certain appelattion.
Tyme to sleeps!! Bai!

I think that's like it's all relative, and everyone has their own
personal perception and interpretation of everything. Sometimes, most people
agree and believe (and see) it bascially the same. But we still don't really
know that. Unless there was a way for one person to "perceive" through the
senses of another.
It's like this big deal Royal Wedding coming up, that will start at 4
AM here on Friday morning (at least the coverage of it) Some are excited and
plan to watch every televised and recorded second of it, some can't wait
till it's over and everyone shuts up about it (if that ever happens (LOL) I
try not to give too much importance to things like that one way or the
other.
I remember back in the 1950's we were let out of school early to watch
something from England that was history. Don't think it was a wedding, maybe
the coronation of Queen Elizabeth? I think I was in first grade. We didn't
have a tv at the time, but we all went to a neighbor's house who did.
I suppose Prince William getting married is history. At some point
they might be king and queen. Maybe by then they will have done away with
royalty and William and Kate can live like everyone else.
Watching the world is like watching a continuing on-going saga.

Post by Kaydon
<3
xoxoxoxoo
--
"If you think I'm weird, consider this. You base your opinion of me on
the things you know about me. Think of all the things you don't know.
If you did know them, I'd seem ten times weirder."

[Kaydon]

Post by Carrie

Post by Kaydon

Post by Carrie
Since Sidney keeps recommending this book, maybe we can post from
it and discuss it as we go along? I found several sources of
downloads, online, but I have the actual book right here. I also
have another Seth book "The Nature of the Psyche". But maybe
personal reality should come first...
from the introduction by Jane Roberts...
"I had no conscious work to do on the book at all. I simply went
into trace twice a week, spoke in a 'mediumistic' capacity for
Seth, or as Seth, and dictated the words to my husband, Robert
Butts, who wrote them down"
"My idea[about the material and what it means] briefly is this.
Our usual orientation is focused pretty excluseively in what we
think of as the 'real' world, but there are many realities. By
shifting our consciousness, we can glimpse these alternate
realities, and all of them are the appearance that Reality takes
under certain contions. I don't believe that we can necessarily
describe one in terms of another"
She says she had no idea WHAT she said, or was written down, until
after when she would read the manuscripts.
I didn't plan to read this and compare it to ACIM because Sidney
has indicated over and over it's not at all the same. But so far,
it sounds just like what Helen experienced, only she took down
what she "got" herself, in shorthand. Which is called scribing,
becuase it's written, not channeling which I guess is spoken (and
written down by someone else)
The idea that we can change our mind and what we see/experience of
"the world" (reality) is similar, too.
But, I am only on page one. It would be good, if going over this
page by page to stick to the page we are on (or I am on, and
anyone else who might be reading here is reading that I post)
Maybe his will and can turn into a real discussion? I don't know
about cults, but from what I've h eard and seen (and there are
YouTubes of Jane actually channeling this, in a trance) it seems
she had quite a group of followers, and still does, though she is
no longer in a body.
A cult is supposed to have a guru or leader, would that make

"Seth"

Post by Kaydon

Post by Carrie
the leader, or maybe Jane? Can a guru/leader not be in a physical
body? And who is the guru/leader involved with the ACIM "cult"
which is also a book?

Anything is Everything. Everything is All. The difference in All The
Anything's isn't Everything. The difference is the illusion that
Anything is somehow different than Everything else.
Due, I suppose, to egotistical belief that appelations matter. They
don't. It's the interpretation that one puts on a certain
appelattion. Tyme to sleeps!! Bai!

I think that's like it's all relative, and everyone has their own
personal perception and interpretation of everything. Sometimes, most
people agree and believe (and see) it bascially the same. But we
still don't really know that. Unless there was a way for one person
to "perceive" through the senses of another.

That is very possible. A form of Remote Viewing <3

xoxoxoxoo

[Sidney Lambe]

On talk.religion.course-miracle, Kaydon

Post by Kaydon

Post by Carrie

Post by Kaydon

Post by Carrie
Since Sidney keeps recommending this book, maybe we can
post from it and discuss it as we go along? I found
several sources of downloads, online, but I have the
actual book right here. I also have another Seth book "The
Nature of the Psyche". But maybe personal reality should
come first...
from the introduction by Jane Roberts...
"I had no conscious work to do on the book at all.
I simply went into trace twice a week, spoke in a
'mediumistic' capacity for Seth, or as Seth, and dictated
the words to my husband, Robert Butts, who wrote them
down"
"My idea[about the material and what it means] briefly is
this. Our usual orientation is focused pretty excluseively
in what we think of as the 'real' world, but there are
many realities. By shifting our consciousness, we can
glimpse these alternate realities, and all of them are
the appearance that Reality takes under certain contions.
I don't believe that we can necessarily describe one in
terms of another"
She says she had no idea WHAT she said, or was written
down, until after when she would read the manuscripts.
I didn't plan to read this and compare it to ACIM because
Sidney has indicated over and over it's not at all
the same. But so far, it sounds just like what Helen
experienced, only she took down what she "got" herself, in
shorthand. Which is called scribing, becuase it's written,
not channeling which I guess is spoken (and written down
by someone else)
The idea that we can change our mind and what we
see/experience of
"the world" (reality) is similar, too.
But, I am only on page one. It would be good, if going
over this
page by page to stick to the page we are on (or I am on,
and anyone else who might be reading here is reading that
I post)
Maybe his will and can turn into a real discussion? I
don't know
about cults, but from what I've h eard and seen (and
there are YouTubes of Jane actually channeling this, in a
trance) it seems she had quite a group of followers, and
still does, though she is no longer in a body.
A cult is supposed to have a guru or leader, would that
make

"Seth"

Post by Kaydon

Post by Carrie
the leader, or maybe Jane? Can a guru/leader not be in a
physical body? And who is the guru/leader involved with
the ACIM "cult" which is also a book?

Anything is Everything. Everything is All. The difference in
AnythingAll The 's isn't Everything. The difference is the
Anythingillusion that is somehow different than Everything
Anythingelse.
Due, I suppose, to egotistical belief that appelations
matter. They don't. It's the interpretation that one puts on
a certain appelattion. Tyme to sleeps!! Bai!

I think that's like it's all relative, and everyone
has their own personal perception and interpretation of
everything. Sometimes, most people agree and believe (and see)
it bascially the same. But we still don't really know that.
Unless there was a way for one person to "perceive" through
the senses of another.

That is very possible. A form of Remote Viewing <3

You are right. I have a woman friend whose living mother on the
other side of the world looks out through her eyes fairly often.
They are both aware of it and my friend sees the world as her
mother sees it when it's happening. It's never for more than
a few minutes. Usually less.

[Carrie]

Post by Kaydon

Post by Carrie

Post by Kaydon

Post by Carrie
Since Sidney keeps recommending this book, maybe we can post from
it and discuss it as we go along? I found several sources of
downloads, online, but I have the actual book right here. I also
have another Seth book "The Nature of the Psyche". But maybe
personal reality should come first...
from the introduction by Jane Roberts...
"I had no conscious work to do on the book at all. I simply went
into trace twice a week, spoke in a 'mediumistic' capacity for
Seth, or as Seth, and dictated the words to my husband, Robert
Butts, who wrote them down"
"My idea[about the material and what it means] briefly is this.
Our usual orientation is focused pretty excluseively in what we
think of as the 'real' world, but there are many realities. By
shifting our consciousness, we can glimpse these alternate
realities, and all of them are the appearance that Reality takes
under certain contions. I don't believe that we can necessarily
describe one in terms of another"
She says she had no idea WHAT she said, or was written down, until
after when she would read the manuscripts.
I didn't plan to read this and compare it to ACIM because Sidney
has indicated over and over it's not at all the same. But so far,
it sounds just like what Helen experienced, only she took down
what she "got" herself, in shorthand. Which is called scribing,
becuase it's written, not channeling which I guess is spoken (and
written down by someone else)
The idea that we can change our mind and what we see/experience of
"the world" (reality) is similar, too.
But, I am only on page one. It would be good, if going over this
page by page to stick to the page we are on (or I am on, and
anyone else who might be reading here is reading that I post)
Maybe his will and can turn into a real discussion? I don't know
about cults, but from what I've h eard and seen (and there are
YouTubes of Jane actually channeling this, in a trance) it seems
she had quite a group of followers, and still does, though she is
no longer in a body.
A cult is supposed to have a guru or leader, would that make

"Seth"

Post by Kaydon

Post by Carrie
the leader, or maybe Jane? Can a guru/leader not be in a physical
body? And who is the guru/leader involved with the ACIM "cult"
which is also a book?

Anything is Everything. Everything is All. The difference in All The
Anything's isn't Everything. The difference is the illusion that
Anything is somehow different than Everything else.
Due, I suppose, to egotistical belief that appelations matter. They
don't. It's the interpretation that one puts on a certain
appelattion. Tyme to sleeps!! Bai!

I think that's like it's all relative, and everyone has their own
personal perception and interpretation of everything. Sometimes, most
people agree and believe (and see) it bascially the same. But we
still don't really know that. Unless there was a way for one person
to "perceive" through the senses of another.

That is very possible. A form of Remote Viewing <3

I was thinking of physical senses. Like one person would have to see
through the eyes of another. Eyes, brain, nerves, interpretation of this,
mental picture. For example I see something I call "blue" but someone else
looking at it might see it as what I would call "green". We don't really
know how others see and experience the world in a physical way.

Post by Kaydon
xoxoxoxoo
--
"If you think I'm weird, consider this. You base your opinion of me on
the things you know about me. Think of all the things you don't know.
If you did know them, I'd seem ten times weirder."

[Sidney Lambe]

On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
Since Sidney keeps recommending this book, maybe we can post
from it and discuss it as we go along?

Good idea.

Post by Carrie
I found several sources of downloads, online,

Why don't you post the URLSs? Most people won't have it.

Post by Carrie
but I have the actual book right here.
I also have another Seth book "The Nature of the Psyche". But
maybe personal reality should come first...
from the introduction by Jane Roberts...
"I had no conscious work to do on the book at all. I simply
went into trace twice a week, spoke in a 'mediumistic' capacity
for Seth, or as Seth, and dictated the words to my husband,
Robert Butts, who wrote them down"
"My idea[about the material and what it means] briefly
is this. Our usual orientation is focused pretty excluseively
in what we think of as the 'real' world, but there are many
realities. By shifting our consciousness, we can glimpse these
alternate realities, and all of them are the appearance that
Reality takes under certain contions. I don't believe that we
can necessarily describe one in terms of another"
She says she had no idea WHAT she said, or was written down,
until after when she would read the manuscripts.
I didn't plan to read this and compare it to ACIM because
Sidney has indicated over and over it's not at all the same.
But so far, it sounds just like what Helen experienced, only
she took down what she "got" herself, in shorthand. Which is
called scribing, becuase it's written, not channeling which I
guess is spoken (and written down by someone else)
The idea that we can change our mind and what we
see/experience of "the world" (reality) is similar, too.
But, I am only on page one. It would be good, if going
over this page by page to stick to the page we are on (or I am
on, and anyone else who might be reading here is reading that I
post)
Maybe his will and can turn into a real discussion? I
don't know about cults, but from what I've h eard and seen
(and there are YouTubes of Jane actually channeling this, in a
trance) it seems she had quite a group of followers, and still
does, though she is no longer in a body.
A cult is supposed to have a guru or leader, would that
make "Seth" the leader, or maybe Jane? Can a guru/leader not be
in a physical body? And who is the guru/leader involved with
the ACIM "cult" which is also a book?

There are a number of people who have styled themselves gurus
of the Seth Material, but they all sell a watered-down version
I call "Seth Lite". None of them have large followings. The
idea of a guru is condemned by the Seth Material.

Jane, to her credit, always refused to take on that role.

It's pretty much a solo path, though support groups can be
useful.

