Law of One Religion?

[Shemaya]

[quote pid='171342' dateline='1424226680']


My point about 'common sense' was in reference to spiritual or ethical considerations. When a dogma is hardwired, people believe and do things that they otherwise wouldn't.

Well, ya, that's what dogma is.  It's a rigid belief system, often involving a moral stance. Rigidity implies a person is not making ethical considerations, he/she is stuck in her thinking.  

Beliefs/dogmas have pretty much screwed up the world, I think we could probably agree that the world will be a better place when people can move past their dogmatic beliefs.

[Monica]

Well, ya, that's what dogma is.  It's a rigid belief system, often involving a moral stance. Rigidity implies a person is not making ethical considerations, he/she is stuck in her thinking.  

Beliefs/dogmas have pretty much screwed up the world, I think we could probably agree that the world will be a better place when people can move past their dogmatic beliefs.

Agreed! But having a conviction isn't necessarily a rigid dogma. As it expresses so well in the meme in my OP.

[Shemaya]

Well, ya, that's what dogma is.  It's a rigid belief system, often involving a moral stance. Rigidity implies a person is not making ethical considerations, he/she is stuck in her thinking.  

Beliefs/dogmas have pretty much screwed up the world, I think we could probably agree that the world will be a better place when people can move past their dogmatic beliefs.

Agreed! But having a conviction isn't necessarily a rigid dogma. As it expresses so well in the meme in my OP.

I think there is nothing wrong with convictions.

But as you have seen, holding your convictions as a moral standard for "spiritual people" has not been received well.  Honestly, I think it is a veiled perspective on the issue, it doesn't take the whole picture into consideration, and you already know that dogmatic and rigid belief systems do not work well, they end up causing more pain and suffering for humans who are in the "outgroup" (who don't fit into the belief system). 

[Monica]

I think there is nothing wrong with convictions.

But as you have seen, holding your convictions as a moral standard for "spiritual people" has not been received well.  Honestly, I think it is a veiled perspective on the issue, it doesn't take the whole picture into consideration, and you already know that dogmatic and rigid belief systems do not work well, they end up causing more pain and suffering for humans who are in the "outgroup" (who don't fit into the belief system). 

The Law of One isn't even a religion and we don't even have any sort of moral code. Nor am I in any position of authority, so I couldn't hold my own convictions as a moral standard for others even if I wanted to.

[Shemaya]

The Law of One isn't even a religion and we don't even have any sort of moral code. Nor am I in any position of authority, so I couldn't hold my own convictions as a moral standard for others even if I wanted to.

You certainly can within your own mind.

A moral standard is not by way of "authority", it is just a personal or collective standard of conduct as I am using the term.

Clearly, you have a personal standard that eating animals/ animal products is immoral.  And many of your posts express incredulity that "spiritual people" do not hold the same conviction.  Correct me if I am wrong.

[Jim Kent +]

I'm trying not to get drawn into this drama, but I would say this:

Doesn't the Confederation's philosophy espouse the viewpoint that an STO entity would never tell another-self what not to do?

This situation therefore seems somewhat ironic to me!

Or is it just me? 

Whilst considering all of this in my intoxicated state, the following has occurred to me:

In the above comment, I was making a thinly veiled complaint about Monica's conviction about humans eating meat and using Confederation philosophy to disagree with her standpoint, which was part of the same complaint I was inferring about Monica using Confederation terminology in a manner that I perceived and accused of being contradictory...

In the process, I was sort of telling Monica what not to do...

And so we go round the merry-go-round in circles!

Monica, please accept my sincere apologies for being a hypocritical judgemental twit!

I know you care deeply about this subject and I'm sure you are aware that everyone else is also genuinely passionate in their own ways, about their own concerns, but having said that, this thread has got a bit crappy, and for my part in that I do again apologise! But please also understand that for a few of us, you can seem a bit full-on about us eating meat. ( And I mean that as no criticism whatsoever! )

L & L

Jim        

( EDIT: Changed mild expletives to conform to forum guidelines. )

[Monica]

The Law of One isn't even a religion and we don't even have any sort of moral code. Nor am I in any position of authority, so I couldn't hold my own convictions as a moral standard for others even if I wanted to.

