Questions regarding the LOO, STS and Religions

[Quantum]

Not necessarily. Although many who followed a religion have undoubtedly been harvested, it is debatable as to whether it was because of their religious choice or despite it.

But I think you see the larger point that it was their spiritual doctrine (a better choice of words as you state below than the word religious doctrine) which nonetheless heavily facilitated their choice.

This is why Avatars such as Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, Zoroaster (aka Zarathustra) et al, etc etc, have incarnated and were religious teachers and scholars. Isn't it curious that they have all been religious teachers?

I don't think any of those avatars were religious teachers. I consider them spiritual teachers. The religions (containing rigid, religious dogma) were started by their followers, who mistakenly attempted to turn their teachings into dogma, thereby distorting and corrupting the original teachings.

Far too broad of a statement as relates to its original intent: This is true only for the those weaker polarized STO who do not discern, or for their counterpart weaker STS who have yet learned to focus their divisiveness. It is not at all true for the stronger STO that do discern, this in spite of said corruption given, in that far than enough light remains regardless. STS does not extinguish the light in said doctrines, even though they are successful in corrupting it. It may be very fairly stated that there are as many STO preserving the light of the message as there are STS distorting/corrupting it. We may concentrate on the dark, or we may concentrate on the light, even in this very conversation, as much as the subject matter of spiritual doctrines, which surely contain equal parts of light and dark....as we must agree....unless it is your conviction that spiritual doctrines are mostly dark, by which we then condemn billions of people in their beliefs. Religion therefore, and now I purposefully use this word "religion" openly, "is as filled with light as it is the dark". All is in balance.

Spiritual doctrine therefore, as much as religion, facilitate their choice nevertheless which was the reason for the Avatars incarnation. STO has as a result the ability to utilize these doctrines and/or religions, as if though a mechanisms for harvestability, which no doubt are their intent by the Avatars to begin with. Wouldn't you agree? Thus we are not speaking about "The vast sinkhole of indifference" as Ra states, but only the path that does take said information and does harvest as a result, whether STS or STO. *As a side note, although clearly my thread is directed towards the STO path, distorting/corrupting of said information is as viable for STS to harvest in any event if they indeed hone their divisiveness, hatred, and corruption effectively through said spiritual doctrines.

But we move away from the gist of my question greatly if we diverge from the primary point: Is there a mechanism by which STS merges into STO at mid 6D as I suggest there must be. Are LOVE and FORGIVENESS not components of STO, and perhaps more so at mid 6th of STO, for STS to successfully merge, this as 3D and βαθμιαίος originally suggested several posts ago, and with which I intuitively resonate with?

The STS entities have been serving the Creator all along. If anything, their path has been more difficult than ours. We cannot begin to imagine what their path is like. It may appear peachy to us in this density, but we really don't know what it's like from their perspective.

Agreed. But their difficulty or ease is not what is in question. The mechanism by which they merge is. All is in balance and both have it as easy or difficult as the other

The very concept of atonement is one such religious dogma. STS entities serve the Creator too, so why would they need to 'atone' for their service?
.....Might I suggest using terms that convey the learning of lessons, rather than the paying of a penance for past 'sins' which tends to conjure religious connotations

I attempted to strain at this point in my previous post below:

Given that we as 3D find it near impossible to think without the use of words, words have their restrictions bound up in their definitions. It then becomes as increasingly difficult given that definitions then become distorted as relates to their perception, interpretation and understanding therein. We're lost in words. As it was meant to be.

As further stated:

The words atonement, penitence, recompense are the only ones we may utilize as part of that consideration in 3D language, less we simply agree that nothing at all is required, in spite of everything to the contrary that so much has been required thus far of us to even get to 3D, much less as much or more to 4D.

I am attempting as much as is possible to de-religiousize (if I may use that word) these words, while yet utilizing them to convey the larger point made earlier about the process by which STS must surely utilize to merge into STO 6D as spoken to in my previous post. I attempted again to strain in the descriptor below as well:

To that end, the words forgiveness, penitence, recompense, etc, are the only ones that come to mind, as does now atonement, given that it is not a stretch to imagine that some mechanism of action for STS is required to merge into the STO path of 6D. As such, it is further not a stretch to assume that Love and Forgiveness are integral components of STO in any STO density, and that these components grow versus diminish the further one moves up through STO 6D and ultimately into mid STO 6D, however otherwise defined with 3D language. My intuition tells me that nothing is as seamless as simply and seamlessly getting from early 6D to mid 6D and to the point of full merger without a great deal of STO components, otherwise it stands to reason it is not STO. I am sure it is beyond our 3D words or 3D ability to understand fully, but am equally as sure that we as students of the LOO are meant to struggle towards these finer points in contemplation less they would not have been delivered to us by Ra. The words atonement, penitence, recompense are the only ones we may utilize as part of that consideration in 3D language, less we simply agree that nothing at all is required, in spite of everything to the contrary that so much has been required thus far of us to even get to 3D, much less as much or more to 4D.

As such we may perhaps utilize the word "learning of lessons" so to speak, and as you suggest, but perhaps still nonetheless with the STO components of Love and Forgiveness as part of the definition of STO, this without invoking religion, but very much invoking spirituality. But religion, practiced as it should be by virtue of STO definitions, is spirituality. If we seek to divide religion from spirituality, then it is we that judge. For the moment, religion is as good as it gets for the vast and greater population of earth who by the billions far exceed students of esoterica. Lets us pray for them and ourselves that we both are as spiritual as our doctrines espouse and encourage us to be. If so then we all harvest. That would be sweet, but unrealistic according to the Confederation/Orion statistics and census bureau.

