How does Infinity simply 'become' aware.

[Siren]

Does this not conflict with the whole simultaneity thing?

Not in my watch. In fact, I'm looking at it right now and it says "NOW" (it always says now, if you're curious). So yes, this is all always occurring in the ever-present moment.

This would suggest that there was a time when creation needed to be conceived and developed.

Indeed. And that "time" was within the ever-present moment that is NOW. In trying to understand these things within a 3rd density mindset, framework and perspective, we will inevitably continue to experience these natural difficulties of understanding. But I assure you, from the vantage point of 6th density, things look vastly different.
It's all a question of where you're looking from.

And remember, this density is NOT the density of understanding. It is always good to keep that present lest you fall into trap-holes of your own making.

Even as you state that infinity 'becomes', suggesting an uncreated future yet to be developed, you also realize the dilemma causing you to question what you have just thought.

I agree. And you may find it funny/illogical, but in my mind, I can simultaneously see the "becoming" and the "ever-being" as quite naturally the same (and it make sense to me in ways I cannot verbally describe). But it's not so much that I question myself to the point of doubt or confusion. I simply do not worry too much about a subtle nuance such as this one.

Here Ra says that Infinity is creation. And then Ra says that Infinity became aware. That is the same as saying that Creation became aware.

Of course. Just like I have said, and I will say again, that light is temporal. And yet I acknowledge that it is also infinite. This seeming paradox is true.

Here Ra states that … the energy of an (extremely higher order), causes intelligent energy to be formed from the potential of Intelligent Infinity which Ra just defined above as Creation. So Ra is saying that some High Order causes intelligent energy using the potential of creation.

That energy of extremely high order is none other than Love.

Due to the rather abstruse nature of the linguistic structure we call language, Ra is very often quite redundant in what they say and how they say it. It is like me saying this: "the Thought is a Focus of Love as an Active Creative Principle of intelligent energy of a high vibratory frequency which is kinetic in nature." Much more simply I could have said: "Love is Love," implying all of the above (thought, focus, energy, kinetic, vibration, etc). But would a human grasp it that way? Human beings have this awful tendency/bias/need towards creating definitions within definitions within descriptions within distinctions within definitions within descriptions within distinctions within descriptions within definitions—ad nauseam.

As I have said several times over, I seek to synthesize/simplify, not complexify further.

To further clarify, using Ra's words:

The first distortion, free will, finds focus. This is the second distortion known to you as Logos, the Creative Principle or Love. This intelligent energy thus creates a distortion known as Light.

Here Ra equated this focus to the Logos, the Creative Principle, Love and intelligent energy in one simple sentence.

What I am observing is Ra speculating on the creation of the cosmos, which is all that any created thing can do. The truth of the origin of creation remains a Mystery, and a paradox that cannot be fathomed, and so it makes sense that even Ra would have difficulty voicing its thoughts about such Mystery.

Those of Ra are humble messengers of the Law of One. They certainly do not know everything; they are still evolving, as are we all. I agree with you wholeheartedly in that by the mere act of translating a 6D entity's thoughts/vibrations through a 3D channel into a 3D textual/verbal format for a 3D audience with a 3D grade of awareness, much, much, much is diluted, lost and/or otherwise distorted in the process.

However, I rarely find any contradictions in Ra's message despite the apparent instances in which contradictory statements are clearly made. I find resonance not in the words, but in the underlying essence of the message itself, thus I can easily "forgive" these small grammatical "errors."

If we do not dissect these quotes and ask these questions when such things are spoken, and we simply accept them without even making sense of them, we would be no better than the Christians in their churches following their priests without question.

And it just seems that when these particular quotes are dissected they begin to contradict themselves. Or become confused as to their actual meaning.

Instead of dissect them, I would rather suggest seeing past the surrounding verbiage into the heart of the message using your heart/intuition rather than your optical lenses and intellect.

Just a suggestion, dear.

---

What I do agree in, and what I will say, however, is that the great majority of the people mindlessly take words without really knowing what they are saying. Having an etymology dictionary around would prove most useful.