Law of One Religion?

[Steppingfeet]

Gary, I still don't understand why you said this:

GLB: I think you walk on risky ground, Monica, in the implication (correct me if I'm wrong) that people who have an interpretation of the Law of One material at variance to your own are engaging in fundamentalist thinking.

Did you really think I meant that anyone who interprets the Material differently than I do is guilty of religious fundamentalism?

Hey Monica, Diana - I really didn't intend to offend, be challenging, create friction, or otherwise hurt feelings. I'm sorry if that is what has resulted.

My wording could have been clearer, no, I did not mean to imply that you meant that "anyone who interprets the material differently from you is guilty of religious fundamentalism". In other words, I'm not saying that you said that.

But I think the greater point legitimate. In that it IS risky ground for anyone, you or me, to contend that others are engaging in fundamentalist thinking regarding the Law of One when those others have a different interpretation/application of some quote, or principle, or idea from the Law of One material.

I'm not saying that those others are not being dogmatic or fundamentalist - maybe they are, and maybe that can be measured through analysis to some extent.

All I said was that it was risky to do so because it's difficult to prove, because it could just be a different matter of interpretation. And clearly Monica does, actually, have strongly different interpretations about some portions of this material that has pitted her at odds with others.

In and of themselves, your questions in the initial post are great, Monica, and worthy of serious consideration, discussion, and internal self-reflection. I said as much, as treated your questions with the respect they deserve.

Parsons, while your comment is honest, can't you try and work out an understanding before pointing the finger?

I didn't see Parson's post as finger pointing. He conveyed his experience, saying that he had a similar reading/feeling of Monica's thoughts. It was gentle on Parson's part.

Diana, you did precisely the same by saying that my post felt "harsh". Which is fine; it is a reflection of your interpretation of my thoughts. In return I do not reply and ask you to stop finger pointing, ya know?

Instead I reflected on my thoughts and determined that I could have worded that better, but I still felt there was a legitimate point to make.

Monica, I would disagree that this is a tangent. For instance, you presented the example that you gave about acceptance as apparently at variance with your own. You said you were disconcerted that some people were cherry-picking an overly simplistic understanding of acceptance in which they were using as an excuse to justify behavior you perceive as negative. You related this to some religions using dogma to justify negative behavior.

Precisely.

Diana or Monica, please re-read Parsons' reflection concerning one aspect (not the totality) of this thread.

Monica did, point blank, identify a particular interpretation and application of this material as a dogmatic/fundamentalist rendering.

Yes?

Okay. So back to my original thought: that is risky ground, because it could just be that Monica's interpretation of that idea is simply different from others'.

However, using that same logic, I could call your signature dogmatic/religious because it as variance with my interpretation of the LOO and because I view it as very black and white thinking.

(Parsons', I really appreciated the clarity of your post.)

Parsons here isn't saying that Monica's signature IS dogmatic, just that, the same logic that Monica employed earlier to suggest that readers of the Law of One are being dogmatic could, rightfully, be applied to statements that Monica makes, including her signature.

But why is this about Monica's position in any way?

The thread isn't strictly a matter of "Hey, what do you guys think about these questions?"

In addition to the good questions, Monica is directly making a charge that people with whom she disagrees are doing just what he first post asks about.

Hence Parsons's reply and my own, both of which have been quite respectful.

Upon further consideration, I realized anyone could take anyone else's viewpoints/stances on the material as negatively dogmatic/religious depending on their own viewpoint.

This is a great point.

Of course it could indeed be the case that a difference of opinion is happening because one person is not treating the material like a fundamentalist, and another person is.

However, indicting other people as treating it that way could just as easily be a means to invalidate their position with which you (general "you") strongly disagree.

So who knows what could happen if the original text were lost and it were spread through word of mouth over hundreds of years passing from one distorted view to another.

That would be key, I think, to developing a rigid dogma around this philosophy - the original text would have to be lost. So long as that text is available, I personally think it has too many in-built safeguards to allow too dogmatic a rendering. The whole philosophy is absolutely, unmistakably built on free will. And the organization which houses and offers it is very careful to honor and continually remind the seeker that they are their own authority.

Lots of love, GLB

PS: isis, your post - to the extent it represented your actual experience (one can never be certain with you ) - was beautiful. I'm glad that the Law of One not only helped you to heal pain, but helped to lift the vision to a greater understanding of the unity of all things. Whatever source in this world helps to lift the vision, be it the Law of One or Christmas songs, I think it helpful to put it at the center of one's life, so long as it's understood to be a tool or resource.