In humor as well as in earnest to make my point, I would wager a bet that there will be far many more Christians, Jews, and Muslims that harvest than there will be LOO'ers. Its in the numbers and thus demonstrates the viability of religious/spiritual paths.

~ Q ~

I note that the title of my thread has changed? I am searching how to repair this but can not seem to accommodate it back to its original title?

This entirely derails its intent as regards the mechanism of how STS merges successfully into mid STO 6D and becomes instead a discussion on STS as regards religion?

[Etude in B Minor]

With the New Testament, it is very positive with the exception of the book of Revelation.

I would argue against this. Both Cayce and Yogananda held that the Revelation is a description of man's physical and metaphysical bodies and the battles being waged to overcome the tyranny of the senses. Taking Yogananda's view, the Revelation is the Christian "Baghavad Gita".

If you take the Revelation as a literal description of future crises and armageddon and the fight of good against evil, then, yes it looks very negative. But taken in this more esoteric light it becomes a roadmap to enlightenment. Yogananda's two-volume set on Christ is very interesting and beautifully written. The ARE also published a "Commentary on the Revelation" which includes many of Cayce's readings on the subject. I don't know if Yogananda and Cayce knew of each other at all, but these two works are eerily similar.

Also, from what I can tell through going through many sources, St. John the Apostle, who is credited with (dreaming up of!!) the revelation was the most saintly or Christ-like of all the apostles.

[Monica]

Not necessarily. Although many who followed a religion have undoubtedly been harvested, it is debatable as to whether it was because of their religious choice or despite it.

But I think you see the larger point that it was their spiritual doctrine (a better choice of words as you state below than the word religious doctrine) which nonetheless heavily facilitated their choice.

My point is that, I don't think the religious doctrine could necessarily be said to influence their polarity one way or the other, or at least not in a direction that is easily ascertained. Both STS and STO are to be found in these religions. I've witnessed people of the same religion, reading the same words, perceiving those words in opposite ways. It could just as easily be argued that the religious dogma interfered with their polarizing as it did facilitated it.

---

Far too broad of a statement as relates to its original intent: This is true only for the those weaker polarized STO who do not discern, or for their counterpart weaker STS who have yet learned to focus their divisiveness. It is not at all true for the stronger STO that do discern, this in spite of said corruption given, in that far than enough light remains regardless.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Are you saying that only the 'weaker' followers would have distorted the avatars' teachings? Are you saying that you think the religions are generally accurate reflections of what the avatars intended? Or am I misunderstanding you here?

STS does not extinguish the light in said doctrines, even though they are successful in corrupting it. It may be very fairly stated that there are as many STO preserving the light of the message as there are STS distorting/corrupting it.

We have no way to know that but can only speculate, based on (subjective) observations of the fruits of said religions. Gazing upon the works of Mother Theresa will yield different conclusions than gazing upon a 'witch' burning at the stake. I don't think it's possible to do the math.

We may concentrate on the dark, or we may concentrate on the light, even in this very conversation, as much as the subject matter of spiritual doctrines, which surely contain equal parts of light and dark....as we must agree....

I would agree that they contain both. Whether in equal proportions, who can say?

Spiritual doctrine therefore, as much as religion, facilitate their choice nevertheless which was the reason for the Avatars incarnation.

Can you please clarify? What was the reason for the Avatars' incarnations? Are you saying that they intended to produce doctrine which would facilitate choice, or are you saying they just intended to facilitate choice, and the doctrine was a by-product?

STO has as a result the ability to utilize these doctrines and/or religions, as if though a mechanisms for harvestability, which no doubt are their intent by the Avatars to begin with. Wouldn't you agree?

I agree that their intent was to facilitate choice. But I would disagree that their intent was to create doctrine, regardless of whether that doctrine facilitated choice or not.

Agreed. But their difficulty or ease is not what is in question. The mechanism by which they merge is.

The reference to their difficulty was in response to the question as to whether they must somehow do 'penance.' I don't subscribe to the concept of penance, so I was suggesting that their path no more requires 'penance' than ours. Each is a valid path with its own hardships. What's different is what is perceived as hardship.

[Monica]

If we seek to divide religion from spirituality, then it is we that judge.

If applied to a person, indeed that would be true. But I don't think it is judgmental to distinguish between religious doctrine which may or may not contain spirituality, and spirituality which may or may not contain religion.

For the moment, religion is as good as it gets for the vast and greater population of earth who by the billions far exceed students of esoterica.

Actually, I think religion can do a lot better than it has. And it is beginning to happen, in pockets. Even amongst fundamentalists, there are uprisings of new thought. It's wonderful to see!

And some religions are far less dogmatic than others, although both rigid dogma and mysticism can both be found in most religions.

Lets us pray for them and ourselves that we both are as spiritual as our doctrines espouse and encourage us to be.

Or...how about more spiritual than our doctrines espouse and encourage us to be? I think of doctrine as something to be transcended. Even those enmeshed in doctrine are often challenged by it and given opportunities to transcend it, and therein lies a potential for growth.

In humor as well as in earnest to make my point, I would wager a bet that there will be far many more Christians, Jews, and Muslims that harvest than there will be LOO'ers. Its in the numbers and thus demonstrates the viability of religious/spiritual paths.

Ra indicated that numbers were unimportant. I would respectfully disagree that the numbers necessarily indicate validity. Although, we already know that there is validity to any catalyst as well as to any path, irrespective of the numbers.

