Posts
There have been dozens of conditions and "syndromes" created to explain an entire plethora of odd and strange linguistic phenomena, ranging from glossolalia (speaking in tongues) to spontaneous words and phrases uttered by children in different languages. People who believe in polybiography (more than one sequential life) have a ready explanation in terms of "karmic" or "Soul-" memory. Regular neuroscience traces these activities to certain brain-areas, but, beyond this, they cannot explain the origins of these atypical behaviors.
One reason is that modern medicine is still very primitive and backward; another is that it insists on the paradigm of the 1600's-- pure materialism, without any "energic" considerations.
*******
Showing posts with label polybiography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label polybiography. Show all posts
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Channeling and Other Beliefs
*******
[Jane] Roberts [the "channeler" of "Seth"] did come across, in the unconscious mind, some really interesting, and useful, material. As noted in the previous email, we do not deny the existence or possibility of "channeling." Indeed, as mystics, we heartily endorse and teach that we are all potential "channelers" of Love (God).
Roberts produced, during her life (she is dead now) some unique material.
An objective analysis of her words shows that some sentences perhaps said absolutely nothing to the average mind. Channelers generally love to use many words, but often, take three pages to clarify or to explain a single statement. Like other resources, words should ideally not be wasted. A good writer or speaker should use little to no "filler" in her message; each sentence should actually convey information, should actually say something.
Roberts often followed this fine guideline. Still, I return, as a "skeptic," to the scientific principle called "Occam's Razor." This guiding principle of science (and of life) states that very reasonably,, if you have a complex explanation and a simpler one, you are obligated by facts and observation to embrace the simpler one.
Let's apply this to the teachings of channeling. A person is speaking to a group, and he/she is often receiving many thousands of dollars for an hour of her time. (The insurance salesman who "channeled" Lazarus received $300,000 for a lecture. It cost his listeners a thousand dollars each for the "rare privilege" of listening to him.)
Now, we have two possible explanations: 1) the channeler is telling the truth, which is anything but obvious, and an "extraterrestrial" or "extradimensional" being is using her bodymind to speak to the world.
(This also boosts the ego of the channeler and makes her utterances more like "divine revelations" rather than ordinary speech. These "divine revelations" can bring a very high market-price, while ordinary speech is
unmarketable.) Or we can say that 2) we are speaking, as seems apparent to the actual evidence, with a human being who might or might not be drawing spiritual information from the deeper Unconscious.
Now, using Occam's Razor, which is the simpler? I think that the facts urge us to believe that the simpler explanation is Number Two, that we are listening to a human being. She might well be tapping areas of the great Unconscious, the great Mind, but she might not, also.
So, the best approach is not that of the "true believer," who will eagerly fight "to the death" (allegorically) that true channeling is occurring, that the person is truly, really, actually channeling another "entity" (to use one of their favorite words). But why expend so much valuable timenergy defending a conclusion that can never be proved or disproved?
Channelers love to say things that cannot be subject to real scientific scrutiny. They can describe ancient and distant Atlantis, or claim that Jesus had blond hair, and none of these "facts" can ever be verified.
Nor can their wildest speculations re the nature of Mind. Even channeling itself cannot be proved or disproved in a standard laboratory.
Some spiritual items are simply not verifiable by our primitive science.
Of course, it is much more fascinating, exciting, and even entertaining to say that real channeling is happening. Indeed, there is a powerful part of human psychology that longs for the absolute certainty so often offered by various faiths, including fundamentalism. But absolute certainty is not always available through the senses.
Thousands of gurus, ministers, imams, priests, and rabbis throughout history, have claimed to be "special prophets," "enlightened beings," and "channels of God" in our poor world. These have ranged from the noble to the ridiculous and foolish.
Many, many have supported false prophecies or predictions, including thousands of nondescript channelers who taught that the "end of the world" was coming in 1999! Time proved to a genuinely discouraged and disappointed audience, and it was vast, that these "channelers" were not really in touch with a higher Power.
So, we know, and I think that we both agree, that false "channelers" do exist. The facts prove this. But what real facts do we have to "prove"
that "real" channelers exist? This is a much more knotty and problematic question.
Channeling is precisely like religion: If a person wants to be a "true believer," she will be, and nothing, in this or any other universe, is likely to change her mind. Indeed, we are not here on earth to change each other, but to do the very best that we can individually do to find the Light. So, dear friend, please do not misunderstand me: I have absolutely zero interest in "changing your mind." For that is your task.
