“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...] The god concept is a valid one. [...]

I am not speaking here of gods, but of psychological structures different from the ones you know. [...]

[...] You are learning to be gods as you now understand the term. [...]

[...] “God, I’m scared,” she said several times, but couldn’t say why she felt that way, at first. [...]

[...] One strong portion of him knows well that Christian theology is far from any entire answer, that Christ was not the son of the only God; the other portion of Ruburt is still affected by those beliefs, and he did not realize it.

[...] It approves of this new book because God is taken into consideration, and yet it is not cultist in its terms.

[...] The passage referred to a biblical Seth, and to a Seth who was an Egyptian god, who ended up as a daemon, etc.)

(Readers of The Seth Material had asked Seth to elaborate upon data of the three Christs given in Chapter Eighteen, “The God Concept,” of that book. [...]

[...] The God concept, of course, originated from mankind’s innate knowledge that consciousness precedes physical construction.

We will, here, avoid a discussion in depth of the God concept. [...]

The ego is a jealous god, and it wants its interests served. [...]

(9:00.) As Ruburt himself often mentioned in his own book, The God of Jane, you should never accept as fact a theory that contradicts (underlined) your own experience. [...]

(Jane has been taking time off from God of Jane and If We Live Again to work on the Introduction for Sue Watkins’s Conversation With Seth. [...]

[...] In the beginning of this work I “warned” the reader that here in these sessions we would go beyond ideas of one god and one self.³ I stated that your ideas of personhood would be expanded. [...]

[...] To do this you must understand, again, that man must move beyond the concepts of one god, one self, one body, one world, as these ideas are currently understood.”

[...] All of your concepts of gods and goddesses are basically creative attempts to portray psychological dramatizations of other portions of the psyche that do not appear in the flesh. [...]

That analogy will help you at least intuitively understand the existence of situations such as suffering, and poverty, that otherwise seem to have no adequate explanations (as Jane and I were discussing today). I hope also to account for behavior on the part of nature that certainly seems to imply the survival of the fittest in a tooth-and-claw fashion, or the punishing acts of a vengeful God on the one hand and the triumph of an evil force on the other.

[...] You do not question the gifts of the gods, so to speak.

[...] She had been close: “Enodo means to explain; Inventum—discovery; Deus—God.” [...]

[...] As this happens, your understanding will allow you to glimpse the nature of the reality of the gods you have recognized through the ages. [...]

[...] He began in his own way to form his own theory concerning the nature of God and reality at a young age. [...]

[...] I’m still shocked to realize that while I was laboring over Mass Events, and Jane was doing God of Jane, that those two books had stirred up even more resistance on the part of that personified Sinful Self, and that when they were finished we were then confronted with a new barrage of symptoms that ended up restricting [and protecting?] Jane’s physical manipulability even more. [...]