member responses and conversations - general
- Thread starter mac
- Start date
genewardsmith
New Member
Oh I got that from the way he had expressed his approach earlier.Mikey was/is speaking about how things are presently for him but I was speaking about how things will be for us all at a much more distant point.
Our understanding of this differs.
ACIM agrees with Mikey, for those who find it authoritative.
I also agreed with Mikey - in part.
For reference, which authoritative source(s) provide(s) information for ACIM on the specific topic I'd been writing about, the situation of spirits re-merging with their source? It's that specific area where mine and Mikey's perspectives differ.
To respond properly, bb, I'd have to refer to details in the guidance that shapes my thinking. I've often pointed out the problem of considering complex concepts in isolation but what I'm now going to do sees me falling into that very trap - but here goes anyway.
In attempting to explain in my own way I say we individual spirits/souls are each on a journey of spiritual experience and discovery. Referring now to the guidance, what we find on our journey is apparently vitally important to the source; it apparently is the 'fuel' that sustains this source of all being. The situation of our being individuals comes about as the means for us to find and 'bring home', bring back to source, this vital fuel. That single issue is key to accepting everything else, even though understanding is likely beyond most or all of us incarnates and perhaps many discarnates alike.
The way I view the situation then is that in effect we are experiencing individuality in this dimension, we have experienced individuality in the dimensions before it and we will continue to experience as individuals lives in all the dimensions after it. That situation will continue to a point which is probably indefinable in any human terms. Beyond that I would need to refer again to the guidance that influences me because I don't have the ability to present adequately using my own words.
Our present human life is simply one of many lives we experience as individuals. Our future lives (if you can accept yet another difficult concept) will find us still as individuals, through to and even beyond the apparently-last of the levels often referred to as level seven. Beyond that level life goes on in ever complex ways but my severely limited brain power leaves me struggling just to grasp the concept. I have no problem accepting the situation but I don't have words to explain it.
On the first point I hope I've been able to present my own approach, bb, and why I don't see things the way you do. As for 'God' being sentient, or considering it as an egotist, then I find both words hopelessly inadequate and inappropriate. Beyond all these arguments the entity we call God is not the ultimate creative something that I refer to as source.
I am not trying to persuade anyone about anything and I'd be astonished if any/many accept what I've said. By now, though, I've come to accept that even the simplest (for me) concepts of survival and communication are unpersuasive for many. Until they have been accepted, though, considering anything beyond is likely to be unproductive and frustrating for anyone trying.
[This conversation will later be moved out of this C&M Q&A thread.]
This notion of so-called walk ins appears to be a 'New Age' one, more to do with the psychic than the spiritual.
In my view it holds more attraction for fantasists than for realists, folk who are intrigued by ghosts, ghoulies and things that go bump in the night. Maybe my impatience is showing when folk spend time looking at such phenomena but may have little interest in the simple message of survival demonstrated through communication?
Hi Kim,
Mikey tells me the term soul is used to describe our true being, who we really are; our consciousness. The word spirit is often used to refer to us when we are out of a body (from a human viewpoint) according to Mikey. Our true being is what matters when it comes to our life review from Mikey's perspective. Our spirit / energy is our soul or consciousness. It really depends in what context the word "spirit" is used.
I hope this makes sense!
Carol and Mikey "in Spirit"
This is a conundrum for others, perhaps many. Folk may think of soul and spirit being fundamentally different and/or separate states of being. Mikey has explained it well.
Folk may notice I often use the word 'discarnate' rather than 'spirit' although I expect the former word might confuse 'em even more!
But increasingly I'm using the term 'soul/spirit' to signify our immortal, eternal, individual selves as compared to short-lived humans with bodies. It's intended to avoid the distraction about what's the difference between soul and spirit. Goodness knows if it's successful!
bluebird
New Member
Thank you for taking the time to explain why you believe as you do on this matter. I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree about this one, because while I respect your view about this, I do not share it at all.
I am intrigued by something you said, though. You said "Beyond all these arguments the entity we call God is not the ultimate creative something that I refer to as source." Could you please elaborate? Do you mean that you hold a polytheistic view?
On the last point, bb, oh God no!
I'm much too simple a soul even to know what that word meant without looking it up online - no kidding - I had to find out what it means! Going further concerning my approach to 'God' probably isn't worthwhile without the detailed context of the guidance that shapes my thinking.
bluebird
New Member
On the last point, bb, oh God no!
Going further concerning my approach to 'God' probably isn't worthwhile without the detailed context of the guidance that shapes my thinking.
Lol, ok.
As I haven't read the Medhus book I don't know exactly what Erik said about his previous incarnate lives and I can comment only as an incarnate whose understanding is naturally somewhat limited. But, based on what I've learned from one source whose guidance greatly resonates with me, our earliest experiences in physical bodies comes from the animation of simple life forms. It sounds plain daft that we'd reincarnate back to a simpler life-form.
Storybud68
New Member
Flying High can be bought on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/s?k=flying+h...ng+high+in+spirit,aps,356&ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_21.
You've read the book, David, so you know what he was referring to but I very much doubt he can recall the time he was a butterfly.
If the guy who influences my ideas is telling us straight, David, then all of us used to be lower - simpler - life-forms once upon a time. That we're here now means we've progressed spiritually in much the same way as Erik Medhus did. That's the normal way of things but getting to grips with that may be a big step for you to take.
