The ancient Jews glorified their prophets. It's written that the false ones will be revealed by their seeds because they won't bear fruit. I suppose in the meantime they can do damage. What's a prophet as opposed to a New Age practitioner? Who in this day and age self-identifies as a prophet?
I think we can shut out that still small voice from G-d and thus not fulfill our purpose in G-d's eyes.
It is only in our eyes that matters. God gives us endless opportunities to do so.
Sondra, for god's sake, give it a rest with me. Obviously my critique bothers you. It is what it is. If you can't take the heat, then don't blow the smoke.
For the record, Jesus was indeed a scholar (historical evidence reveals he was likely a learned Pharisee who dissented from some of the purity laws...he taught within the synagogue and was called "rabbi" or "rabboni" in Aramaic. The Buddha also was an extremely learned man, deeply versed in the Vedas, from which he developed his own very complex sutras. Moses I'm not sure about, but we do know that he was raised in the royal courts of Egypt and thus was likely highly literate.
Also for the record, I never said that one must be a scholar in order to relate to God. I did, however, say that one must know how to use the tools of discernment.
Sondra, why don't you spend time speaking here with those who are sympathetic to your work? I am not sympathetic to your work, and you'll just have to accept that, so you're never going to get the affirmation from me that you appear to crave.
Sharon, here is my resting argument,
If affirmation from you is what I crave then I consider myself warned, but that is not what I'm after. I would have left it well enough alone, but when you ignored me straight-up I felt slighted and I wanted you to know that. I had wanted to ask you questions of an historical nature, wanted to be friends who agree to disagree, but you ignored me, when I told you as much, the conversation resumed.
How does one achieve a sense of one's own, only by communicating with those who agree? What kind of world would we have if everyone had the same perspective? I am looking for some common ground between us so that when I promote my book I can invite you to engage on a panel discussion. You present an opposing view, which only helps me to get my message out, because you can speak for all of the skeptics and cynics out there. My reaching for an alliance with you is not so that you will acquiesce but so that we can be complementary voices in this field, both presenting sides for fair, unbiased journalism that is so lacking in media today.
And finally, just to be clear about what I meant, masterly and scholarly are two different ways of learning. These masters were not scholars in the traditional sense, even though they study to master their own natures. A scholar has separated him or herself from the content in order to appear objective and unbiassed to it. These masters were not objective practitioners however.
What gives you the idea that scholars separate themselves from the content of their work? Sitting down with some scholars in the humanities within a university might hold some big surprises for you. Mastery and scholarly are not different at all...it's a false duality. Obviously you need to meet some passionate scholarly masterly types.
Sharon-Sondra, Why must you clash on a personal level?
Sondra, you simply have to accept that Sharon categorically rejects some/much of what you consider to be true. Obviously, she may be 100% wrong, but it's not your job to change her, at least not here. Nor should you question her intentions or knowledge in this forum, nor do you need to counter what she says to others. Simply say what you believe.
Sharon, It's fair to have strong opinions and no one should act to repress them. However, here as in life some people are emotionally invested in their beliefs, and you need to be more respectful and sensitive about that. You don't need to debunk or uncloak anything or anyone herein, even if you dislike what they advocate. If a "scammer" shows up, we'll all deal with it together, but that hasn't happened. Otherwise, say what you believe and perhaps sometimes deliberately constrain the urge to rebut others, because the process will probably be more effective that way.
sorry to have been a disturbance, I surrender that I let my feelings over power decorum - lips secured, tounge bitten
Good points, Jeff, but I don't particularly like the phrase "may be 100% wrong". I am far from being the only critic of channelers, and many of those critics, even from within the industry itself, never mind from outside it, are far blunter about it than I am. But I'll try to be more diplomatic in future, but it will be somewhat difficult as I'm no diplomat!
I have always regarded rebuttal as a fair part of debate. I guess I've had too many years of captaining debate clubs (my teams almost always won :) <she says with a flash of ego, LOL!> And, to me, there is nothing wrong with debunking if the debunking is based on known facts. I do appreciate that people get invested in their beliefs, but veteran debaters don't see that as enough of a reason not to challenge and probe. One thing I am very grateful for in my life is the presence of the academy (the term used to describe academic communities) because real debate is still allowed there---and the parrying, thrusting, rebutting, and debating is invigorating to those of us with that particular turn of mind.
I guess I should also clarify that my doctoral dissertation is a critique of the personal growth industries (and will be published as a book), and thus I'm immersed in a mountain of evidence about the shortcomings of the personal growth field, which quite likely obscures the good parts in the field. In academe we deal with the critique parts first regarding any issue, then go back and see what redeeming qualities there might be, as nothing is ever all bad or all good. I am by nature a skeptic and questioner, and will ever be thus, and that sometimes does take me into a debunking role. However, I can also see that my propensity for debate may seem intimidating to some people, so as I said, I'll try to be more of a diplomat, but I give fair warning that I may not always be successful at doing so! I know I can trust you to slap me if I go too far here.
Sharon, I didn't say you were right or wrong about anything, because I wouldn't know. Using the word "maybe" made it a hypothetical possibility, which is besides the point anyway. I appreciate where you're coming from and don't mind well constructed opinions, but we need this to be a non-contentious forum and I know you agree with that.
Yes, Jeff, I do agree with that. I was not trying to be deliberately contentious, but sometimes critique can come across that way.
I think, Sharon, if I had known this is where you are coming from, I would have enjoyed debating you and openly learned from your rebuttals. But that isn't what I thought was happening, and I'm sorry for that. I take full responsibility for not tempering myself. It wasn't until your last note, "obviously you need to meet some passionate scholarly masterly types," that I felt I was seeing you for what you are, a passionate scholarly masterly type. Until then I saw you as a "hater" as my 16-year-old would say. :) I'm sorry for misunderstanding your intent and will look at your content differently from here on.
The problem with internet communications, Sondra, is that they are only mono-dimensional. We only see the written word on the screen, and often do not see the person behind the words. That's why I much prefer in-person debates, because then people can look into each other's eyes, realize that "heated" does not mean "hated", and that it's OK to have disagreements, and even....good heavens!....sometimes get frustrated with someone! We're all human. Or I hope we are! My 2 1/2 year-old grandson seems to think he is an owl these days...running around calling out "whoooo...whooooo....whoooo" (he heard a barn owl make this call a couple of weeks ago near our cabin on a northern lake, and now he thinks he's an owl too.)