I Am That I Am & Those Religious Movements

[scotter]

When Ssel mentioned I AM THAT I AM (God's Message to Humans thread, post #29), although Ssel slightly modifies it to IT IS WHAT IT IS, I am trying to find out what Ssel tapped into. And after reading Mythra’s post #110, I thought I place this thread also.

 

Over the years I have collected information about new religious movements that share the theme “I AM”, or “I AM Presence”, or “I AM THAT I AM”

 

Do a google on the following if you are interested:

 

St. Germain and the I AM Discourse

 

Elizabeth Clare Prophet (Guru Ma) and Church Universal and Triumphant

 

Edgar Cayce < Our resident member Amanda has high regards of Edgar Cayce

 

The Ra Material

 

Ernest Holmes and Science of Mind, and the book of Science of Mind

 

Urantia Book….. < particularly when Ssel mentioned God is Reality

 

They do not teach similar things, but one theme they share in common is this “I AM”, whether referring to God, or referring one’s inner self.

 

I am certainly quite interested in those religious movements in the sociological perspective.

 

Some graphical illustrations (not for evangelical Christians)

 

http://www.tsl.org/presence/Default.asp

 

http://www.ascension-research.org/presence.html

 

For the following, click on the hidden URLs over the names of the Ascended Masters:

 

http://www.all-natural.com/am-names.HTML

[Amanda]

 

Hi Scotter!

 

I read over some of your material and am quite impressed with what you've been gathering. What is your impression of all this? You're probably one of the most open minded people in these regards on this site, IMO.

 

If I could ask you a leading question... Could one conclude in a concise manner... that all things are parts of God, and have an ability to tap into a consciousness beyond their own egos? :wink:

[scotter]

I read over some of your material and am quite impressed with what you've been gathering. What is your impression of all this? You're probably one of the most open minded people in these regards on this site, IMO.

 

Thank you for your interest Amanda. In my theistic point of view, those are Spiritualism materials, except for Ernest Holmes (at least Ernest Holmes himself did not hint anything about channeling). Dr. Holmes came from Christian Science background, he further read Ralph Waldo Emerson, Sri Aurobindo and other East/West writings. His synthesis led him founding the Science of Mind methodology.

 

In the fundamental Christian view, something might have happened, but since souls/spirits are either in Heaven or in Hell, those conveyed materials must have been tricks of Satan, and that include Joseph Smith’s (founder of Mormon Church) revelation experience, plus Emmanuel Swedenborg’s.

 

I do not totally share Christian concept of Heaven and Hell. I believe the spiritual mediums, and the “entities” behind the medium exercise their free wills, conveying their own “knowledge”, but they could be wrong since they are limited in knowledge also.

 

For example, although both are channeled materials, the “entity” behind The RA Material said The Urantia Book is baseless and worthless, that “the Urantia Book was not passed by the Council.”

 

Another example, Edgar Cayce in his sleeping state would speak out some medical formula that actually cured people. In Edgar Cayce’s “Story of Jesus” and last sections of Urantia Book talked about the biography of Jesus, and they are different materials.

 

So which/who should you believe?

 

I am also interested in the atheist point of view: the rational cut would be approaching them in the psychological perspective – what do those things tell us about the mediums’ psyche?

 

If I could ask you a leading question... Could one conclude in a concise manner... that all things are parts of God, and have an ability to tap into a consciousness beyond their own egos?

 

Currently I am also reading Martin Buber (Jewish philosopher, author of “I and Thou”) and Sri Ramakrishna and other Vedanta writings: somehow one Rabbinic and one Brahmic philosopher (if I could address them as philosophers) came to the similar thoughts:

see divinity in everything, that includes ordinary things.

 

Is “seeing divinity in everything” equivalent to “all things are part of God”? I can’t exactly answer that.

 

and have an ability to tap into a consciousness beyond their own egos?

 

Yes, and that is not necessarily a religious/spiritual category: Abraham Maslow, an academic psychologist, in his Hierarchy of Needs, defined this stage as the “Self-Actualization” or “Self-Realization” stage.

 

You may also be interested in David Hawkins' "Power vs Force"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1561709336/

 

He is an auditor of the Gods (although I do not agree with his audit). If you get a chance to read it you will know what I meant by "auditor of the Gods".

[Amethyst]

For example, although both are channeled materials, the “entity” behind The RA Material said The Urantia Book is baseless and worthless, that “the Urantia Book was not passed by the Council.”

 

Another example, Edgar Cayce in his sleeping state would speak out some medical formula that actually cured people. In Edgar Cayce’s “Story of Jesus” and last sections of Urantia Book talked about the biography of Jesus, and they are different materials.

 

So which/who should you believe?

 

Most likely, so-called psychics like Edgar Cayce probably were just insane or pretending to be psychic. I would not take anything like that at face value. Not to say that "psychic" powers can't exist, but I need scientific evidence before I buy into anything like that. Why would you not question psychic abilities when you question the existence of heaven and hell?

