Conference hydra::dejavu

    
    Yes

    Re .1
    
    As you've answered...
    
    There is a body of Christian opinion that holds that "channeling" is
    "sinful" ( probably the wrong word ) but that speaking in tongues is
    something different. 
    
    Can anyone ( Gil ? ) explain the difference, from a Christian
    viewpoint, between the two ? 
    
    For that matter, are there alternative views that distinguish between
    them, or are they commonly considered to be one and the same ? 
    
    Dave.

    
     I was waiting for someone to get around to asking this sometime.
    
     Trying to give a pat answer to this would be like trying to give
    the New Age Movement a one sentence definition, but I will try.
    Please note that I am neither an expert theologian nor an authority
    on channeling. I say this not in way of an apology, but just to
    make things a little more clear. Please feel free to correct me
    if I have a flawed understanding of channeling or even tongues.
    
     From my understanding of channeling a spirit being or force with
    a message to share contacts a human being and uses them as a vessel
    through which it can speak. If Ramtha or Lazaris are typical examples
    of how channeling takes place then it is safe to say that, while
    channeling, the host(ess) person is in a state of altered consciousness,
    or at least not consciously aware or able to control what the channeled
    party is doing/saying. Often these channeled messages sound and
    peaceful and many times parallel teachings found in Biblical
    Christianity. There are many times when these teachings conflict
    with Scripture as well. 
                                                                   
     "Tounges", refered to by the apostle Paul as the "gift of tounges",
    is one of gifts given to the disciples of Jesus on Pentecost. These
    gifts were given to them by the Holy Spirit ( in other words, by God.
    See Romans chp 12, and I Corinthians 12 - 14 for information on the
    various gifts of the Holy Spirit). 
    
      Unlike channeling, I was not sought out by the Holy Spirit to
    be used as His vessel. Rather, it was I who sought Him to fill the
    void within me. When I speak in tounges I am allowing the Holy Spirit
    to control my mouth - letting Him speak through me in another language.
    Unlike the host vessel in channeling I am fully conscious and aware
    of what is going on and may stop at any time I wish. Also, the things
    that the Holy Spirit says through me never conflict with the Bible,
    which He wrote anyway.   How do I know that there is no conflict,
    even though it's a foriegn language ? Easily, the Holy Spirit also
    gives gifts of translation. 
    
     Now you still might ask why is channeling wrong. Well, aside from
    the obvious differences of controlling ability and awareness mentioned 
    above, there is also the issue of content of message. For me, if
    the message is in harmony with scripture than it's fine; if it clearly
    conflicts with the Bible than it's out.
                                  
     In I John we are told to test the spirits by their fruit. Good
    fruit = good spirit and bad fruit = bad spirit. However, there is
    another test also. If a spirit acknowledges that Jesus Christ was
    the Son of God come in the flesh then that spirit is of God. If
    a spirit does not acknowledge Jesus in this way then it is not of
    God.
    
      One example of this is the various writings of the Theosophical
    Society, much of which are channeled writings. In them Jesus is
    not referrred to as the Son of God come in the flesh, but rather as
    just one in a long line of beings that have held (and will hold)
    the office or position of Christ. Now, taking the passage from I John
    in hand I have rejected these channeled writings. 
    
    
    I guess this is a decent start. Sorry for the length.
    
    Gil

    
    Re: .3
    
    From my experience, genuine, well-tested "channelers" or mediums,
    have complete control in what they are doing, and are aware of
    what is being said at the time that it is said.  Mediums do not
    just all of a sudden go into a trance because some entity wants to
    speak through them.  A genuine, well-tested medium knows exactly
    who they are trying to contact (or a rough idea, as in a particular
    person's relative or loved-one, etc.).  The reason a medium may not 
    have total recall of what was said after they completely come out of 
    trance is usually because of the bulk of information that came
    through.  Also, if a medium goes into trance to contact a person that 
    has passed on for a particular person, the information may come through
    so that only the person who the reading is for will truly understand
    the meaning behind the message, therefore to the medium the information
    brought forth is "incidental" or not really understood by the medium
    and therefore not retained in the medium's "consciousness".
    
    In my opinion, "speaking in tongues" is nothing more than a psychic
    experience....
    
