Everyone has free will. Which means that all experiences are chosen. And nothing happens to anyone without their consent or choice. If this weren't true, it would be possible that someone's free will could be taken away from them, violated, broken, or completely have no effect. This isn't possible because the free will was given by GOD, and is irrevocably permanent. Everyone has free will at all times.

"The world (heaven), in its original connotation, included both the proper creation of man (souls) by God, AND the proper creation by man (souls) in his Right Mind. The latter required the endowment of man (souls) by God with free will, because all loving creation is freely given."

"It still remains within him to project as God projected his own Spirit to him. In reality, this is his ONLY choice, because his free will was made for his own joy in creating the perfect."

When a person seems incapable of exercising decision making on their own, such as with a baby or a child, a person who you are having to be guardian for due to their disabilities, some group of people that you're supposed to protect, the elderly who have lost their power of thought and seem unable to look after themselves etc, these all create scenarios where someone else seems to have to take "responsibility" for them.

It's interesting first of all that there even is such a scenario where someone could seem to be in a position to be unable to choose for themselves. This alone is the result of ego interfering with freedom. And just because e.g. newborn babies are heavily dependent on their parents for survival and for decision making, this doesn't mean it's natural. To place oneself in a position of having to depend on anyone else to make decisions, for any reason, is an aspect of self denial. Which is what leads to incarnation in the first place. In effect this makes the bodies of babies, a physical "face of innocence", denying responsibility for attacking God.

Beyond that, once you're in a situation where it seems you have "no choice" but to take responsibility for choosing for someone else, there is now a very slippery slope. If you truly are "held accountable" for someone else's well-being, and if anything whatsoever remotely happens to that person, it is now implied that this is "your fault". Whether it be that you are a parent who "has to" look after a young child, or an adult looking after an elderly parent, or an older sibling looking after a younger sibling, the same is true.

If in any way another person seems to lack the power of decision or free will, and you have to "take over responsibility", this is tantamount to forcing you into a state of guilt. Anything that do, anything that happens to them, now effectively happens "to you", because you have now extended the scope of what you are responsible for. Even to the extent that it makes you feel like they are "part of you", and what happens to them even starts to affect you against your will. When they suffer, you suffer, because of this belief that you are bound to them - that you being responsible for them makes them an extension of your self.

It's very difficult to avoid this "double responsibility" in this world. If parents would just ditch babies, the babies would not survive. If we would just let those with dementia or alzheimers or disabilities fend for themselves, they would not last long. The question then is, is it possible psychologically to still maintain a role of "looking after" another person, or seeming to be responsible for them, WITHOUT believing that you are taking over their free will, and without using their suffering as a way to induce guilt in yourself?

It is very difficult to not feel guilty for the suffering of others. If you feel responsible for them it induces guilt and fear. If you feel compelled to protect them from suffering, and something happens, you can potentially go into self blame. If they go through a difficult time, you can possibly feel like it's your fault even if it isn't. And any way in which they suffer, makes you suffer.

If what's happening in your mind is a lack of letting go, a sense of "owning the person" (very prevalent in parenting), efforts to control and coerce, or any other way in which the person's free will is violated, then this will lay the groundwork for your own suffering. Regardless of whether you are acting physically on the level of form to provide for, support, guide, "keep alive" or otherwise be "responsible for" someone else's life, you have to find a way to keep sight of free will. Otherwise you will lose yourself in it and accuse yourself of "irresponsibility", as a result of being overly responsible.

I was guided recently, that "She is God's responsibility, not yours". This was because I kept being overly responsible for the wellbeing of another person. This compels a need to constantly fix and control things. It results in a kind of fear-driven desperation to want things to be different. To try to get someone to make different choices, to avoid certain outcomes. But as soon as we're getting into territory of encroaching on free will, we're going to lose our own peace of mind.