You certainly can within your own mind.

A moral standard is not by way of "authority", it is just a personal or collective standard of conduct as I am using the term.

Clearly, you have a personal standard that eating animals/ animal products is immoral.  And many of your posts express incredulity that "spiritual people" do not hold the same conviction.  Correct me if I am wrong.

You are right about that. It's more of a vision than a moral standard though.

I don't understand how otherwise 'spiritual' people can think that intentionally, knowingly, unnecessarily causing suffering to other sentient beings is ok.

Religious people, I understand. They follow their book without questioning. But for those who profess to believe in the concepts of service to others, and avoiding the control/domination of others, I don't understand how they can justify the controlling/dominating/killing of sentient other-selves.

If you are implying that I am somehow wrong in having such a vision, then those who hold the vision of a peaceful planet are equally 'wrong.' Yet I doubt that most people here would mind someone posting in their sig "War is STS...unnecessary killing of other humans is inherently STS." Very few would dispute that.

[Monica]

I'm trying not to get drawn into this drama, but I would say this:

Doesn't the Confederation's philosophy espouse the viewpoint that an STO entity would never tell another-self what not to do?

This situation therefore seems somewhat ironic to me!

Or is it just me? 

Whilst considering all of this in my intoxicated state, the following has occurred to me:

In the above comment, I was making a thinly veiled complaint about Monica's conviction about humans eating meat and using Confederation philosophy to disagree with her standpoint, which was part of the same complaint I was inferring about Monica using Confederation terminology in a manner that I perceived and accused of being contradictory...

In the process, I was sort of telling Monica what not to do...

And so we go round the merry-go-round in circles!

Monica, please accept my sincere apologies for being a hypocritical judgemental twat!

I know you care deeply about this subject and I'm sure you are aware that everyone else is also genuinely passionate in their own ways, about their own concerns, but having said that, this thread has got a bit shitty, and for my part in that I do again apologise! But please also understand that for a few of us, you can seem a bit full-on about us eating meat. ( And I mean that as no criticism whatsoever! )

L & L

Jim        

Thank you for the apology, Jim!

I am 'a bit full-on' because I hear the call...daily. It's getting louder.

Ra answered our call. Billions of other-selves are calling. I don't like being one of those who hears their call, but so it is.

[Shemaya]

[deleted]

I lost my post, and don't feel like rewriting it!

[Bluebell]

having dogma for urself is fine. u just can't force it onto others.

[Monica]

But as you have seen, holding your convictions as a moral standard for "spiritual people" has not been received well.  Honestly, I think it is a veiled perspective on the issue, it doesn't take the whole picture into consideration, and you already know that dogmatic and rigid belief systems do not work well, they end up causing more pain and suffering for humans who are in the "outgroup" (who don't fit into the belief system). 

The objections to my sig aren't because it's a 'rigid dogma.' It's because they don't agree with it.

No one would be objecting if my sig said Knowingly, unnecessarily raping and killing little children is STS.

No one would be crying "Dogma! Dogma! You are trying to impose your beliefs on us!"

[Spaced]

But as you have seen, holding your convictions as a moral standard for "spiritual people" has not been received well.  Honestly, I think it is a veiled perspective on the issue, it doesn't take the whole picture into consideration, and you already know that dogmatic and rigid belief systems do not work well, they end up causing more pain and suffering for humans who are in the "outgroup" (who don't fit into the belief system). 

The objections to my sig aren't because it's a 'rigid dogma.' It's because they don't agree with it.

No one would be objecting if my sig said Knowingly, unnecessarily raping and killing little children is STS.

No one would be crying "Dogma! Dogma! You are trying to impose your beliefs on us!"

I would. And I can only speak for myself, but I was objecting to your sig because it's rigid dogma. But alas, you see what you want to see.

[Bluebell]

again, Monica u imply many here r as STS as rapists & child killers. just say it already. u'll feel better.

i found the sig offensive because it's dogmatic & accusing.

