HOW would you describe the michael teachings to a logical left brained scientist?(that's what I'm asking YOU) Why? Well because perhaps if Michael teachings could attract more skeptics, then it there would be a pressure to receive more channeling and further evolve the teachings. Sharing the teachings to a wider audience can only produce more involvement with the Midcasual entity and earth, and giving us more information to make the grand connections between science and spirituality. So absolute truth could be broadly known and clumsy limiting belief structures can be burnt down.
Telling people who are already in agreeable compliance with the teachings doesn't usually ignite constructive skepticism that can improve what already exists. It pressures us to validate it more if there is people demanding more proof.
I simply don't see a point in doing that (telling people who are not clearly open to it/seeking it). If I received information of scientific/techological nature, that I could share in some productive way, I would share it but keep the source to myself, unless I would be sharing with someone who is at least remotely okay with it. I see more value in putting the teaching into practice than preaching it. It's not another Christianity. In my view it is a kind of teaching that people find for themselves, and if they don't, then it's not for them, at least not in an active form.
I HAVE tried to share it with some people, and the above is what I have realised from that experience. Even people who are fully open to the idea of channeling were not attracted to it, at least not the way I am (for example one such person preferred teaching of Veronica Entity and yet another one did her own channeling of some sort of guides). They listened, they asked questions, but that was it. One even looked around michaelteachings.com, and it just was not for her. Whereas when I did that as a newbie, I got hooked.
Michael Teaching IS very much evolving, there is new material still channeled and freely available for study. And it is driven by existing as well as new students (all of whom pretty much find it for themselves, rather than being actively recruited). They ask questions, and that is what drives the evolution of the Teaching.
I do not see what Michael tells us as "absolute truth". And they would not call it that either. If they did, I would immediately view it with suspicion and probably steer clear of it.
I have neither desire nor even a smidgeon of ability to burn somebody else's belief system down, unless they themselves were ready and willing to have it burnt down in the first place (then I can ONLY help). When there is a way, there is a way. When there isn't a way, there isn't a way. My own belief systems are the only ones that are my own business. I can share how I see things, and what others do or believe is up to them.