It boils down to the simple fact that you can't retain a sense of freedom if you take over the freedom of others. You become excessively responsible for things you are not responsible for, when you see yourself as "the cause of" what others are experiencing. You move into states of guilt and fear and worry whenever you believe that someone is "not supposed to" or "supposed to" be in a certain state they are not electing to be in. And you cannot retain any sense of peace while you try to coerce anyone in any way.

It's a difficult thing to deal with. You have to continue possibly being physically and emotionally supportive of a person, but without getting lost in it. Without losing sight of your own free will and that of another. It can even seem frightening to entertain the idea of allowing someone to make poor decisions or to degrade or to head towards death. Mainly because this incites reactions of guilt at not preventing it, due to believing it's your fault, based on believing their free will is something for YOU to control.

Always it's about the confusion of who you are, who they are, who is responsible for what freedom, and who is doing what to whom. You have to let people go in order to truly helpful. Otherwise any help is really a combination of help and manipulation. And that can only lead to a special relationship.

Ok so this might be a bit controversial.

It seems to me, there MUST be "different things" in heaven, somehow. When you start to look at it, there's just too many different things happening there.

1) God created the one son or sonship, which comprises the sons of God. That's fine. If God were to have only created this we could perhaps say that everything God created is of one kind and its all like God and there are no differences. Except...

2) God also created the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not exactly identical to the sons of God and has his own function or role. Now ask yourself, how is it possible for there to be multiple roles in a reality that's supposed to be all equal and one?

3) Beyond this, God also created the angels. We're told for example that Lucifer was an angel who projected himself out of heaven in the separation. Which means he lived in heaven prior to the separation. So now we have this different 'type' of being. And we're also told that angels were created "below" the sons of God, with a function of protection, whereas the sons of God have a function both protection and creation. So doesn't this imply that angels do not have their own creations? So how is it not possible that God has created "different kinds of beings?"

4) This leads on to the fact that the sons of God were created to add to the sonship, and do so by creating their own children. And what's to say that all of these children are exactly the same like a bunch of clones? So now you've got the children of the sons of God, who presumably we can say are equal in every way to the sons of God, including the fact that the children also are co-creators. This doesn't necessarily violate the idea that God only creates one kind of thing though, as we're told there is one continuous line of creation.

"Nothing in either of these statements implies any sort of level involvement, or, in fact, anything except one continuous line of creation, in which all aspects are of the same order."

5) If you now look slightly further afield, for example in the bible and elsewhere, or through personal experience, you'll discover that there are allegedly many different KINDS of angels. For example there are the archangels, guardian angels, cherabim, seraphim, principalities, thrones, and these all have various "hierarchy" to them. It also appears that each of the archangels for example has a "special role" or function, whereby they focus on helping people in various aspects of life, be it healing or protection or guidance etc. And we're also told Lucifer was the light-bearer or one of the brightest/most beautiful angels and why would he be different to others in this way?

It seems to me that regardless of any attempt to force heaven's contents into a nice ego box, the reality is that God in fact has many thoughts ("heaven is the sum of all God's thoughts, in number infinite.") And some of these thoughts might in fact be different. Which suggests God is not just sitting there "radiating" like some fixed light bulb, but rather is a living, thinking being, that is capable of having "different thoughts".

After all, the thought that produces the sonship and sons of God, is in some manner different to the thought that produces angels. And that in turn is also different to the thought that produced the holy spirit. Just the mere fact that the holy spirit was created in response to the separation, and was added to the christ mind, as something that was not in the christ mind prior, tells you that God is CAPABLE of creating "different things with different functions."

Now don't be fooled by the idea of differences always means ego. It does not. Nor does the idea of separation always mean ego divisions. e.g. Ego separation is not well understood by many people and it does not mean that the removal of all hints of separation is "non-ego".

"God who encompasses all being nevertheless created separate beings who have everything individually and want to share it to increase their joy."

So we're told God created distinct individuals, who share everything with each other, which is fine. There's nothing ego about that, because ego is a problem of ATTITUDE and a breakdown in COMMUNICATION, it's not a problem of whether there are many beings or individuals. It's only an issue that they no longer want to SHARE EVERYTHING, which enters them into thoughts of selfishness and specialness.