    Also, giving that I think the bible is not perfect, I do not think
    that just because the information brought forth may not agree
    entirely what the bible says (which version??), that the medium
    or entity speaking through the medium is evil....
    
    Linda

    
    Linda,
    
      Is their a difference between a channeler and a medium ?  
    
    Also, again, I am no expert on channeling. And tongues as a psychic
    experience ? I disagree. I feel it is something that happens in
    my spirit.
    
     And in case you hadn't guessed it, I feel that the Bible is inerrent.
    
     Gil

   
    Re: .5
    
    The term Channeler I have seen used as a couple of different ways.
    
    A lot of time a psychic healer or a charismatic healer "channels"
    healing energy from God, the universe, what-have-you and can be
    considered a Channeler.  Now-a-days, though, "Channeler" has been
    used as the "New-age" term for a medium (the term used in the
    early Spiritualist movement of the 1800's-early 1900's).  
    
    From my understanding of "speaking in tongues" (how it was explained
    to me), is that a person makes "contact" with the Holy Spirit and
    the Holy Spirit "speaks" through that person that reached out. (i.e.
    the person is channeling the Holy Spirit).  In order for some one
    to "speak in tongues" and have it be a genuine experience and not
    delusion, the person must alter his consiousness to "connect" with
    the Holy Spirit.  Some of the "speaking of tongues", though, that
    I have seen to me appear to be from delusion and mass hysteria.

    A lot of it is just semantics....  To me a medium is anyone who
    can "connect" beyond this physical plane to beings that have either
    passed-on or mastered and can bring forth proof and evidence of 
    knowledge that the medium has absolutely no-way of knowing in their
    own right.  Whether the medium channels through Jesus, the Holy
    Spirit, or so-and-so's grandmother-Elisabeth-who-always-wore-a-blue-
    dress-and-smoked-Havana-cigars....a medium is a medium is a medium....

    When you say that it is something that happens in your spirit, what
    you have experienced is what many people would consider an altered
    consciousness.  Once again, we're down to semantics...
    
    Personally, I want some sort of proof and evidence before I will
    listen to any information that has been "channelled" or obtain
    through "speaking in tongues".
    
    

    YES, I have and others also that I know of. Being a "Christian"
    was not a prerequisite.(although some were.)
    
    Thom

    
    Gil,
    
    Have you actually ever _read_ anything by Lazaris?
    
    If I _resend_ some of the articles will you consider at least looking
    at them this time in order that you might be able to discern whether
    they are 'of the Spirit' or contradictory to 'the Spirit'?
    
    Frederick can probably better explain about Lazaris, however the
    person who acts as the channel in this case is unaware of what Lazaris
    says during this time period.  Jach can, however, (I believe), contact
    Lazaris through his own Higher Self and 'have a chat' that way.
    
    Lazaris specifies very clearly that 'they' are not to be worshipped;
    rather the only goal is to be a friend and help us along our journey
    ever toward God/Goddess/All-That-Is.  Never once have 'they' ever
    spoken against Jesus and denied that He was the Son of God.  The
    Judeo-Christian beliefs are mentioned rather frequently in some
    of 'their' writings, in fact.  And todate, I have found nothing
    which contradicts the Spirit in any way (which, by the way, is a
    feminine energy as opposed to a masculine one, and therefore the
    pronouns 'Her' and 'She' should be used instead).  
    
    Cindy

    
    I also want to mention that a medium can pull him/herself out of
    "trance" at will, whenever the person wishes....
    
    Also, regarding the Theosophical Society and the information brought
    forth from Madame Blavatsky...
    
    From my understanding of the Theosophical Society's views regarding
    Jesus....  Jesus is definitely viewed as the SON OF GOD.  The 
    difference between the TS's view on Jesus and the Christian view
    is that in the Christian view there is ONLY ONE son of God where-as
    TS's point of view is that we are ALL sons and daughters of God.
    As for the "role" of "Christ", what the TS teachings say is that
    Jesus was an exemplification of CHRIST-CONSCIOUSNESS and
    that like the teachers/avatars before him (such as Buddha, Confuscius, 
    etc.), incarnated (i.e. "came in the flesh") to teach about Christ-
    consciousness.  According to the TS teachings, there is no "role"
    of "Christ"....There is Christ-consciousness and many teachers who,
    having been of perfect Christ-consciousness, incarnated to teach/show
    the people about the Christ-consciousness within us all....
    