Jane Roberts doesn't impress me much. The Seth Material
does. She was just a messenger.

I'll be happy to discuss quotes from the Seth Material.
From the sessions. Seth's words.

NPR is by far the most important one. It's the workbook.

[Carrie]

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
Since Sidney keeps recommending this book, maybe we can post
from it and discuss it as we go along?

Good idea.

Post by Carrie
I found several sources of downloads, online,

Why don't you post the URLSs? Most people won't have it.

Post by Carrie
but I have the actual book right here.
I also have another Seth book "The Nature of the Psyche". But
maybe personal reality should come first...
from the introduction by Jane Roberts...
"I had no conscious work to do on the book at all. I simply
went into trace twice a week, spoke in a 'mediumistic' capacity
for Seth, or as Seth, and dictated the words to my husband,
Robert Butts, who wrote them down"
"My idea[about the material and what it means] briefly
is this. Our usual orientation is focused pretty excluseively
in what we think of as the 'real' world, but there are many
realities. By shifting our consciousness, we can glimpse these
alternate realities, and all of them are the appearance that
Reality takes under certain contions. I don't believe that we
can necessarily describe one in terms of another"
She says she had no idea WHAT she said, or was written down,
until after when she would read the manuscripts.
I didn't plan to read this and compare it to ACIM because
Sidney has indicated over and over it's not at all the same.
But so far, it sounds just like what Helen experienced, only
she took down what she "got" herself, in shorthand. Which is
called scribing, becuase it's written, not channeling which I
guess is spoken (and written down by someone else)
The idea that we can change our mind and what we
see/experience of "the world" (reality) is similar, too.
But, I am only on page one. It would be good, if going
over this page by page to stick to the page we are on (or I am
on, and anyone else who might be reading here is reading that I
post)
Maybe his will and can turn into a real discussion? I
don't know about cults, but from what I've h eard and seen
(and there are YouTubes of Jane actually channeling this, in a
trance) it seems she had quite a group of followers, and still
does, though she is no longer in a body.
A cult is supposed to have a guru or leader, would that
make "Seth" the leader, or maybe Jane? Can a guru/leader not be
in a physical body? And who is the guru/leader involved with
the ACIM "cult" which is also a book?

There are a number of people who have styled themselves gurus
of the Seth Material, but they all sell a watered-down version
I call "Seth Lite". None of them have large followings. The
idea of a guru is condemned by the Seth Material.
Jane, to her credit, always refused to take on that role.
It's pretty much a solo path, though support groups can be
useful.
Jane Roberts doesn't impress me much. The Seth Material
does. She was just a messenger.
I'll be happy to discuss quotes from the Seth Material.
From the sessions. Seth's words.
NPR is by far the most important one. It's the workbook.
--
Sidney Lambe / Evergreen - usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
http://tinyurl.com/63zc9bh - http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
All will be well. All manner of things will be well.

I didn't look at them all (after I googled it)
One is
http://books.google.com/books?id=Hmd7cmnzJKgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Nature+of+Personal+REality&hl=en&ei=3X23TeHhGMPL0QGy18HnDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
That looks like a very long link, if it doesn't work it's Google Books.
One I found is Scribd, but when I tried to download it (thinking it would
be easier to quote from than the actual book) a page came up asking me to
subscribe- or upload a book myself, and I wasn't sure I had any that weren't
copyrighted.
Since I have the book itself, and it's right in front of me, I decided
to just use that, and not online or a file.
For awhile I was on a Seth discussion group, but seems like all they
did was argue. Which is basically what a lot of the ACIM groups do, too. Or,
if someone doesn't agree, or asks questions they don't want asked, they
drive the person away. Seems like this goes on a lot on most of the groups,
at least the spiritually themed ones.
When I first got a computer and online about 12 years ago, I didn't
know about discussion groups, and then when I found them, I mainly looked
for the "spiritual" type ones. Or once that were "friendly" and for talking
and discussing anything and everything. I don't know why, and not saying
other groups don't argue and get mean, either, I've seen it happen on ones
about household stuff like recipes... but it seems like the spiritual ones
are where most of the fighting goes on. And, of ourse, look at all the
wars and killing and destroying that's gone on since the beginning of time
(whenever that was) over "beliefs". Look what they did to Jesus (or we are
told they did)
Maybe the internet doesn't always bring out the best in people. But
then, it could also be good therapy and a chance to learn about "ourself".

[Sidney Lambe]

On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
Since Sidney keeps recommending this book, maybe we can post
from it and discuss it as we go along?

Good idea.

Post by Carrie
I found several sources of downloads, online,

Why don't you post the URLSs? Most people won't have it.

Post by Carrie
but I have the actual book right here.
I also have another Seth book "The Nature of the Psyche". But
maybe personal reality should come first...
from the introduction by Jane Roberts...
"I had no conscious work to do on the book at all. I
simply went into trace twice a week, spoke in a 'mediumistic'
capacity for Seth, or as Seth, and dictated the words to my
husband, Robert Butts, who wrote them down"
"My idea[about the material and what it means] briefly
is this. Our usual orientation is focused pretty excluseively
in what we think of as the 'real' world, but there are many
realities. By shifting our consciousness, we can glimpse
these alternate realities, and all of them are the appearance
that Reality takes under certain contions. I don't believe
that we can necessarily describe one in terms of another"
She says she had no idea WHAT she said, or was written
down, until after when she would read the manuscripts.
I didn't plan to read this and compare it to ACIM because
Sidney has indicated over and over it's not at all the same.
But so far, it sounds just like what Helen experienced, only
she took down what she "got" herself, in shorthand. Which is
called scribing, becuase it's written, not channeling which I
guess is spoken (and written down by someone else)
The idea that we can change our mind and what we
see/experience of "the world" (reality) is similar, too.
But, I am only on page one. It would be good, if going
over this page by page to stick to the page we are on (or I
am on, and anyone else who might be reading here is reading
that I post)
Maybe his will and can turn into a real discussion? I
don't know about cults, but from what I've h eard and seen
(and there are YouTubes of Jane actually channeling this, in
a trance) it seems she had quite a group of followers, and
still does, though she is no longer in a body.
A cult is supposed to have a guru or leader, would that
make "Seth" the leader, or maybe Jane? Can a guru/leader not
be in a physical body? And who is the guru/leader involved
with the ACIM "cult" which is also a book?

There are a number of people who have styled themselves gurus
of the Seth Material, but they all sell a watered-down version
I call "Seth Lite". None of them have large followings. The
idea of a guru is condemned by the Seth Material.
Jane, to her credit, always refused to take on that role.
It's pretty much a solo path, though support groups can be
useful.
Jane Roberts doesn't impress me much. The Seth Material does.
She was just a messenger.
I'll be happy to discuss quotes from the Seth Material From .
the sessions. Seth's words .
NPR is by far the most important one. It's the workbook.

I didn't look at them all (after I googled it) One is
http://books.google.com/books?id=Hmd7cmnzJKgC&printsec=frontcov
er&dq=The+Nature+of+Personal+REality&hl=en&ei=3X23TeHhGMPL0QGy1
8HnDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=
onepage&q&f=false

Thanks.

You can go to

http://tinyurl.com

and easily turn URLs like that into tiny ones like the ones
in my sig.

That looks like a very long link, if it
doesn't work it's Google Books. One I found is Scribd, but
when I tried to download it (thinking it would be easier to
quote from than the actual book) a page came up asking me to
subscribe- or upload a book myself, and I wasn't sure I had any
that weren't copyrighted. Since I have the book itself, and
it's right in front of me, I decided to just use that, and not
online or a file. For awhile I was on a Seth discussion group,
but seems like all they did was argue. Which is basically what
a lot of the ACIM groups do, too. Or, if someone doesn't agree,
or asks questions they don't want asked, they drive the person
away. Seems like this goes on a lot on most of the groups, at
least the spiritually themed ones. When I first got a computer
and online about 12 years ago, I didn't know about discussion
groups, and then when I found them, I mainly looked for the
"spiritual" type ones. Or once that were "friendly" and for
talking and discussing anything and everything. I don't know
why, and not saying other groups don't argue and get mean,
either, I've seen it happen on ones about household stuff like
recipes... but it seems like the spiritual ones are where most
of the fighting goes on. And, of ourse, look at all the wars
and killing and destroying that's gone on since the beginning
of time (whenever that was) over "beliefs". Look what they did
to Jesus (or we are told they did) Maybe the internet doesn't
always bring out the best in people. But then, it could also be
good therapy and a chance to learn about "ourself".

The Seth Material web forums I have visited have been really
fluffy bunny and a waste of time. Like the Christians with Jesus'
words, they ignore anything that doesn't fit with their wishful
thinking.

A lot of the crowd that's in control of the Seth Material
now (former members of Jane's ESP class, where Seth made
regular appearances) are really trying to create a
Seth religion with Jane as the equivalent of the
Christians "Son of God".

This would not please Seth. Does not. He said that it
was only the material that mattered, not him, or Jane
or anyone else.

[Carrie]

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
Since Sidney keeps recommending this book, maybe we can post
from it and discuss it as we go along?

Good idea.

Post by Carrie
I found several sources of downloads, online,

Why don't you post the URLSs? Most people won't have it.

Post by Carrie
but I have the actual book right here.
I also have another Seth book "The Nature of the Psyche". But
maybe personal reality should come first...
from the introduction by Jane Roberts...
"I had no conscious work to do on the book at all. I
simply went into trace twice a week, spoke in a 'mediumistic'
capacity for Seth, or as Seth, and dictated the words to my
husband, Robert Butts, who wrote them down"
"My idea[about the material and what it means] briefly
is this. Our usual orientation is focused pretty excluseively
in what we think of as the 'real' world, but there are many
realities. By shifting our consciousness, we can glimpse
these alternate realities, and all of them are the appearance
that Reality takes under certain contions. I don't believe
that we can necessarily describe one in terms of another"
She says she had no idea WHAT she said, or was written
down, until after when she would read the manuscripts.
I didn't plan to read this and compare it to ACIM because
Sidney has indicated over and over it's not at all the same.
But so far, it sounds just like what Helen experienced, only
she took down what she "got" herself, in shorthand. Which is
called scribing, becuase it's written, not channeling which I
guess is spoken (and written down by someone else)
The idea that we can change our mind and what we
see/experience of "the world" (reality) is similar, too.
But, I am only on page one. It would be good, if going
over this page by page to stick to the page we are on (or I
am on, and anyone else who might be reading here is reading
that I post)
Maybe his will and can turn into a real discussion? I
don't know about cults, but from what I've h eard and seen
(and there are YouTubes of Jane actually channeling this, in
a trance) it seems she had quite a group of followers, and
still does, though she is no longer in a body.
A cult is supposed to have a guru or leader, would that
make "Seth" the leader, or maybe Jane? Can a guru/leader not
be in a physical body? And who is the guru/leader involved
with the ACIM "cult" which is also a book?

There are a number of people who have styled themselves gurus
of the Seth Material, but they all sell a watered-down version
I call "Seth Lite". None of them have large followings. The
idea of a guru is condemned by the Seth Material.
Jane, to her credit, always refused to take on that role.
It's pretty much a solo path, though support groups can be
useful.
Jane Roberts doesn't impress me much. The Seth Material does.
She was just a messenger.
I'll be happy to discuss quotes from the Seth Material From .
the sessions. Seth's words .
NPR is by far the most important one. It's the workbook.

I didn't look at them all (after I googled it) One is
http://books.google.com/books?id=Hmd7cmnzJKgC&printsec=frontcov
er&dq=The+Nature+of+Personal+REality&hl=en&ei=3X23TeHhGMPL0QGy1
8HnDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=
onepage&q&f=false

Thanks.
You can go to
http://tinyurl.com
and easily turn URLs like that into tiny ones like the ones
in my sig.