[unity100]

you simply let go of all you have learned in those religions, their dogmas, suggestions and traditions.

I agree for the most part, in terms of rigid dogma...though the religions do have some good in them, if we can see past the dogma to the essence. It's definitely a challenge to be able to sift thru all the religious distortion to find a few gems, and questionable whether it's really worth it. But that's a whole 'nother topic.

The very concept of atonement is one such religious dogma. STS entities serve the Creator too, so why would they need to 'atone' for their service?

if an entity has acquired clearer, purer knowledge, it is illogical and wasteful to still keep and see through the dogma of a religion in order to get to a tiny bit of truth that was used in order to attract positive entities to negative hierarchies.

To your consideration above, I'm not sure that "letting go" is as required as is "merger" of all that one has brought to the table through ones journey. Simply letting go, although perhaps understood as you perhaps mean it(?), is less elegant and meaningful for having gone through the journey to acquire all that led one presumably to the point of said merger, whether said merger is for STO or STS, given that both merge at mid 6th.

in accordance with the above, most of the religions and rulesets existing on this planet are means of exploitation, which were prepared and furthered by negative sources in order to make positives accept negative conditionings by usage of trace amounts of positive philosophy.

once the entity has access to purer information, it is unreasonable and hampering to insist on keeping muddied information. its akin to insisting on keeping a muddied, confused channel, over a pure and clear channel.

its is conflicting with the adept's process too - being dead, and reborn metaphorically does not mean it only pertains to bodily incarnation. when someone dies, most of the societal conditionings and biases pass away too. were any of those religions there 5000 years before ? will any of them be there 5000 years later ? apparently, they are just parts of this societal mind's conditionings and biases. and therefore, it is illogical to insist on keeping them.

they should fall away just like falling leaves, lightening the spirit to fly to its destination.

[Ali Quadir]

I don't quite agree with the anti religious sentiments. Religion is an easy scapegoat for all that goes wrong in the world. It's easy to say that if this or that person had not been religious he would not have done the wrong things. In that same regard we can blame the law for the existence of criminals. After all religion tells you to do the right thing just like the law. When religious figures commit crimes they are like criminals who don't do what their own laws would suggest.

Religion does not naturally include bias. If you look at christianity islam and judaism. The three big dogmatics. They were not originally this dogmatic. Rather they were changed by politics over centuries until they became what they are today.

Even the supposedly extremely undogmatic religions like wicca paganism and shamanism have their members who would gladly judge another person to be less "good" at that particular religion. Whatever this means...

I once was in a bar where a group of pagans meet. I was given the third degree by someone there. Who concluded I wasn't a very good witch.. In this case I happen to agree. But the foolishness of thinking we can look at another person and know what they need based on our own experience is jaw dropping. It's arrogant, and the blindness to that personal arrogance is astonishing.

Now that is the principle of dogmatism. A person who uses his own insights to judge another person. And who would use his own experiences to dictate to another person what is right and what is wrong.

Whether that person is part of a religion or is opposed to religion really makes very little difference they're dogmatic evangelists for their own worldviews.

The idea that we can leave religion behind us goes against what I know of neurology and the human brain.. We are wired to experience religion. Some of us more some of us less. If anything the current scandals regarding so many priests who have abused children.. You cannot take a brain wired to experience sex and forbid it not to experience sex without causing aberrations.

You similarly cannot take a brain wired to experience religion and forbid it to experience religion without causing aberrations... It will happen. People will follow religion even if it will kill them. People will have sex even if it will kill them. People will sleep with the mad dictators wife.

Now what we can do is make it a private affair, and I am all for it... It should be considered highly impolite and a loss of decorum for people to discuss religion with those who are not interested in it. Same as sex. If I go and bother someone whom I happen to want to share sexual feelings with, it is considered an assault and that person will feel violated. Many people feel violated when others who happen to want to share religious feelings with them bother them... So why is this not a form of assault? People can be deeply offended when an evangelist approaches them on the street. That's clear and pragmatic and something we can base laws on.

I hope the contributions to society/art/science that religion has helped to make stand for themselves and that people are well aware of them.

It's very popular, very 21st century to complain about religion. It's very unpopular to actually have a balanced view about religion.

Consider it like this... If someone takes the Law of One and concludes offering catalyst to others is STO. Then Ra, the Law of One and all those involved are responsible for the catalyst this individual chooses to offer?

[Monica]

After all religion tells you to do the right thing just like the law. When religious figures commit crimes they are like criminals who don't do what their own laws would suggest.

Not entirely. Some religions also include admonitions to commit evil acts, such as killing others in the name of their 'god' and those passages have been used throughout history to justify violence. This along with the passages promoting love, charity, etc. It works both ways.

In other words, in addition to criminals going against what their religion teaches, we also have criminals doing exactly what their religion teaches.

Religion does not naturally include bias. If you look at christianity islam and judaism. The three big dogmatics. They were not originally this dogmatic. Rather they were changed by politics over centuries until they became what they are today.

I agree that the religions were changed and took on more bias over the course of time. I would go further in saying that modern religions bear little resemblance to their original counterparts. I guess it depends on how you define religion. If we define it as a spiritual path, then yes, it changed. If we choose the equally valid definition of doctrine, then what we are discussing takes on a different connotation. When I speak of religion, I am generally referring to that which contains dogma and hierarchy, rather than a personal spiritual path. In this context, it could be said that a rigid system of dogma naturally has a high degree of bias.