It's quite plausible, if you think about it, that God is quite capable of very intelligently, unlimitedly, having various kinds of thoughts or thoughts which result in various kinds of creations, all of which are still living in harmony, all of which still possess divine holy properties, all of which share everything, but that nevertheless are distinct in some ways. Particularly in terms of their roles and capabilities. Because it does not sound as though angels are co-creators as such. That said, we ARE told that the holy spirit is also a co-creator.

What I want to be able to say is that God is one nature and one being and has one extension which is like a mirror image of himself and that's all he has created. But this just does not seem to correlate to what Jesus says in the course. Not only has he created more than one son in the sonship, in fact great numbers of beings, but also it appears he has created beings that have different functions and roles IN heaven, that has nothing to do with ego or separation. Which makes you wonder what ELSE God might have created.

We are also told that God created some manner of a universe or world, and so that now throws an additional "thought creation" into the mix. God has a kingdom, and he also mentions that angels have a kingdom, and so do you. And that your mind has the power to create worlds. Which all is starting to paint more of a picture that perhaps heaven is not just some big blob of light in which nothing is really happening, but rather than perhaps it is teaming with life and various different "stuff", that spirit beings are floating around having creative thoughts and conversations of some kind, and who knows what else.

What it boils down to for me is simple that God evidently has the power, ability, flexibility of thinking, and will, to be ABLE to create more than one kind of thing. Sons, angels, holy spirit, they are not all the same. And there IS a holy trinity which is real, and has distinct parts. There are so many statements in the course talking about parts and aspects of God. It does not appear God is a one-trick pony nor that he can only "burp out a single son of God". God appears to be much more versatile, unlimited, and quite capable of a plethora of creations. Otherwise he wouldn't have been able to create the holy spirit.

I was thinking about this and about the fact that "God did not create the body." And what came to mind was that perhaps in heaven, there are not bodies - which are walls of flesh and separation devices surrounding the mind - but that in fact in heaven we still have our mind/soul but WITHOUT the body SURROUNDING it, separating it off in a prison. Like, who you are within, your mind/soul/spirit, remains as a full being, and the outer-shell of the body which is made of sin is no longer there. We're like the oyster inside the shell.

Jesus tells us also that "to be without a body is to be in your natural state" and "minds need not bodies to communicate." Does this not imply that 1) we exist together as a family without bodies surrounding our selves, and 2) we interact through communication, and 3) we're having communication with other spirit beings in heaven through a telepathic mind-to-mind means? That doesn't exactly paint a picture of "nothing happening" in heaven.

While it's true there are no separation forms or spacetime-bodies or physical materials coming between us in reality, it is perhaps false to suggest that this means we don't have an individual difference. Our spirit being, let's think of it as perhaps a whisp of light, a spark of life, a shaft of being, perhaps does have some kind of unique "something" about it. What if God did in fact create all sons of God slightly differently? And what if this is not an ego thing? How is it that the angels have different abilities and functions? What if you actually have some kind of "personality" that is a little different to other personalities, in reality?

When you read stuff in other texts like the bible etc about the fall of man and so on, you hear about how there were things going on in heaven. There were arguments and conflicts, even a kind of war, and different individuals had different attitudes. In the course even, Jesus literally says that there was someone called ADAM, who started the tiny mad idea. How is it possible that people even had NAMES that are potentially different and potentially "human like"? And why does Jesus even refer to the sons of God as MAN?

Referring to people, sons of God, as 'man', or as souls that have choices and are co-creators, and different kinds of angels, etc certainly seems to hint at Heaven containing a plethora of different beings, who perhaps are distinct in some way, whereby their "spirit" has certain qualities or character. Beings of light are not just blobs. And just because we think of them abstractly doesn't mean they're non-descript and have no kind of personality. In fact, there are even statements in the course to suggest that God has feelings.

The jury is out, and more information is needed, but just based on what I've talked about, to me it sure sounds as though there's a whole lot more going on in Heaven than we might give it credit for.