Yeah, if it wasn't 11 pm at night and I wasn't planning to go in the
direction of bed. People could also put the name of the book in Google and
get a whole page of links to it. Or buy it.

Post by Sidney Lambe
The Seth Material web forums I have visited have been really
fluffy bunny and a waste of time. Like the Christians with Jesus'
words, they ignore anything that doesn't fit with their wishful
thinking.

But these are also the most entertaining in a way. Without contrast we
would see anything.

I just got up and have a few things I should be doing, maybe you can
touch on how you relate Seth to your interest in "magick", something like
the idea of creating our own reality and controlling the elements in the
doing of it? Does Seth say this, that we control our own world (in a way,
via our thoughts and reactions (or not) to it?
I ask the question (people usually don't answer just get mad instead) if
you aren't choosing your own thoughts, feelings, beliefs (reactions, etc)
who or what is doing it for you and why are you allowing them?

Post by Sidney Lambe
--
Sidney Lambe / Evergreen - usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
http://tinyurl.com/63zc9bh - http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
All will be well. All manner of things will be well.

[Sidney Lambe]

On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
Since Sidney keeps recommending this book, maybe we can
post from it and discuss it as we go along?

Good idea.

Post by Carrie
I found several sources of downloads, online,

Why don't you post the URLSs? Most people won't have it.

Post by Carrie
but I have the actual book right here.
I also have another Seth book "The Nature of the Psyche".
But maybe personal reality should come first...
from the introduction by Jane Roberts...
"I had no conscious work to do on the book at all.
I simply went into trace twice a week, spoke in a
'mediumistic' capacity for Seth, or as Seth, and dictated
the words to my husband, Robert Butts, who wrote them down"
"My idea[about the material and what it means]
briefly is this. Our usual orientation is focused pretty
excluseively in what we think of as the 'real' world, but
there are many realities. By shifting our consciousness, we
can glimpse these alternate realities, and all of them are
the appearance that Reality takes under certain contions. I
don't believe that we can necessarily describe one in terms
of another"
She says she had no idea WHAT she said, or was written
down, until after when she would read the manuscripts.
I didn't plan to read this and compare it to ACIM
because Sidney has indicated over and over it's not at
all the same. But so far, it sounds just like what Helen
experienced, only she took down what she "got" herself, in
shorthand. Which is called scribing, becuase it's written,
not channeling which I guess is spoken (and written down by
someone else)
The idea that we can change our mind and what we
see/experience of "the world" (reality) is similar, too.
But, I am only on page one. It would be good, if going
over this page by page to stick to the page we are on (or I
am on, and anyone else who might be reading here is reading
that I post)
Maybe his will and can turn into a real discussion? I
don't know about cults, but from what I've h eard and seen
(and there are YouTubes of Jane actually channeling this,
in a trance) it seems she had quite a group of followers,
and still does, though she is no longer in a body.
A cult is supposed to have a guru or leader, would
that make "Seth" the leader, or maybe Jane? Can a
guru/leader not be in a physical body? And who is the
guru/leader involved with the ACIM "cult" which is also a
book?

There are a number of people who have styled themselves
gurus of the Seth Material, but they all sell a watered-down
version I call "Seth Lite". None of them have large
followings. The idea of a guru is condemned by the Seth
Material.
Jane, to her credit, always refused to take on that role.
It's pretty much a solo path, though support groups can be
useful.
Jane Roberts doesn't impress me much. The Seth Material .
does She was just a messenger .
I'll be happy to discuss quotes from the Seth Material .
From the sessions. Seth's words .
NPR is by far the most important one. It's the workbook.

I didn't look at them all (after I googled it) One is
http://books.google.com/books?id=Hmd7cmnzJKgC&printsec=frontc
ov
er&dq=The+Nature+of+Personal+REality&hl=en&ei=3X23TeHhGMPL0QG
y1
8HnDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#
v= onepage&q&f=false

Thanks.
You can go to
http://tinyurl.com
and easily turn URLs like that into tiny ones like the ones in
my sig.

Yeah, if it wasn't 11 pm at night and I wasn't planning to
go in the direction of bed. People could also put the name of
the book in Google and get a whole page of links to it. Or buy
it.

Post by Sidney Lambe
The Seth Material web forums I have visited have been really
fluffy bunny and a waste of time. Like the Christians with
Jesus' words, they ignore anything that doesn't fit with their
wishful thinking.

But these are also the most entertaining in a way. Without
contrast we would see anything.

I am not interested in entertainment. I am interested in
Truth.

Post by Carrie
I just got up and have a few things I should be doing,
maybe you can touch on how you relate Seth to your interest in
"magick",

My ideas about magick are just the main lessons of the
Seth Material distilled and simplified.

Post by Carrie
something like the idea of creating our own reality
and controlling the elements in the doing of it?

There's no direct control of the elements with the practice
of common magick, which is what the Nature of Persoanl Reality
discusses.

Post by Carrie
Does Seth say this, that we control our own world (in a way,
via our thoughts and reactions (or not) to it?

It says we create our individual and collective realities with
our beliefs and thoughts.

Post by Carrie
I ask the question (people usually don't answer just get mad
instead) if you aren't choosing your own thoughts, feelings,
beliefs (reactions, etc) who or what is doing it for you and
why are you allowing them?

Your parents and teachers and clergy, etc., determine your
beliefs when you are young. As an adult, this is the foundation
you have to deal with; to work from, to modify as you wish. Or to
change completely.

[Carrie]

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
Since Sidney keeps recommending this book, maybe we can
post from it and discuss it as we go along?

Good idea.

Post by Carrie
I found several sources of downloads, online,

Why don't you post the URLSs? Most people won't have it.

Post by Carrie
but I have the actual book right here.
I also have another Seth book "The Nature of the Psyche".
But maybe personal reality should come first...
from the introduction by Jane Roberts...
"I had no conscious work to do on the book at all.
I simply went into trace twice a week, spoke in a
'mediumistic' capacity for Seth, or as Seth, and dictated
the words to my husband, Robert Butts, who wrote them down"
"My idea[about the material and what it means]
briefly is this. Our usual orientation is focused pretty
excluseively in what we think of as the 'real' world, but
there are many realities. By shifting our consciousness, we
can glimpse these alternate realities, and all of them are
the appearance that Reality takes under certain contions. I
don't believe that we can necessarily describe one in terms
of another"
She says she had no idea WHAT she said, or was written
down, until after when she would read the manuscripts.
I didn't plan to read this and compare it to ACIM
because Sidney has indicated over and over it's not at
all the same. But so far, it sounds just like what Helen
experienced, only she took down what she "got" herself, in
shorthand. Which is called scribing, becuase it's written,
not channeling which I guess is spoken (and written down by
someone else)
The idea that we can change our mind and what we
see/experience of "the world" (reality) is similar, too.
But, I am only on page one. It would be good, if going
over this page by page to stick to the page we are on (or I
am on, and anyone else who might be reading here is reading
that I post)
Maybe his will and can turn into a real discussion? I
don't know about cults, but from what I've h eard and seen
(and there are YouTubes of Jane actually channeling this,
in a trance) it seems she had quite a group of followers,
and still does, though she is no longer in a body.
A cult is supposed to have a guru or leader, would
that make "Seth" the leader, or maybe Jane? Can a
guru/leader not be in a physical body? And who is the
guru/leader involved with the ACIM "cult" which is also a
book?

There are a number of people who have styled themselves
gurus of the Seth Material, but they all sell a watered-down
version I call "Seth Lite". None of them have large
followings. The idea of a guru is condemned by the Seth
Material.
Jane, to her credit, always refused to take on that role.
It's pretty much a solo path, though support groups can be
useful.
Jane Roberts doesn't impress me much. The Seth Material .
does She was just a messenger .
I'll be happy to discuss quotes from the Seth Material .
From the sessions. Seth's words .
NPR is by far the most important one. It's the workbook.

I didn't look at them all (after I googled it) One is
http://books.google.com/books?id=Hmd7cmnzJKgC&printsec=frontc
ov
er&dq=The+Nature+of+Personal+REality&hl=en&ei=3X23TeHhGMPL0QG
y1
8HnDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#
v= onepage&q&f=false

Thanks.
You can go to
http://tinyurl.com
and easily turn URLs like that into tiny ones like the ones in
my sig.

Yeah, if it wasn't 11 pm at night and I wasn't planning to
go in the direction of bed. People could also put the name of
the book in Google and get a whole page of links to it. Or buy
it.

Post by Sidney Lambe
The Seth Material web forums I have visited have been really
fluffy bunny and a waste of time. Like the Christians with
Jesus' words, they ignore anything that doesn't fit with their
wishful thinking.

But these are also the most entertaining in a way. Without
contrast we would see anything.

I am not interested in entertainment. I am interested in
Truth.

Post by Carrie
I just got up and have a few things I should be doing,
maybe you can touch on how you relate Seth to your interest in
"magick",

My ideas about magick are just the main lessons of the
Seth Material distilled and simplified.

Post by Carrie
something like the idea of creating our own reality
and controlling the elements in the doing of it?

There's no direct control of the elements with the practice
of common magick, which is what the Nature of Persoanl Reality
discusses.

Post by Carrie
Does Seth say this, that we control our own world (in a way,
via our thoughts and reactions (or not) to it?

It says we create our individual and collective realities with
our beliefs and thoughts.

This is something I believe, too. Once this is understood and accepted,
what else is there? Why all the words filling all the books?

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Carrie
I ask the question (people usually don't answer just get mad
instead) if you aren't choosing your own thoughts, feelings,
beliefs (reactions, etc) who or what is doing it for you and
why are you allowing them?

Your parents and teachers and clergy, etc., determine your
beliefs when you are young. As an adult, this is the foundation
you have to deal with; to work from, to modify as you wish. Or to
change completely.

This doesn't have to be, though, does it? I am in control of my own
mind, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and results, and learning from this.
When someone says "you make me mad!" this is inaccurate because the person
(who is mad) is just choosing this.

Post by Sidney Lambe
--
Sidney Lambe / Evergreen - usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
http://tinyurl.com/63zc9bh - http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
All will be well. All manner of things will be well.

[Sidney Lambe]

On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
Since Sidney keeps recommending this book, maybe we can
post from it and discuss it as we go along?

Good idea.

Post by Carrie
I found several sources of downloads, online,

Why don't you post the URLSs? Most people won't have it.

Post by Carrie
but I have the actual book right here.
I also have another Seth book "The Nature of the Psyche".
But maybe personal reality should come first.. .
from the introduction by Jane Roberts...
"I had no conscious work to do on the book at all.
I simply went into trace twice a week, spoke in a
'mediumistic' capacity for Seth, or as Seth, and dictated
the words to my husband, Robert Butts, who wrote them
down"
"My idea[about the material and what it means]
briefly is this. Our usual orientation is focused pretty
excluseively in what we think of as the 'real' world, but
there are many realities. By shifting our consciousness,
we can glimpse these alternate realities, and all of
them are the appearance that Reality takes under certain
contions. I don't believe that we can necessarily
describe one in terms of another"
She says she had no idea WHAT she said, or was written
down, until after when she would read the manuscripts.
I didn't plan to read this and compare it to ACIM
because Sidney has indicated over and over it's not at
all the same. But so far, it sounds just like what Helen
experienced, only she took down what she "got" herself,
in shorthand. Which is called scribing, becuase it's
written, not channeling which I guess is spoken (and
written down by someone else)
The idea that we can change our mind and what we
see/experience of "the world" (reality) is similar, too.
But, I am only on page one. It would be good, if
going over this page by page to stick to the page we are
on (or I am on, and anyone else who might be reading here
is reading that I post)
Maybe his will and can turn into a real discussion?
I don't know about cults, but from what I've h eard and
seen (and there are YouTubes of Jane actually channeling
this, in a trance) it seems she had quite a group of
followers, and still does, though she is no longer in a
body.
A cult is supposed to have a guru or leader, would
that make "Seth" the leader, or maybe Jane? Can a
guru/leader not be in a physical body? And who is the
guru/leader involved with the ACIM "cult" which is also a
book?