Our differences in perspectives might be related to which definition we are referring to.

Even the supposedly extremely undogmatic religions like wicca paganism and shamanism have their members who would gladly judge another person to be less "good" at that particular religion. Whatever this means...

Very true! I've had similar experiences. I've also met New Agers who blamed others for not being 'advanced' enough or not thinking positive enough. Although, in all fairness, I've never been accosted on the street by a proselytizing Pagan or New Ager, and that's happened many times with proselytizing Christians, in my neck of the woods.

But the foolishness of thinking we can look at another person and know what they need based on our own experience is jaw dropping. It's arrogant, and the blindness to that personal arrogance is astonishing.

Very true! And it can happen in subtle ways as well as overtly. Even here...we cannot assume that others understand the Law of One as we do, or are ready to meditate, let go of religious conditioning, instantly forgive, or whatever else we think they 'should' do. We can, however, lovingly share what has helped us, or any insights we may have. And that is the key difference. Here at B4, no one is forcing anyone else to believe a certain way, agree with them about interpretations, follow a certain lifestyle, engage in certain spiritual practices, or whatever. How refreshing!

Now that is the principle of dogmatism. A person who uses his own insights to judge another person. And who would use his own experiences to dictate to another person what is right and what is wrong.

Exactly! One can be dogmatic about anything, even about not being dogmatic!

Whether that person is part of a religion or is opposed to religion really makes very little difference they're dogmatic evangelists for their own worldviews.

Heh, I just said the same thing then read this.

The idea that we can leave religion behind us goes against what I know of neurology and the human brain.. We are wired to experience religion. Some of us more some of us less. If anything the current scandals regarding so many priests who have abused children.. You cannot take a brain wired to experience sex and forbid it not to experience sex without causing aberrations.

I'm not sure I agree that we are wired to experience religion in the same way our bodies are wired to experience sex. Can you elaborate? What is that idea based on?

No one is saying that anyone should be forced to give up their religion. My own personal experience is that religion (as in doctrine, dogma, hierarchy, organization, etc.) has been left behind. I might suggest leaving outdated dogmas behind, here at a Law of One discussion community, just as we all might offer different suggestions, available for the other-self to choose or decline.

It should be considered highly impolite and a loss of decorum for people to discuss religion with those who are not interested in it. Same as sex.

What a novel idea!

People can be deeply offended when an evangelist approaches them on the street. That's clear and pragmatic and something we can base laws on.

Sounds like a interesting idea but it won't happen here in the US.

I hope the contributions to society/art/science that religion has helped to make stand for themselves and that people are well aware of them.

It's very popular, very 21st century to complain about religion. It's very unpopular to actually have a balanced view about religion.

Religious institutions have been woven into the fabric of life and thus have influenced society/art/science as you say. Although, I would still question whether those contributions are because of the religions or despite them. Inspiration comes from the human spirit. It is then distorted by the filter it passes thru. Could it be possible that the inspiration for art, science etc. would have happened anyway, but might have taken on a different flavor, had the religious structure not been present? (Just a thought!)

Sometimes the wind shifts to the other extreme to balance out many centuries past. After 2000+ years of a particular religion dominating, and so many people finally having the freedom to question it, it's understandable that they make a stand to expose the negative aspects. It was only a couple of hundred years ago that witches were still be burned at the stake, and in modern communities, there are still those who would do that if they could. I've met some of them.

I agree that a balanced view is the ultimate goal, but I can also see the value in the other perspective having its day.

Consider it like this... If someone takes the Law of One and concludes offering catalyst to others is STO. Then Ra, the Law of One and all those involved are responsible for the catalyst this individual chooses to offer?

That would be analogous to blaming Jesus or Mohammed for the crimes committed in the name of Christianity and Islam. I don't see anyone doing that, though undoubtedly some have.

Rather, what I see as being questioned is the very hierarchial structure of religion itself, which predisposes it to a loss of independent thinking, thus potentially a loss of the ability to choose, not to mention acts committed according to its perceived dogmas.

[Quantum]

I don't quite agree with the anti religious sentiments. Religion is an easy scapegoat for all that goes wrong in the world.
.....The idea that we can leave religion behind us goes against what I know of neurology and the human brain.. We are wired to experience religion. Some of us more some of us less. If anything the current scandals regarding so many priests who have abused children.. You cannot take a brain wired to experience sex and forbid it not to experience sex without causing aberrations.
....You similarly cannot take a brain wired to experience religion and forbid it to experience religion without causing aberrations... It will happen. People will follow religion even if it will kill them. People will have sex even if it will kill them. People will sleep with the mad dictators wife.
...Now what we can do is make it a private affair, and I am all for it... It should be considered highly impolite and a loss of decorum for people to discuss religion with those who are not interested in it. Same as sex.
... That's clear and pragmatic and something we can base laws on.
...I hope the contributions to society/art/science that religion has helped to make stand for themselves and that people are well aware of them.

Hello Ali,
Thank you for joining in. You add much to the conversation and bring a sense of semblanced balance to it. I in fact intuit that you might be able to offer if not say far more to the subject.

I will speak to the subject, but only this once on this thread, as I feel it has been severely derailed. Its original name was "Questions regarding the LOO" as regards specifically 'STS merger into STO 6D', not "Questions regarding the LOO, STS and Religions"...???? I thought it was an inferred if not stated intent by participants not to derail threads. If this is true of posts, then renaming the entire thread should be a prohibition????? I have attempted to fix this several times but do not understand the mechanism of how.

