member responses and conversations - general

[mac]

Thanks for that - my earlier changes did result in different posting numbers being assigned to the remaining postings hence the differences compared with your earlier hard copy. I'll get things sorted - thanks for coming back to me.

 

[genewardsmith]

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.

 

[mac]

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.

 

[mac]

If your understanding of it is correct, what would be the point (of us all joining with god/source/whatever and losing all individuality)?

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.

To me, that would negate the purpose of all human lives; also, if the "god" in question were sentient, then in my opinion it would have to be a massive egotist to even want that.

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.]

 

[mac]

Mikey tells me that this (walk-ins) does not occur here in this dimension when being on earth. He is not aware of this from his perspective.
Carol and Mikey "in Spirit"

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?

 

[mac]

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!

 

[mac]

As previously, I'll later move 'side conversations' between members into the 'follow on' thread to enable seekers to find Mikey's answers more easily - unless C&M prefer they all remain in this thread.

 

[bluebird]

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.]

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?

 

[mac]

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]

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.

Lol, ok.