There are a number of people who have styled themselves
gurus of the Seth Material, but they all sell a
watered-down version I call "Seth Lite". None of them have
large followings. The idea of a guru is condemned by the
Seth Material.
Jane, to her credit, always refused to take on that role.
It's pretty much a solo path, though support groups can be
useful.
Jane Roberts doesn't impress me much. The Seth Material .
does She was just a messenger .
I'll be happy to discuss quotes from the Seth Material .
From the sessions. Seth's words .
NPR is by far the most important one. It's the workbook.

I didn't look at them all (after I googled it) One is
http://books.google.com/books?id=Hmd7cmnzJKgC&printsec=fron
tc ov
er&dq=The+Nature+of+Personal+REality&hl=en&ei=3X23TeHhGMPL0
QG y1
8HnDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwA
A# v= onepage&q&f=false

Thanks.
You can go to
http://tinyurl.com
and easily turn URLs like that into tiny ones like the ones
in my sig.

Yeah, if it wasn't 11 pm at night and I wasn't planning
to go in the direction of bed. People could also put the name
of the book in Google and get a whole page of links to it. Or
buy it.

Post by Sidney Lambe
The Seth Material web forums I have visited have been really
fluffy bunny and a waste of time. Like the Christians with
Jesus' words, they ignore anything that doesn't fit with
their wishful thinking.

But these are also the most entertaining in a way. Without
contrast we would see anything.

I am not interested in entertainment. I am interested in
Truth.

Post by Carrie
I just got up and have a few things I should be doing,
maybe you can touch on how you relate Seth to your interest
in "magick",

My ideas about magick are just the main lessons of the Seth
Material distilled and simplified.

Post by Carrie
something like the idea of creating our own reality and
controlling the elements in the doing of it?

There's no direct control of the elements with the practice of
common magick, which is what the Nature of Persoanl Reality
discusses.

Post by Carrie
Does Seth say this, that we control our own world (in a way,
via our thoughts and reactions (or not) to it?

It says we create our individual and collective realities with
our beliefs and thoughts.

This is something I believe, too. Once this is understood
and accepted, what else is there? Why all the words filling all
the books?

He's describing what reality, basic reality, is like.

It is an 'alternative' science. The real scicnce, I believe.

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Carrie
I ask the question (people usually don't answer just get mad
instead) if you aren't choosing your own thoughts, feelings,
beliefs (reactions, etc) who or what is doing it for you and
why are you allowing them?

Your parents and teachers and clergy, etc., determine
your beliefs when you are young. As an adult, this is the
foundation you have to deal with; to work from, to modify as
you wish. Or to change completely.

This doesn't have to be, though, does it? I am in control
of my own mind, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and results, and
learning from this.

We have to use our parent's beliefs when we are young. They do
our thinking for us. When we grow up we have to assume the full
responsibility for our beliefs and thoughts.

Post by Carrie
When someone says "you make me mad!" this is inaccurate because
the person (who is mad) is just choosing this.

Sure. And when someone says "you hurt me" this is inaccurate,
because they chose to have the knife plunged into their guts.

Just because someone chooses an experience it doesn't make it
right for you to do something you know is wrong.

It isn't okay to kick someone even if they are wearing a Kick Me
sign. And offer to pay you to do it.

[Carrie]

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
It says we create our individual and collective realities with
our beliefs and thoughts.

This is something I believe, too. Once this is understood
and accepted, what else is there? Why all the words filling all
the books?

He's describing what reality, basic reality, is like.
It is an 'alternative' science. The real scicnce, I believe.

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Carrie
I ask the question (people usually don't answer just get mad
instead) if you aren't choosing your own thoughts, feelings,
beliefs (reactions, etc) who or what is doing it for you and
why are you allowing them?

Your parents and teachers and clergy, etc., determine
your beliefs when you are young. As an adult, this is the
foundation you have to deal with; to work from, to modify as
you wish. Or to change completely.

This doesn't have to be, though, does it? I am in control
of my own mind, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and results, and
learning from this.

We have to use our parent's beliefs when we are young. They do
our thinking for us. When we grow up we have to assume the full
responsibility for our beliefs and thoughts.

Post by Carrie
When someone says "you make me mad!" this is inaccurate because
the person (who is mad) is just choosing this.

Sure. And when someone says "you hurt me" this is inaccurate,
because they chose to have the knife plunged into their guts.

And, in a way, even subconsciously, it is a manipulation. Feeling "hurt"
might make the other person feel sorry, and do and be more what I want.

Post by Sidney Lambe
Just because someone chooses an experience it doesn't make it
right for you to do something you know is wrong.

Well, doing something I feel is wrong is still my choice. There's also the
aspect that the "other person" might be trying to make it wrong to make me
feel guilty and bad, and then do something they want or want me to do to
make up.

Post by Sidney Lambe
It isn't okay to kick someone even if they are wearing a Kick Me
sign. And offer to pay you to do it.

It's still a personal choice. I could kick the person with the sign
and get kicked back. I think this is called logical consequences and we
learn from it. Or we can.

It's like deciding someone else is drinking too much. Which would be
their choice. Trying to get them to stop, making them feel guilty, wrong
(like why woudl they WANT to be sober in the face of that) where one can
make their own choices around it. Like choose not to be with the person, or
with them when they drink. let them learn their ow lessons, through
conseqences. Now, usually someone will bring up letting someone drive drunk
and possibly kill some innocent person. But, having someone stop them from
driving, take their keys, call the police if needed would be another
conseqence of their drinking.

Just using this as an example. Choice and consequences?

Post by Sidney Lambe
--
Sidney Lambe / Evergreen - usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
http://tinyurl.com/63zc9bh - http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
All will be well. All manner of things will be well.

[Sidney Lambe]

On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
It says we create our individual and collective realities
with our beliefs and thoughts.

This is something I believe, too. Once this is understood
and accepted, what else is there? Why all the words filling
all the books?

He's describing what reality, basic reality, is like.
It is an 'alternative' science. The real scicnce, I believe.

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Carrie
I ask the question (people usually don't answer just get
mad instead) if you aren't choosing your own thoughts,
feelings, beliefs (reactions, etc) who or what is doing it
for you and why are you allowing them?

Your parents and teachers and clergy, etc., determine
your beliefs when you are young. As an adult, this is the
foundation you have to deal with; to work from, to modify as
you wish. Or to change completely.

This doesn't have to be, though, does it? I am in control
of my own mind, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and results, and
learning from this.

We have to use our parent's beliefs when we are young. They
do our thinking for us. When we grow up we have to assume the
full responsibility for our beliefs and thoughts.

Post by Carrie
When someone says "you make me mad!" this is inaccurate
because the person (who is mad) is just choosing this.

Sure. And when someone says "you hurt me" this is inaccurate,
because they chose to have the knife plunged into their guts.

And, in a way, even subconsciously, it is a manipulation.
Feeling "hurt" might make the other person feel sorry, and do
and be more what I want.

Post by Sidney Lambe
Just because someone chooses an experience it doesn't make it
right for you to do something you know is wrong.

Well, doing something I feel is wrong is still my choice.
There's also the aspect that the "other person" might be trying
to make it wrong to make me feel guilty and bad, and then do
something they want or want me to do to make up.

Post by Sidney Lambe
It isn't okay to kick someone even if they are wearing a Kick
Me sign. And offer to pay you to do it.

It's still a personal choice. I could kick the person
with the sign and get kicked back. I think this is called
logical consequences and we learn from it. Or we can.

Sure.

Post by Carrie
It's like deciding someone else is drinking too much.

If it's obvious that they are, you better tell them if you
love them. And maybe even get tougher about it.

Post by Carrie
Which would be their choice.

Not if they are living in my house.

Post by Carrie
Trying to get them to stop, making them feel guilty, wrong
(like why woudl they WANT to be sober in the face of that)
where one can make their own choices around it. Like choose
not to be with the person, or with them when they drink. let
them learn their ow lessons, through conseqences. Now, usually
someone will bring up letting someone drive drunk and possibly
kill some innocent person. But, having someone stop them from
driving, take their keys, call the police if needed would be
another conseqence of their drinking.
Just using this as an example. Choice and consequences?

I don't get lost in ethical mazes like that anymore. I just do
what feels right assuming that at some level I know what's right
and wrong.

If someone I loved was killing themselves with alcohol, I'd
kidnap them and take them to a cabin in the mountains and they'd
dry out and eat well and exercise in the sun and wind, and we'd
talk a lot and I'd make them face themself. Face their beliefs.

This providing everything else that might work had been tried
first...

[Carrie]

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
It says we create our individual and collective realities
with our beliefs and thoughts.

This is something I believe, too. Once this is understood
and accepted, what else is there? Why all the words filling
all the books?

He's describing what reality, basic reality, is like.
It is an 'alternative' science. The real scicnce, I believe.

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Carrie
I ask the question (people usually don't answer just get
mad instead) if you aren't choosing your own thoughts,
feelings, beliefs (reactions, etc) who or what is doing it
for you and why are you allowing them?

Your parents and teachers and clergy, etc., determine
your beliefs when you are young. As an adult, this is the
foundation you have to deal with; to work from, to modify as
you wish. Or to change completely.

This doesn't have to be, though, does it? I am in control
of my own mind, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and results, and
learning from this.

We have to use our parent's beliefs when we are young. They
do our thinking for us. When we grow up we have to assume the
full responsibility for our beliefs and thoughts.

Post by Carrie
When someone says "you make me mad!" this is inaccurate
because the person (who is mad) is just choosing this.

Sure. And when someone says "you hurt me" this is inaccurate,
because they chose to have the knife plunged into their guts.

And, in a way, even subconsciously, it is a manipulation.
Feeling "hurt" might make the other person feel sorry, and do
and be more what I want.

Post by Sidney Lambe
Just because someone chooses an experience it doesn't make it
right for you to do something you know is wrong.

Well, doing something I feel is wrong is still my choice.
There's also the aspect that the "other person" might be trying
to make it wrong to make me feel guilty and bad, and then do
something they want or want me to do to make up.

Post by Sidney Lambe
It isn't okay to kick someone even if they are wearing a Kick
Me sign. And offer to pay you to do it.

It's still a personal choice. I could kick the person
with the sign and get kicked back. I think this is called
logical consequences and we learn from it. Or we can.

Sure.

Post by Carrie
It's like deciding someone else is drinking too much.

If it's obvious that they are, you better tell them if you
love them. And maybe even get tougher about it.

Post by Carrie
Which would be their choice.

Not if they are living in my house.

Post by Carrie
Trying to get them to stop, making them feel guilty, wrong
(like why woudl they WANT to be sober in the face of that)
where one can make their own choices around it. Like choose
not to be with the person, or with them when they drink. let
them learn their ow lessons, through conseqences. Now, usually
someone will bring up letting someone drive drunk and possibly
kill some innocent person. But, having someone stop them from
driving, take their keys, call the police if needed would be
another conseqence of their drinking.
Just using this as an example. Choice and consequences?

I don't get lost in ethical mazes like that anymore. I just do
what feels right assuming that at some level I know what's right
and wrong.
If someone I loved was killing themselves with alcohol, I'd
kidnap them and take them to a cabin in the mountains and they'd
dry out and eat well and exercise in the sun and wind, and we'd
talk a lot and I'd make them face themself. Face their beliefs.
This providing everything else that might work had been tried
first...