I am by no means a religious person. I consider myself to be a spiritual one. I do however feel by sheer numbers alone without reservation that there are far many more spiritual people that are religious than there are esoteric students of the same persuasion. In short, religion works as per Ra quotes echoing these sentiments that it does. I have seen more than a few references of late on the forum that specifically relate to Christianity, the Muslim faith, The Jewish, and even Zoroastrianism as regards their inherent nature of containing more darkness than they do light. As students of the LOO, statements such as these are not only divisive, they are preposterous. Neither side (STO vs STS) has the upper hand and neither side is winning the battle. Statements such as these may in fact serve only one purpose whether seen or not. They may depolarize STO. 3D is an equal opportunity employer. The light in 3D is inherent with equality as is the dark with the same degree of equality. Statements such as these not only run counter to STO precepts in their divisiveness, they also run counter to the Materiel that state otherwise, that religion is an extremely viable path. In fact it may be argued that all of these works indisputably are some of the greatest works that have ever been produced by mankind. It may be further argued that as Ra sates that (1) this Logos has a STRONG bias to STO, and (2) that this world is more STO than it is STS, in spite of appearances to the contrary. As such it it would be as hard to argue that these great works have not certainly played a role in this STO bias and outcome. As religious as the world is it would be hard to imagine one might surgically excise religion out of the the equation and the consequent preponderance of STO beings on earth because of it.

As a student living London for Post-Grad work with a Muslim Professor and his beautiful daughter (but that's another story), I took it upon myself out of respect to them and the many Muslim friends they had to read the Koran. Since then I've read the Bhagavadgita, Buddhism, the Bible several times, The Ohaspe Material, and of course the LOO many times. I assure you there is a great deal of light therein. Not one single path is more viable than the other, inclusive of the LOO. The path s not a religion nor its Book, but is in fact the individual and what he chooses to do with his knowledge, his experience, and his life.


May we change the thread back to its original title, and if so desired open a new thread to a very old subject that I fear will bear less fruit than will I believe the study of the LOO?


~ Q ~

[Monica]

Not one single path is more viable than the other, inclusive of the LOO. The path s not a religion nor its Book, but is in fact the individual and what he chooses to do with his knowledge, his experience, and his life.

Agreed!

May we change the thread back to its original title, and if so desired open a new thread to a very old subject that I fear will bear less fruit than will I believe the study of the LOO?

Quantum, since you and I had been exchanging pm's, I assumed that you saw the pm I sent you about the thread title. Please check your pm!

Raised in the Judeo-Islamic-Christian (hereinafter referred to as JIC) traditions that so many of us have been, and then having found the LOO, and having studied it so thoroughly, and then having struggled to have it fit seamlessly into the confines of the aforementioned JIC, wherein everything has been placed as nicely into its appropriate corners and tucked away as much as possible, do any of you who were raised in either of these traditions also at times stumble on at least one core philosophical principle...

How do does one raised in said traditions of JIC reconcile...

*side note: please go with the JIC references of Hell, purgatory, sin, redemption, and Heaven...

These quotes from your original post seemed to invite discussion about how those raised in religions might feel challenges reconciling said religions with the Law of One. But hey, we can work out the title! Please check your pm!

[Monica]

I still held on to residual fear of burning damnation after death even though I had intellectually given up Christianity years before. This being a long, long time before discovering my esoteric spiritual home, the LOO. (I was able to release these fears after meeting my wonderful wife, who showed me a better path with her upbringing in Unitarian/Unity/Univeralist churches. The LOO followed years later).

Whew! Glad to hear you finally let that one go! For me, it was the attachment of believing the book was 'from God' and that anything else I read had to somehow reconcile with that book, in order to be acceptable.

the reason I bring up this example is because as you so aptly prefaced your question with a possible explanation, that being that having been raised in a JIC tradition yourself, you found trouble when attempting to reconcile ideas presented by Ra and ones you were presented with years earlier. Trying to do so is, in a word I think, folly.

In a lecture given by Don during the Ra contact years, he makes a strong point about the reason why his extraterrestial contact constantly uses the word "distortion":

All information that has ever been communicated by language on this planet is distorted. All religious information is distorted. The only way you’re ever going to get pure information is by making it back around the whole cycle, reuniting with the creative Consciousness, and then you’ll be undistorted. So this is why the word, distortion, is very important. Our contact continually uses the word distortion. All the information you have been given is distorted to some extent or another. Most of it is pretty much distorted.

Our JIC religions are indeed distorted. Verily so. They would have us believe in the sort of God who ensures a human version of justice is always and forever carried out upon those who do "wrong" and those who do "right". Thus we have the myth of Heaven, and the myth of Hell, to satisfy and justify the religious when "wrong" is carried out upon them. But, here I must turn to the NDE (Near Death Experience) literature if not the Ra material. After death, 90% of NDE'ers report that there is no final judgment as is spoken of in the Bible, Koran, et cetera. The judgment is always given from the self, to the self. I might suggest that Ra echos this sentiment, and I suspect basic and general philosophy of the bigger picture when describing the so called Negative entity in his acsention through the densities.

What I am saying, is that the so-called free pass (I now use this term independently of your context, 3D) is actually an example of distorted thinking. It's a product of our religious upbringing, and perhaps disadvantageous to hold on to. I see it as inconsequential to me personally how so and so handles his or her polarity a few billion years from now. It's interesting to speculate of course- but take care not to cast judgment. Doing so is indeed a real stumbler.

