David Wilcock

[Quantum]

The question posed herein is, what may we say rather "to the very obvious contradictions at his own hand", as opposed to the assertions he makes as regards Ra and Edgar Cayce? They go straight to the heart of the LOO. That has from the onset been my primary focus, i.e. the study of the LOO. I look forward to yours and all other responses to this intriguing Study Mechanism provided by such assertions by the author.

I do not think so. I think they go straight to the heart of your specific interpretation of the Law of One. Christians often make the mistake of speaking for God, and recreating him in their own name. We must be careful that we do not abuse Ra in the same manner.

You misunderstand my point then. Nothing in post #134 is specific to my interpretation to the LOO? Nothing. It is specific to the contradictions as to claims made by the author regarding himself, which involve the LOO?

As for the analogy of Christians speaking for God, I'm confused. Am I the Christian or God in this analogy, or is it the other way around that the unnamed author is god and I the christian?

....tongue verrrrry deeeeeply in cheeek my friend...I couldn't help it...hope it made you smile as intended ((()))

But your point is well taken that you need not defend him. Of course not. No one asked this in any event as is seen clearly in my statement proceeding yours as regards not speaking to assertions, in this case, as opposed to contradictions. Thank you again Ali in any case to your participation thus far, but which as you express may exclude this topic. I will post another very shortly at which point you are encouraged to jump back in as you stated previously. To coin a phrase that I can't remember where I read before, your participation provides a most stimulating "catalyst"...lol

A Very Happy and Safe Memorial Day to all....Have fun. Its time for me to go and play some more, this time in Sunny California for a few.

Q