[Bluebell]

u keep repeating it in hopes of either subliminally influencing or directly guilting people into submitting to UR WAY. this isn't Monicaland. ur being STS by forcing, in almost every discussion here, & by ur sig, ur opinion onto others. people don't like that. meat eaters will never think like u just because u keep pushing. they're more likely to push back because they will associate ur views w oppression. that's why there's meat eaters that detest everything vegan.

[Parsons]

Many people responding to you with reasonable tone and content often get responses that we are 'audacious' 'rude' 'disrespectful' and 'offensive'. We 'cross the line', 'fan the flames'. 'How dare we', 'who are we to' disagree with you. In reaction you are 'stunned', 'personally attacked', and 'called names'.

Here are just a few examples:

That is rather audacious, for you to tell me why I think a certain way, after I repeatedly told you that I don't think that way. Who are you to tell me what I think?

Gary, you walked into this conversation with veiled jabs, and immediately fanned the flames of discord.

OMG NO!!!! WHY do you keep insisting it's about disagreement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????????

I don't care if others disagree! I don't expect agreement!

and one of your conclusions, it seems, is explained in Post 225. Your conclusion, though, is exactly what I was saying.

WTF??? Post 225 does the exact opposite! It lists examples of fundamentalist thinking! It says NOTHING about disagreement!

Diana, am I just way out in left field here? Am I grievously misreading Monica?

Gary, you are crossing a line here. Have things changed so much since the days when I was mod? Back then, I would NEVER have asked another member to analyze some other member publicly!

And as mod, I would NEVER have analyzed any member publicly! We handled matters privately as much as possible. I haven't violated any guidelines, and you know that. And even if I did, this isn't the right way to go about it. You don't have any right to add fuel to the fire, and let people think it's OK to start analyzing someone. A lot of what happened in this thread started with you and got perpetuated by you, by your continual insistence that I expect others to agree with me, despite me telling you repeatedly that it has nothing to do with agreement.

I am stunned!

 

There are different ways to explain why you clash with others here.

From my own limited view in the corner of a very big room, it’s not so much the convictions, per se, but how you go about the discussion process.

That's just bullshit and you know it, Gary. You know damn well that in the early days of the meat discussions, my comments were exceedingly polite and it DID NOT MATTER. It never mattered how nicely I stated my views. I got exactly the same reaction back then as I do now.

So don't start telling me it's because of 'how' I 'go about the discussion'. That's just BS.

You are showing your own biases here, Gary. You dare to publicly confront me...for WHAT??? For remaining firm on my convictions? While you ignore people who directly, blatantly call me names? which is a direct violation of the guidelines!

So it's ok for people to call me a bigot and other vile things - that is OK??? But it's not ok for me to express my own views in my signature?

PS: I seldom create threads, but were I to create one, and were it to veer from its intended course, I might diligently and gently shepherd it back to its original course. Or attempt it.

I DID attempt it! REPEATEDLY!!! I am astounded that you dare to tell me that, when I attempted it numerous times and you are one of the people who took it off-course!

I direct you once again to this exchange:

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...#pid170808

You are creating your own dogma then attempting to control this community through moral guilt (you said it was "wrong" to eat meat). JUST LIKE RELIGIONS DO.

It is disrespectful to continue to accuse me of having the motivation to control this community. Rude, disrespectful, and offensive.

You seem to very, very often play the 'victim' card:

The Poor Me

The most passive of the control dramas is the victim strategy, or what I have called the Poor Me. In this drama, rather than competing for energy directly, the person seeks to win deference and attention through the manipulation of sympathy.

We can always tell when we enter the energy field of a Poor Me because we are immediately drawn into a particular kind of dialogue in which we are pulled off center. Out of the blue, we begin to feel guilty for no reason, as though we are being cast into that role by the other person. The individual might say, "Well, I expected you to call yesterday, but you never did," or "I had all these bad things happen to me and you were nowhere to be found." He might even add, "All these other bad things are about to happen to me, and you probably won't be around then, either."