Storybud68
New Member
As some will know I lived through, and was a Foundation supporter, the whole time of the activities of the so-called Scole Experimental Group and the existence of The New Spiritual Science Foundation; 'Scole' for short.
Their activities were brought to an abrupt end by the interference with, and eventual destruction of, communications with their counterpart spirit experimenters. At the outset it was claimed the Scole group were using 'new energy' to bring about the physical phenomena seen in their experiments during the exciting time they were operating. That view was not accepted by at least some experienced others in the NAS from whom the group had broken away to set up their own activities.
For me the goal was never fully achieved, something that left me sad and frustrated. Others will doubtless see things differently. In the last stages of the Foundation's work the long-time trans-dimensional communication enjoyed with their spirit friends began to falter and eventually became rudely interrupted by entities claiming to be from another planet. Had it not been so serious a break in the vital link to their spirit-side counterparts it might have been amusing.
As a long-time supporter I was horrified at the events and wrote to Foy to tell him so. What was being reported in 'The Spiritual Scientist' sounded like something from Star Trek, with messages from those interfering with - blocking - communication high fallautin and nonsensical.
I did not want to believe such experienced experimenters had somehow allowed low-entities to break into their circle and to wreck their link. But I have neither seen nor heard anything to dissuade me from that conclusion. Robin Foy initially told me that earlier communications would eventually be restored and their work would continue. I've yet to learn that's happened or that similar work is continuing but maybe that's because I no longer am interested and haven't tried to follow recent events.
If anyone knows more than that then I'd greatly appreciate hearing from them. It wouldn't surprise me if a video/movie were to be produced but I haven't heard that's the case.
How do you know they do?
genewardsmith
New Member
Some of us may be dumb enough to volunteer. I had a stranger who lived down the hall from me tell me she had a strange dream about me. It concerned how I didn't need to reincarnate, but with great nobility volunteered because the need was so great. I make no claim any of that was true, beyond the fact that this is what she told me.
I treat others' dreams as I treat my own - I mostly give 'em no credence other than as dreams. Our brains - well my brain at least - appear to have endless capacity for the fabrication of stories and images.
As for being (quote) "dumb enough to volunteer" to reincarnate because there was a great need well that's a different issue but it would still be a choice. Making such a choice would be a considered undertaking of the role. A further incarnation when one's spiritual progress didn't 'need' it would be such a choice; Mikey Morgan and spirit-guide Silver Birch would be examples.
".....no doubt believable" - really?
It's believable they've come to communicate but do you heed what they say just because one spirit individual had brought along another?
I'd never challenge what a communicator tells us about their personal experiences 'over there' but I'd be very chary of extrapolating it to everyone. Or accepting their ideas about 'the bigger picture' until I was persuaded about their capacity to offer such ideas.
You know the saying: "Great minds think alike but fools seldom differ."? Gotta watch which camp a communicator falls into. Just because you're discarnate it doesn't automatically make you omniscient.
And being on YouTube is no guarantee either.
The Meldhus conversation has prompted me to offer some layman thoughts on trans-dimensional communication.
For decades if not longer we've been urged to 'test the spirits' when communicating. "Spirit loves an enquiring mind" is another saying. But both are hard when we're having to do it through a third party. Add to that there there is always - without exception - a risk of coloration by that third party. The more a third party facilitator of communication - call her a medium or channeler - knows about the afterlife stuff the more the risk of coloration. So where do we go then?
In the dim and distant past mediumship was all there was. The now-fashionable word 'channeler' probably wasn't around and if it was it was little used. So we had mediums of various flavors one being 'trance medium'. In trance the 'go-between' medium's mind is 'parked' out of the way as much as possible by the medium herself going into trance, the deeper the trance the better. By so doing the thoughts and guidance of the actual communicator were conveyed with minimum coloration from anything the medium had in her mind. So where does that leave us?
We're left with the situation that anyone with any knowledge of a subject, or with their own ideas or prejudices, should be considered a potential source of coloration. The less known, the fewer the prejudices, the better the chance of uncolored communication. The more a go-between knows the less the chance that coloration isn't occurring.
You pays yer money and makes your choice over what you see and hear.
For decades if not longer we've been urged to 'test the spirits' when communicating. "Spirit loves an enquiring mind" is another saying. But both are hard when we're having to do it through a third party. Add to that there there is always - without exception - a risk of coloration by that third party. The more a third party facilitator of communication - call her a medium or channeler - knows about the afterlife stuff the more the risk of coloration. So where do we go then?
In the dim and distant past mediumship was all there was. The now-fashionable word 'channeler' probably wasn't around and if it was it was little used. So we had mediums of various flavors one being 'trance medium'. In trance the 'go-between' medium's mind is 'parked' out of the way as much as possible by the medium herself going into trance, the deeper the trance the better. By so doing the thoughts and guidance of the actual communicator were conveyed with minimum coloration from anything the medium had in her mind. So where does that leave us?
We're left with the situation that anyone with any knowledge of a subject, or with their own ideas or prejudices, should be considered a potential source of coloration. The less known, the fewer the prejudices, the better the chance of uncolored communication. The more a go-between knows the less the chance that coloration isn't occurring.
You pays yer money and makes your choice over what you see and hear.
No doubt believable IMO I should have said MAC...
thanks to both for this response
I'm gonna come back with some thoughts later in the day. There are some interesting aspects in Mikey's words I want to address.
Glad to hear you're keeping your head above water, Carol. My personal thoughts are with those in the medical field and exposed to this monster of a virus as they're particularly at risk from contracting Covid 19.
later..... mac