10-25-2009, 10:57 AM
Carrie, I understand that you described the protocol used by Ra. I can see two valuable parts of the protocol you reaffirmed from the Ra books. One part is that the entity identifies itself, so we can tell which responses came from the same entity. The other part is that the entity identifies its purpose for service.
What I wonder is whether that particular protocol has to be as rigidly formatted as you describe.
I imagine moderators might not want us to discuss other channeling sources too much on this site. So if my next paragraph, with the identity of another channeled source, has to be deleted for the forum rules, I hope the rest of this post could stay to help discussion of the Ra books.
I'll use another channeled source for comparison: Bashar. Searches on YouTube or Google will go directly to sites, articles and video clips of this channeling.
I think this other entity I mentioned meets your requirements, without using your protocol. When communicating in English, the entity is only channeled by one person, who only channels that one entity. The entity's communication style is so remarkably distinctive that it would be almost silly to have it announce the name with every sentence.
The content, tone of voice, accent inflections, attitude, body language, etc. make clear the same entity is present. This is even before the content matches up from one message to another. It is already clear and obvious which messages come from the entity, without the "I am.." repetition. So this seems to make clear who is speaking, even though the name isn't announced throughout every session.
The entity has affirmed service to the one infinite creator, service to others, and the validity of the Ra books. However, this affirmation occurs within the messages rather than formally at the open and close of each message.
These messages would fail your protocol test, because they aren't formatted the same was as the Ra books. But I believe they do meet the intent behind the protocol rules, even though they fulfill that intent in a different way.
The way I see it, is that Carla's challenge would be wise for any channeler to use. But it would not help much to demand that other entities use exactly the same communication protocol as Ra did. After all, once Carla accepted Ra as a source, it was Ra, not Carla, that came up with the "I am Ra" and "We leave you now..." formats. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but when I think it through, this seems the most logical way to apply her challenge.
What I wonder is whether that particular protocol has to be as rigidly formatted as you describe.
I imagine moderators might not want us to discuss other channeling sources too much on this site. So if my next paragraph, with the identity of another channeled source, has to be deleted for the forum rules, I hope the rest of this post could stay to help discussion of the Ra books.
I'll use another channeled source for comparison: Bashar. Searches on YouTube or Google will go directly to sites, articles and video clips of this channeling.
I think this other entity I mentioned meets your requirements, without using your protocol. When communicating in English, the entity is only channeled by one person, who only channels that one entity. The entity's communication style is so remarkably distinctive that it would be almost silly to have it announce the name with every sentence.
The content, tone of voice, accent inflections, attitude, body language, etc. make clear the same entity is present. This is even before the content matches up from one message to another. It is already clear and obvious which messages come from the entity, without the "I am.." repetition. So this seems to make clear who is speaking, even though the name isn't announced throughout every session.
The entity has affirmed service to the one infinite creator, service to others, and the validity of the Ra books. However, this affirmation occurs within the messages rather than formally at the open and close of each message.
These messages would fail your protocol test, because they aren't formatted the same was as the Ra books. But I believe they do meet the intent behind the protocol rules, even though they fulfill that intent in a different way.
The way I see it, is that Carla's challenge would be wise for any channeler to use. But it would not help much to demand that other entities use exactly the same communication protocol as Ra did. After all, once Carla accepted Ra as a source, it was Ra, not Carla, that came up with the "I am Ra" and "We leave you now..." formats. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but when I think it through, this seems the most logical way to apply her challenge.