Depending on the kind of relationship we have with the person, the phrases might be shaped around a wide range of subject matter. If the person is a work associate, the content may refer to his or her being overwhelmed with work production or meeting deadliness situation with which you are not helping. If the person is a casual acquaintance, he or she may just pull you into a conversation about how rotten life is going in general. Dozens of variations exist, but the basic tone and strategy are the same. Always it is some kind of bid for sympathy and an assertion that you are somehow responsible.

The obvious strategy in the Poor Me drama is to throw us off balance and win our energy by creating a feeling of guilt or doubt on our part. By buying into that guilt, we are stopping and looking through the other person's eyes at his or her world. As soon as we do this, the person gets to feel the boost of our energy added to his or her own and so feels more secure.

Remember that this drama is almost completely unconscious. It flows from a personal view of the world and a strategy for controlling others adopted in early childhood. To the Poor Me, the world is a place where people can't be counted on to meet one's needs for nurturing and well-being, and it is too scary a place to risk pursuing these needs directly or assertively. In the Poor Me's world, the only reasonable way of acting is to bid for sympathy through guilt trips and perceived slights.

Unfortunately, because of the effect on the World of these unconscious beliefs and intentions, very often the same kind of, abusive people the Poor Me fears are exactly the ones that they allow into their lives. And the events that befall them are often traumatic. The universe responds by producing exactly the kind of world the person expects, and in this way, the drama is always circular and self validating. The Poor Me is caught unknowingly in a vicious trap.

Dealing with the Poor Me

In dealing with the Poor Me, it is important to remind ourselves that the purpose of the drama is to win energy. We must begin with the willingness to consciously give the Poor Me energy as we talk with him; this is the fastest way to break the drama. (Sending energy is a precise process that we will discuss in Chapter 9.)

The next thing we must do is to consider whether the guilt trip is justified. Certainly, there will be plenty of cases in our lives when we should feel concern over having let someone down or sympathy for someone in a difficult situation. But these realities must be determined by us, not by someone else. Only we can decide to what extent and when we are responsible to help someone in need.

Once we have given the Poor Me energy and determined that we are facing a control drama in action, the next step is to name the game - that is, to make the control drama itself the topic of conversation. No unconscious game can be sustained if it is pulled into consciousness and placed on the table for discussion. This can be done with a statement such as, "You know, right now I feel as though you think I should feel guilty."

Here we must be prepared to proceed with courage, because while we are seeking to deal honestly with the situation, the other person might interpret what we say as a rejection. In this case, the typical reaction might be "Oh, well, I knew you really didn't like me." In other cases, the person may feel insulted and angry. It is very important, in my opinion, to appeal to the person to listen and to continue the conversation. But this can only work if we are constantly giving this person the energy he wants during the conversation. Above all, we must persevere if we want the quality of the relationship to improve. In the best case, the person will hear what we are saying as we point out the drama and be able to open up to a higher state of self-awareness.

So, at this point, I hope you read this quote carefully and examine your own behavior. I honestly feel like when someone composes a well thought out post and you respond by being 'offended' by everything they say, you may be semi-subconsciously wanting them to feel guilty. I will definitely respond to your posts point to point intelligently in the future if you are willing to have a fair and rational conversation with me and stop constantly playing the victim.

[Monica]

again, Monica u imply many here r as STS as rapists & child killers. just say it already. u'll feel better.

i found the sig offensive because it's dogmatic & accusing.

When humans rape and kill other humans, it's usually malicious, because their intent is malicious.

When they knowingly do it to animals, it isn't usually malicious, because they don't even think animals deserve to live at all, but exist only to satisfy humans' lust for their flesh. They think animals may be treated like that, because animals don't matter.

So, no, it's not the same. It isn't maliciuos. It's more like callous disregard. 

It's the same dynamic when the 'slave owners' mistreated blacks, or the nazi's tortured and killed Jews. They didn't consider the blacks/Jews/whatever worth caring about.

Were the slave 'owners' cold-hearted or malicious? Maybe some were, but most probably just thought it was 'normal' to treat blacks that way, since blacks 'weren't human anyway.'

So yes, the intentions are different.