Well said! I too am questioning the very premise. I don't think they get a free pass at all. That wouldn't make sense. All souls must evolve according to their chosen paths, with their corresponding catalysts, challenges, and, yes, pain. The religious constructs of justice and penitence don't apply, in my opinion.

I've come to feel since reading the LOO that there really is no justice in the way your typical JIC priest would have it be, when you look at the real world, the real universe and metaverse. If justice does exist it is impartial or beyond our understanding. And thus seeming "unjust" situations of STS entities reaping havoc upon other portions of creation for billions or more of years and suddenly switching polarities and entering unity with the one creator to experience ceaseless bliss forever more may exist. Though we surely do not understand it with our third density / Human / Earth conditioning.

Again, well said!

I hope this post hasn't been too rambling, I'm up late with rare free time and some cold chardonnay.

You've put into words what I was having trouble articulating. I think your perspective is right on!

[unity100]

the particular religions that is being given as example here are all from the same region of the world, ie, middle east, caanan parts, and it is the area that the negative orion entities have been working with, starting with the moses episode. they have since been building on and investing in these. if we consider that all the prominent 4 of the religions from that zone copied each other (their predecessors actually), it would mean that they retain all the investment that has been made into them by the negative group.

just a 'turn the other cheek' and 'love is good' excerpt in a whole religious book does not free that book or religion from all the negative investment. the situation is even more dire, when one goes into details of those religions.

---

as a simple example, there are little parallels in between eastern philosophies, and caanan religions.

[lightning]

just a 'turn the other cheek' and 'love is good' excerpt in a whole religious book does not free that book or religion from all the negative investment. the situation is even more dire, when one goes into details of those religions.

---

as a simple example, there are little parallels in between eastern philosophies, and caanan religions.

You're talking about the Abrahamic religions, all of which are traced back to Abraham. But I would say along the same lines that going around saying "All is One" is equally fruitless. The thing I realized about the LOO years ago is that it was never intended to be about "technique". The only advice given is to "Look in the mirror and see the Creator; look in the eyes of another and see the Creator". Does anyone really think it's easy to do that on a consistent basis? I think it is quite naive and significantly self-deceptive for one to think they can make real spiritual progress without a system. I know Christianity is not the only system, but I also think that what one sees in it is fairly reflective of what's inside themselves.

[Ali Quadir]

After all religion tells you to do the right thing just like the law. When religious figures commit crimes they are like criminals who don't do what their own laws would suggest.

Not entirely. Some religions also include admonitions to commit evil acts, such as killing others in the name of their 'god' and those passages have been used throughout history to justify violence. This along with the passages promoting love, charity, etc. It works both ways.

When I speak of religion, I am generally referring to that which contains dogma and hierarchy, rather than a personal spiritual path. In this context, it could be said that a rigid system of dogma naturally has a high degree of bias.

This is the big difference in perception maybe. I can certainly understand that point of view, unfortunately we experience our kin's desire to dictate to each other how to act. This combined with religion makes a mixture that's very dogmatic... Take the religion away however, and people will still be dogmatic. Take the peoples influence away and the religion will no longer be dogmatic.

Just look at the atheist movement. They're just as bad as the rest of people at admitting that their path is one of many. Some actually evangelize.

Religion to me is the cultural inheritance relating to spiritual evolution. Extremely mixed up with culture and politics. Whatever hinders this evolution must obviously not be part of it.. Cleaning dirt from gold is easy there's a big difference between the two.

In here in bring4th, we see a strong willingness to accept and assist others. To me these are qualities I admire in saints. They are certainly not exclusive to saints, saints were just people like you and me. They made an impression certainly, but in the end this isn't knowledge that is monopolized, many of us get it. It doesn't take a theist to be a good person.

Take the Law of One.. Considering her work as a channel, Carla is literally a prophet, isn't she? Different words, without the association of the dogmatic and terrible which we have with traditional religion. Why would those situations not be the same? We can hardly expect centuries of people to be able to express to us exactly what this or that prophet meant... Or even that these prophets were 100% accurate themselves.

But they're not dead... I met incredible people.

So I guess it's a difference in how we name the thing. I don't have a big opinion of the hierarchical structures myself. I have a tremendous opinion of certain lessons. And certainly of certain people. But in the end we're all equals. We walk our own paths, and we must be our own experts. We can't go around handing our power away to every idea someone else has. The expectation of certain key people in those religions for the rest of us to do so. And our willingness to do so. Is the problem...

They must come down and if this damages the popularity of religions that's fine with me. You know me, I'm a pragmatist. And humanity is clearly more important than an institution. Those so inclined will find the pearls among the wreckage and build something less dogmatic. I'm with you on that one... But religion is not that one single simple thing it's a spectrum of experience. Different to different people.

Never will religion to me mean that dogmatic shell of dirt that got wrapped around humanities most beautiful jewels. The dirt doesn't even come close to being near what we might call a true saint and literally feeling his prayer. That to me is religion.

Just a glimmer of this utterly re-convinces me that I will carry this with me to my death.. But that's me... No one has to do anything or adopt anything. Certainly not the irrelevant baggage from the back of the book. This is just me and my experience.

The current head of my group (sounds official huh?) once told me as a teen he always thought of starting a religion he would call it "relaxitarianism" then he met the Sufi's and they were okay too! I guess we shouldn't take ourselves too seriously. Just do what we do with conviction... And have some fun along the way.

There are many facets to religion. It would be a shame if we threw out the good with the bad. Lets just throw out the bad and steal the good things for ourselves

(I'll distract the priest you grab his book!)