Wow, years ago (before I had a computer and the internet) some of my
kid's friends used to drink too much and I had the same idea. The cabin in
the mountains idea. Though, being a woman, I didn't reallly have the means
or strength to do it, and would have had to line up a lot of stuff like the
cabin, way to get there and people strong enough to do it- and keep watch on
the person once there. And, have some legal way of doing it, like them
signing something giving me permission. I did do a lot of research about it
though (alcoholism) and the nutritional aspects. (like rats deprived of
vitamin B, given a choice of alcohol or water pick the alcohol)

And, of course, I'd have been arrested for kidnapping.

I was assuming it wasn't someone "living in my house" (who was drinking,
ruining their lives and not open to being stopped) There's only so much you
can do to keep someone from self-destructing and even if you do, they find
other ways.
I once read "people need to feel like they're in control of their own
lives, no mtter how bad they seem to be messing it up".
You can try... and even if you have something to use (like if they are
living in your home) they still find ways. You can't watch someone 24/7. If
you can, they find a way to leave.
I don't know what the answer to drinking and addiction is, seems like
everyone has to make their own choices and decide they want something else,
on their own.
I've also thought of the rubber room idea. People who want to drink could
go into the rubber room and drink, and punch walls, puke, pass out (being
rubber it could be hosed out after) and well just drink all they wanted.
Allowed to drink where they couldn't hurt anyone (except themselves) Seems
like after awhile, being allowed to drink all they wanted, and no
interaction with others involved, they'd get bored or sick or tired of it.
Again, it would be hard to get set up legally. But, seems like a simple
idea. If people are gonna drink, let them, but make sure they don't hurt
anyone else. Give them what they want and see if they like it.
Good luck getting tough and telling someone "you can't drink".

Post by Sidney Lambe
--
Sidney Lambe / Evergreen - usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
http://tinyurl.com/63zc9bh - http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
All will be well. All manner of things will be well.

[Sidney Lambe]

On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

message

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
It says we create our individual and collective realities
with our beliefs and thoughts.

This is something I believe, too. Once this is
understood and accepted, what else is there? Why all the
words filling all the books?

He's describing what reality, basic reality, is like.
It is an 'alternative' science. The real scicnce, I believe.

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Carrie
I ask the question (people usually don't answer just get
mad instead) if you aren't choosing your own thoughts,
feelings, beliefs (reactions, etc) who or what is doing
it for you and why are you allowing them?

Your parents and teachers and clergy, etc., determine
your beliefs when you are young. As an adult, this is the
foundation you have to deal with; to work from, to modify
as you wish. Or to change completely.

This doesn't have to be, though, does it? I am in
control of my own mind, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and
results, and learning from this.

We have to use our parent's beliefs when we are young. They
do our thinking for us. When we grow up we have to assume
the full responsibility for our beliefs and thoughts.

Post by Carrie
When someone says "you make me mad!" this is inaccurate
because the person (who is mad) is just choosing this.

Sure. And when someone says "you hurt me" this is
inaccurate, because they chose to have the knife plunged
into their guts.

And, in a way, even subconsciously, it is a manipulation.
Feeling "hurt" might make the other person feel sorry, and do
and be more what I want.

Post by Sidney Lambe
Just because someone chooses an experience it doesn't make
it right for you to do something you know is wrong.

Well, doing something I feel is wrong is still my choice.
There's also the aspect that the "other person" might be
trying to make it wrong to make me feel guilty and bad, and
then do something they want or want me to do to make up.

Post by Sidney Lambe
It isn't okay to kick someone even if they are wearing a
Kick Me sign. And offer to pay you to do it.

It's still a personal choice. I could kick the person
with the sign and get kicked back. I think this is called
logical consequences and we learn from it. Or we can.

Sure.

It's like deciding someone else is drinking too much.

If it's obvious that they are, you better tell them if you
love them. And maybe even get tougher about it.

Which would be their choice.

Not if they are living in my house.

Trying to get them to stop, making them feel guilty, wrong
(like why woudl they WANT to be sober in the face of that)
where one can make their own choices around it. Like choose
not to be with the person, or with them when they drink.
let them learn their ow lessons, through conseqences. Now,
usually someone will bring up letting someone drive drunk and
possibly kill some innocent person. But, having someone stop
them from driving, take their keys, call the police if needed
would be another conseqence of their drinking.
Just using this as an example. Choice and consequences?

I don't get lost in ethical mazes like that anymore. I just
do what feels right assuming that at some level I know what's
right and wrong.
If someone I loved was killing themselves with alcohol, I'd
kidnap them and take them to a cabin in the mountains and
they'd dry out and eat well and exercise in the sun and wind,
and we'd talk a lot and I'd make them face themself. Face
their beliefs.
This providing everything else that might work had been tried
first...

Wow, years ago (before I had a computer and the internet)
some of my kid's friends used to drink too much and I had the
same idea. The cabin in the mountains idea. Though, being a
woman, I didn't reallly have the means or strength to do it,
and would have had to line up a lot of stuff like the cabin,
way to get there and people strong enough to do it- and keep
watch on the person once there.
And, have some legal way of doing it,

Fuck laws. They are just some group of people's ideas
about how they want me to behave.

Post by Carrie
like them signing something giving me permission. I
did do a lot of research about it though (alcoholism) and the
nutritional aspects. (like rats deprived of vitamin B, given a
choice of alcohol or water pick the alcohol)

Better have a very good attorney.

Post by Carrie
And, of course, I'd have been arrested for kidnapping.

Only if you got caught.

I'm not talking about someone drinking too much, per se.
I am talking about someone destroying their body and
every other aspect of their life by drinking too much
over years and years...

Post by Carrie
I was assuming it wasn't someone "living in my house"
(who was drinking, ruining their lives and not open to being
stopped) There's only so much you can do to keep someone from
self-destructing and even if you do, they find other ways.

They _can_ find other ways. And yes, you can lead a horse
to water, but you can't make it drink.

You just have to try, if it is someone you care about.

Post by Carrie
I once read "people need to feel like they're in control of
their own lives, no mtter how bad they seem to be messing it
up".

People _are_ in control of their lives. Whether they know it
or not.

And everthing works towards a greater good.

Post by Carrie
You can try... and even if you have something to use (like
if they are living in your home) they still find ways. You
can't watch someone 24/7. If you can, they find a way to leave.
I don't know what the answer to drinking and addiction is,
seems like everyone has to make their own choices and decide
they want something else, on their own. I've also thought
of the rubber room idea. People who want to drink could go
into the rubber room and drink, and punch walls, puke, pass
out (being rubber it could be hosed out after) and well just
drink all they wanted. Allowed to drink where they couldn't
hurt anyone (except themselves) Seems like after awhile, being
allowed to drink all they wanted, and no interaction with
others involved, they'd get bored or sick or tired of it.
Again, it would be hard to get set up legally. But, seems like
a simple idea. If people are gonna drink, let them, but make
sure they don't hurt anyone else. Give them what they want
and see if they like it. Good luck getting tough and telling
someone "you can't drink".

You have to get them to face the beliefs that are responsible
for their destructive behavior.

Their whole self chose the path for a reason, and those reasons
aer right there in the conscious mind associated with the
beliefs.

Just brutally honest and relentless questioning can accomplish
this. Takes guts.

[Carrie]

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

message

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
It says we create our individual and collective realities
with our beliefs and thoughts.

This is something I believe, too. Once this is
understood and accepted, what else is there? Why all the
words filling all the books?

He's describing what reality, basic reality, is like.
It is an 'alternative' science. The real scicnce, I believe.

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Carrie
I ask the question (people usually don't answer just get
mad instead) if you aren't choosing your own thoughts,
feelings, beliefs (reactions, etc) who or what is doing
it for you and why are you allowing them?

Your parents and teachers and clergy, etc., determine
your beliefs when you are young. As an adult, this is the
foundation you have to deal with; to work from, to modify
as you wish. Or to change completely.

This doesn't have to be, though, does it? I am in
control of my own mind, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and
results, and learning from this.

We have to use our parent's beliefs when we are young. They
do our thinking for us. When we grow up we have to assume
the full responsibility for our beliefs and thoughts.

Post by Carrie
When someone says "you make me mad!" this is inaccurate
because the person (who is mad) is just choosing this.

Sure. And when someone says "you hurt me" this is
inaccurate, because they chose to have the knife plunged
into their guts.

And, in a way, even subconsciously, it is a manipulation.
Feeling "hurt" might make the other person feel sorry, and do
and be more what I want.

Post by Sidney Lambe
Just because someone chooses an experience it doesn't make
it right for you to do something you know is wrong.

Well, doing something I feel is wrong is still my choice.
There's also the aspect that the "other person" might be
trying to make it wrong to make me feel guilty and bad, and
then do something they want or want me to do to make up.

Post by Sidney Lambe
It isn't okay to kick someone even if they are wearing a
Kick Me sign. And offer to pay you to do it.

It's still a personal choice. I could kick the person
with the sign and get kicked back. I think this is called
logical consequences and we learn from it. Or we can.

Sure.

It's like deciding someone else is drinking too much.

If it's obvious that they are, you better tell them if you
love them. And maybe even get tougher about it.

Which would be their choice.

Not if they are living in my house.

Trying to get them to stop, making them feel guilty, wrong
(like why woudl they WANT to be sober in the face of that)
where one can make their own choices around it. Like choose
not to be with the person, or with them when they drink.
let them learn their ow lessons, through conseqences. Now,
usually someone will bring up letting someone drive drunk and
possibly kill some innocent person. But, having someone stop
them from driving, take their keys, call the police if needed
would be another conseqence of their drinking.
Just using this as an example. Choice and consequences?

I don't get lost in ethical mazes like that anymore. I just
do what feels right assuming that at some level I know what's
right and wrong.
If someone I loved was killing themselves with alcohol, I'd
kidnap them and take them to a cabin in the mountains and
they'd dry out and eat well and exercise in the sun and wind,
and we'd talk a lot and I'd make them face themself. Face
their beliefs.
This providing everything else that might work had been tried
first...

Wow, years ago (before I had a computer and the internet)
some of my kid's friends used to drink too much and I had the
same idea. The cabin in the mountains idea. Though, being a
woman, I didn't reallly have the means or strength to do it,
and would have had to line up a lot of stuff like the cabin,
way to get there and people strong enough to do it- and keep
watch on the person once there.
And, have some legal way of doing it,

Fuck laws. They are just some group of people's ideas
about how they want me to behave.

Post by Carrie
like them signing something giving me permission. I
did do a lot of research about it though (alcoholism) and the
nutritional aspects. (like rats deprived of vitamin B, given a
choice of alcohol or water pick the alcohol)

Better have a very good attorney.

Post by Carrie
And, of course, I'd have been arrested for kidnapping.

Only if you got caught.
I'm not talking about someone drinking too much, per se.
I am talking about someone destroying their body and
every other aspect of their life by drinking too much
over years and years...

Post by Carrie
I was assuming it wasn't someone "living in my house"
(who was drinking, ruining their lives and not open to being
stopped) There's only so much you can do to keep someone from
self-destructing and even if you do, they find other ways.

They _can_ find other ways. And yes, you can lead a horse
to water, but you can't make it drink.
You just have to try, if it is someone you care about.

Post by Carrie
I once read "people need to feel like they're in control of
their own lives, no mtter how bad they seem to be messing it
up".

People _are_ in control of their lives. Whether they know it
or not.
And everthing works towards a greater good.

Post by Carrie
You can try... and even if you have something to use (like
if they are living in your home) they still find ways. You
can't watch someone 24/7. If you can, they find a way to leave.
I don't know what the answer to drinking and addiction is,
seems like everyone has to make their own choices and decide
they want something else, on their own. I've also thought
of the rubber room idea. People who want to drink could go
into the rubber room and drink, and punch walls, puke, pass
out (being rubber it could be hosed out after) and well just
drink all they wanted. Allowed to drink where they couldn't
hurt anyone (except themselves) Seems like after awhile, being
allowed to drink all they wanted, and no interaction with
others involved, they'd get bored or sick or tired of it.
Again, it would be hard to get set up legally. But, seems like
a simple idea. If people are gonna drink, let them, but make
sure they don't hurt anyone else. Give them what they want
and see if they like it. Good luck getting tough and telling
someone "you can't drink".