    Once again, the argument between the Christian point of view and
    the Theosophical point of view goes back to the accuracy in the
    many translations of translations of translations of the bible.
    
    Was it Jesus THE Christ, or Jesus A Christ.....
                 ---                  -    
    Was it Jesus THE son of God, or Jesus A son of God...
                 ---                      -    
    Meanings can vastly change when "A" and "THE" have been interchanged...
    
    Linda    

    re: .3  Thanks for your perspectives.  I pretty much knew what
    you said, but I thank you for laying it out.
    
    re: .8
    Thanks, Cindy.  Let me add some clarification to what you have said,
    if I can.  As for channeling, Linda stated it well, also, but what
    needs to be kept in mind is that there are many kinds of channeling.
    They are *not* all the same.  The only thing in common is that the
    person reporting it claims that it comes from somewhere else.  Lazaris
    comes through a full objective trance experience.  Actually, I believe
    this is explained in many sources among them the Lazaris Interviews
    I [one] book.  What it means is that the channel is completely out
    of the way for the session, also it means that the channel was *chosen*
    instead of the other way around.  Lazaris has indicated that the
    channel could be conscious but that Lazaris prefers him to be totally
    out of the way...this is for many reasons, among them the comfort
    of people who share intimacy with Lazaris but would not necessarily
    feel comfortable with Jach (his channel.)  Since he *Chose* the
    channel, no one else can ever channel Lazaris...he has repeatedly
    stated that this is the only person through whom he will ever do
    so.  This is not the same for all "entities", necessarily.  For
    more specifically about this particular channeling, pick up Lazaris
    Interviews II (which I am still reading.)  It has about 40 pages
    devoted to answering questions similar to this one.  Incidentally,
    all of us can access him (in other ways) but none of us will ever
    channel him.                                             
      
         As for Jesus, well, Cindy is partly correct.  He has talked
    about Jesus before and undoubtably will again.  Before I get into
    it a bit further, I just saw this quote in "Interviews II":
    "...growth is not about 'well, whose teacher is on what level?'
    One should measure a teaching by the quality of the work.  One should
    measure by the value of the work.  One should measure by the fruits
    of the labor, as it says in your Bible."
         And, on another page: "There are many who have incarnated in
    body form to be teachers.  Their physicalness did encumber them.
    However, in many ways one might suggest that both Jesus and Buddha
    were channeling the consciousness that is referred to as the God
    Consciousness or the Christ Consciousness."
         He has indicated that to the extent that Jesus existed, it
    was not as we have understood it from our Bible.  The Bible was
    written 100 years after his death by Mark, Matthew, John, and Luke
    (I believe.)  Four hundred years after his death, Paul intervened
    and changed a great deal to suit his own needs.  Remembering that
    those were times in which word of mouth was the major form of 
    record keeping, it is easy (for me, at least) to believe that the
    Bible is mostly myth and fiction with a solid basis in actual events
    with some even more valuable lessons available, once sorted out.
    [The first four sentences represent what Lazaris has said, the next
    group are what *I* say.]  Lazaris has indicated, though, that we
    would all do well to be "Christ-like."  That definition is open
    to conjecture.  My belief and understanding about Lazaris would
    indicate that he is well beyond any entity's level of awareness
    that has ever contacted the physical plane in any form by any means.
    By his own words, he has indicated that there are many more "entities"
    (consciousnesses) on *his* levels than on ours, but that the
    elegance is so great on those levels (with time and space not 
    existing, etc.) that there is instant awareness among them...i.e.,
    when one knows they all do...so, because of that, no one *else*
    from his levels will ever contact us (past, present or future.)
    The elegance is such that he can convey what those levels wish
    to convey.  
         Understand that all of us will eventually attain consciousness
    on those levels...Lazaris is not the only way to get there.  For
    me and tens of thousands of others, he is the "shoehorn" we are
    utilizing.
    
    Frederick
    

RE: .3 (Gil)

	What is the common Christian meaning of Christ's words that tell
	us we are to become as he is?  The theosophical and other 'new
	age' ideas consider this to mean that we are all to become
	sons/daughters of God and experience the consciousness of Christ
	ourselves; aka, enlightenment, nirvana, heaven, etc...  I don't
	find this to be in conflict with the New Testament and would like to
	know what you think.