[Quantum]

the particular religions that is being given as example here are all from the same region of the world, ie, middle east, caanan parts, and it is the area that the negative orion entities have been working with, starting with the moses episode. they have since been building on and investing in these. if we consider that all the prominent 4 of the religions from that zone copied each other (their predecessors actually), it would mean that they retain all the investment that has been made into them by the negative group.

Raised in the Judeo-Islamic-Christian (hereinafter referred to as JIC) traditions that so many of us have been, and then having found the LOO, and having studied it so thoroughly, and then having struggled to have it fit seamlessly into the confines of the aforementioned JIC, wherein everything has been placed as nicely into its appropriate corners and tucked away as much as possible, do any of you who were raised in either of these traditions also at times stumble on at least one core philosophical principle...

These quotes from your original post seemed to invite discussion about how those raised in religions might feel challenges reconciling said religions with the Law of One

With all due respect, you cut the message in half. It continued immediately after that with the point and premise of the entire thread as relates to STS merging into STO 6D. It continued immediately thereafter with the gist of the entire thread:

Specifically a case in point: STS vs STO - How do does one raised in said traditions of JIC reconcile that one may at mid 6th density merge into Heaven, so to speak, by in fact having traversed the paths of deprivation, depravity, degradation, and just a whole lot of general degeneration (lots of "D" words)...( basically Hell), and presumably in fact the deeper one descends into hell through these "D" actions the more then is one rewarded and the more expeditious his path to heaven is opened up to him?

It seemed the premise and point was well understood enough before it became derailed as seen by the conversation where it then split.

I will with great respect beg out of both discussions and topics on the one intended thread I created for two reasons. The lessor of those reasons is that it has been derailed. That is a rather small point. The greater is that this discussion on religion I feel will be as circular as was the discussion on Infinity, but with far more personal investment into them for all the obvious reasons which are already presenting themselves (see above). All doctrines, teachings, scriptures, books, speeches, movies, documentaries, TV shows, newspaper articles, internet articles, blogs, chat rooms, forums, and even conversations, etc etc etc, have distortion in them. Whats new here? They contain the light and the dark. This seems a rather very elementary and foundational point as explained by Ra. What really is new here? This is not a discovery, nor is it an intellectual investigation when world history alone, as much as the LOO has made it self evident. Whats new here on B4th is whats been very very old everywhere else. I would have no problems in intellectually discussing religion per the LOO, but would caution all to remember we are representatives of it. To even begin to suggest that several great religions of the world, or even one, are negative, or that all religions, or most, or even but one of these for having stemmed out of one side of the world versus another, are more negative for it, is simply...well...I fear to say more. Suffice it to suggest that it may be inferred how limited this view may be seen as. If we can not agree that religion has provided every bit as much light as it has dark, but that instead a single great religion, or several great religions, have provided more darkness than light, then the LOO has been distorted by ourselves. Shame on us. Should any religious individual enter into this conversation, whether newly arriving, or already a member, and read where this conversation is taking us, then this site may be viewed as something less than understanding or loving, and moreover one potentially as judgmental to those great religions that have provided so much to the world (as much as what it has corrupted) and to the many billions of people to whom it has brought enlightenment to within them. Other than religion, I openly ask any that agree with any of these sentiments, i.e. that one, some, most, or many religions are more negative than positive, to name another path other than religion whereby more souls have become enlightened as a result? To attempt to beg out of this question by suggesting there is no way of knowing this would be a weak argument given that an enlightened individual is hardly overlooked by the masses, as even Ra states. It would be obvious.
Surely history has taught us that most were religious.

I am not religious. But if I were I might suggest that we are treading on silly ground with little reward. A newly entering individual whether already a member or simply lurking might either be offended, or if intelligent see this as sophomoric and small minded. Remember that our dialogs are archived for posterity and that we are members representing the LOO. Are these the dialogs for which the LOO and Ra would wish to be remembered for? We speak for the LOO to the world on this site. We proclaim the path of the STO. But I fear these conversations are less than loving STO and as such are unbalanced to what these great religions have provided. What world religions have done to the world has been rehashed by greater minds than may be present here on B4th. But these greater minds too also took a one-sided argument and also made it a distortion for divisiveness. Their arguments also were not balanced and fair minded. Arguments such as these are tantamount to suggesting that because all dogs have teeth and that because some bite that all dogs are bad, when most make phenomenal companions. Its all already been said. Same song, second verse same as the first verse, and all the other verses after that.

I am more looking at the LOO primarily as regards what I write. If it seems hard or harsh I assure you it is not meant to be.I care enough to say it and hope it is accepted in the vein it is meant to be delivered. I close by cautioning, we are being seen. Religion has offered as much ecstasy as it has tragedy. All is in balance. The dark is not stronger in any.....


~ Q ~

[unity100]

this is no silly ground. the journey towards infinity is a journey of letting drop distortions, conditionings and biases. what is termed 'religion' in this world and pertain to this world's societal mind's past, is also a distortion, also a conditioning which will need to be left behind.

it is extravagant to think that these can stay, whereas even the body is left behind, after a harvest or an incarnation. the one who needs to take the journey towards adepthood, or any kind of noticeable advancement consciously, has to already 'died' philosophically, and reborn. if such a seeker is getting 'offended' by any talk on these leaves to be shed, it means s/he still identifies with them, still carries the biases and conditionings.

mind is the outlet of spirit. what flows out from spirit will be inevitably shaped with the biases of the mind, and also what is being attracted to the entity will also be shaped similarly.

the example of 'dying and being reborn' metaphorical initiation in the bottom room of the pyramid is a very important one in that regard.