[Poonis]

The phrase 'I AM THAT I AM' and the spinoffs thereof are (1) appeals to authority and attempt to (2) invoke awe, and can accomplish this more easily in the weak-minded because (3) it really makes no sense.

[Amanda]

So which/who should you believe?

 

Hi Scotter! That is a very good question! I think that perhaps many of these people have a piece of the puzzle. Maybe they have one of these many, many steps to a map, to get to the truth. Learning spirituality from some of these great teachers seems to be similar to learning science. Spirituality is subjective and not objective, yet I think no one has the completely true answer yet. Each one may contribute something, providing a step closer to the next level, maybe different perspectives of the same spiritual truth? I suppose in the end, it is what it is.

 

A yogi that I enjoyed reading about is Yogananda. He seems to have seeked out many spiritual teachers and put together these many teachings to create his own understandings. Many people have given him great recognition, from presidents to Ghandi. A site that speaks a little of him can be found here. I think he is also of the mindset "I am", although I don't recall him ever saying it specifically.

[scotter]

The phrase 'I AM THAT I AM' and the spinoffs thereof are (1) appeals to authority and attempt to (2) invoke awe, and can accomplish this more easily in the weak-minded because (3) it really makes no sense.

 

Poonis has a good point here.

 

Thanks Amanda for the link. Sri Yogananda talked to Jesus too.

 

This should be your cup of tea:

 

The Second Coming of Christ

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0876125550/

[Amanda]

This should be your cup of tea:

 

The Second Coming of Christ

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0876125550/

 

Gosh Scotter... you seem to know me quite well!!! That's a little scary.

 

You seem to be so insightful into all this... please tell me your inclinations on this subject.

[Ssel]

From an earlier post..

I had a reference for this about 40 years ago, but no longer..

 

ALL of the related questions to who and why, gradually become more clear after you are informed that in ancient Hebrew, there was no distinction between personal and inanimate and the word for "I am" was exactly the same word for "it is"

 

When Moses asked God why they should believe that he had really talked to the their God. God did not answer with a name, but a simple statement so that the family of Jacob would know it was their God.

"I AM the I AM"

 

"I AM that WHICH IS"

 

"IT IS what IT IS"

 

Which is more rational to identify something which could never be wrong and allows for the greatest freedom to form defensive actions?

 

Imagine Moses, knowing the way of the Hebrew, facing all of those Egyptians who did all things in the name of this god or that, simply saying "Well, my "god" is above ALL of your silly gods, fore despite what any of your gods wish to be true "What IS is WHAT IS".. and I'll prove it..."

 

Realize that in every place that Christianity or Judaism grew, they had been worshipping gods and would very probably listen to nothing else...not until the Christian concept of "the truth will set you free" led to the formal pursuit of science (a pursuit of that which IS (via demonstration, not speculation).

[Ssel]

scotter,

 

You seem to do a lot of reading. I tend to be leery of such wide spread attention to so many speculations as it disallows time to fully concentrate on the more relevant concepts. But perhaps you would be interested in a this book;

 

"The Celestine Prophecy - An Adventure" by James Redfield.

 

It is an adventure based novel revealing many of the concepts and concerns related to this forum as well as a conceptual contruct to the realization of consequences.

 

Like most books, it's not technical enough for me, but it gets the ideas across on a soft level.

[NotBlinded]

Like most books, it's not technical enough for me, but it gets the ideas across on a soft level.

[Antlerman]

Like most books, it's not technical enough for me, but it gets the ideas across on a soft level.

(edited to delete my own comments of scorn and sarcasim - yet once again )

[Ssel]

(edited to delete my own comments of scorn and sarcasim - yet once again )

Emotionalism can be a bitch of a curse, can't it?

 

And that's my point, emotionalism is causing more insanity than anything else. Over mother it and it grows and spoils. All ability to reason and have any control over yourself is lost.

[NotBlinded]

(edited to delete my own comments of scorn and sarcasim - yet once again )

Emotionalism can be a bitch of a curse, can't it?

 

And that's my point, emotionalism is causing more insanity than anything else. Over mother it and it grows and spoils. All ability to reason and have any control over yourself is lost.

I just don't believe you when you make comments such as you did! Not in the context that it seems to be portrayed anyway.

[Ssel]

I just don't believe you when you make comments such as you did!

Don't believe which??

[NotBlinded]

I just don't believe you when you make comments such as you did!

Don't believe which??

The comment about most books not being technical enough for you. It probably is true, but I don't believe you needed to express it in such a way as to appear more knowledgable. Yes, it is my own perception causing me to see this remark in this manner, but none-the-less are we past the need for humility?

 

So, I just don't believe it.

[Ssel]

The comment about most books not being technical enough for you. It probably is true, but I don't believe you needed to express it in such a way as to appear more knowledgable. Yes, it is my own perception causing me to see this remark in this manner, but none-the-less are we past the need for humility?

Well, I'm sorry, I didn't perceive it that way myself. I don't equate having a technical preference to being superior in any way. It causes a degree of hindrance, in fact.

