Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My take on the whole thing is that we humans are extensions of the One Consciousness or Source Energy that shows up in different forms. Though we humans have evolved beyond what we were 100, 200, 500, 1000 years ago, we are still half-baked and so lots of terrible stuff is happening all over the world still. Slavery, oppression, starvation, poverty, violence....it's still rampant and so there is a lot of suffering going on. Essentially 'God' (or whatever you would like to label this intelligence from which we originate) is showing up in a myriad of forms in order to create and evolve a planet. God showed up as the 'witch' being burned, the slave on the plantation, the person being thrown to the lions, the prostitute in Times Square, the homeless in San Fran., and yes, the babies or children suffering. The essence of the form knows it is returning back to itself upon death of its physical form. It looks atrocious from the ground but from the larger, broader perspective it has a different meaning and perspective. It's tough. I know. I question why all the time.
Manifesting your reality makes things happen. It does not make things "not happen". As far as the baby thing, obviously, you have to have enough life experience to know what you want and be able to make a plan, backed by action to create the reality you want. It is not an innate ability. Babies, and most children, cannot do it. They are not capable. Some children are very advanced and can do it, but that child is rare, indeed.
As for the comatose patient. Well, the possibility exists that they are comatose as a result of making poor choices. They did create their own reality. As for being raped, well, that is just the result of the negative vibration they created by making poor choices. That's why it is really important to make good choices and to be as much in control of your life and your reality as possible. Of course, the possibility also exists that this person was just at the wrong place at the wrong time, who knows? But that is not how Law of Attraction works. It is a process that requires active participation.
Manifesting reality is manifesting reality, including what does and does not happen. Of course it means making things not happen. LOL. ANY moment we are alive, our reality includes things both happening and not happening...and the belief being debated here is that we create our ENTIRE reality. Including, for example, that right now I do NOT have cancer. Or that the next person is not pregnant or does not have a job. Or that you are not a man, Asian or a scientist. (Those are just examples, I don't know whether you are any of those things.)
So the raped six month old made bad choices, you're saying? And the aborted fetus and the newborn thrown in a dumpster? They made bad choices? Well then they sure deserved what they got. Or if babies "can't" do it...huh? Why not? They are people and people create their WHOLE reality. When are they "capable"? A baby can manipulate immediately. It can cry to get what it needs. That's capability. And supposedly we "manifest" whether we're conscious of it or not...which means a thinking, alive infant should be no exception. You "attract" through your "vibrations," period. It takes no special skill or even conscious thought, according to Hicks. So why, and indeed how do "babies" (where's the cutoff, BTW?) not fit these criteria? Alive, observing, vibrating, interacting and reacting?
But I guess now the goalposts have been moved (and contradict Hicks' assertions, on well)...moving on...
So where is your imagined cutoff for when a baby is "capable"? And does this mean mentally incapacitated people can't do it? How about profound mental retardation? They may not be babies. How about toddlers? Toddlers get raped and killed too. Or burned in house fires. Or get cancer. they can walk, talk and think. Are they not capable...? Or is this where the bad decisions thing comes in?
Cool, so...when does creating our reality start? At age 12 months? 18 months? Three years? Where is the cutoff where suddenly these supposed universal LAWS finally and suddenly attach themselves? Seems rather contradictory. (And bogus.) Laws can't show up at a fourth birthday party and insert themselves into a person. they're either laws...Or they're not. You're apparently saying they're not; rather, they are arbitrary in some directed and time specific way. So you agree that Hicks is wrong.
Meanwhile, with this contradictory blend of "whatever is least uncomfortable" new twist on the Hicks theory, these weren't enough exceptions and vague "they can'ts" and caveats so we also have...oh yeah, wrong place at wrong time. If you manifest your *entire* reality then you also manifested being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In Hicks' view there isn't chance. I repeat: the idea is that you manifest your ENTIRE reality. Entire is entire. It means all. I don't believe you can cherry pick what part of "all" is actually "well, except for that one part..."
All is all.