However, from the perspective of the victim who is being raped/tortured/killed, it is exactly the same.

[Monica]

Parsons, I'm not interested, other than to say that victims don't stand up for themselves. Victims let others vomit on them. I don't. So your analysis is rather amusing.

Regardless, at the end of the day, anything you can accuse me of pales in comparison to supporting the rape, torture and slaughter of sentient beings.

So if you're proposing a contest, you can find someone else to play with.

[mjlabadia]

   Gosh everyone,
     I hate to see us at loggerheads like this. Perhaps we ventured off the road of intention for Monica's original post?
 
     I feel strongly that yes, The LOO, like any other philosophy can be distorted into a religion or worse, some type of believers' mandate. Complete with all of the dogma, holy bogeys, wrath, lightning bolts, etc., we have come to feel aversion for in many of mankind's religious co-creations.
   
    I wonder if that's the key element here. Perhaps it isn't that those we refer to as "religious fundamentalists" are extreme believers, but more that they became extremely separated from the "fundamental" concept of the original intent of the philosophy they claim to follow.

 Using Christianity as an example, my understanding was that the entity Jesus Christ, didn't set out to create a "religion" with all it's trappings. It seems to me that he was relating a life concept of tolerance, love, and understanding of the very ideas which made the Law of One so attractive to us.
  Wasn't it certain elements of mankind, with our distortions toward control, greed, elitism, who turned the beauty of the concept into a control tool?
  
  And perhaps those distortions were continually multiplied in the many translations, (interpretations), of what eventually became the new testament.

  I think we see this in all of what we now call religions. Islam, Old Testament Judaic, etc. All of their various spin-offs, or "co-creations".

  I see it more of a "slipping away" from the fundamental concepts of the original philosophies.

  I don't imagine many of these great Third Density Thinkers / Higher Density Wanderers said,...."I'm going to create a belief system in which I am worshiped,........and those who don't worship me are ostracized,....excommunicated,....whipped/stoned/beheaded,..........Women can't wear dresses above their ankles,....or must wear opaque full body condoms",.....etc. 

 Perhaps all of the worlds religions, started out as some spiritually advanced, but still human being, meditating on all our suffering saying,...."Hey man, I've been thinking about this,.....I've noticed that when I live in a mindful manner,......and try to understand and help those around me,......life seems to go a little easier for me and those around me."

  And sure, some of these could have been Wanderers/Messengers, with a high level of spiritual development, and a less veiled understanding of this density. So yea, they may have been able to perform the healings and Law of Physics violations that we called "miracles".

 But I get the impression these creative and thoughtful mind/spirit/body complexes, didn't have thunderous voices, spouting out "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots".

 I wonder if they were just one of us, starting out just like this,....thinking about all of the suffering,.....already blessed with less of a veiling,......then really growing in understanding. Maybe a handful of epiphanies on the way.

  Perhaps the very first step towards some of the great life concepts, that became philosophies, that became distorted into religions, all started out like this;    

   A Parsons, Monica, Diana, Gary, Gemini, Minytour,....(too many to remember),.......and I,........were sitting around the "campfire" of the historical reference point,.....relaxing in the manner of the historical reference point,.......and communicating utilizing the methods of the historical reference point,..............
      
   When one of us said to the rest,..........

   "Hey guys,.......don't laugh, but I've been living my life in such and such manner,....and I've really been feeling GREAT!! I feel a sort of completeness,... a sense of peace......sort of being at One With The Cosmos..............I was wondering what you guys think about this?"

  
  

[Parsons]

Parsons, I'm not interested, other than to say that victims don't stand up for themselves. Victims let others vomit on them. I don't. So your analysis is rather amusing.

Regardless, at the end of the day, anything you can accuse me of pales in comparison to supporting the rape, torture and slaughter of sentient beings.

So if you're proposing a contest, you can find someone else to play with.

Actually, people with victim mentality have a relatively wide range of reactions (or a combination of all of them):

A victim mentality may manifest itself in a range of different behaviors or ways of thinking and talking:

• Blaming others for a situation that one has created oneself or significantly contributed to. Failing or being unwilling to take responsibility for one's own actions or actions to which one has contributed or for taking action to ameliorate the situation.
  