You have to get them to face the beliefs that are responsible
for their destructive behavior.
Their whole self chose the path for a reason, and those reasons
aer right there in the conscious mind associated with the
beliefs.
Just brutally honest and relentless questioning can accomplish
this. Takes guts.

I do care and would try. I think it's the opposite of how I used to (and
you seem to) I mean, the more you push someone and try and talk to them, the
more they stubbornly want to keep up with their self destructive ways. I
think the key is leaving them alone about it, well if they are around me and
drinking I can choose not to have this, but it's my choice and their
conseqences. I think they have to realize they (personally) are doing it to
themselves, and it's their own choices. Not someone else trying to make
them be a certain way, and taking over control of their life. Not sure it
that's coming out clear. But, getting out of the way so the person has no
one else to blame? Sometimes they get in trouble, go to jail, and at some
point, I guess it's called "hit bottom" (though I'm not a believer in
pushing AA on people who don't want it or believe in it)
Sort of not tying in with it, and allowing it to be THEIR problem. And
make my choices around it.
I haven't been around people who drink for a long time, and wouldn't want
to live with one, at least if I had to depend on them or share with them
like a "partner". But, not making them bad (people who drink have enough
guilt and low self esteem on their own) just making my own choices. Which
must involve (now) the choice to not be involved with people who drink.
The same with smoking, I don't smoke (did years ago) but accept that
others do.
I don't think pushing and yelling and trying to manipulate people
helps them change. Maybe just accepting them, and allowing them to be
(making my choices around this in a peaceful way) will help them feel safe
enough to try other ways.
I don't really know, I don't have many people around now to find
faults in and try and change. I have enough to do with my self.

Post by Sidney Lambe
--
Sidney Lambe / Evergreen - usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
http://tinyurl.com/63zc9bh - http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
All will be well. All manner of things will be well.

[Sidney Lambe]

On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

message

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
It says we create our individual and collective
realities with our beliefs and thoughts.

This is something I believe, too. Once this is
understood and accepted, what else is there? Why all the
words filling all the books?

He's describing what reality, basic reality, is like.
It is an 'alternative' science. The real scicnce, I
believe.

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Carrie
I ask the question (people usually don't answer just
get mad instead) if you aren't choosing your own
thoughts, feelings, beliefs (reactions, etc) who or
what is doing it for you and why are you allowing them?

Your parents and teachers and clergy, etc., determine
your beliefs when you are young. As an adult, this is
the foundation you have to deal with; to work from, to
modify as you wish. Or to change completely.

This doesn't have to be, though, does it? I am in
control of my own mind, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and
results, and learning from this.

We have to use our parent's beliefs when we are young.
They do our thinking for us. When we grow up we have
to assume the full responsibility for our beliefs and
thoughts.

Post by Carrie
When someone says "you make me mad!" this is inaccurate
because the person (who is mad) is just choosing this.

Sure. And when someone says "you hurt me" this is
inaccurate, because they chose to have the knife plunged
into their guts.

And, in a way, even subconsciously, it is a manipulation.
Feeling "hurt" might make the other person feel sorry, and
do and be more what I want.

Post by Sidney Lambe
Just because someone chooses an experience it doesn't make
it right for you to do something you know is wrong.

Well, doing something I feel is wrong is still my choice.
There's also the aspect that the "other person" might be
trying to make it wrong to make me feel guilty and bad, and
then do something they want or want me to do to make up.

Post by Sidney Lambe
It isn't okay to kick someone even if they are wearing a
Kick Me sign. And offer to pay you to do it.

It's still a personal choice. I could kick the person
with the sign and get kicked back. I think this is called
logical consequences and we learn from it. Or we can.

Sure.

It's like deciding someone else is drinking too much.

If it's obvious that they are, you better tell them if you
love them. And maybe even get tougher about it.

Which would be their choice.

Not if they are living in my house.

Trying to get them to stop, making them feel guilty, wrong
(like why woudl they WANT to be sober in the face of that)
where one can make their own choices around it. Like choose
not to be with the person, or with them when they drink.
let them learn their ow lessons, through conseqences. Now,
usually someone will bring up letting someone drive drunk
and possibly kill some innocent person. But, having someone
stop them from driving, take their keys, call the police if
needed would be another conseqence of their drinking.
Just using this as an example. Choice and
consequences?

I don't get lost in ethical mazes like that anymore. I just
do what feels right assuming that at some level I know
what's right and wrong.
If someone I loved was killing themselves with alcohol, I'd
kidnap them and take them to a cabin in the mountains and
they'd dry out and eat well and exercise in the sun and
wind, and we'd talk a lot and I'd make them face themself.
Face their beliefs.
This providing everything else that might work had been
tried first...

Wow, years ago (before I had a computer and the internet)
some of my kid's friends used to drink too much and I had the
same idea. The cabin in the mountains idea. Though, being a
woman, I didn't reallly have the means or strength to do it,
and would have had to line up a lot of stuff like the cabin,
way to get there and people strong enough to do it- and keep
watch on the person once there.
And, have some legal way of doing it,

Fuck laws. They are just some group of people's ideas about
how they want me to behave.

Post by Carrie
like them signing something giving me permission. I did
do a lot of research about it though (alcoholism) and the
nutritional aspects. (like rats deprived of vitamin B, given
a choice of alcohol or water pick the alcohol)

Better have a very good attorney.

Post by Carrie
And, of course, I'd have been arrested for kidnapping.

Only if you got caught.
I'm not talking about someone drinking too much, per se. I am
talking about someone destroying their body and every other
aspect of their life by drinking too much over years and
years...

Post by Carrie
I was assuming it wasn't someone "living in my house"
(who was drinking, ruining their lives and not open to being
stopped) There's only so much you can do to keep someone from
self-destructing and even if you do, they find other ways.

They _can_ find other ways. And yes, you can lead a horse to
water, but you can't make it drink.
You just have to try, if it is someone you care about.

Post by Carrie
I once read "people need to feel like they're in control of
their own lives, no mtter how bad they seem to be messing it
up".

People _are_ in control of their lives. Whether they know it
or not.
And everthing works towards a greater good.

Post by Carrie
You can try... and even if you have something to use (like if
they are living in your home) they still find ways. You can't
watch someone 24/7. If you can, they find a way to leave.
I don't know what the answer to drinking and addiction is,
seems like everyone has to make their own choices and decide
they want something else, on their own. I've also thought
of the rubber room idea. People who want to drink could go
into the rubber room and drink, and punch walls, puke, pass
out (being rubber it could be hosed out after) and well just
drink all they wanted. Allowed to drink where they couldn't
hurt anyone (except themselves) Seems like after awhile,
being allowed to drink all they wanted, and no interaction
with others involved, they'd get bored or sick or tired of
it. Again, it would be hard to get set up legally. But, seems
like a simple idea. If people are gonna drink, let them, but
make sure they don't hurt anyone else. Give them what they
want and see if they like it. Good luck getting tough and
telling someone "you can't drink".

You have to get them to face the beliefs that are responsible
for their destructive behavior.
Their whole self chose the path for a reason, and those
reasons aer right there in the conscious mind associated with
the beliefs.
Just brutally honest and relentless questioning can accomplish
this. Takes guts.

I do care and would try. I think it's the opposite of how I
used to (and you seem to) I mean, the more you push someone and
try and talk to them, the more they stubbornly want to keep up
with their self destructive ways. I think the key is leaving
them alone about it, well if they are around me and drinking
I can choose not to have this, but it's my choice and their
conseqences. I think they have to realize they (personally)
are doing it to themselves, and it's their own choices. Not
someone else trying to make them be a certain way, and taking
over control of their life. Not sure it that's coming out
clear. But, getting out of the way so the person has no one
else to blame? Sometimes they get in trouble, go to jail, and
at some point, I guess it's called "hit bottom" (though I'm
not a believer in pushing AA on people who don't want it or
believe in it) Sort of not tying in with it, and allowing it
to be THEIR problem. And make my choices around it. I haven't
been around people who drink for a long time, and wouldn't
want to live with one, at least if I had to depend on them
or share with them like a "partner". But, not making them
bad (people who drink have enough guilt and low self esteem
on their own) just making my own choices. Which must involve
(now) the choice to not be involved with people who drink. The
same with smoking, I don't smoke (did years ago) but accept
that others do. I don't think pushing and yelling and trying
to manipulate people helps them change. Maybe just accepting
them, and allowing them to be (making my choices around this in
a peaceful way) will help them feel safe enough to try other
ways. I don't really know, I don't have many people around now
to find faults in and try and change. I have enough to do with
my self.

If you love someone, and you have the ability to try, you
just have to do it.

Love that is qualified is shallow indeed.

Even if it's probable that when they change for the better they
will leave you, you have to help them heal

[Carrie]

">

Post by Sidney Lambe
If you love someone, and you have the ability to try, you
just have to do it.
Love that is qualified is shallow indeed.
Even if it's probable that when they change for the better they
will leave you, you have to help them heal

If and when I am ever in such a situation, I will see what feels right
to do. I'm starting to go in the direction of the way to "heal" someone and
love them is to just allow them to be. Give them space to try new ways, and
support them in this. The idea of trying by allowing and not "doing".
But, who knows what might be of use to one person, but maybe not another.
I think if someone was seeing faults in me and deciding how I should be
(or shouldn't) and working at fixing me (with manipulation of some kind) I
wouldn't want to be around them. Let alone change.
Change has to come from inside the person and something they want for
themself.
I don't believe we can create in the reality of another. Not to say we
can't change our minds and see them in a different (better, more postive,
uplifted) way.
Using the term "we" in general and not assuming everyone else does or
should feel as I do.
Sometimes the best way to help, and the hardest thing to do (when we
"care") is do nothing. Love them, accept them, support them (emotionally)
encourage them, and let them find their own way.

Post by Sidney Lambe
--
Sidney Lambe / Evergreen - usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
http://tinyurl.com/63zc9bh - http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
All will be well. All manner of things will be well.

[Sidney Lambe]

On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
">

If you love someone, and you have the ability to try, you just
have to do it.
Love that is qualified is shallow indeed.
Even if it's probable that when they change for the better
they will leave you, you have to help them heal

If and when I am ever in such a situation, I will see what
feels right to do. I'm starting to go in the direction of the
way to "heal" someone and love them is to just allow them to
be. Give them space to try new ways, and support them in this.
The idea of trying by allowing and not "doing".

That could work. But what if it doesn't?

You need a Plan B.

Post by Carrie
But, who knows what might be of use to one person, but maybe
not another. I think if someone was seeing faults in me and
deciding how I should be (or shouldn't) and working at fixing
me (with manipulation of some kind) I wouldn't want to be
around them. Let alone change.

Most junkies don't want to give up heroin, for example.

With such people you have to use trickery and maybe force.

Post by Carrie
Change has to come from inside the person and something they
want for themself.

And someotimes that takes the form of seeking a mentor.

A STRONG healer.

Post by Carrie
I don't believe we can create in the reality
of another.

That's ACIM garbage. You sure can, and you do all the time. We
all influence each other for good or ill. The person always has
ultimate control of their life, and can cut you out of it. But
while you are in it you can help or hinder them.

Post by Carrie
Not to say we can't change our minds and see them in a
different (better, more postive, uplifted) way. Using the term
"we" in general and not assuming everyone else does or should
feel as I do. Sometimes the best way to help, and the hardest
thing to do (when we "care") is do nothing. Love them, accept
them, support them (emotionally) encourage them, and let them
find their own way.

You sure make everything needlessly complicated.

Instead of reading that fluffy-bunny-airy-fairy ACIM crapola,
try something simple and to the point: Do what thou wilt shall
be the whole of the law.