At the Pneumarium, we spoke of many delightful and profound issues. I explained that I individually would have to see at least some credible evidence before I would be convinced of the genuineness of a channeler.
But that does not mean that everyone does, or should, require this evidence. So, if you are inclined to accept a particular channeler, or all of them (and there are hundreds of thousands; thousands have "channeled Michael" alone, as one example), that is your personal decision. And you are free to make it; this is the very meaning of spiritual independence.
It means that we might not all think exactly alike about all spiritual issues. Yet we can choose to remain friends, even the very best of friends.
As another example, the idea of polybiography (reincarnation) is a structural matrix to my philosophy of life. Yet I have friends who do not understand the concept, do not even claim to believe in it. As another example, vegetarianism is another structural matrix for my life-pattern; yet I have friends who are not veggies. And that is okay; each must respond to her inner karmic forces in her own time, at her own pace, and in her own way. But I am free to accept, even love, them.:)
So, my friend, I speak, often with power, often with passion, about any spiritual issue, for spirituality is the golden matrix that holds this life intact. But I have and hold no "condemnation" for those who hold different or varying ideas. I do not buy into any form of "new age fundamentalism."
We are all explorers on the interior and infinite path. We all speculate regarding the Eternal and Immeasurable. We should be free enough, should allow ourselves sufficient fredom, and give this gift to others, so that we can vary in a very friendly way. Religious people become grumpy and surly when they disagree; spiritual people become wiser and richer!:)
*******
We are not responsible for the actions or thoughts of other adults. We are not fully responsible for every activity within even our own bodies.
For, in a fair universe, We are responsible for only that which we can control. This means that we are responsible for our responses. (Easy:
"response" and "responsibility" both come from the same root.)
So, in final analysis, we are responsible for only our responses. If we can teach ourselves, or be taught, to respond in only Love to every contingency, then we have come to our "graduation" from the "school"" of earthly life.
It is true that, as you say, people who are stuck in cults or fundy religion are there due to their karma; I used to be one of them! But the true teacher never regards such benighted souls with apathy or complacence. Love moves her to reach out to them, to teach them.
Without Love, pure Taoism would create only "bumps on a log," waiting for things to occur, never initiating anything ever! This is an extreme, and the Way always moves us away from extremes, which can become virulently anti-spiritual (antiagapic, violating the principle of Love).
So, while cultivating trust in the interior cosmic Mind to care for all life, and for the totality of enlightenment towards all creatures, the enlightened does not see God (Love) as active outside of her, but inside her. Love lives and moves through her, and within her.
This is no attempt futilely to "add to God." You simply cannot "add" to the Infinite. Instead, the spiritual outreach of a teacher is like preparing a garden filled with beautiful flowers. Without care, the garden turns to weeds, and the flower-petals drop off. All you have is a patch of muck and mud. Caring for a student is like cooperating with Mind, with nature, not trying to "add to" It. A student can grow, like a flower, without nurturing; but a flower which receives care has many more petals, is more fragrant, and more beautiful.
*******
[Jane] Roberts [the "channeler" of "Seth"] did come across, in the unconscious mind, some really interesting, and useful, material. As noted in the previous email, we do not deny the existence or possibility of "channeling." Indeed, as mystics, we heartily endorse and teach that we are all potential "channelers" of Love (God).
Roberts produced, during her life (she is dead now) some unique material.
An objective analysis of her words shows that some sentences perhaps said absolutely nothing to the average mind. Channelers generally love to use many words, but often, take three pages to clarify or to explain a single statement. Like other resources, words should ideally not be wasted. A good writer or speaker should use little to no "filler" in her message; each sentence should actually convey information, should actually say something.
Roberts often followed this fine guideline. Still, I return, as a "skeptic," to the scientific principle called "Occam's Razor." This guiding principle of science (and of life) states that very reasonably,, if you have a complex explanation and a simpler one, you are obligated by facts and observation to embrace the simpler one.
Let's apply this to the teachings of channeling. A person is speaking to a group, and he/she is often receiving many thousands of dollars for an hour of her time. (The insurance salesman who "channeled" Lazarus received $300,000 for a lecture. It cost his listeners a thousand dollars each for the "rare privilege" of listening to him.)
