Understanding Carla's challenge in the name of Christ

[Steppingfeet]

My nose tells me as well that the purity of the L/L channeling is outstanding. But who instituted the Doctrine of Infallibility? My memory is that both Messrs. Ra and Elkins corrected mistakes made in previous sessions. So, maybe they missed some? I don't know.

Dear Peregrine, I presume that you address what you feel is a collective tendency among Law of One readers to ascribe infallibility to the ones known as Ra. To whatever extent I have contributed to this perception with my own words, I wish to offer a correction to this misunderstanding.

What I meant to communicate was not that Ra was infallible, merely that *I* am infallible. As such, if I say something (like the Law of One material) is completely and indisputably true, it therefore, as a consequence of my own infallibility, *must* be true. Makes sense, right?

You see, it is a subtle distinction. Ra’s own impossibility of making an error in communication (for whatever “error” means) derives not from their own infallibility, but from that which I attribute to it.

: ) Okay, I am just being a doofus. I consider neither myself nor Ra to be infallible. I was just trying to communicate in my earlier posting that what draws me to the material is my perception of the quality of the undistortedness of the material.

It is the only source I am aware of in which we hear directly from those in a position much closer to the unitary mystery of infinity with little to no human interference or filtering. ("Position" being a highly relevant and debatable term, considering that all things are one.)

While I did not find 100% of the content of the Law of One books to be helpful to my own path, and while there is material that I gloss over when reading, it is the only source of information outside of my own being that I trust above any other.

Whereas I am often in a morass of personal confusion regarding the choices of my life and the perception of self and other, Ra’s words are infinitely reliable and sturdy, a bulwark of integrity, impeccability, and purity – the perfect manifesto of love, wisdom, and power.

Btw, I looked up “infallible” when composing this reply. Definitions include:

1. absolutely trustworthy or sure: an infallible rule.
2. unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain: an infallible remedy.
3. not fallible; exempt from liability to error, as persons, their judgment, or pronouncements: an infallible principle.

*To me*, I would consider the material infallible in the sense of the first definition, maybe the second, but definitely not the third.

(please wait a second while I get my heretic hat on...)

An unbeliever in our midst! If there is one thing we promote here Lavazza, it is conformity of thought. Your divine right to your opinion is just not going fly here. No sir. Uh uh.

JOKING. JOKING. JOKING. Anyone who reads my babbling, please make note that I often prefer the non-serious route at first. Though I will usually identify non-seriousness as such.

I suppose the way the line gets drawn for me is my belief that Ra is fallible. When we decide that Ra is indeed infallible, then we can proceed to rationalize such things as moon bases, underwater bases, big foot(feet?), light speed space craft, etc. and etc.

I don’t know that I’ve met another who feels that Ra is infallible in the sense of being beyond the possibility of error. However, many entities, like myself, tend to genuinely feel that the material is so rigorously honest, consistent, and brimming with integrity that the “far-fetched” becomes much more plausible and worthy of consideration.

I was just talking with βαθμιαίος a couple of weeks ago about this particular concept. That being that the credibility of information depends as much upon the source of information as the content of the information itself. Two different people can tell me the same story. If I perceive one of those two as an honest person who has repeatedly demonstrated their credibility in the past, I am likely to consider the merit of their story regardless of any argument to the contrary in my mind. If I perceive one of the two as being skilled in the arts of "BS", then I will be inclined to roll the eyes and say, “Suuuurrrre.” : )

Now then, Monica made an excellent point in that a negative cannot be proven, this is true. May be that they are all true. But it requires a stretch of the imagination to make these things work, a great stretch and the invalidation of many, many things that we know to be true about our world today. Social memory complexes do not require this sort of stretch and they do not require the invalidation of science and history- they are beyond our dimension entirely so there is no conflict.

This point is not precisely central to the argument but I would contend that a belief in the concept of the social memory complex, especially one originating on Venus, is a radical rejection of many of the tenets of scientific, religious, and historical understanding. In fact, I would say that the existence of the social memory complex would challenge and upset the overarching collective paradigm of thought currently operating on planet Earth.