	Thanks,
	Terry

    
    Cindy,
    
       Yes, I have read some things from Lazaris bsfore. That is why
    I wouldn't read the articles that you sent. I do appreciate your
    efforts to communicate your beliefs on other things though.
    
    RE .11 Terry,
    
      I'm not sure what you are trying to ask. Can you be more specific ?
    
    Gil

re: .12 (Gil)
    
      > I'm not sure what you are trying to ask. Can you be more specific ?
    
	I probably need to look up the verse(s), but in one of the gospels
 	Jesus says (something like) "I am in the Father, and the Father is
	in me" and that we someday are to become as he is.  I read this as
	support for the idea that we all have within us this level of
	consciousness and through spritual growth will eventually awaken
	it as did Budda, Mohammed, Jesus, Shirley McLaine and others.  
        I am interested in hearing a strictly Christian interpretation of it.
	(just kidding about Shirley McLaine...)

	Terry

	PS. I'll look up the verse(s) and let you know what they are.

>	What is the common Christian meaning of Christ's words that tell
>	us we are to become as he is?  The theosophical and other 'new
> etc etc.

You might want to check out the Christian notes conference where this question
would seem to be MUCH more appropriate.  I would rather not see such discussions
in this particular conference (no, I am not a moderator, just a reader) about
such things.  Thanks.

-Joe

    .14
    
    While this conversation may appear on a tangent, it addresses 
    the base note and IS appropriate. YOU might want to set/seen 
    if it bothers you. 
    
                        Mark_who's_not_the_moderator_either 

    
    No problem, Joe. I will E-mail Terry my opinions once I have a chance
    to look up the verses.
    
    Gil

    
    No, Gil, I would like to see them put here.
    
    Cindy

RE: last one (Cindy)

	I second that.  I'd like it here.

	Terry

    
    
    RE: last few
    
    I believe a while back we tried to start a discussion on
    Christianity (Doug Wetherington's note on "The Meaning of
    Christianity").  The majority didn't want to start a doctrinal
    debate in this conference, so it was not continued.  Maybe people 
    have changed their minds, or perhaps its that there are different 
    noters participating now.  The former discussion was moved to the
    RELIGION conference.
    
    Carole
    

re: last several

>	What is the common Christian meaning of Christ's words that tell
>	us we are to become as he is?  The theosophical and other 'new

It just seems that is a direct request for doctrinal enlightenment and has
nothing to do with the subject of the base note (other than the relation to
'bible').  Don't you agree?  I really do feel it is inappropriate for this
conference and more approriate in the IOSG::CHRISTIAN conference where such 
matters are discussed.  Since there already is a special interest conference
for this, why not use it?

-Joe

re: last few.

	Okay, nevermind.  I'm not looking for any kind of enlightenment
	from my question, I was just curious.  Not that curoius, I might
	add.  So, back to the topic of tongues....

	Terry (who-doesn't-want-or-need-to-stir-the-stuff)

                                                             
    Joe,
    
    I will support taking it to perhaps RELIGION, however CHRISTIAN
    isn't the best place to take it only because they are rather, shall
    we say, anti-New Age and anything related to it.  Not all of the
    participants, but the more vocal ones are.  I speak from experience
    on this one (and have the battle scars to prove it). (;^) 
    
    I don't have a problem as long as we don't go down the scripture
    wars rathole, however if this is a possibility then perhaps RELIGION
    is the better place to be.
    
    Cindy

Yes I have spoken in tongues and still do quite frequently as a way
of accessing altered states of consciousness. I believe there is another
note here on that topic already.

    
    
         Just curious; what exactly constitutes "speaking in tongues",
    I mean what type of sounds? Would chanting *Nam Myoho Renge Kyo*
    be considered an example of such?
    
    
    Roy

    
    re . 24
     
    If you " chose"  to chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo it would not be 
    tongues. If however that happened to be what you blurted out 
    without thinking about it, it would be tongues. When I speak, 
    it sounds like a cross between arabic and spanish while I've 
    heard other speak what sounds more very primitive and choppy. 
    Each time I speak, the structure is different but certain words
    seem to reappear like "shankta" , "shonta" and "lashente" which
    I believe are all the same word spoken in different tongues. 