 

How and when did the preference of technical reading material become an ego thing?

 

It's my speculation that this whole "arrogance" issue is really merely that so many things have been associated with egotism that I couldn't tract them if I tried, so I just let the presumptions be made.

 

It is difficult to tell from online if someone is egotistical or they have a solid confidence and purpose. They appear the same until you meet them in person.

[NotBlinded]

The comment about most books not being technical enough for you. It probably is true, but I don't believe you needed to express it in such a way as to appear more knowledgable. Yes, it is my own perception causing me to see this remark in this manner, but none-the-less are we past the need for humility?

Well, I'm sorry, I didn't perceive it that way myself. I don't equate having a technical preference to being superior in any way. It causes a degree of hindrance, in fact.

 

How and when did the preference of technical reading material become an ego thing?

 

It's my speculation that this whole "arrogance" issue is really merely that so many things have been associated with egotism that I couldn't tract them if I tried, so I just let the presumptions be made.

 

It is difficult to tell from online if someone is egotistical or they have a solid confidence and purpose. They appear the same until you meet them in person.

I know you didn't...that is why I didn't believe you. Maybe I should say that I didn't believe my impulse to believe that that is what you meant by what you said. Yes, it is hard to know. I also apologize for the wording of my post because although I recognized it as my perception, I still felt a desire to have it worded differently. My desires have nothing to do with who you are! I like ya you know...

[Skankboy]

I can agree that the interconnectedness of all things can be experienced, but I hesitate when people start using words like "consciousness" to describe it.

 

In my opinion, this is a case of anthropomorphization and nothing more...

[NotBlinded]

Without emotion we are but mere robots, it's part of what makes us human.

Yes and they need to be trusted and then examined as to what is causing the emotion. Are we attacking ourselves with negative thoughts that cause the emotion or is it something else? Many emotions would subside if we can recognize that we are causing many of them. Always trust your emotions because they don't lie, but the cause of the emotion is what is sometimes blurred.

[NotBlinded]

I can agree that the interconnectedness of all things can be experienced, but I hesitate when people start using words like "consciousness" to describe it.

 

In my opinion, this is a case of anthropomorphization and nothing more...

I must agree, but one has to pick something to use as a metaphor and the word 'god' has many attachments to it. What about Life?

[Ssel]

Without emotion we are but mere robots, it's part of what makes us human.

I agree. But with too much, we are like foolish children being manipulated into conflict and misery.

 

I can agree that the interconnectedness of all things can be experienced, but I hesitate when people start using words like "consciousness" to describe it.

 

In my opinion, this is a case of anthropomorphization and nothing more...

I agree, and this is when my technical panties get a twist in them.

[Antlerman]

(edited to delete my own comments of scorn and sarcasim - yet once again )

Emotionalism can be a bitch of a curse, can't it?

 

And that's my point, emotionalism is causing more insanity than anything else. Over mother it and it grows and spoils. All ability to reason and have any control over yourself is lost.

I just don't believe you when you make comments such as you did! Not in the context that it seems to be portrayed anyway.

Ssel: you do not know me. Emotionalism applied to me is about as ill-founded as the usual pseudo-intellectual, self-glorifying delusional tripe that comes out of your mouth. Anger is not emotionalism. Love is not emotionalism either. I am angry, but you would like to think its emotionalism because you can dismiss it as irrational and not have to take responsibility for pissing off everyone! Think again. I am as clear thinking as you could hope for from anyone, and it is clear as a bell to me that your arrogance and insensitivity to everyone has pissed me off immensely! I think anyone on this site would attest to my patience and respect I show everyone and the degree to which I exercise great restraint with even the worst posters here. You are as ignorant as you are arrogant.

 

If you want to call my emotion "emotionalism", it could well be because you are disconnected with real emotions and don't understand them. This I believe strongly to be the case with you because: you exceed is showing everyone disrespect; you don't care that people are upset (or emotionalist if you prefer that misuse of the term); you try to deflect all attention off your behavior by accusing others of being irrational, which you do so stupidly with me.

 

Here's a really valid question: If you have such revolutionary ideas about spirituality: Where are the fruits of your spirit? I have never seen them! Ever! You have no peace, you show no love, no patience, no humility, no compassion. All I see is you about you, about you, and about you. How others should admire how intellectual you are. Ssel, it's a joke!

 

You are compassionless, arrogant, insensitive, and you are non-spiritual in every single, sense of the word!

 

Show over. Go back where you came from. You have nothing useful to offer here, except as an objective of mockery. Leave us in peace.

 

Indignantly,

 

Antlerman

[NotBlinded]

Without emotion we are but mere robots, it's part of what makes us human.

I agree. But with too much, we are like foolish children being manipulated into conflict and misery.

And they say magic is just a trick.

[Ssel]

Always trust your emotions because they don't lie, but the cause of the emotion is what is sometimes blurred.

Emm... Emotion causes blindness, no two ways about that. The point is to calm them down such that no one emotional concern so out weighs the others that blindness leads to stupidity.