So please explain the poor choices and matching vibration of the fetus being aborted or tiny baby being raped.
Nobody can explain it, I am sure, without cherry picking...Or without semantics like "manifesting what happens doesn't mean manifesting what doesn't happen." LOL.
All means all. Entire means entire.
And without cherry picking, semantics, exceptions, caveats and self-contradictions, this theory falls down.
Manifesting reality is manifesting reality, including what does and does not happen. Of course it means making things not happen. LOL. ANY moment we are alive, our reality includes things both happening and not happening...and the belief being debated here is that we create our ENTIRE reality. Including, for example, that right now I do NOT have cancer. Or that the next person is not pregnant or does not have a job. Or that you are not a man, Asian or a scientist. (Those are just examples, I don't know whether you are any of those things.)
So the raped six month old made bad choices, you're saying? And the aborted fetus and the newborn thrown in a dumpster? They made bad choices? Well then they sure deserved what they got. Or if babies "can't" do it...huh? Why not. THey are people and people create their WHOLE reality. When are they "capable"? A baby can manipulate immediately. If can cry to get what it needs. That's capability. So where is your imagined cutoff for when a baby is "capable"? And does this mean mentally incapacitated people can't do it? How about profound mental retardation? They may not be babies.
How about toddlers? Toddlers get raped and killed too. Or burned in house fires. Or get cancer. they can walk, talk and think. Are they not capable...? Or is this where the bad decisions thing comes in? At age 12 months? 18 months? Three years? Where is the cutoff where suddenly these supposed universal LAWS finally and suddenly attach themselves? Seems rather contradictory. (And bogus.)
But these weren't enough exceptions and vague "they cants" and caveats so we also have...oh yeah, wrong place at wrong time. If you manifest your *entire* reality then you also manifested being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In Hicks' view there isn't chance. I repeat: the idea is that you manifest your ENTIRE reality. Entire is entire. It means all. I don't believe you can cherry pick what part of "all" is actually "well, except for that one part..."
All is all.
So please explain the poor choices and matching vibration of the fetus being aborted or tiny baby being raped.
Nobody can explain it, I am sure, without cherry picking...Or without semantics like "manifesting what happens doesn't mean manifesting what doesn't happen." LOL.
All means all. Entire means entire.
And without cherry picking, semantics, exceptions, caveats and self-contradictions, this theory falls down.
You obviously have not studied what you are griping about because if you had, you wouldn't be so obtuse.
Uh...LOL! These support what * I * have been saying Hicks claims, and contradict that "babies can't" manifest their realities, which is what * you've * been saying. Below in blocked quotes and blue text, what * Hicks himself * says, in the URL you just gave me to "enlighten" (OMG! Did you really...?) me:
Quote:
Babies are thinking and attracting before they are speaking. Even though you are only months old in your physical body, you are a very old and wise Creator, focused in that baby's body.
So the four-month-old thrown into boiling water by her stepfather ATTRACTED that. According to Hicks. The five-month-old whose mother rapes her with objects ATTRACTS that. According to Hicks. Understand now?
Quote:
Children coming forth today have a greater capacity to deal with the greater variety of information that is coming forth than you did.
Oh, so...is this what you meant by "not capable"? (/confused)
Quote:
Even when you are in your mother's womb you are picking up on her vibration because of how she feels in her life. And when you are born, as that little baby, you are born into an environment where people around you feel a certain way.
Fetuses are influenced by these vibrations which are interactive ("picking up on"). So fetuses ATTRACT their own abortions.
Quote:
Most people don't think that new-born children could be the creator of their own reality, because they are not even talking yet. But the Universe is not responding to your language anyway, the Universe is responding to your vibration.
Duh, I believe I just said that above. (You know...when you accused *me* - cough, cough - of being obtuse?) The NEWBORN infant CREATED being thrown into the dumpster. According to Hicks.
Can I help you with anything else?