  
• Ascribing non-existent negative intentions to other people (similar to paranoia).
  
  
• Believing that other people are generally or fundamentally luckier and happier ("Why me?").
  
  
• Gaining short-term pleasure from feeling sorry for oneself or eliciting pity from others. Eliciting sympathy by telling exaggerated stories about bad deeds of other people (e.g. during gossip).
  
  

People with victim mentality may develop convincing and sophisticated arguments in support of such ideas, which they then use to convince themselves and others of their victim status.

People with victim mentality may also be generally:

• negative, with a general tendency to focus on bad rather than good aspects of a situation. A glass that is half full is considered half empty. A person with a high standard of living complains about not having enough money. A healthy person complains of minor health problems that others would ignore (cf. hypochondriasis).
  
  
• self-absorbed: unable or reluctant to consider a situation from the point of view of other people or to "walk a mile in their shoes".
  
  
• defensive: In conversation, reading a non-existent negative intention into a neutral question and reacting with a corresponding accusation, hindering the collective solution of problems and instead creating unnecessary conflict.
  
  
• categorizing: tending to divide people into "goodies" and "baddies" with no gray zone between them.
  
  
• unadventurous: generally unwilling to take risks; exaggerating the importance or likelihood of possible negative outcomes.
  
  
• exhibiting learned helplessness: underestimating one's ability or influence in a given situation; feeling powerless.
  
  
• stubborn: tending to reject suggestions or constructive criticism from others who listen and care; unable or reluctant to implement the suggestions of others for one's own benefit.
  
  
• self-abasing: Putting oneself down even further than others are supposedly doing.
  

[Minyatur]

Parsons, I'm not interested, other than to say that victims don't stand up for themselves. Victims let others vomit on them. I don't. So your analysis is rather amusing.

Regardless, at the end of the day, anything you can accuse me of pales in comparison to supporting the rape, torture and slaughter of sentient beings.

So if you're proposing a contest, you can find someone else to play with.

IMO, there's a difference between accepting that it is a reccuring natural part of human societies and supporting it.

[isis]

No, actually it happened a ways back. The pool is starting to stink like pee now,...

Victims let others vomit on them. I don't.

[Monica]

Parsons and Shawnna, can you not think of anything constructive to contribute to the topic?

If you're trying to offend or hurt me, you have failed. You did, however, give me a good laugh, so thanks for that!  

mjlabadia, thank you for your comments and for trying to get the discussion back on topic.

[Monica]

No, actually it happened a ways back. The pool is starting to stink like pee now,...

Victims let others vomit on them. I don't.

LOL!! Thanks, Isis, I needed that! hahaha! It was even funnier because I think we might still have Woody and Buzz in a box somewhere, and I can just hear them saying that...

[Monica]

IMO, there's a difference between accepting that it is a reccuring natural part of human societies and supporting it.

Well said!

[Shawnna]

Parsons and Shawna, can you not think of anything constructive to contribute to the topic?

If you're trying to offend or hurt me, you have failed. You did, however, give me a good laugh, so thanks for that!  

mjlabadia, thank you for your comments and for trying to get the discussion back on topic.

I'm unclear why you've addressed me in such a negative way Monica.  Is there something specific I've said that you feel was said to 'offend or hurt' you?  That was never, ever my intent.  

Rather, I'm praying your heart will soften and your mind opened.  

Many here have shared very insightful and helpful things, should you choose to engage them with a sincere desire to grow.

PS - Shawnna is spelled with two N's.   

[Monica]

I'm unclear why you've addressed me in such a negative way Monica.  Is there something specific I've said that you feel was said to 'offend or hurt' you?  That was never, ever my intent.  

Rather, I'm praying your heart will soften and your mind opened.  

Many here have shared very insightful and helpful things, should you choose to engage them with a sincere desire to grow.

Shawnna, this is a thread about religious dogma...not "Let's dissect Monica's personality." I addressed you as well as Parsons, because you liked Parsons' post.

