(08-20-2009, 10:20 PM)Quantum Wrote: [ -> ]It leaves one to wonder doesn't it? If the Confederation passes a material for dissemination as if though inferred to be correct in context, and that one material acknowledges reincarnation as a fact, even by secondary reference such as in the Cayce example, yet then also passes another material for dissemination which adamantly refutes reincarnation as a principle in fact, then what are we to believe?
It would be wonderful if anyone else in fact also read the material and found the looming contradictions as disturbing. It left me to not only question the Ra material afterwards, but very obviously the Ohaspe material as much, if in fact not the Confederation on the whole. Clearly both can not be correct.
Your comments remind me of some heated discussions I participated in awhile back, in a Christianity forum. (Note: It was a public, unmoderated forum
about Christianity,
not a private, moderated forum consisting of Christians only. Hence,
Christianity forum, not
Christian forum.)
On that forum, there was much debate about which religion was the 'right' religion. Naturally, the Christians thought that Christianity was the only 'true' religion, with varying degrees of exclusivity. Virtually all of them thought that only Christians could go to 'Heaven,' with only a small minority acknowledging that it really was not their place to judge who was 'saved' and who was not.
Among those who were the most elitist, ie., proclaiming that only their flavor of Christianity would pass the test and grant them redemption, there ensued a great deal of debate as to what constituted a 'true' Christian. It wasn't enough to deny access to the pearly gates to Buddhists, but even self-proclaimed Christians would be given the boot if they did not meet certain criteria.
That criteria varied according to whom you asked, of course. Catholics thought only Catholics went to 'Heaven' (though they weren't quite so quick to condemn non-Catholics to fire and brimstone; they at least allowed for purgatory and limbo), but, get this, many of the 'Born-Again' Christians thought that Catholics weren't 'real' Christians!!! (No kidding!)
It gets worse. Then the Born-Agains argued amongst themselves, dividing according to whether they spoke in tongues or not. The non-Charismatics said that Charismatics weren't 'really' Christians, and maybe even were consorting with the 'devil!'
Admittedly, these were a bit on the fringe, but the mainstream Protestants all agreed that those belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints (Mormon) were
surely not Christians! Ditto for the Gnostics, and they didn't even know about Christian mystics.
I found their debates amusing in a sad sort of way, in light of the Law of One. They really took that stuff seriously! I mean, they got really worked up about what I thought were petty little details!
Die, Heretic! by Emo Philips
A man was walking along San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge when he saw a woman about to jump off. He ran up to her, trying to dissuade her from committing suicide. He told her simply that God loved her. A tear came to her eye.
He then asked her, “Are you a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, or what?”
“I’m a Christian,” she replied.
He said, “Me, too! Small world! Protestant or Catholic?”
“Protestant.”
“Me, too! What denomination?”
“Baptist.”
“Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
“Northern Baptist.”
He remarked, “Well, ME TOO! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
She answered, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
He said, “Well, that’s amazing! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist or Northern Conservative Reformed Baptist?”
“Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist.”
“Remarkable! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?”
She told him, “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
“A miracle!” he cried. “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
She said, “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
He then shouted, “DIE, HERETIC!”, and pushed her over the rail.
Well, in the midst of all this turmoil, I had the audacity to suggest that all paths lead up the mountain, with some just being rockier than others. They pounced on me, demanding to know my religion. I replied that I was equally at home worshiping in a Christian church (any of them), chanting in a Buddhist temple, meditating for world peace with the New Agers, or frolicking in the moonlight with the Pagans. (I got labeled a demon for that last one, ha!)
They then insisted that it was impossible for both the Buddhist and the Christian to be 'right.' When I told them that the person who exemplified the Law of One more than anyone I'd ever met was a Bible-believing Christian who had never read the Law of One and probably never will, they couldn't wrap their brains around that at all. One person told me, "That makes no sense. If he believes the Bible, he doesn't believe in reincarnation, yet I know you do believe in reincarnation. How, then, can you possibly say that his spirituality is the closest to yours?"