I'll ask again, how is your own manifestation of your reality going? You have such a firm handle on all this that you are able to put the rest of us in our place about how we should and shouldn't be doing it. So the reality YOU'RE ATTRACTING reflects that. Right? The OP asked for examples so can we have yours? Currently?
Here's one interesting thing I just noticed: I was watching Esther on YouTube (tons of vids) and as she was talking I was noting how her eyes were darting about. In psychology, there are theories of which way you look when you are recalling info, which way your eyes go when you are thinking of the future, or lying, etc.
I was wondering if she is channeling and receiving "blocks of information" (which is what has been said), WHY her eyes would move to one side or the other.
The mechanics of "channeling" are interesting to me.
On the other hand, if she is NOT channeling, and is just completely fake, then she is really, really good (as she has an answer for everything - even if it isn't very deep and even if the same sound bites are regurgitated over and over again (which they are - another thing that bugs the crap out of me: "Are you refreshed? What's next?" and words they use like "ornery") . . .
She could also be lying. People shift their eyes when they lie. OR she could be thinking super, super fast, literally "seeking" a quick answer (you said she always seems to quickly come up with answers); when we do that our eyes often "scan" as our subconscious interprets this as literally visually scanning for an answer. Just some other possibilities.
There are so many other possibilities...she could feel she is telling the truth...or who knows, she could be getting "information" psychically but obviously from people/sources who aren't correct since her "channeled" ideas are easy to prove false in practice. So...even if she's getting information from "someone," that someone is wrong, at least on certain things, and is far from perfect. It could even be the thoughts of people in the room, and their own elementary beliefs. (As you said, some of it seems to be rote/repetitive.) Who knows. She could be sincere as far as far as believing in what she says and believing whom the source is, etc...but she's still incorrect.
I don't know - she may fully believe what she says, and like I said, I do believe you can change part of your reality and it can in fact come from a change of perspective, which aligns you (or you're aligning yourself?) to SEE the opportunities that are probably already around you. So that I "logically" believe.
And then I veer off to somewhat of a "woo" stance where I do believe to an extent in creative visualization though I can't say exactly why, or the mechanisms of how it works, and how much is, as I said, just seeing opportunities, or whether it's directed from an outside source...I just don't know. But I do know it has worked for me in the past.
But that was to change things. I do not believe we literally "manifest" our entire reality. That would be impossible - we are at odds with one another mentally and subconsciously ALL the time. I think I gave an example of: what if I want, and "manifest" being protected and healthy - but at the same time you want, and "manifest" me being hurt? Those are at odds with one another. Some people are happy and satisfied to believe that some little thing or other tipped the scales. Either you or I "did it better" or had "purer intentions" (another thing EASILY disproven when we SEE people with bad intentions succeeding)...or whatever, are what Hicks enthusiasts and the like will fall back on - without actually knowing why; they just know they want to believe.
But just logically...no. I am not the "center" of MY or anybody else's universe, sorry. There are a lot of us here. There isn't just me or just you. I CAN'T be "manifesting" my ENTIRE reality with you sitting right here, right beside me...manifesting your ENTIRE reality. They might be two completely different things! And I doubt that it's because we can't wiggle our noses and it will take a while for you but not for me, etc. or that we take turns or something...that implies organization, which implies an outside agency (God, or a unified mental Universe, or whatever)...which takes away that idea of YOU AND I entirely "manifesting." Now...it's something else running the show. So again: logic fail.
Now...when people have said philosophically we create how we perceive things, etc., well, yeah, of course. But that is not the Hicks theory so it in no way answers your original question.
Do I believe I can change parts of the whole reality, which all of us have created, whether "mentally/vibrationally" or by talking to God/angels/ancestors (everyone's beliefs are different) or simply with my bare hands? Yes. That part, I can get on board with: we probably have way more power than maybe we think we have, to change things and improve them. Even things we may think are impossible to fix. But the Hicks idea is not only illogical, but can be immediately disproven with one or two even semi-logical thoughts being taken to a logical conclusion.
Last edited by JerZ; 05-12-2018 at 09:42 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