    Hi Roy,
    
    Nam Myoho Renge Kyo is not speaking in tongues.  It is a chant that
    is of NSA Buddhism.  For more information on NSA Buddhism,
    see ERIS::BUDDHISM, NOTE 18.  We have a Gohunzon and participate
    in the chanting of Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.  It is a form of prayer.
    
    Mary

    I just opened this conference today and think it will be a very
    interesting one to be involved in.  Anyway, regarding "tongues":
                                                       
    About 15 years ago (?) I went to a Catholic Mass with my mother
    and some of the neighborhood women (me being around 12 years old). 
    After mass, we all went into the back of the church to a prayer
    meeting.  We sat in a circle and people were praying (the priest
    may or may not have been there - I cannot remember) out loud.  There
    were about 8 of us.  All of a sudden I felt wonderful - and I could
    feel the presence of a light directly on me.  Some of the women
    started speaking in tongues - it was incredible.  I was not scared
    at all.  I was totally aware of what was going on.  It really was
    the most obvious spiritual experience I have ever had.  Maybe this
    is "old hat" to some of you, but I just wanted to respond to the
    few responses I read that wonder if this is a real phenomenon. 
    It is.  I was just a young girl going to Mass with my mother when
    this most wonderful experience happened - I never heard of such
    a thing, so I certainly couldn't have dreamt it up.
    
    Keep on looking,
    
    Paula
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
      
         
    Paula       
                                                                

    
    
    Why can't we just put this aversion to Christianity to bed once
    and for all.  It's almost to the point where if it's brought up
    in any form that it's ordered out of the conference.  Seems to me
    that the subject matter of this conference comes so close to 
    religions of all sorts that this stuff should be allowed - at least
    to a point.  It shouldn't be presented as a fire and brimstone
    lecture - that goes for any doctrine.  But I saw none of that here.
    To me the idea of meditation, mantras, etc. are indicative of many
    Eastern religions.  But do I get upset about that?  Of course not.
    The great thing about this notesfile is that it is a great cross
    section of views, and even more important is that it allows us to
    piece together those views into a "Grand Scheme of Things".  I believe
    that very few things(if any) should be out and out rejected as ideas.
    We all have to have an explanation that will not weaken our own
    spiritual structure.  If part of that structure is to reject all
    conflicting ideas what growth can take place?  The challenge is
    to see in Christianity, Buddhism, or any religion the common themes
    however buried under masses of mythology or weakened by the present
    organized religious structure(i.e. Church) that are based on truth,
    love, etc.  The question is did Christ, Mohammed(sp?), Sri Krishna,
    Moses, Buddha, or whoever exist?  What was the message?  If they
    weren't telling everyone that they should kill, rape, and pillage
    and instead were spreading a good message, maybe, just maybe they
    were all saying the same thing?  A rose by any other name....
    
    
    Guy
    
    

    I see your point.  My point of view is this:
    
    1.  I do not like anyones beliefs/theories force fed to me.  There
        are a number of religion files for this.
    
        1.1  I don't usually like questions answered/information
             presented/opinions expressed in sermon-form.  (If
             you can provide entertainment value, then O.K.)   
    
    Too damn down-to-earth, I guess.
    
    						Don

re: .28
    
>    Why can't we just put this aversion to Christianity to bed once
>    and for all.  It's almost to the point where if it's brought up
>    in any form that it's ordered out of the conference.  Seems to me

One problem I have with discussions about Christianity is that they
sometimes degenerate (my opinionated description) into "scripture wars",
with reply after reply being filled up with quotations from the Bible.
I don't like massive quotations from any external source and I try to
NEXT UNSEEN past them all.  I'd rather see people express their own
opinions, in their own words.  Maybe a very brief quotation from or
synopsis of an external source would be okay, just as a pointer or to
give the flavor of the work, but why just regurgitate large chunks of
the source material over many replies.  I feel as if people also use
this large-scale quoting to lend a false aura of authority to their
opinions, but that's a much less frequent annoyance than the sincere
but overly bulky posting.

That's just my opinion, Guy.  I get the same type of reaction to
discussions about Hindu or Islamic beliefs that get into heavy
scripture quoting.  (Hmmmn...this could apply to "channeled entity"
material, too!)  After all, isn't it more important to hear what God
_is_ saying to you than to hear what some other people _thought_ She
said to them centuries ago?
							paul