Why do you believe?

[Lavazza]

Not sure if I make any sense lol

Thanks for this clarification ayadew. It does makes sense. It is similar to the paradox that the Greek philosopher Zeno presented during his time... that in theory you should never be able to reach a destination, because to go there you would first need to reach the midway point. And the midway point to the midway point... etc, to infinity. Thus as you can never reach the first midway point, you can never move (yet we reach our destinations regardless, thus the paradox)

Thanks again for the good thread and the good questions!

And thank you for your responses! You've laid out some excellent discussion points on the topic of "evil" that I'm looking forward to discussing. But I'll save it for a new thread, hopefully I can get around to creating it this week some time.

That said though, there are some parts of the Law of One that do not resonate with me. These mostly have to do with transitory material that Don delved into at different times, but there are also some interactions between Don and Ra, that just feel to me like Don has such a conviction about the answer that Ra gives him a simple affirmative answer but does not elaborate as he normally would. I suspect that in some of these cases, Ra does so to terminate the line of questions without infringing on Don's free will or personal belief systems as he might if he gave a negative reply. Note that I do not feel that this is a shortcoming of Don in any way, as I'm sure that the same thing would happen with all of us (myself especially).

Do you mean that Ra basically indulged Don with an answer that he wanted to hear, so as not to divert the theme of questions further away from core Law of One principals? So that Ra might be thinking to him/itself "yes yes alright whatever you want to hear is true, just lets get back to the basic spirituality material please!" One of the earlier sessions Don actually asks Ra if they intentionally weave mis-information in to their responses to uphold laws of confusion, but they respond in the affirmative that they "do not intentionally do this".

This brings up more confusion on my end that is relevant to this thread. That being, how do you access the Law of One material overall? Obviously there are ground breaking principals and bits of "lost" information that are extremely interesting. But there are also those areas that do not resonate, and/or are (I am willing to venture) completely false. Such as, again, some of the responses in the 'fragments' section. Lets take an extreme example of mis-information, the existence of moon bases. In Carla's commentary this is explained as 'de-tuning' of the instrument with transitory questioning. The idea being in short that Ra has to resign the answering to other (negative?) entities who are happy to dictate any sort of fantastical response. Is the Law of One such a body of work that one "wrong" (so to speak) response to a question could invalidate the rest? And if not, why?

Another point here, is how can we be certain that this is an isolated example? I'm almost finished with book one of the series now, and from what I can see Don asks many, many "transitory" questions of Ra to which answers are given.

One response to this line of questioning I've read before is the simple use of resonance towards the material. And indeed this is probably the best road map for any channeled or other spiritual information. But then are we not more or less in a position to simply say ye or nay to anything we wanted? Is the Law of One intended to be that subjective? If so- I'm happy to cross out the existence of the STS path. It doesn't resonate to me... yet to do that seems to me to be a great disservice to the information on the whole. So how can we ignore / cut anything out?

Would that I could glaze over these questions and not be bothered by them, alas... these are some of the things I think about at night. Perhaps in part responsible for my belief / lack of knowing.