That's from Aleister Croweley. Seth puts it this way:

My life is mine and I form it.

[Carrie]

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
">

If you love someone, and you have the ability to try, you just
have to do it.
Love that is qualified is shallow indeed.
Even if it's probable that when they change for the better
they will leave you, you have to help them heal

If and when I am ever in such a situation, I will see what
feels right to do. I'm starting to go in the direction of the
way to "heal" someone and love them is to just allow them to
be. Give them space to try new ways, and support them in this.
The idea of trying by allowing and not "doing".

That could work. But what if it doesn't?
You need a Plan B.

Post by Carrie
But, who knows what might be of use to one person, but maybe
not another. I think if someone was seeing faults in me and
deciding how I should be (or shouldn't) and working at fixing
me (with manipulation of some kind) I wouldn't want to be
around them. Let alone change.

Most junkies don't want to give up heroin, for example.
With such people you have to use trickery and maybe force.

Post by Carrie
Change has to come from inside the person and something they
want for themself.

And someotimes that takes the form of seeking a mentor.
A STRONG healer.

Post by Carrie
I don't believe we can create in the reality
of another.

That's ACIM garbage. You sure can, and you do all the time. We
all influence each other for good or ill. The person always has
ultimate control of their life, and can cut you out of it. But
while you are in it you can help or hinder them.

Actually, it's Abraham (Esther Hicks). And it makes sense. I like, and
look for things that make sense.
I don't know about a plan B, but I don't plan to throw my life away
trying to change and fix someone else. I've seen people who try this (even
indirectly, online). Maybe if it's a child... like Carol Burnett has been on
talk shows lately (she must have a new book out) and the subject of her
daughter, Carrie Hamilton comes up. Carrie got into drugs as a teen, and
Carol said she got her into a rehab before her 18th birthday and she
straightened out. Though later she died (at age 38) of lung and brain
cancer, which was something Carol couldn't change and fix.
But, with an adult, I've seen people who nag and push and get mad and
throw out (and even have the person put in jail for alcohol relatated
incidents- like fighting with them over drinking, then calling the police
and charging them with domestic violence) they end up not together (though
sometimes the person still fights with them over it, i.e. drinking) and with
a lot of hard feelings. And the person doesn't change. Just tries to get as
far away as possible. On the other hand, I have seen someone who drank, and
nothing seemed to stop him, be the cause of an accident where someone was
seriously hurt, spent time in jail, then a half way house and turned their
life around for the better. On their own.
All we can do is make our own choices. Not something to argue about and
not saying I don't see your point. I just don't believe "love" can do
anything, at least in a permanent way, as long as it's used for manipulation
and control and "conditional".
Maybe, if one can see the perfection in another person (even when they
can't see it in themself) and accept and allow them to be, they will then
feel better about themself and act accordingly. But, it still has to be
their choice. And as I've said, I always can choose not to hang around with
them.

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Carrie
Not to say we can't change our minds and see them in a
different (better, more postive, uplifted) way. Using the term
"we" in general and not assuming everyone else does or should
feel as I do. Sometimes the best way to help, and the hardest
thing to do (when we "care") is do nothing. Love them, accept
them, support them (emotionally) encourage them, and let them
find their own way.

You sure make everything needlessly complicated.
Instead of reading that fluffy-bunny-airy-fairy ACIM crapola,
try something simple and to the point: Do what thou wilt shall
be the whole of the law.
My life is mine and I form it.
--
Sidney Lambe / Evergreen - usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
http://tinyurl.com/63zc9bh - http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
All will be well. All manner of things will be well.

[Sidney Lambe]

[delete]

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Carrie
I don't believe we can create in the reality
of another.

That's ACIM garbage. You sure can, and you do all the time. We
all influence each other for good or ill. The person always has
ultimate control of their life, and can cut you out of it. But
while you are in it you can help or hinder them.

Actually, it's Abraham (Esther Hicks). And it makes sense.
like, and look for things that make sense.

I like things that make sense too. But they also have to
be substantiated by my experience.

We do create in each other's reallity all the time. Obviously.

Otherwise there would be no need for laws and governments and
morals and ethics and manners and sympathy and compassion and
cooperation and compromise....

You are a sucker for all these hucksters selling a world in which
shit doesn't stink. A world that will never be.

[delete]

[Carrie]

Post by Sidney Lambe
[delete]

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Carrie
I don't believe we can create in the reality
of another.

That's ACIM garbage. You sure can, and you do all the time. We
all influence each other for good or ill. The person always has
ultimate control of their life, and can cut you out of it. But
while you are in it you can help or hinder them.

Actually, it's Abraham (Esther Hicks). And it makes sense.
like, and look for things that make sense.

I like things that make sense too. But they also have to
be substantiated by my experience.
We do create in each other's reallity all the time. Obviously.
Otherwise there would be no need for laws and governments and
morals and ethics and manners and sympathy and compassion and
cooperation and compromise....
You are a sucker for all these hucksters selling a world in which
shit doesn't stink. A world that will never be.

Since you don't and can't create in my reality (only your perception and
interpretation of it, what you think and believe it is) you don't really
know that. What my world is like and can be.
There's no way to ever really prove any of this, so kind of a waste of
time going round in circles about it.

Post by Sidney Lambe
[delete]
--
Sidney Lambe / Evergreen - usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
http://tinyurl.com/63zc9bh - http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
All will be well. All manner of things will be well.

[Sidney Lambe]

On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie
[delete]

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Carrie
I don't believe we can create in the reality of another.

That's ACIM garbage. You sure can, and you do all the time.
We all influence each other for good or ill. The person
always has ultimate control of their life, and can cut you
out of it. But while you are in it you can help or hinder
them.

Actually, it's Abraham (Esther Hicks). And it makes sense.
like, and look for things that make sense.

I like things that make sense too. But they also have to be
substantiated by my experience.
We do create in each other's reallity all the time. Obviously.
Otherwise there would be no need for laws and governments and
morals and ethics and manners and sympathy and compassion and
cooperation and compromise....
You are a sucker for all these hucksters selling a world in
which shit doesn't stink. A world that will never be.

Since you don't and can't create in my reality (only your
perception and interpretation of it, what you think and believe
it is) you don't really know that. What my world is like and
can be. There's no way to ever really prove any of this, so
kind of a waste of time going round in circles about it.

When you learn that something isn't necessarily true because
you believe it to be true, you will really start getting
someplace.

[Kaydon]

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
">

If you love someone, and you have the ability to try, you just
have to do it.
Love that is qualified is shallow indeed.
Even if it's probable that when they change for the better
they will leave you, you have to help them heal

If and when I am ever in such a situation, I will see what
feels right to do. I'm starting to go in the direction of the
way to "heal" someone and love them is to just allow them to
be. Give them space to try new ways, and support them in this.
The idea of trying by allowing and not "doing".

That could work. But what if it doesn't?
You need a Plan B.

Post by Carrie
But, who knows what might be of use to one person, but maybe
not another. I think if someone was seeing faults in me and
deciding how I should be (or shouldn't) and working at fixing
me (with manipulation of some kind) I wouldn't want to be
around them. Let alone change.

Most junkies don't want to give up heroin, for example.
With such people you have to use trickery and maybe force.

Post by Carrie
Change has to come from inside the person and something they
want for themself.

And someotimes that takes the form of seeking a mentor.
A STRONG healer.

Post by Carrie
I don't believe we can create in the reality
of another.

That's ACIM garbage. You sure can, and you do all the time. We
all influence each other for good or ill. The person always has
ultimate control of their life, and can cut you out of it. But
while you are in it you can help or hinder them.

Actually, it's Abraham (Esther Hicks).

There's a massive difference between "influence" and "create" in this
context <3

xoxoxoxoxoo

[Carrie]

Post by Kaydon

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Carrie
I don't believe we can create in the reality
of another.

That's ACIM garbage. You sure can, and you do all the time. We
all influence each other for good or ill. The person always has
ultimate control of their life, and can cut you out of it. But
while you are in it you can help or hinder them.

Actually, it's Abraham (Esther Hicks).

There's a massive difference between "influence" and "create" in this
context

Yes, this is a good point and clearly stated.

Post by Kaydon
xoxoxoxoxoo
--
"If you think I'm weird, consider this. You base your opinion of me on
the things you know about me. Think of all the things you don't know.
If you did know them, I'd seem ten times weirder."

[Carrie]

We certainly got into a lot of subjects from two quotes from the first
page of the Seth book (LOL)

[Sidney Lambe]

On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
We certainly got into a lot of subjects from two quotes from
the first page of the Seth book (LOL)

:-) No stone left unturned!

[Carrie]

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
We certainly got into a lot of subjects from two quotes from
the first page of the Seth book (LOL)

:-) No stone left unturned!

or no turn left unstoned?

Post by Sidney Lambe
--
Sidney Lambe / Evergreen - usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
http://tinyurl.com/63zc9bh - http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
All will be well. All manner of things will be well.

[Sidney Lambe]

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
We certainly got into a lot of subjects from two quotes from
the first page of the Seth book (LOL)

:-) No stone left unturned!

or no turn left unstoned?

ROTFL

[Kaydon]

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
Since Sidney keeps recommending this book, maybe we can post
from it and discuss it as we go along?

Good idea.

Post by Carrie
I found several sources of downloads, online,

Why don't you post the URLSs? Most people won't have it.

http://www.mediafire.com/?ss3wdepg6tscc19

<3
xoxoxoxoo

[Carrie]

Post by Kaydon

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
Since Sidney keeps recommending this book, maybe we can post
from it and discuss it as we go along?

Good idea.

Post by Carrie
I found several sources of downloads, online,

Why don't you post the URLSs? Most people won't have it.

http://www.mediafire.com/?ss3wdepg6tscc19
<3
xoxoxoxoo

Thanks, that's a good one.
I find it easier to read something now from a computer file, instead of
the actual book. And there's the search feature, too. The newer versions of
Acrobat reader will read it to you, too. Sort of mechanical voice, but helps
when there's something else to do, too

Post by Kaydon
--
"If you think I'm weird, consider this. You base your opinion of me on
the things you know about me. Think of all the things you don't know.
If you did know them, I'd seem ten times weirder."

[Carrie]

I downloaded it and converted the pdf to text. Think it will be easier to
go over and copy/paste here for our new Seth topic discussion group. I have
3 Seth books, and never read them cover to cover. I'd pick one up at times,
or it would fall out of the bookcase in front of me, and open it and read
something that I thought was good, and applied to my life at the time. Maybe
there is too much of it to understand (and apply) all at once, and needs to
be taken a little at a time.
I was just reading in the front that Jane channeled this powerful
"entity" and she only weighed 95 lbs herself. Not that weight or size
matters.
Maybe it was, over time, too much for her and she burned out from it.
She left form at a young age. Or, maybe she came to realize how aimless
life is and, as those who have the out of body experiences and come back
tell about it, it was so wonderful (in non physical) they didn't want to
come back.

[Sidney Lambe]

On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
I downloaded it and converted the pdf to text. Think it will
be easier to go over and copy/paste here for our new Seth topic
discussion group.

LOL

But it sure is a hell of a lot better than discussing ACIM .
Christianity is boring .

Post by Carrie
I have 3 Seth books, and never read them cover to cover. I'd
pick one up at times, or it would fall out of the bookcase in
front of me, and open it and read something that I thought was
good, and applied to my life at the time.
Maybe there is too much of it to understand (and apply) all at
once, and needs to be taken a little at a time.

Sure has been that way for me. I have had ALL of the Seth
Material (including the unpublished sessions) for quite a while
now, yet I am still on his second book. Out of about 35 volumes.
I'm currently reading "The Nature of Personal Reality", and
taking notes, for about the 5th time. Cover-to-cover.

