Hmm, there are a few concepts sprinkled throughout the whole that seems to be accepted at face value, and I don't understand why.
For example, in the original question:
Appears that spirit is always involved in "all" astral activity, and I keep asking
myself why they would want to use our image (astral bodies).
First of all, there is a presupposition that spirit and astral are different things, and that human/physical are different. Yet most observations of the astral that I have experienced/read about would indicate that what we call spirit and astral and physical are aspects of the same thing: Life. Life can express physically as a variety of things, trees, slugs, mosquitoes, animals, humans. And as far as I'm concerned, when I project or when I dream, what I see is versions of all of the above.
Is it simply that
they are already "in", have taken flesh; and are just fooling around? Sure, spirit
uses humanity to take flesh. Sure, spirit uses the human for a little astral
myschief. Sure, spirit uses the astral as a mask.
This I don't understand at all. The astral is a state; we perceive the astral the way we understand. You may see something negative as a spider while I may see the same energy as a roach. The reason for this 'informing' is that you may be afraid (or heavily dislike) spiders while I may heavily dislike roaches. It's not that they 'take' form, it's that we give them form.
And yet, the smarter ones, may be able to change form at will- but usually, if they are negative, they will probably take the form out of our thoughts. So we're forming them, after all.
Something else that jumped out at me:
A long time ago I had asked myself similar questions. It doesn't quite seem fair that a small percentage of the population, have most of the wealth. Even within our modern society of Western Civilization, there are HUGE class differences between one man/woman and another.
Class struggles are part of living in any structured society- it is fashionable to bash western society because of it's capitalist base but tell anyone from a Pariah family in India when the caste system was in vogue that they had it better than a poor person in almost any ghetto and they may tell you different. The caste system is the perfect example of a well-meaning idea gone terribly wrong and the way it got entrenched given the apparent value system of a very wise people.
I think there has almost grown an anamosity toward wealthy people those who just can't seem to ever get over that hurdle of getting wealthy enough to sit back and relax. Also, I see a VAST difference in American or British/Western Society between Dirt Poor and Well-to-do.
Do you mean that poor brits are different than poor americans, or something altogether different? Because if you, say, have ever gone to Haiti (and I have) poverty there is much worse than poverty here in the states. So I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.
Meanwhile, Rich and Well-to-do, aren't suffering say for instance in the health department. A few grand may be the difference between 2 decent front teeth and NONE!
Of course, here in the states it takes money to go to a doctor, because there is no socialized medicine- but the US, one of the richest countries in the west (not the richest, though) have one of the worst infant mortality rates in industrialized countries. So once again, it's not how it seems.
I recently saw a poll on the US versus other industrialized countries, and it turns out the US isn't the richest, the best educated or the healthiest. Even though the US was pretty high up in the money dept, in everything else we weren't even in the top 10. I'm not sure what this proves, though, if anything at all.