Bring4th Forums
  • Login Register
    Login
    Username:
    Password:
  • Archive Home
  • Members
  • Team
  • Help
  • More
    • About Us
    • Library
    • L/L Research Store
User Links
  • Login Register
    Login
    Username:
    Password:

    Menu Home Today At a Glance Members CSC & Team Help
    Also visit... About Us Library Blog L/L Research Store Adept Biorhythms

    As of Friday, August 5th, 2022, the Bring4th forums on this page have been converted to a permanent read-only archive. If you would like to continue your journey with Bring4th, the new forums are now at https://discourse.bring4th.org.

    You are invited to enjoy many years worth of forum messages brought forth by our community of seekers. The site search feature remains available to discover topics of interest. (July 22, 2022) x

    Bring4th Bring4th Studies Strictly Law of One Material An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement

    Thread: An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement


    Bethenny (Offline)

    Tautologically Axiomatic
    Posts: 2
    Threads: 1
    Joined: Feb 2016
    #1
    02-07-2016, 05:17 AM
    Disclaimer: I am aware that my style of writing can come off as condescendingly circumloquacious and has the tendency to instill a plenitudinous amount of resentment within certain individuals.  I can only divulge a genuine proclamation by stating that my ostensible verbiage and its aggressive derivational origins are emanations from influences which reside much deeper than a superficially constructed persona.

    With that being said, enjoy.
      Smile

    It was recently brought to my attention by a colleague that an influx of "skepticism" forums and discussional websites had established an [increasingly apparent] attack on the Ra Material and subsequently were deteriorating into self-aggrandizing conglomerates consisting solely of circle-jerking parrots.

    Being fully cognizant of the absolute vacuous representationalism of anything even slightly resembling logic and/or coherently formulated arguments thus forth being offered and debated within the vast majority of these assemblages; I ardently took it upon myself to get familiarized with the narrative as it pertained to "debunking, debasing, and discrediting everything about Ra and the collective body of Law of One material.

    Fully admitting that I deeply cherish the onslaught of what will inevitably be a s***-storm of attacks to everything I make claim of; the prospect of getting through to even one individual wherein they set off on a journey to observe, research, and individualistically relate to an establishment of truth which prevails outside of the mediocritous stagnation of mainstream media and academia; the icing on the cake is the dismantling [even if momentarily] of shills, trolls, and those of which are in possession of an ever-alluring voracity of feckless ineptitude.

    So, without further adieu: "Ra" & "Seth" Alien Seances / Scientific Experiments / Debate.

    **//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**

    Matthew Ellard writes:
    The first obvious reason, was that Carla was on LSD. That would suggest, observing other cults, that the more Carla "channelled" and added to her growing complex bull-s*** story, the less able she was to keep it consistent. By the time Carla was stuck with growing incoherent story that included Atlantis, "densities", channelled aliens, LSD, and half chicken gods, she simply gave up channelling "Ra", in the 80's, before being caught up in her own words.

    The other problem is that "Ra the alien" only "knows" what Carla "knows". A [sic] unrelated, con-artist, in the 60's says he found Atlantis, in Florida. Carla, therefore, thinks Atlantis is in Florida in 1970. Therefore "Ra the alien" starts claiming he visited Atlantis off Florida and described it. The original con-artist admits lying about Florida, in the late 80's, and Carla is stuck again claiming aliens told her, Atlantis is in Florida.

    [My response]

    Bethenny writes:

    To begin, claiming that a majority or even multitude of the sessions were conducted by the first and foremost ingestion of LSD is a callously disingenuous approach to any semblance of logicality through discourse within the context of claimed intellectualism subsequently yielding the substantiation of debunking affirmations.

    //**//**//
    Excerpt from Session 18. Received February 4th, 1981.

    Query: You just stated that you had some problems with the instrument because of the ingestion by the instrument of some chemical substance. Can you tell me what the substance was?

