Unity,
All is well. It actually really is. I will confess I hardly understood much of what you wrote however. Some of what you wrote from what I'm able to decipher is correct, while other parts read as if what you've given me credit for may have been from another member.
It is all irrelevant however to the point of your open willingness to disagree with the Material as you've confessed, as much as the individuals surrounding it, namely Ra. I've provided you specific selected Ra quotes as evidence to your statements to the contrary. You choose to ignore them taking the position which seems only to weaken your position that instead you do not want to engage with me on these points. Interesting. I've point blank further provided you the Study Guide which it seems prompted you to openly state that you have no problem disagreeing with Don, Carla, Jim, Bob or Ra, and presumably the LOO. You've been asked to address those points as provided therein which clearly dispute your interpretations fully and wholly. Still no answer. You do not address this either. Instead what comes forth is leveled at me? Interesting.
Once again, as suggested earlier, you turn your attention to the person questioning your subject matter, rather than the subject matter itself. Apart from explaining how the distinguished individuals of the LOO could all be unanimously wrong, and that you are somehow correct, it seems your only recourse is to address me instead.
I remain open to hear your responses to the several quotes of Ra referenced that have been provided, all with no response. I remain as open to the Study Guide questions. I have provided source. As further suggested, the only recourse you have is to ignore the cited references, or toss them out, or now instead focus your energy on the individual questioning your subject matter.
Do you disagree with the Study Guide? It is a short answer if you don't. It is a complicated answer if you do given it is contrary to everything you have proposed as regards your very unique and contradictory interpretation to a mid 6D entity that graces us with their teachings. Please unity. Which is it?
If you wish to discuss the Study Guide as but just one sourced subject, please do. I am open.Your non-response will be as good as the response as is making it about me. I close again by stating and reaffirming, it is not about us striving to be understood. Its about us striving to understand.
My entire focus has been on the LOO wholly. You know this. I do wish you all the Love and the Light, and do not wish for you to feel the pinch of having to defend what is becoming increasingly more difficult to in fact defend. Perhaps it is difficult because you seem to refuse to bend or yield to any member I have seen thus far, ever, or even seemingly to the MATERIAL ITSELF. Lets try it again as fellow seekers as an academic attempt if you will. I mean you no ham, no foul, nor any injury my friend. I've said this repeatedly. I am open to hear your simple explanations as regards the Study Guide. What have you to say?
~ Q ~
All is well. It actually really is. I will confess I hardly understood much of what you wrote however. Some of what you wrote from what I'm able to decipher is correct, while other parts read as if what you've given me credit for may have been from another member.
It is all irrelevant however to the point of your open willingness to disagree with the Material as you've confessed, as much as the individuals surrounding it, namely Ra. I've provided you specific selected Ra quotes as evidence to your statements to the contrary. You choose to ignore them taking the position which seems only to weaken your position that instead you do not want to engage with me on these points. Interesting. I've point blank further provided you the Study Guide which it seems prompted you to openly state that you have no problem disagreeing with Don, Carla, Jim, Bob or Ra, and presumably the LOO. You've been asked to address those points as provided therein which clearly dispute your interpretations fully and wholly. Still no answer. You do not address this either. Instead what comes forth is leveled at me? Interesting.
Once again, as suggested earlier, you turn your attention to the person questioning your subject matter, rather than the subject matter itself. Apart from explaining how the distinguished individuals of the LOO could all be unanimously wrong, and that you are somehow correct, it seems your only recourse is to address me instead.
I remain open to hear your responses to the several quotes of Ra referenced that have been provided, all with no response. I remain as open to the Study Guide questions. I have provided source. As further suggested, the only recourse you have is to ignore the cited references, or toss them out, or now instead focus your energy on the individual questioning your subject matter.
Do you disagree with the Study Guide? It is a short answer if you don't. It is a complicated answer if you do given it is contrary to everything you have proposed as regards your very unique and contradictory interpretation to a mid 6D entity that graces us with their teachings. Please unity. Which is it?
If you wish to discuss the Study Guide as but just one sourced subject, please do. I am open.Your non-response will be as good as the response as is making it about me. I close again by stating and reaffirming, it is not about us striving to be understood. Its about us striving to understand.
My entire focus has been on the LOO wholly. You know this. I do wish you all the Love and the Light, and do not wish for you to feel the pinch of having to defend what is becoming increasingly more difficult to in fact defend. Perhaps it is difficult because you seem to refuse to bend or yield to any member I have seen thus far, ever, or even seemingly to the MATERIAL ITSELF. Lets try it again as fellow seekers as an academic attempt if you will. I mean you no ham, no foul, nor any injury my friend. I've said this repeatedly. I am open to hear your simple explanations as regards the Study Guide. What have you to say?
~ Q ~