Now, we have two possible explanations: 1) the channeler is telling the truth, which is anything but obvious, and an "extraterrestrial" or "extradimensional" being is using her bodymind to speak to the world.
(This also boosts the ego of the channeler and makes her utterances more like "divine revelations" rather than ordinary speech. These "divine revelations" can bring a very high market-price, while ordinary speech is
unmarketable.) Or we can say that 2) we are speaking, as seems apparent to the actual evidence, with a human being who might or might not be drawing spiritual information from the deeper Unconscious.
Now, using Occam's Razor, which is the simpler? I think that the facts urge us to believe that the simpler explanation is Number Two, that we are listening to a human being. She might well be tapping areas of the great Unconscious, the great Mind, but she might not, also.
So, the best approach is not that of the "true believer," who will eagerly fight "to the death" (allegorically) that true channeling is occurring, that the person is truly, really, actually channeling another "entity" (to use one of their favorite words). But why expend so much valuable timenergy defending a conclusion that can never be proved or disproved?
Channelers love to say things that cannot be subject to real scientific scrutiny. They can describe ancient and distant Atlantis, or claim that Jesus had blond hair, and none of these "facts" can ever be verified.
Nor can their wildest speculations re the nature of Mind. Even channeling itself cannot be proved or disproved in a standard laboratory.
Some spiritual items are simply not verifiable by our primitive science.
Of course, it is much more fascinating, exciting, and even entertaining to say that real channeling is happening. Indeed, there is a powerful part of human psychology that longs for the absolute certainty so often offered by various faiths, including fundamentalism. But absolute certainty is not always available through the senses.
Thousands of gurus, ministers, imams, priests, and rabbis throughout history, have claimed to be "special prophets," "enlightened beings," and "channels of God" in our poor world. These have ranged from the noble to the ridiculous and foolish.
Many, many have supported false prophecies or predictions, including thousands of nondescript channelers who taught that the "end of the world" was coming in 1999! Time proved to a genuinely discouraged and disappointed audience, and it was vast, that these "channelers" were not really in touch with a higher Power.
So, we know, and I think that we both agree, that false "channelers" do exist. The facts prove this. But what real facts do we have to "prove"
that "real" channelers exist? This is a much more knotty and problematic question.
Channeling is precisely like religion: If a person wants to be a "true believer," she will be, and nothing, in this or any other universe, is likely to change her mind. Indeed, we are not here on earth to change each other, but to do the very best that we can individually do to find the Light. So, dear friend, please do not misunderstand me: I have absolutely zero interest in "changing your mind." For that is your task.
At the Pneumarium, we spoke of many delightful and profound issues. I explained that I individually would have to see at least some credible evidence before I would be convinced of the genuineness of a channeler.
But that does not mean that everyone does, or should, require this evidence. So, if you are inclined to accept a particular channeler, or all of them (and there are hundreds of thousands; thousands have "channeled Michael" alone, as one example), that is your personal decision. And you are free to make it; this is the very meaning of spiritual independence.
It means that we might not all think exactly alike about all spiritual issues. Yet we can choose to remain friends, even the very best of friends.
As another example, the idea of polybiography (reincarnation) is a structural matrix to my philosophy of life. Yet I have friends who do not understand the concept, do not even claim to believe in it. As another example, vegetarianism is another structural matrix for my life-pattern; yet I have friends who are not veggies. And that is okay; each must respond to her inner karmic forces in her own time, at her own pace, and in her own way. But I am free to accept, even love, them.:)
So, my friend, I speak, often with power, often with passion, about any spiritual issue, for spirituality is the golden matrix that holds this life intact. But I have and hold no "condemnation" for those who hold different or varying ideas. I do not buy into any form of "new age fundamentalism."
We are all explorers on the interior and infinite path. We all speculate regarding the Eternal and Immeasurable. We should be free enough, should allow ourselves sufficient fredom, and give this gift to others, so that we can vary in a very friendly way. Religious people become grumpy and surly when they disagree; spiritual people become wiser and richer!:)
*******
We are not responsible for the actions or thoughts of other adults. We are not fully responsible for every activity within even our own bodies.
For, in a fair universe, We are responsible for only that which we can control. This means that we are responsible for our responses. (Easy:
"response" and "responsibility" both come from the same root.)
So, in final analysis, we are responsible for only our responses. If we can teach ourselves, or be taught, to respond in only Love to every contingency, then we have come to our "graduation" from the "school"" of earthly life.