    Response: The substance of which we speak is called vibratory sound complex, LSD. It does not give poor contact if it is used in conjunction with the contact. The difficulty of this particular substance is that there is, shall we say, a very dramatic drop-off of the effect of this substance. In each case this instrument began the session with the distortion towards extreme vital energy which this substance produces. However, this entity was, during the session, at the point where this substance no longer was in sufficient strength to amplify the entity’s abilities to express vital energy. Thus, first the phenomenon of, shall we say, a spotty contact and then, as the instrument relies again upon its own vibrational complexes of vital energy, the vital energy being in this case very low, it became necessary to abruptly cut off communication in order to preserve and nurture the instrument. This particular chemical substance is both helpful and unhelpful in these contacts for the causes given.
    //**//**//

    The particulars of this exchange were a result of the previous session [session 17, received February 3rd, 1981] in which, for the first time, a session was ended after an abrupt and vaguely succinct farewell by Ra.

    After opulent pontification, it was agreed upon by Don, Carla, and Jim that following this session a formulation of applicable assuetude should be applied within the context of doing that which not only would minimize any compromise to the length and breadth of these sessions, but also toward ratiocinating their efforts toward polarizing a maximization of harmony, thereby increasing the likelihood for the possibility of future sessions and the overall nurturing of amicability between the Don, Carla, Jim, and the Ra group.

    Furthermore, repeatedly referencing Ra as, "Ra the alien" establishes that you are either 1.) wilfully, whimsically, and wholeheartedly inept; and/or 2.) capriciously, calculatingly, and cacophonously devoid of any actual knowledge to that which you so ardently slander.

    The social-memory complex known as Ra purports to be a collective individuation of beings that were once physically incarnate on Venus a *very* long time ago; and have since developed their mind/body/spirit complex into a higher density than what is known on Earth; wherein basically, more energy is derived from light and the ability to augment its intensity is in direct correlation to ones progress through the ascension of soul development.

    Sincerely,

    Bethenny

    **//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**//***//**

    Conclusively, I find it rather interesting that a website calling itself "skepticforum" doesn't allow anyone [including registered and verified members] to post anything until it is reviewed and assessed by a site moderator.  Considering that we're referring to a forum that essentially makes claims to any and every topic being open for discussion, deliberation, and ultimately disputation [like other online establishments; e.g. metabunk] they fail to realize that by openly setting out and establishing oneself as a designated authority of being able to "debunk" absolutely everything [unless of course, it can be verified via Anderson Cooper or a pharmaceutical commercial] you are inevitably drawing lines in the sand and subsequently, overtly, and unfortunately harboring an existence which relishes in the inference of inability toward any growth via spiritual, logical, or philosophical furtherance whatsoever.
    [+] The following 3 members thanked thanked Bethenny for this post:3 members thanked Bethenny for this post
      • Parsons, Indigo Blue Dragonfly, Dekalb_Blues
    « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

    Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)



    Messages In This Thread
    An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement - by Bethenny - 02-07-2016, 05:17 AM
    RE: An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement - by Parsons - 02-07-2016, 03:40 PM
    RE: An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement - by Bethenny - 02-07-2016, 04:41 PM
    RE: An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement - by Adonai One - 02-07-2016, 05:08 PM
    RE: An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement - by Manjushri - 02-08-2016, 01:26 PM
    RE: An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement - by rva_jeremy - 02-08-2016, 04:40 PM
    RE: An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement - by Adonai One - 02-08-2016, 11:28 PM
    RE: An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement - by Ankh - 02-09-2016, 06:11 PM
    RE: An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement - by isis - 02-11-2016, 12:39 AM
    RE: An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement - by Bring4th_Austin - 02-13-2016, 07:13 PM
    - - by earth_spirit - 02-13-2016, 07:45 PM
    RE: An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement - by Parsons - 02-09-2016, 07:22 PM
    RE: An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement - by 1109 - 02-10-2016, 03:11 AM
    RE: An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement - by Brian_Sanchez - 02-10-2016, 11:51 AM
    RE: An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement - by anagogy - 02-13-2016, 10:05 PM
    RE: An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement - by Indigo Blue Dragonfly - 02-10-2016, 04:08 PM
    RE: An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement - by isis - 02-10-2016, 09:56 PM
    RE: An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement - by Matt1 - 02-14-2016, 09:53 AM
    RE: An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement - by Jade - 02-14-2016, 12:16 PM
    RE: An Expository Discourse Into The Fallacy of the "Skepticism" Movement - by unir 1 - 02-16-2016, 05:27 PM

    • View a Printable Version
    • Subscribe to this thread

    © Template Design by D&D - Powered by MyBB

    Connect with L/L Research on Social Media

    Linear Mode
    Threaded Mode