How can one believe in oneness, LoA - and still think "channeling" is weird as hell?

[Elrond]

So some people are like - sure, I believe in what Abraham-hicks are saying, you can have whatever you want, there is some force that goes against all conventional wisdom - but that she is challenging a bunch of daemons*? Oh, please, I'll take that with a graaaiiin of salt!

I would think that for someone that believes in LoA (in the metaphysical sense), also correlate with believing in things such as oneness. So let's see. On the one hand, we've got this totally far out idea that you can use your MIND to get what you want, that EVERYONE can get what they want just by will alone. And although there are a lot of people that are using this anyway, it can still stay harmonious and not be competitive (i.e. two people want something, and only one can get it thereby competition). Then these people with this incredibly radical theory by most standards, (I would say radical by many new age believes even) seemingly, are weirded out by the thought of someone being very inspired by spirits - to the degree that they can more or less speak through them.

On the other hand, you got this concept of oneness. Now, some people might like Abraham and still not believe in oneness. But I don't think I have met anyone, plus oneness is something that Abraham themselves believes in. So you got this idea that we are all connected, that you are me and I am you, etc etc. Essentially we're one being, at the core. Still, having this in mind, a lot of people still think that channeling is a weird or a hard to believe in concept. But tell me, how hard is it really to imagine that since we are all one, we can speak so directly to each other as to even speak through another? Heck, how can you be sure that we aren't channeling a little bit all the time, or some of the time. I mean, when you are just having a really good conversation that just flows and you are not making an effort to be funny but you just are - can't it be some people that are acting a little through you? Well besides asking impossible-to-answer philosophical questions, I think that it isn't so hard to think of the possibility that I might be channeling some spirits. I mean, we are all one, right? Sometime I wonder if some people who believe in oneness, have actually thought of some of the possible implications of it. We're all one, so in that case maybe there isn't even a cut and dry "border" to each others consciousness - sure it isn't on the deepest level, but maybe even at this "level".


*spirits

[Cado]

Oh I don't think channeling is weird, I just don't trust channeled material. Either it's:

1. The subconscious of that person coming to the surface.

2. An entity that may or may not be telling the truth.

Regarding the first, a lack of honesty taints the results. Not honesty toward me per se, it can be a lack of self-honesty on the part of the channeler.

If there are ever actual entities involved then I see no reason to assume they're anymore evolved than we are. They have a different perspective, sure, but it requires as much (if not more) scrutiny than anything which is of purely human invention. I think it absurd to believe that spirits, even the ones that seem good by conventional standards, have our best interest at heart and always tell the truth.

As for the rest of what you're saying, you're rolling a lot of things together when they don't necessarily work that way. Take oneness-if someone believes that does it mean life is really non-competitive? Just because there's only one of you to pursue something it doesn't mean you can't or won't be in competition with yourself. Total non-competitiveness sounds like feel good bs to me. Hell, competition can be fun, why would we want to get rid of it?

As for my thoughts, I think it's reasonable to say our minds have a greater impact on our environment than mundane consciousness would dare believe. In fact we can be miracle workers if we let our mojo get flowing. That doesn't mean we're one, that doesn't mean spirits exist, that doesn't mean the highest purpose of our abilities is to establish harmony, it doesn't mean anything like that. Its only implication is that life is far grander (and indeed much stranger) than we thought possible. The rest can only be uncovered further down the rabbit hole.

[curiouslyrandom]

I find it interesting how much of the information I get during automatic writing tends to be either really honest, or so out there that I don't get it until much later.

If it's just my subconscious mind coming through, then hey, that's pretty cool. Nice to know I can see what's around the corner. If it is an entity, that's interesting, too.

The fun part comes when I read back through my notebooks and put check marks next to the things that I foresaw months ago that actually happened.

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

Oh I don't think channeling is weird, I just don't trust channeled material. Either it's:

1. The subconscious of that person coming to the surface.

2. An entity that may or may not be telling the truth.

Regarding the first, a lack of honesty taints the results. Not honesty toward me per se, it can be a lack of self-honesty on the part of the channeler.

If there are ever actual entities involved then I see no reason to assume they're anymore evolved than we are. They have a different perspective, sure, but it requires as much (if not more) scrutiny than anything which is of purely human invention. I think it absurd to believe that spirits, even the ones that seem good by conventional standards, have our best interest at heart and always tell the truth.

I can understand that.

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

As for the rest of what you're saying, you're rolling a lot of things together when they don't necessarily work that way.

Maybe you're misunderstanding what I was doing for making a metaphysical theory, when all I was really doing was mentioning all the different beliefs that seem to correlate with people that also believe in the LoA. The question is really not about how reality really is, but why some people who believe in all the stuff that I presented (more or less) have a problem with channeling.

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

Take oneness-if someone believes that does it mean life is really non-competitive? Just because there's only one of you to pursue something it doesn't mean you can't or won't be in competition with yourself. Total non-competitiveness sounds like feel good bs to me. Hell, competition can be fun, why would we want to get rid of it?

First of all, the thing about the non-competitiveness was just one of the examples of things that some people who believe in the LoA believes in. Secondly, since it was just an example of beliefs in the LoA it had really nothing to do with my argument at all (but of course you're free to bring it up nonetheless, I'm just making it clear). Thirdly, it is "non-competitiveness" on the fundamental levels of reality. That doesn't exclude being able to compete on "our" level, just like in the oneness theory even if we are all one, we can live as separate consciousness on this level of reality. Things are made up of mostly empty space (atoms and all that), yet they are very solid in our experience. Fourthly, "feel good bs" is a cogent argument.