You would have to accept that:

a) Intelligent, conscious life on other planets is possible
b) Consciousness, not matter is primary
c) Telepathy is not only possible but natural
d) Shared memory is possible
e) We are currently experiencing a curriculum of spiritual evolution in an infinite creation of eternity and spaceless-ness
f) Space and Time are nothing as we conceive of them

… among many other implications and ramifications that my brain-processor can not even fathom at the moment.

It may also be worth mentioning that we also cannot prove or disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster…

Pictures are surfacing… people are speaking up…

coffee cups orbiting Neptune

HaHaHa!

Your mentioning (Monica) of the pyramids is another good example, because I extend the same sort of examination towards that topic. It was actually instrumental in my decision to consciously decide that TLOO should not be my only source in making up my spiritual belief system. I now examine a wider range of works and find value in seeing where they overlap, and where they do not. In that way I have been able to get a better understanding of "the bigger picture", so to speak.

Funny that Ra’s version of the origin and purpose of the pyramids was the catalyst which galvanized you into augmenting your seeking with the aid of other sources – because, in my case, the presentation of the pyramids in the Law of One books helped to further reinforce the validity of the material to me.

At any rate, it is good indeed to seek elsewhere! My own seeking definitely moves beyond the Law of One material and makes use of other sources of info. Review Ra's own words about combining and synthesizing various understandings in order to "enhance the seeking process":

Session #15, Book I:
QUESTIONER: Yesterday you stated that “the harvest is now. There is not at this time any reason to include efforts along this line of longevity, but rather to encourage efforts to seek the heart of self. This which resides clearly in the violet-ray energy field will determine the harvest of the mind/body/spirit complex.” Could you tell us the best way to seek the heart of self?

RA: I am Ra. We have given you this information in several wordings. However, we can only say the material for your understanding is the self: the mind/body/spirit complex. You have been given information upon healing, as you call this distortion. This information may be seen in a more general context as ways to understand the self. The understanding, experiencing, accepting, and merging of self with self and other-self, and finally with the Creator, is the path to the heart of self. In each infinitesimal part of your self resides the One in all of Its power.

Therefore, we can only encourage these lines of contemplation or prayer as a means of subjectively/objectively using or combining various understandings to enhance the seeking process. Without such a method of reversing the analytical process, one could not integrate into unity the many understandings gained in such seeking.

The original guidelines drafted for the DC forums by Jeremy W. said that, “We feel that the Law of One represents a complete body of spiritual teaching…”. As you may know, we built the Bring4th guidelines on the basis of Jeremy’s previous set of guidelines. In the process of evolving them for use on this particular forum, we decided to chuck the “complete body of spiritual teaching” statement. I personally do not feel that the Law of One – or any external source of information for that matter – can be “complete”.

What I do feel about the Law of One is that it is the most inclusive, all-encompassing philosophy I have ever encountered. Any and all of Earth’s wisdom traditions, personal philosophies, or contemporary channeled material can be accommodated by the Law of One. For me, it is at once foundation and backbone of the thought structure of my seeking – a framework through which the world, my self, and others can be viewed.

It is to the entity utilizing the framework to determine the shape, purpose, and nature of the structure being created.

Anyhow, I am indeed happy to let the topic rest and echo again my respect for what anyone else chooses to believe in

Thank you for going out of your way twice in your last two postings to say that you respect what anyone else chooses to believe. I think that it is statements like these that make Bring4th thrive and enhance the lives of any who derive benefit from reading and/or participating in these forums.

If I may offer my own note of respect: I, too, respect what each brings to the table of discussion. May not always agree with it, of course, but I honor that which each has determined to be true for themselves. If ever anyone feels anything less than respect from me, please let me know – I never consciously intend anything less and would seek to make amends immediately.

And at the end of the day, what's really important is that the Law of One does contain so many gems of wisdom that ring true to the heart, I'm sure we can all agree... and AMEN!

Here here!

Love/Light,
GLB

PS: Monica, do you think we should relocate this sub-thread in LIFE or OLIO and re-title it “The Plausible and the Implausible”, or something along those lines?

PPS: Steve, well said about the channeling! Your retention of the channeling instruction is impressive.