Love-based prayers are always welcome. I too am praying for the softening of the heart and the opening of the mind, for all those here who are in denial about the suffering that their dietary 'choices' cause.

[Shawnna]

I'm unclear why you've addressed me in such a negative way Monica.  Is there something specific I've said that you feel was said to 'offend or hurt' you?  That was never, ever my intent.  

Rather, I'm praying your heart will soften and your mind opened.  

Many here have shared very insightful and helpful things, should you choose to engage them with a sincere desire to grow.

Shawnna, this is a thread about religious dogma...not "Let's dissect Monica's personality." I addressed you as well as Parsons, because you liked Parsons' post.

Love-based prayers are always welcome. I too am praying for the softening of the heart and the opening of the mind, for all those here who are in denial about the suffering that their dietary 'choices' cause.

I see.  So I cannot like a post that I believe is well thought out and informative without being subject to your derision?  

[Monica]

I see.  So I cannot like a post that I believe is well thought out and informative without being subject to your derision?  

I should have addressed that to Parsons only. I apologize for including you just because you liked what Parsons said. I may have been wrong about your reasons for liking it. I made an assumption about your 'like' of Parsons' post, probably based on your previous comments and pattern of 'likes'. I was wrong to do that and for that I apologize!

[Shawnna]

I see.  So I cannot like a post that I believe is well thought out and informative without being subject to your derision?  

I should have addressed that to Parsons only. I apologize for including you just because you liked what Parsons said. I may have been wrong about your reasons for liking it. I made an assumption about your 'like' of Parsons' post, probably based on your previous comments and pattern of 'likes'. I was wrong to do that and for that I apologize!

Thank you Monica.

[indolering]

.
Quote:  Do you think of the Law of One as a religion? Do you find yourself making decisions based on Law of One quotes, regardless of whether or not it makes sense, or feels like the right thing to do? Have you observed yourself taking action that maybe you wouldn't have done before, and then when you feel your conscience nagging you, do you tell yourself "It doesn't matter what I do...there is no right or wrong" ?



No, I don't think of it as a religion, although there are numerous statements which may correctly be regarded as religious teachings, and which I conceive as fundamental ontological concepts clearly paralleling many religions , whose teachings also instruct adherents in the structure of the Universe and the proper method of God-Realization. To regard Ra's teachings as merely philosophical or secular would be a mistake. The corpus of Ra's work could easily be adopted by those so inclined to view the work as a divinely inspired gift, leading aspirants to the true vision of the Creator. There is no shortage of similar examples: Scientology, Unarius, Urantia, I AM, etc, etc.... 



Indeed, I myself regard Ra's communications as some of the most advanced metaphysical statements I know of, with which I resonate, and which I consider to be an accurate portrayal of the structure of the metaphysical universe and valuable insights into the spiritual path. These have always been the domain of ancient and modern religions. And though most modern religions have lost the meaning and the power of its original inspiration, there is no question that religions have aided millions in their quest for the higher life. We are fortunate to live in a time where we understand the limitations of these structures – we've become practical in our quest – we seek something which works and not necessarily a teacher whose star we follow.


Right and wrong and ethical questions should ultimately, ideally, flow from the heart as innate wisdom, embedded in the soul after many lifetimes. Others may help one decide but the decision should harmonize with one's true inner feelings.


The facilitators of the Ra Material are high, special beings to whom we owe our thanks for a rather priceless gift. They are not gurus, although I believe in the guru-disciple relationship. Many an aspirant has been taken up and delivered to the Lord on high by the special grace of the Satguru. The aspirant continues the discipline of the Path, but an authentic Guru can be an indispensable feature of the aspirants successful bid for Self-realization. There is nothing amiss about the adoration of the Guru when the aim of the Guru and disciple is the same: enlightenment through Knowledge of the Creator.


The Ra Material has similar features and topics as many bibles yet I think we're better off as regarding it as serendipitous, and valuable instruction, an integral part of the spiritual dispensation now being given to humanity during this transition to a New Age.


Thanks, Monica, for an interesting thread.