Thanks for your input.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Elrond

Fourthly, "feel good bs" is a cogent argument.

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?

Anyway, I think we mostly agree concerning what you had to say in the original post. I was delving in and saying "all of these beliefs don't necessarily go together" as I feel it's a key point which is rarely brought up in a discussion like this.

What it comes down to is that we're not rational. There's no logical reason to accept the LOA and then reject oneness simply because it's "too weird". However, it's fairly simple to make the jump from a conventional mindset to "my mind attracts what I think about" as the foundation has already been laid through rituals like prayer.

To be perfectly honest, for most people it comes down to wish-fulfillment within their known reality. LOA promises a much greater degree of control over their lives and taken on its own they can retain their belief in the Christian god (if they are indeed religious), they don't have to challenge their egos, and life continues much as it did before. Most of them live with it because they've already adjusted to cognitive dissonance and it would require immense effort to recalibrate.

I'm no exception to that. I know there are a number of contradictory beliefs floating around in my head. The same is true for most, if not all of us. The dividing line in this case is not what we believe but whether we choose consistency and honesty over what simply makes us feel good. It's not that feeling good is diametrically opposed to truth but digging for it usually involves pain. We're creatures of habit; we're not so quick to slay our sacred cows. That's exactly what this requires.

[Andrew Gubb]

Lots and lots of people seem to be saying "I don't believe in channeling but I like what abraham-hicks is saying".

Perhaps their writing attracts a skeptical lot or something.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Lots and lots of people seem to be saying "I don't believe in channeling but I like what abraham-hicks is saying".

Perhaps their writing attracts a skeptical lot or something.

I don't see that as particularly strange. When it comes to desire in relation to goals and getting what you want out of life Esther Hicks is pretty spot on, as are most in the new age self-help field. That doesn't mean she's channeling and if she is it doesn't mean it should be taken without a grain of salt. (I know you weren't implying otherwise, I'm speaking generally.)

If you want to be really cynical, it would be very easy to write and speak the way she does while having no interest in the metaphysical whatsoever. It's an easy scam because you already have a willing audience. (It's a lot like people who admit to cold reading-their customers will sometimes refuse to believe they don't have special powers.)

Personally I don't think it's a full-on scam but I don't trust the whole Abraham shtick. It doesn't matter if it's real or made up, if she's doing it consciously or unconsciously, I regard all supposedly "channeled" material with suspicion. It's not simply because it's too weird; I've already had my reality broken and I'm going to do it again. It's because it looks like an appeal to authority similar to what clergymen do. Again, there is some solid information there, but I'm very pick-and-choose when it comes to her.

As with all information it comes down to what works. That's the ultimate litmus test. I don't care if God himself is whispering in my ear, if I can't put it to use it's not worth bothering. So yes, my thoughts and feelings have a profound impact on what I experience and what I'm able to accomplish-that doesn't mean everything else Esther talks about is correct. In fact a lot of it seems to come down to telling people whatever they need to hear so they allow the power of their minds to work for them, which in all honesty is a sound teaching method. I hold nothing against her and I don't think she's trying to mislead or harm anyone, I just don't think everything is as it appears.

"A Course in Miracles", on the other hand... Well that's another topic for another time.

[cylon]

People take their preconceptions with them.

If you believe all channeling and/or psychic type stuff is fake, fraudulent, or the realm of snake-oil salesmen, then you will project that belief onto people who make claims that they can do that stuff. It's perfectly natural.

And I wouldn't be too judgmental. Most of us are raised to be skeptical and not trust anything we can's see and verify first hand, so the natural reaction by many would be to assume that anything you can't see and verify first hand is therefore a hoax, or at the best, a serious misunderstanding of what's really going on.

And don't forget, many people grew up in a religious culture where religious preachers channeled/received messages from God to tell their flock that if they don't pay them lots of money or repent from their evil ways they are going to burn in hell. People don't like being told that sort of thing, and they might juxtapose someone like Esther Hicks and someone like Oral Roberts simply based on their past experiences, when in reality both messages are miles and miles apart.

And on top of all this, we are simply attached to our worldviews and to be without them, can make us scared. If you grew up in a new-age type family or community, then things like channeling would not phase you, they might even give you comfort. However, if you grew up in an atheist family or community, or a fundamentalist christian family or community that told you all acts of channeling is really Satan trying to deceive the holy ones, seeing someone channel a message is going to either set off your BS alarm or your Satan alarm. And to be asked to completely embrace a new way of thinking might just be too much to ask, of anyone. We need our anchors or we can lose control, pretty quick.

But, even though people are a product of their conditioning, something I've noticed is that many people love to question their beliefs if their belief system is not producing desirable results, and this is when they start experimenting with new belief systems.

At this point they may be introduced to someone like Esther Hicks. And they might possibly be very attracted to the message (understandable, I think it's a very positive message), but repelled by the messenger (understandable, based on their past conditioning).

If they really like the message, they might make a compromise which many people on this site tend to make: I will embrace the message while doing my best to remain agnostic towards the messenger. Making this compromise avoids cognitive dissonance. And it achieves the ultimate goal, which is to embrace the desired message, without feeling obligated to embrace the messenger.

For skeptics, it's the best of both worlds. It's a safe entry to the message without having to "join a church" or "join a cult" or "become some new age freak". And, over time, they might be less skeptical of the messenger.

My personal belief is, I have no idea if it's being channeled or not. I know Esther believes it is, and the words she conveys via Abraham are so spot on and relevant to my life that if they aren't channeled, they come from a very wise place that few people have access to. And the existence of that very wise place, to me, is evidence of the validity of the message.

So, that's my take.