It is true that, as you say, people who are stuck in cults or fundy religion are there due to their karma; I used to be one of them! But the true teacher never regards such benighted souls with apathy or complacence. Love moves her to reach out to them, to teach them.
Without Love, pure Taoism would create only "bumps on a log," waiting for things to occur, never initiating anything ever! This is an extreme, and the Way always moves us away from extremes, which can become virulently anti-spiritual (antiagapic, violating the principle of Love).
So, while cultivating trust in the interior cosmic Mind to care for all life, and for the totality of enlightenment towards all creatures, the enlightened does not see God (Love) as active outside of her, but inside her. Love lives and moves through her, and within her.
This is no attempt futilely to "add to God." You simply cannot "add" to the Infinite. Instead, the spiritual outreach of a teacher is like preparing a garden filled with beautiful flowers. Without care, the garden turns to weeds, and the flower-petals drop off. All you have is a patch of muck and mud. Caring for a student is like cooperating with Mind, with nature, not trying to "add to" It. A student can grow, like a flower, without nurturing; but a flower which receives care has many more petals, is more fragrant, and more beautiful.
*******
Monday, October 29, 2007
Polybiography and "hell" in the Scriptures
*******
Paul set forth a cosmic principle at Galatians 6:7, when he said, "Whatsoever a man sows, that he must also reap." On earth, in agriculture, you cannot plant beans and get corn. You do not plant acorns and get apple-trees. There is a direct cause-and-effect sequence in nature. Like causes like, and this law cannot be violated.
Paul is suggesting that, in the moral or spiritual universe, there also exists this same cause-and-effect sequence. Goodness produces goodness, and evil, evil. But the problem is, this principle does not work onearth. On earth, the good often suffer, and the evil often enjoy great "blessings." So, since Paul was not talking about the earth and our lives here, he must have been discussing a larger, or cosmic, principle.
He was. For this simple statement is pregnant with profound meaning. For in this simple sentence, he summarized the entire Law of Karma, with all its millions of variations and other complexities.
It is not mere coincidence that he stated the law of karma. In his time, and it is still true today, most of the population of our world believed in "polybiography," or reincarnation. (Many times, people are turned off by this word, and so, we can also use the other word, "polybiography," to mean the exact same thing.)
Either what Paul said was true, or it was false. Paul was a wise, smart, even inspired, man of God. I believe that what he wrote was truth, even though it is not true in our visible, physical world. For it is a spiritual truth. There is no larger explanation of the sowing-reaping principle than the law of karma.
Besides, there is some evidence, as from the ancient Nag Hammadi Library, that almost all early Christians believed; they taught that Jesus taught polybiography.
Right before stating the karmic principle, Paul gave this warning, in the same verse: "Do not be misled." What factors must we beware of, that could "mislead" us? The entire material, visible world does not itself "prove" polybiography, as it is a spiritual, not a physical, principle. So, it is the entire material world against which we are being warned, lest it "mislead" us.
Paul follows this by a second warning: "God is not to be mocked." This means that many people would like to believe that they can "get away with" harmful behavior, and somehow "God will not notice." But this is "mocking" God. For nothing can ever escape God's notice. In other words,the rule of karma is perfect; it perfectly matches every deliberate word, action, and thought.
Where does forgiveness enter? Anything that is a true mistake, a genuine error, an imperfection, or an action which lacks understanding, does not create any karma. Karma is created by only those actions that are deliberate, voluntary, and willful. So, all true mistakes are forgiven, but all purposeful actions do create karma.
Polybiography was a very common belief in Jesus' day, among even the Jews. This is proved by John 1:21, where the people mistook Jesus for either "Elijah" or "the prophet." So, it was a common misunderstanding to see an especially blessed person as the possible reincarnation or rebirth of Elijah or another respected prophet.
But the Christian Scriptures, although denying that Jesus was Elijah, did say that Elijah had returned, in the body of John the Baptizer. In Luke 1:17, it was prophesied that he would have the "spirit and power of Elijah." So, John had the Soul of the ancient prophet. Jesus and his disciples fully believed this, and took it for granted. In Matthew 11:14, Jesus confirmed that John was in fact Elijah.