Post by Carrie
I was just reading in the front that Jane channeled this
powerful "entity" and she only weighed 95 lbs herself. Not that
weight or size matters. Maybe it was, over time, too much for
her and she burned out from it. She left form at a young age.
Or, maybe she came to realize how aimless life is and, as those
who have the out of body experiences and come back tell about
it, it was so wonderful (in non physical) they didn't want to
come back.

She was too evolved, and lost interest in life. But we would have
been better off if she had followed through and produced the same
amount of Seth Material again. He promised to write "The Christ
Book", for one, and that would have been fascinating. What he
_has_ said about Jesus is fascinating. YOu probably have "Seth
Speaks". A lot of that is in the appendix to that book, IIRC.

[Carrie]

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
I downloaded it and converted the pdf to text. Think it will
be easier to go over and copy/paste here for our new Seth topic
discussion group.

LOL
But it sure is a hell of a lot better than discussing ACIM .
Christianity is boring .

Post by Carrie
I have 3 Seth books, and never read them cover to cover. I'd
pick one up at times, or it would fall out of the bookcase in
front of me, and open it and read something that I thought was
good, and applied to my life at the time.
Maybe there is too much of it to understand (and apply) all at
once, and needs to be taken a little at a time.

Sure has been that way for me. I have had ALL of the Seth
Material (including the unpublished sessions) for quite a while
now, yet I am still on his second book. Out of about 35 volumes.
I'm currently reading "The Nature of Personal Reality", and
taking notes, for about the 5th time. Cover-to-cover.

Post by Carrie
I was just reading in the front that Jane channeled this
powerful "entity" and she only weighed 95 lbs herself. Not that
weight or size matters. Maybe it was, over time, too much for
her and she burned out from it. She left form at a young age.
Or, maybe she came to realize how aimless life is and, as those
who have the out of body experiences and come back tell about
it, it was so wonderful (in non physical) they didn't want to
come back.

She was too evolved, and lost interest in life. But we would have
been better off if she had followed through and produced the same
amount of Seth Material again. He promised to write "The Christ
Book", for one, and that would have been fascinating. What he
_has_ said about Jesus is fascinating. YOu probably have "Seth
Speaks". A lot of that is in the appendix to that book, IIRC.

I thought someone else (a man) took over after Jane and channeled Seth?
Maybe that was the plan and it didn't ever happen?

Post by Sidney Lambe
--
Sidney Lambe / Evergreen - usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
http://tinyurl.com/63zc9bh - http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
All will be well. All manner of things will be well.

[Sidney Lambe]

On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
I downloaded it and converted the pdf to text. Think it will
be easier to go over and copy/paste here for our new Seth
topic discussion group.

LOL
But it sure is a hell of a lot better than discussing ACIM .
Christianity is boring .

Post by Carrie
I have 3 Seth books, and never read them cover to cover. I'd
pick one up at times, or it would fall out of the bookcase in
front of me, and open it and read something that I thought
was good, and applied to my life at the time.
Maybe there is too much of it to understand (and apply) all
at once, and needs to be taken a little at a time.

Sure has been that way for me. I have had ALL of the Seth
Material (including the unpublished sessions) for quite
a while now, yet I am still on his second book. Out of
about 35 volumes. I'm currently reading "The Nature of
Personal Reality", and taking notes, for about the 5th time.
Cover-to-cover.

Post by Carrie
I was just reading in the front that Jane channeled this
powerful "entity" and she only weighed 95 lbs herself. Not
that weight or size matters. Maybe it was, over time, too
much for her and she burned out from it. She left form at a
young age. Or, maybe she came to realize how aimless life is
and, as those who have the out of body experiences and come
back tell about it, it was so wonderful (in non physical)
they didn't want to come back.

She was too evolved, and lost interest in life. But we would
have been better off if she had followed through and produced
the same amount of Seth Material again. He promised to
write "The Christ Book", for one, and that would have been
fascinating. What he _has_ said about Jesus is fascinating.
YOu probably have "Seth Speaks". A lot of that is in the
appendix to that book, IIRC.

I thought someone else (a man) took over after Jane and
channeled Seth? Maybe that was the plan and it didn't ever
happen?

Never heard that, Carrie. But I recall Seth saying that he would
not speak through anyone else during this time period in order to
maintain the integrity of the Material.

[Carrie]

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
I downloaded it and converted the pdf to text. Think it will
be easier to go over and copy/paste here for our new Seth
topic discussion group.

LOL
But it sure is a hell of a lot better than discussing ACIM .
Christianity is boring .

Post by Carrie
I have 3 Seth books, and never read them cover to cover. I'd
pick one up at times, or it would fall out of the bookcase in
front of me, and open it and read something that I thought
was good, and applied to my life at the time.
Maybe there is too much of it to understand (and apply) all
at once, and needs to be taken a little at a time.

Sure has been that way for me. I have had ALL of the Seth
Material (including the unpublished sessions) for quite
a while now, yet I am still on his second book. Out of
about 35 volumes. I'm currently reading "The Nature of
Personal Reality", and taking notes, for about the 5th time.
Cover-to-cover.

Post by Carrie
I was just reading in the front that Jane channeled this
powerful "entity" and she only weighed 95 lbs herself. Not
that weight or size matters. Maybe it was, over time, too
much for her and she burned out from it. She left form at a
young age. Or, maybe she came to realize how aimless life is
and, as those who have the out of body experiences and come
back tell about it, it was so wonderful (in non physical)
they didn't want to come back.

She was too evolved, and lost interest in life. But we would
have been better off if she had followed through and produced
the same amount of Seth Material again. He promised to
write "The Christ Book", for one, and that would have been
fascinating. What he _has_ said about Jesus is fascinating.
YOu probably have "Seth Speaks". A lot of that is in the
appendix to that book, IIRC.

I thought someone else (a man) took over after Jane and
channeled Seth? Maybe that was the plan and it didn't ever
happen?

Never heard that, Carrie. But I recall Seth saying that he would
not speak through anyone else during this time period in order to
maintain the integrity of the Material.

I thought it was after Jane died. Someone else was going to do it.
There was also something said (on a Seth group I was on for awhile) about
Seth saying he was gonig to be speaking through Jane for a time period that
turned out longer than she lived. I have looked up and read the story of her
illness and death. Some seem to make out it was because she didn't "seek
medical help" early enough. But seems like someone an Enlighted Being speaks
through, who has personal connection with this, would either be able to heal
their body, or make the choice to leave it.
In a way, all of this (channeled material) is kind of outdated at some
point. Like what is being taught and coming through people now? I think the
ultimate goal is for everyone to hear and listen to and follow (at least if
it makes sense and feels "right") their own Inner Guidance.Which comes back
to ACIM again, which says this. If there are any questions to ask one's
Inner Teacher, and not someone "out there". Being in the world, all of this
material seems to change into more worldly stuff. Teachers, gurus, donations
to support it, groups (where some are banned or shunned for not agreeing, or
for asking questions they don't want asked). it's probably inevitable. But,
doesn't have to be accepted, personally.

Post by Sidney Lambe
--
Sidney Lambe / Evergreen - usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
http://tinyurl.com/63zc9bh - http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
All will be well. All manner of things will be well.

[Sidney Lambe]

On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
I downloaded it and converted the pdf to text. Think it
will be easier to go over and copy/paste here for our new
Seth topic discussion group.

LOL
But it sure is a hell of a lot better than discussing ACIM .
Christianity is boring .

Post by Carrie
I have 3 Seth books, and never read them cover to cover.
I'd pick one up at times, or it would fall out of the
bookcase in front of me, and open it and read something
that I thought was good, and applied to my life at the
time.
Maybe there is too much of it to understand (and apply) all
at once, and needs to be taken a little at a time.

Sure has been that way for me. I have had ALL of the Seth
Material (including the unpublished sessions) for quite
a while now, yet I am still on his second book. Out of
about 35 volumes. I'm currently reading "The Nature of
Personal Reality", and taking notes, for about the 5th time.
Cover-to-cover.

Post by Carrie
I was just reading in the front that Jane channeled this
powerful "entity" and she only weighed 95 lbs herself. Not
that weight or size matters. Maybe it was, over time, too
much for her and she burned out from it. She left form at
a young age. Or, maybe she came to realize how aimless
life is and, as those who have the out of body experiences
and come back tell about it, it was so wonderful (in non
physical) they didn't want to come back.

She was too evolved, and lost interest in life. But we
would have been better off if she had followed through
and produced the same amount of Seth Material again. He
promised to write "The Christ Book", for one, and that would
have been fascinating. What he _has_ said about Jesus is
fascinating. YOu probably have "Seth Speaks". A lot of that
is in the appendix to that book, IIRC.

I thought someone else (a man) took over after Jane and
channeled Seth? Maybe that was the plan and it didn't ever
happen?

Never heard that, Carrie. But I recall Seth saying that he
would not speak through anyone else during this time period in
order to maintain the integrity of the Material.

I thought it was after Jane died. Someone else was going to
do it.

No. Just the opposite. [delete]

Post by Carrie
I have looked up and read the story of her illness and death.
Some seem to make out it was because she didn't "seek medical
help" early enough. But seems like someone an Enlighted Being
speaks through, who has personal connection with this, would
either be able to heal their body,

She could have. She just didn't care. Most of her attention
moved to her next reality. I already told you this.

IF you want to know what Seth said, read the Seth Material.
Some anonymous person blathering on a web forum is the farthest
thing from a credible source that exists.

[delete]

[Carrie]

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Carrie

Post by Carrie
I downloaded it and converted the pdf to text. Think it
will be easier to go over and copy/paste here for our new
Seth topic discussion group.

LOL
But it sure is a hell of a lot better than discussing ACIM .
Christianity is boring .

Post by Carrie
I have 3 Seth books, and never read them cover to cover.
I'd pick one up at times, or it would fall out of the
bookcase in front of me, and open it and read something
that I thought was good, and applied to my life at the
time.
Maybe there is too much of it to understand (and apply) all
at once, and needs to be taken a little at a time.

Sure has been that way for me. I have had ALL of the Seth
Material (including the unpublished sessions) for quite
a while now, yet I am still on his second book. Out of
about 35 volumes. I'm currently reading "The Nature of
Personal Reality", and taking notes, for about the 5th time.
Cover-to-cover.

Post by Carrie
I was just reading in the front that Jane channeled this
powerful "entity" and she only weighed 95 lbs herself. Not
that weight or size matters. Maybe it was, over time, too
much for her and she burned out from it. She left form at
a young age. Or, maybe she came to realize how aimless
life is and, as those who have the out of body experiences
and come back tell about it, it was so wonderful (in non
physical) they didn't want to come back.

She was too evolved, and lost interest in life. But we
would have been better off if she had followed through
and produced the same amount of Seth Material again. He
promised to write "The Christ Book", for one, and that would
have been fascinating. What he _has_ said about Jesus is
fascinating. YOu probably have "Seth Speaks". A lot of that
is in the appendix to that book, IIRC.

I thought someone else (a man) took over after Jane and
channeled Seth? Maybe that was the plan and it didn't ever
happen?

Never heard that, Carrie. But I recall Seth saying that he
would not speak through anyone else during this time period in
order to maintain the integrity of the Material.

I thought it was after Jane died. Someone else was going to do it.

No. Just the opposite. [delete]

Post by Carrie
I have looked up and read the story of her illness and death.
Some seem to make out it was because she didn't "seek medical
help" early enough. But seems like someone an Enlighted Being
speaks through, who has personal connection with this, would
either be able to heal their body,

She could have. She just didn't care. Most of her attention
moved to her next reality. I already told you this.
IF you want to know what Seth said, read the Seth Material.
Some anonymous person blathering on a web forum is the farthest
thing from a credible source that exists.

Good point...

Post by Sidney Lambe
[delete]
--
Sidney Lambe / Evergreen - usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
http://tinyurl.com/63zc9bh - http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
All will be well. All manner of things will be well.