Share your vision for the harvest

[unity100]

They're not extreme interpretations. They're rather tame interpretations of very ambiguous words.

really ?

so, if someone gives an answer like '2011' to a question that is in the form of 'whether it will happen at a certain date or it will be something that is spread out', that is ambiguous ?

you have redefined ambiguous. this is exactly the problem here. its like tenet says - don asks a specific question. ra gives a specific answer. just like how they always do.

and then someone comes, and slaps it with the word ambiguous. making ANYthing in the material, basically, totally ambiguous.

i can make ANY q/a from the material ambiguous and open to interpretation to the point of being able to say Ra meant exactly the opposite of what they actually said like that :

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session...=1&ss=1#18

here i can effectively say that actually Ra meant that the 150 harvested entities were a social memory complex, despite they explicitly mentioned that they were not.

its ambiguous. because we want it to.

And this is why this debate is getting outrageous. You think you have the right to throw psychological labels on people who argue against you because we see something that is very obvious to us that has nothing to do with bias or any sort of psychological hangup.

excuse me, but if you think any debate is getting outrageous, you or anyone have the option of refraining from discussing. just like how i do in numerous discussions. this would save time and effort for both parties when one of the parties is saying that ...............

really. what im even explaining here.

don asks whether harvest will be at a certain date, or spread out, ra answers it will be at a certain date. arguing it otherwise, pushes the other party to conclude it is due to personal bias. because, there is no way someone would 'interpret' anything in real life so conversely - you go to the grocers, you tell him you want fresh apples, and ask which of the two crates are fresher - the person replies the blue crate. you dont go get the apples from the red crate after that. your question was specific, answer was specific, the result is straightforward. the grocer doesnt mean 'red, or possibly red'.

so if someone who would act in the above manner in his grocer comes up and declares that when Ra answered with a specific date to a question that asked whether harvest would be at a certain time or spread out, they actually meant 900 YEARS, then you can only conclude personal bias, because you dont think that the person in front of you could be linguistically challenged, or outright mentally incapable.

we know that icaro is neither mentally incapable, or linguistically challenged. so, there is no way in hell that he would go out to say that a specific question to a specific answer, actually meant SOMETHING ELSE. in addition, doing that in a serious discussion knowingly, would constitute either trolling to inflame the environment, or total disrespect for the other participants. and as i assume icaro or others doing the same are not at all intending these, i am concluding personal bias. otherwise i would have to conclude something else.

so, please spare me the 'outrageous'. what is outrageous is, someone having to defend that a specific plain answer given to a specific plain question, is actually a specific plain answer to a specific plain question.

I guarantee you I would have no problem dying this second, but I don't see instant harvest as the only interpretation of Ra's words. I find your interpretations to be in the extreme, but I'm not going to say "Well obviously unity, you have something wrong with 3D existence. You can't stand it, so you want harvest to be instant and death to come soon because you no longer like this existence."

you dont need to refrain from saying it. and i would not refrain from answering it. however, you should pay proper attention to discussions before going out and making conclusions, like how i am doing.

i had not at any point got fixated on ANY of these approaches. actually, at one point i had made a long post saying how the material pointed to a harvest in which noone who chose not to leave died, but lived out their lives to whatever extent they could. this stance of mine, has remained for days.

however, after the recent discussions that went on in between tenet and some others prompted me to research, and i have gone deeper to get the information i have outlined in this thread, i saw that what i had formulated before, was not correct.

and here i shared these information, and gave the links to to relevant quotes.

ironically, the people who had an instant harvest and death perceptive did not get enraged or inflamed when i have pointed out my earlier perspective with the non-death harvest, however, when i have shared my new findings that showed a short duration, near harvest with death necessity, i first had encountered constant reiterations, outright denial of PLAIN sentences and answers that were given in quotes, then someone - in this case you - came up and accused me of various stuff, ranging from extreme interpretations to outrageousness this and that. the instant harvest + death people were not so aggravated.

Are you a trained psychologist? Have you done an extensive psychological study on a large various group of people who see different interpretations of Ra's words? Have you let your peers review this study to make sure you have no bias of your own affecting the results?

No?

i may have issues with this 3d planet, and i may be wanting to die, or i may be content with it and not wanting to leave.

neither of these, has caused me to go as far to totally deny something that is explicitly stated in the material i trust. as you can see, my perspective and approach, have totally changed with my new findings in the course of these 2 days. since these two perspectives are totally opposite of each other, one of those would mean to contradict and oppose any bias i would have on this matter.

in this state, it would be rather naive to claim personal bias interference in my perspective.

I'm not so sure your diagnosis of people who disagree with you would be objectively accepted then. Objectively, it's even fishier that you're applying it to everyone who happens to disagree with you. How convenient that only those who disagree with you do so out of bias...

there is no occasion i applied to anyone who happened to be disagree with me. however, when someone refuses a direct answer to a direct and explicit question, and comes up as red instead of blue, it would be ridiculous not to bring biases into table. and please, next time you are inflamed, do not start making up irrelevant nonsense like 'everyone who happens to disagree with you' etc and so on. there is endless amount of discussions here people not only agreed with me but went on to call me a great many variety of things, and the times i have brought any kind of bias into table, are not even a handful.

Of all the quotes regarding harvest, you are taking what you want to fit your own view. Even within this own quote, you are ignoring very obvious possibilities of other meanings and having them fit your own view of harvest. It's pointless to discuss with you, because you have set in your mind what you think harvest is and you'll only use quotes, even just PARTS of those quotes, to support that view, and ignore any other quotes which very obviously point towards a different view.

It's very possible that one quote that you constantly fall back on, given Ra's following clarification, was regarding the harvest of entities not in incarnation, which would be a rather grand instant event. The fact Ra even mentions entities not in incarnation instead of "all entities" makes it ambiguous and open for interpretation.

I know you disagree. I know you think Ra was simply clarifying. Maybe they were? Maybe they weren't. I bet you'll choose the option which suits your opinion, and then say anyone who chooses the other, or even acknowledges the other, only does so because they have a psychological bias that doesn't allow them to accept the one you chose.

no - bring me the quotes regarding harvest that is contrary to a short harvest and death necessity scenario. please do.

we have brought ALL the quotes regarding not only 3rd cycle harvest, but also harvests of entities that were harvested in the 2nd cycle, harvested in between, or dubbed as harvestable in between, and even Ra's own harvest and discussed how did they go about after they have got harvested in their first cycle because there would be no 4d vibrations yet. yes, we did bring all of those quotes into the table. moreover, some of those quotes which I MYSELF have found and brought, have contradicted, and made me change my perspective about no-death, on-demand harvest scenario. therefore, logically, it is impossible that i have been taking 'only what fits with my view'.

the fact that you are shooting from the hip in the form of 'you are taking only what you want to fit your own view' shows you have not at all read this thread, or perceived it, or remember what you read enough to make out who said what.

i find that extremely tiring, and totally disrespectful in regard to the basics of discussion.