Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Michael Math / Re: Michael math as another set of overleaves?
« Last post by Mike42 on October 29, 2012, 01:35:38 AM »
The casting numbering places one in a casting position that has a personality flavor to it that adds to who we are as the overleaves do in my understanding.  I hadn't thought of the numbering of the overleaves though as having a significance other than keeping track of them but I would enjoy reading someone else's view on this.
General Discussion / Re: What Attracted You To The Michael Teachings?
« Last post by John Roth on July 09, 2012, 12:14:32 AM »
Welcome aboard!

John Roth
General Discussion / Re: What Attracted You To The Michael Teachings?
« Last post by mtscholar on July 06, 2012, 03:16:13 AM »
Excellent summation, from my point of view, as the very great majority is true for me as well. Thanks for putting it into words.
General Discussion / Re: What Attracted You To The Michael Teachings?
« Last post by gilfaethwy on June 30, 2012, 05:47:21 PM »
I have been an avid metaphysical student since college days. Raised Roman Catholic (and with my mothers' relatives mostly Southern Baptist), at first I nearly became a Jesuit, but then began questioning. And questioning. And reading, reading, reading... Christian, Judaic, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, Bahai, Sufist, native American, and Wiccan scriptures and literature, from the Rig Veda to the Popul Vuh, the Analects to the Teilhard de Chardin, Abelard to the Q'uran, Black Elk Speaks to Blavatsky, the Qabalah to the Prinicipia Discordia.   
   I came across Messages from Michael not long after its publication, and though I was still ostensibly a Catholic, I had begun questioning, and it stayed with me, in the back of my mind. I then became a Buddhist, then Wiccan, then-- nothing organized. And came back to MFM. I am generally skeptical and wary of "New Ageism"  -- so many adherents seemed to me to be similar to devotees of Dungeons and Dragons, into the trappings and the mystique and not really serious students, or  else that they had traded one dogmatism for another.  But what I first loved about Michael's teachings was that, far from most other teachings, belief was not required. "Faith" -- which always seemed to me like buying a pig in a poke -- was,  far from a virtue, something to be avoided. And the more I reread and pondered MFM, the more rational it seemed, almost intuitive. I had, for example, always believed, at a deep level, in reincarnation: it had always seemed to me incredibly wasteful, not to mention cruel, that the "eternal" state of one's immortal soul was determined by the eyeblink in time that is a single human life.  Also, after long contemplation of the incomprehensible vastness of the Universe, the idea of a personal god, especially the narrowly parochial and often petty and petulant god of the Judeo-Christian/Muslim beliefs, seemed ludicrous. Yet I also felt that there WAS meaning to sentience, not so much a "purpose" as "significance"-- hard to frame it in words! -- a feeling that each individual's consciousness and experiences MATTER to the Entirety of the Universe, which is both so vast and yet (considering atomic and subatomic level structure) so intricate and finely wrought.  It seemed to me that there were glimpses of truth in most of the religions and philosophies I had studied, but that none were 100% true, by a long chalk.  MFM was one of the few sources which seemed to acknowledge much of these things. At first I was resistant to the structures -- roles and soul ages and overleaves -- but if there is symmetrical structure at a Quantum level, and at a cosmic level, why not in the architecture of consciousness? One of the things I most liked from early on is Michael's dictum that spiritual growth WILL occur... consciously or unconsciously. That belief doesn't matter in an absolute sense. (So much for "justification by faith"!) That Agape is "the love that moves the Heavens", as Dante so eloquently put it, that the idea of separation is, ultimately, illusory; and that we are all in the same boat, so to speak.  Michael's Teachings also encompass the randomness that is a feature of the Physical Plane, and harmonize the unavoidable Scathing of the Physical Plane with a Universe based ultimately on Agape.  SO: after nattering on so long, I would say in sum that what most attracted me to the Michael Teachings is that they seemed to me, if at first only subliminally, to be fundamentally TRUE.
--Be well and happy, all! John M (gilfaethwy)
General Discussion / Re: Why do we have ten fingers?
« Last post by gilfaethwy on June 30, 2012, 05:12:41 PM »
An interesting question --

The persistence of pentadactyly is to me one of the obvious proofs of species evolution.  It is what might be called the "default" condition of all tetrapods.  It is true of Amphibians and Reptiles.  The mammalian order of Primates is one of the more conservative ones, and its retention of the pattern is clear.  The same is true of the Insectivora (shrews and moles), Chirpoptera (Bats), Monotremes (Platypuses and Echidnas), Marsupials, Sirenia (Manatees and Dugongs), Edentata (Armadillos, Pangolins, Aardvarks, Anteaters), and even seals and their relatives (Pinnipeds), with the bones of five fingers in their flippers. Departures from pentadactyly are later adaptations: Cetaceans, for example, often have hyperphalangy-- more than the usual number of joints per digit.  Most of the more derived mammalian orders have fewer than five digits, often three or four, though usually with some vestigial evidence of the missing digits.  Most Dinosaurs had five digits, though later forms lost one or two-- theropods and their descendants, the birds, being a case in point. Like the Cetaceans, the marine forms like Plesiasaurs and Ichthyosaurs often had more than five digits with many joints in their flippers, a convergence .  Even coelacanths have five incipient digits in their limblike fins.  So the reason we have ten fingers is because that was the number the first tetrapods had.  Apart from mutations, genes are quite conservative -- also an argument against "Intelligent Design", along with many other things (such as, why design from scratch a human female who gives birth via a narrow channel within the pelvic girdle, when it would be easier and safer to have babies born through the stomach, as in a Caesarian?).
The Overleaves (General) / Re: Positive and Negative Poles
« Last post by Betty on June 29, 2012, 07:01:17 PM »
if it feels good?

The Overleaves (General) / Re: Positive and Negative Poles
« Last post by jo on June 29, 2012, 04:22:23 PM »
I don't know.  I don't know when I am in my positive poles or negative poles.  How can you tell?
if it feels good?
The Overleaves (General) / Re: Positive and Negative Poles
« Last post by Betty on June 27, 2012, 12:28:42 AM »
I don't know.  I don't know when I am in my positive poles or negative poles.  How can you tell?
The Overleaves (General) / Positive and Negative Poles
« Last post by SomeOldSoul on June 26, 2012, 04:19:14 PM »
I've noticed that when I spend time in the positive pole of my role, or any of my overleaves, people in the corresponding negative pole seem to stand out vividly.

Does this happen to others?
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]