You guys are all in your heads, stop thinking, reading, and talking so much and spend more time praying for the love.
The result is inevitably to bring the conversation to an abrupt halt. In one case, on the Divine Love mail server Doug Oreck had created, it died, never to be resurrected again. Yes one person killed his outreach. Because very few folks are going to stand up to that sort of statement, because they then are exposed as being "in their mind, and lacking soul development". It is really a domineering statement that carries a large amount of aggression in it, no matter how phrased.
I will now look at this statement carefully, from a number of perspectives, and yes, I am going to use my mortal mind. LOL.
Firstly, is there any truth in the statement? The answer is obviously there is, which is what causes it to be such an effective nuke. But is it wholly the truth, or merely partly the truth? I would submit its only partially the truth, and the only part that is true, is that we can all of us, spend more time praying. It does not of course prove that those engaged in the conversation are personally lacking in this regard, although the suggestion is certainly there that it's the participants who need more love. And that if they stopped THIS activity, and spent the time more productively, they would be better off. So is the objector really coming from a perspective of LOVE?
Lets look at motivation here. Is the person who is objecting, primarily motivated by love for the deluded and misdirected posters? Actually real love allows each of us to be misguided, and does not interfere unless asked. We already know Father allows each of his children total free will, and we know the Celestials follow that dictum. Is this interfering in the free will choices of individuals? Yes it certainly is. So is the motivation really love? Almost certainly not. So what is the real motivation? Well I don't believe we can guess that, but I have observed in two cases that the individuals who have done this, were what I would call fundamentalist followers of the Padgett messages. Were they upset that the conversation challenged their personal view points? We can't say.
Do we have any comment from Celestials in this matter of using your material mind? Yes we do, but of course its also possible to find messages chiding Padgett for reading certain books. However he was not chided for wanting to know the truth, he was merely told that the particular books he had chosen would not help, in fact might hinder his progress. So it's not that the Celestials have ever said “Put away your critical faculties” in fact this is what Judas said:
Judas wrote:You are one of those intellectuals who need proof of everything. But don't worry, this is not bad, just continue this way. It is a legitimate way of approaching truth. It is not the easiest way, nor is it the quickest way, but it is legitimate.
Judas wrote:Therefore, considering that belief eclipses reason, it is clear that disputes over religion lead nowhere. The discussion may widen your own horizon, and you may also contribute data to enlarge the understanding of other people, but that is the maximum you will be able to achieve. You will never be able to “to convince.”
So, we are agreed, that experiencing the Divine Love is the ONLY way to convince folks, but that said, there is nothing here that says we can't discuss things, and demonstrate our love while doing that. Its also true that Judas has emphasised that soul development is vital to understand deep truths:
Judas wrote:In the messages, we have repeated many times that the spiritual contents that we try to communicate cannot be understood by your material mind - only the soul can assimilate them. Therefore you should understand that any intention of integrating spirituality into a conventional system of investigation will fail hopelessly.
There is no suggestion by any of us who “share” on forums like this, that this sharing is a substitute for soul development via praying. But it is fellowship, it is also sharing in a loving way, things that we care about. It has value both for us, and those who read but don’t post. It's not hard to discover that sharing about things you care about is rarely done in a loving way on the internet. Rather the opposite is true. And here I would like to add a personal insight. When I was searching for the truth, I had a standard question. It was a question I did not know the answer to, but I believed that when I found people who were “on the right track” they would give me an answer I could recognise as being “advanced”. Every place I arrived at I asked the same question. The answer to this question, at that time, was NOT in the Padgett Messages, although Judas has since answered it.
Had I not got a good answer, its possible I may have moved on, because I did not, in the first three or four days of reviewing two Padgett web sites, find anything compelling. So getting an “excellent” answer to this question, certainly gave me renewed vigour to look at the P Messages. The exact question I asked is not important, its the point that it required, in my own case, the personal interaction with two or three followers to keep me interested. And that has also been my experience with new people who start to post questions. They are looking to feel the water, and to the extent that the fellowship as evidenced on that site is warm and supportive, and non judgemental, it keeps people feeling right about things. Sadly this sort of “nuke” response does the opposite.
There is another thing, and this is particularly pertinent at this time. Followers of the messages rarely have a number of folks whose company they share regularly, who also follow the messages. An exception is the Gibsons and Vancouver folks, and I submit that the fellowship they share, has a lot to do with the strength of that group. In other words, fellowship is vital if we are to be effective as a group. Forums such as this one offer that to those of us no matter where we are in the world, and no matter what time difference lies between us.
Finally of course it is reasonable to point out that we like to tell people that our messages support reason and critical thinking. We ourselves found that there was truth in the messages initially by using our material minds. Who are we to now tell people that we should drop the very faculties that brought us here? And what message does it send to those unfamiliar with the messages that its best to not examine and talk about the truths?