Jesus was a mystery to the public. When he asked his disciples what people were saying about him, they said, "Some people think that you are John the Baptizer, Jeremiah or Elijah or another of the [great, historical] prophets." (Mt. 16:14) So, the people all around them were believing in polybiography. This makes it even more likely that Jesus and the disciples also accepted it.
In the Jewish Bible, there is at least one crystal-clear reference to Polybiography. The character named "Job," the text says, was an "Asian." As an Asian, he was likely influenced by beliefs similar to polybiography, which by even his time were ancient already. It was Job who said the mysterious words, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there." This clear statement is found at Job 1:21.
The fact that Jesus and his disciples believed in polybiography is proved by the text of John 9:1, 2:"He saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, 'Master, who sinned, this man, or his parents, so that he was born blind?'" This proves that the man could have "sinned" before birth. It also proves that, in some cases, problems such as blindness can arise from previous activities, even before you are born. In this case, the man had not "sinned" at all, but was born blind in order to bring glory to God, Jesus explained. But the very fact that the disciples thought that perhaps the man had sinned before he was born is yet another clear statement of karma; for without karma, that question could have made no sense whatsoever.
Re hell: Let us not forget the matrix-principle underlying all enlightenment, and that is, "God is Love." (1 Jn. 4:8,16) If God is Love, then he, like Jesus, is a fountain of the richest forgiveness. This occurs, not because we are good, but because God is good; it all occurs because of grace.
A God of Love and forgiveness would never fry a person for ten billion billion years because she "messed up" a single tiny life on earth. It is a principle of all legal justice that the punishment should fit the crime-- or, in this case, the "sin." So, in order to be punished forever, a person would have to have sinned forever. And no one can ever sin forever.
An eternal hellfire is not taught anywhere in the Scriptures. You cannot, for example, "prove" the literal existence of hellfire by the use of a parable, such as the one at Luke 16:23. For a parable is, by its very nature and definition, symbolic: Situations symbolize or represent other situations.
For the same reason, you cannot use the Book of Revelation to prove anything literal, for the entire book is a book of symbols.
Notice how silly it would be to use literalism to understand Revelation 20:14, where it says that "hell [the lake of fire] was cast into the lake of fire." Does this mean that hell goes to hell,and that hell is tormented forever? This is what you must believe if you think that hell is a literal reference.
And the traditional "hell" is for only the bad people. Yet the text of the Christian Scriptures imply that Jesus also went there: Acts 2:27 says, "You will not leave my Soul in hell, or allow your loyal one to see corruption." And in 2:31, it says that "christ" was not "forsaken in hell." This kind of "forsaking" implies that he was already there.
Spiritually, "hell" is a mental state in which you believe that you are separated from Love, and "Christ" comes to this "hell" to rescue those who seem stuck there.
There are yet many more texts that have not been considered here, but these are the ones that truly stand out. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to write or call [the number here is (513-)737-LOVE (5683).]
*******
Paul set forth a cosmic principle at Galatians 6:7, when he said, "Whatsoever a man sows, that he must also reap." On earth, in agriculture, you cannot plant beans and get corn. You do not plant acorns and get apple-trees. There is a direct cause-and-effect sequence in nature. Like causes like, and this law cannot be violated.
Paul is suggesting that, in the moral or spiritual universe, there also exists this same cause-and-effect sequence. Goodness produces goodness, and evil, evil. But the problem is, this principle does not work onearth. On earth, the good often suffer, and the evil often enjoy great "blessings." So, since Paul was not talking about the earth and our lives here, he must have been discussing a larger, or cosmic, principle.
He was. For this simple statement is pregnant with profound meaning. For in this simple sentence, he summarized the entire Law of Karma, with all its millions of variations and other complexities.
It is not mere coincidence that he stated the law of karma. In his time, and it is still true today, most of the population of our world believed in "polybiography," or reincarnation. (Many times, people are turned off by this word, and so, we can also use the other word, "polybiography," to mean the exact same thing.)
Either what Paul said was true, or it was false. Paul was a wise, smart, even inspired, man of God. I believe that what he wrote was truth, even though it is not true in our visible, physical world. For it is a spiritual truth. There is no larger explanation of the sowing-reaping principle than the law of karma.
Besides, there is some evidence, as from the ancient Nag Hammadi Library, that almost all early Christians believed; they taught that Jesus taught polybiography.