I replied that it was the
essence of his spirituality, not his beliefs, that mattered. His spirituality was based on
love, and it didn't matter which myth he believed in as a vehicle of discovering that love.
They continued to insist that it was simply not possible for me to have anything in common with a Bible-believing Christian, and that our paths were not compatible.
I said, sure they were, because 'right' is not based on
belief; 'right' (if there even is such a thing at all) is based on
love.
Therefore, a person who opens his heart via Buddhism is every bit on the path of love as the person who opens his heart via Christianity, who is every bit on the path of love as the person who opens his heart via catalyst, while proclaiming God is dead or there is no God at all.
Which criteria is considered important in the Law of One? Is it belief? Are we ever, ever told what to
believe in the Law of One?
What about the later sessions with Q'uo et al? Were not all religions considered valid, as long as the person resonated with their chosen path? Has Ra or Q'uo ever admonished us to belong to this or that religion, or avoid this or that belief?
It's not about
belief.
It's about
love.
I submit that the reason Oahspe passed inspection has nothing at all to do with the beliefs or tenets described therein, but with its capacity to stir the heart of its reader. Conversely, The Urantia Book did not pass not because of its historical errors, but because it failed to be effective in replacing fear with love.
Remember when Ra said that it was advisable to choose a system of studying the Archetypes? Either Astrology, Tarot, or Kabalah.
At first glance, those 3 disciplines don't seem to have much in common, do they? On the surface, one is about celestial bodies, one is a series of images on a deck of cards, and the other is a glyph. One could ask, "Which one is right? How could Ra recommend all 3?" But of course they all are valid...they all portray the very same Archetypal energies. Just as a chair is still a chair whether you refer to it in English, Spanish, or Chinese.
I submit that
Oahspe is simply another mythology. We could be talking about the
Bhagavad Gita here. Did it pass Confederation standards? If so, does that mean Lord Krishna really did converse with Arjuna on a battlefield? Did that happen literally? If Q'uo were asked whether the
Bhagavad Gita passed Council, what would the answer be? Would the
Gospel of John also pass Council? How could they both?
I submit that something passing Council has little to do with literal beliefs and everything to do with its capacity to help us polarize.
The Law of One is more than a fact-checker. It's a doorway to higher consciousness, and, more importantly, polarization. It's not the only door, and it's certainly not the only viewpoint. Do we not live in a holographic UniVerse? Then of course Oahspe will be true for those who resonate with it. That doesn't negate the Law of One. The Law of One is special, imo, because it transcends mere facts, beliefs, and doctrines, in favor of principles that explain how Buddhism can be true for one person and Christianity true for another; how the person who chooses to not believe in reincarnation has a viewpoint that is every bit as valid as that of the person who does believe in it.
Ra: I am Ra. This was transmitted by one of Confederation social memory complex status whose idea, as offered to the Council, was to use some of the known physical history of the so-called religions or religious distortions of your cycle in order to veil and partially unveil aspects or primal distortions of the Law of One. All names can be taken to be created for their vibrational characteristics. The information buried within has to do with a deeper understanding of love and light, and the attempts of infinite intelligence through many messengers to teach/learn those entities of your sphere.
There it is, right there. It was never the intention of the authors of
Oahspe to completely rend the veil; but only to partially unveil, and that, using the
mythic distortions of our religions! Which abound in characters whose importance lies not in historical accuracy (ala Joseph Campbell) but in their
allegorical and archetypal values.
It would be interesting to see if the wonderful and whimsical allegorical classic,
Hind's Feet on High Places, would pass Council. I submit that it would, despite its obvious lack of literal truth.
The very fact that
Oahspe draws upon religious myths would indicate to me that literal accuracy was not considered paramount. Perhaps the intended audience was those who prefer to keep the veil which separates us from knowledge of our past lives intact?
Isn't this holographic UniVerse grand?