06-21-2010, 02:42 AM
by your definition, especially the 'complex' part of it, still negates the rationalization that was put forth for david willcock 'channeling Ra, but not the Ra you know it, as you know it'.
moreover, we arent talking about a complex that is in early 4d. we are talking about a complex which is in the advancing stages of 6d. and as Ra itself states at more than one point, their thoughts, their beings are 'one', more than ever.
no part of such a complex which think as one, act as one, would contrast with the wills and thoughts of the others and act in contrast with what they have so dearly learned in the past, without the consent of all.
moreover, we arent talking about a complex that is in early 4d. we are talking about a complex which is in the advancing stages of 6d. and as Ra itself states at more than one point, their thoughts, their beings are 'one', more than ever.
no part of such a complex which think as one, act as one, would contrast with the wills and thoughts of the others and act in contrast with what they have so dearly learned in the past, without the consent of all.