Right before stating the karmic principle, Paul gave this warning, in the same verse: "Do not be misled." What factors must we beware of, that could "mislead" us? The entire material, visible world does not itself "prove" polybiography, as it is a spiritual, not a physical, principle. So, it is the entire material world against which we are being warned, lest it "mislead" us.
Paul follows this by a second warning: "God is not to be mocked." This means that many people would like to believe that they can "get away with" harmful behavior, and somehow "God will not notice." But this is "mocking" God. For nothing can ever escape God's notice. In other words,the rule of karma is perfect; it perfectly matches every deliberate word, action, and thought.
Where does forgiveness enter? Anything that is a true mistake, a genuine error, an imperfection, or an action which lacks understanding, does not create any karma. Karma is created by only those actions that are deliberate, voluntary, and willful. So, all true mistakes are forgiven, but all purposeful actions do create karma.
Polybiography was a very common belief in Jesus' day, among even the Jews. This is proved by John 1:21, where the people mistook Jesus for either "Elijah" or "the prophet." So, it was a common misunderstanding to see an especially blessed person as the possible reincarnation or rebirth of Elijah or another respected prophet.
But the Christian Scriptures, although denying that Jesus was Elijah, did say that Elijah had returned, in the body of John the Baptizer. In Luke 1:17, it was prophesied that he would have the "spirit and power of Elijah." So, John had the Soul of the ancient prophet. Jesus and his disciples fully believed this, and took it for granted. In Matthew 11:14, Jesus confirmed that John was in fact Elijah.
Jesus was a mystery to the public. When he asked his disciples what people were saying about him, they said, "Some people think that you are John the Baptizer, Jeremiah or Elijah or another of the [great, historical] prophets." (Mt. 16:14) So, the people all around them were believing in polybiography. This makes it even more likely that Jesus and the disciples also accepted it.
In the Jewish Bible, there is at least one crystal-clear reference to Polybiography. The character named "Job," the text says, was an "Asian." As an Asian, he was likely influenced by beliefs similar to polybiography, which by even his time were ancient already. It was Job who said the mysterious words, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there." This clear statement is found at Job 1:21.
The fact that Jesus and his disciples believed in polybiography is proved by the text of John 9:1, 2:"He saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, 'Master, who sinned, this man, or his parents, so that he was born blind?'" This proves that the man could have "sinned" before birth. It also proves that, in some cases, problems such as blindness can arise from previous activities, even before you are born. In this case, the man had not "sinned" at all, but was born blind in order to bring glory to God, Jesus explained. But the very fact that the disciples thought that perhaps the man had sinned before he was born is yet another clear statement of karma; for without karma, that question could have made no sense whatsoever.
Re hell: Let us not forget the matrix-principle underlying all enlightenment, and that is, "God is Love." (1 Jn. 4:8,16) If God is Love, then he, like Jesus, is a fountain of the richest forgiveness. This occurs, not because we are good, but because God is good; it all occurs because of grace.
A God of Love and forgiveness would never fry a person for ten billion billion years because she "messed up" a single tiny life on earth. It is a principle of all legal justice that the punishment should fit the crime-- or, in this case, the "sin." So, in order to be punished forever, a person would have to have sinned forever. And no one can ever sin forever.
An eternal hellfire is not taught anywhere in the Scriptures. You cannot, for example, "prove" the literal existence of hellfire by the use of a parable, such as the one at Luke 16:23. For a parable is, by its very nature and definition, symbolic: Situations symbolize or represent other situations.
For the same reason, you cannot use the Book of Revelation to prove anything literal, for the entire book is a book of symbols.
Notice how silly it would be to use literalism to understand Revelation 20:14, where it says that "hell [the lake of fire] was cast into the lake of fire." Does this mean that hell goes to hell,and that hell is tormented forever? This is what you must believe if you think that hell is a literal reference.
And the traditional "hell" is for only the bad people. Yet the text of the Christian Scriptures imply that Jesus also went there: Acts 2:27 says, "You will not leave my Soul in hell, or allow your loyal one to see corruption." And in 2:31, it says that "christ" was not "forsaken in hell." This kind of "forsaking" implies that he was already there.
Spiritually, "hell" is a mental state in which you believe that you are separated from Love, and "Christ" comes to this "hell" to rescue those who seem stuck there.
There are yet many more texts that have not been considered here, but these are the ones that truly stand out. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to write or call [the number here is (513-)737-LOVE (5683).]
*******
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)