Share your vision for the harvest

[Bring4th_Austin]

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.

Going back to a way earlier discussion we had, I was trying to point out the words which Ra says which would leave it readily open for interpretation by anyone. The "probability" and "approximately" are open for interpretation to someone who would wish to still believe in harvest if nothing happened in the near future. "It was just a probability, as well as an approximation." That isn't something that could be argued with, and would simply have to be dismissed on one's own logic. I wasn't trying to say that harvest could last that long, or that the process was that long, simply that it could be argued by someone that 2011, 2012, or anytime in the near future, isn't necessarily the date for harvest.

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

Besides the probabilities and approximations, what I am calling ambiguous is the actual mechanic of harvest, as none of us know what it is or how it will happen. We know that a gateway to intelligent infinity is opened. The ambiguous part I see is the fact that it could easily be that it is opened for those entities in time/space, and then all those passing into time/space after that time period will have access to it as well. I'm not denying the possibility that it may happen for those in space/time, but that is not the only possible scenario I see.

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.

Ra says here "these entities are not a social memory complex," whereas Ra never says "entities within incarnation will be aware of the opening of the gateway, entities within incarnation will be aware of the harvesting, entities within incarnation will immediately be harvested." I (now) realize you've changed your viewpoint somewhat, but I'm still seeing both possibilities, where "harvest," starting instantly and lasting until the last person unharvested person in incarnation at that point dies naturally, only being harvested after death...or harvested instantly from space/time, or somewhere in between.

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'.

But if the person replies "it's probable/possible that the red crate is fresher," is that not an ambiguous answer? It means that they might be, or they might not be. I was never contending that harvest could LAST for so many years...from the material, what I gather, the possibility I'm seeing is that harvest would last until the last person who was alive during harvest dies naturally...could be 50-100 years generously. My main contention about being open for interpretation was "approximately" and "probability/possibility." It's pretty safe to assume harvest is nigh, as I'm sure most here have done, but like I said, if nothing noticeable happens in the next few years, and someone wants to believe it still could, could point at those words and say "see, it's still possible."

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 would refrain from saying it because I don't think interactions on this forum are enough to publicly psychoanalyze someone. And also, my comment also spawns from your original post in this thread stating "the fact that this sudden vs gradual argument continues, even among those who have been studying it for years, is precisely due to reasons tenet explained about the biases." The reasons I saw Tenet explain were painting the "gradualist" side of the debate with a broad brush of psychoanalysis. I "agreed" with your statement in a snarky smartass attempt to make a point.

But you are right that I should pay attention to these discussions before making some conclusions I did. It seems I missed two pages of discussion in this thread, and did jump to some conclusions I shouldn't have. I was drawing from the first post to the post I responded to without regarding the rest in my reply .

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.

Well, seeing how I was ignorant of your new revelations, by "aggravation" had little to do with your new interpretations, or your interpretations at all, and had a lot more to do with my perception of your applying bias to ones who disagree with you.

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.

I do now see this, and I was never accusing you of arriving at conclusions due to bias (like I said, my initial post stating those who have reached any conclusion have done so because of bias was to turn your own statement around on you to prove a point and had little to do with how I felt.) I was rather accusing you of being stuck on one opinion and perspective and supporting it in spite of the material. Which luckily it was rather easy for you to throw this back in my face and prove me wrong. I can't say that after reading the rest of the thread I completely understand your new 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.

This was mainly in response to your initial post, which from my gatherings (you agreeing with Tenet's thought that the reason the debate was going on was because gradualists were stuck with some bias), aren't nonsense. I've explicitly seen Tenet address the whole of the "gradualist standpoint" as being caught on some sort of bias, and this is what I was thinking you were agreeing with. I don't think it is irrelevant nonsense for me to think so, because I can point out these posts you seem to have agreed with as for why the discussion still goes on.

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

Like I said, I don't know if I completely understand your new perspective. I tried reading the thread over a couple times...what do you consider "short harvest?" I don't think there's any Ra material to support a harvest that is longer than the remaining lifespan of entities incarnated during harvest, only material which could support that harvest wouldn't start for a number of years, thus not being over for an even longer number of years.

Is the "short harvest" you talk about basically what I am saying? Only long enough for the entities to die of natural causes?

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.

You're right, it does show rather explicitly that I didn't read the thread (rather ignored it), and I apologize for that.

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

I wouldn't disagree.