[Shemaya]

Hi Quantum!

I've been wanting to jump in and comment...having some difficulty getting my thoughts into words. You are very passionate about wanting to defend the goodness/STO aspects of religion and I thank you for your efforts. I found myself in that position before on a forum, and it wasn't fun!! Especially when the spiritual teacher was the member who was denigrating Buddha...boy did that fire me up...and I'm Christian!!! You can only imagine what the discourse was over there at that time.

(I am not saying that anyone here is denigrating religion or great spiritual teachers) However, religion is a subject that does fire up alot of opinions and feelings and judgements In that light, I can understand why you want to reel in the dialogue, because the actual truth is usually different from the feelings, opinions and judgements.

I resonated with the LOO in part because of Carla and her religious faith. That made it so much more comfortable for me as a seeker. I know many Christians who are so service-to-others oriented that it leaves me no doubt that their faith in Jesus led them there.

So to get to your original question,

Specifically a case in point: STS vs STO - How do does one raised in said traditions of JIC reconcile that one may at mid 6th density merge into Heaven, so to speak, by in fact having traversed the paths of deprivation, depravity, degradation, and just a whole lot of general degeneration (lots of "D" words)...( basically Hell), and presumably in fact the deeper one descends into hell through these "D" actions the more then is one rewarded and the more expeditious his path to heaven is opened up to him?

Personally I have been able to let go of the doctrines and dogma in my "awakening" experience so this question does not bother me in the way you might think coming from JIC. Prior to this letting go of the dogma (ie. "My karma ate my dogma" haha) I may have struggled more with this.

It comes down to, for me , the truth of who we are. We are God's children. We are the Creator. We are God. We are engaged in a co-creative, collective process of Creation. From the beginning of the octave to the end. Alpha and omega.

What is the nature of God? God is unconditionally loving, compassionate, and powerful, not judgemental, and not punitive. So if that is God's nature, how could God possibly consider eternal punishment for any of his children? (As taught in JIC) This always made no sense to me from the time I was a child, I guess somehow I knew the true nature of God. We are all welcome home by God.

I feel that the STS disconnect themselves from Source/Creator and that is how they are able to do horrendous things, because they are disconnected...their hearts are not open to connect with all that is. Doesn't Ra say something about this? I have to look that one up!!!

Getting back to the question...Ra's teaching made more sense to me than other explanations I heard, that didn't resonate. But as others have stated, it would be interesting to hear how the process occurs in 6-D.

I agree that forgiveness is a very big part of it, forgiveness of self.

[Ali Quadir]

I guess the direction for us religious folks is to let go of dogma. And embrace the one. All dogma.. The dogma disguised as religious and the dogma disguised as anti religious.

Because not only are we attached to something if the idea of letting it go offends us.. We are also attached to something if the idea of bringing it with us offends us.

Blind faith and blind hate are both pointless. Of course religion is a distortion. But it can be one of the least distorted paths. As witnessed by the fact that most adepts are part of a religion or have started one. If you don't see it that is fine, but that doesn't mean that other people don't see it. There is no one on this 3d plane who has undistorted vision.

[unity100]

wanderers do not start religions. the only two entities who started religions are moses and mohammad. with the exception of these two, all the religions were started by the followers of wanderers. adept, is a very different situation. an adept is not necessarily a positive or 6th density wanderer, intending to better everything.

---

that is, if we take moses and mohammad as wanderers.

[Ali Quadir]

I don't quite follow unity.. Does your statement refer to mine? I used the word adept, not the word wanderer. I really meant to use the word adept.. But no one else used the word wanderer for you to respond to.

By the way "Wanderers do not start religions" is quite a generalization... I doubt it to be true...

17.11 Questioner: What I meant to say was can you tell me if Jesus of Nazareth came from the Confederation before incarnation here?
Ra: I am Ra. The one known to you as Jesus of Nazareth did not have a name. This entity was a member of fifth* density of the highest level of that sub-octave. This entity was desirous of entering this planetary sphere in order to share the love vibration in as pure a manner as possible. Thus, this entity received permission to perform this mission. This entity was then a Wanderer of no name, of Confederation origins, of fifth* density, representing the fifth-density* understanding of the vibration of understanding or love.

* This should be fourth. Ra corrects the error in the next answer.

[unity100]

wanderers do not start religions, is a generalization, and for positively oriented wanderers, it is true, unless some big miscalculation or mishap happens. since negatively oriented wanderers are too few to even constitute a statistic, the generalization would hold true.

adept is an entity in 3d who is able to work with various high frequency energies, and probably an entity which is closing harvest status. adept, as a definition does not carry positive or negative leaning. the adept can be of either leaning. atlanteans causing all those catastrophes and wars, and creating entities to have them serve themselves, were also adepts.

thus it can be said that positively oriented adepts also wouldnt start religions, whereas negatively oriented adepts may opt to do it that way, as can be seen from the examples of numerous 'religions' which are being started in the contemporary times.

.............

jesus of nazareth didnt start a religion. in his lifetime, he didnt make up any rules, he didnt tell anyone what to obey. his mission had been sharing 4d vibration in its pure form, and he did. he allowed himself to be killed even.

his message was 'love each other and turn the other cheek'. religion of christianity has been created by his contemporaries, followers and followers following them in the next 300 years. and even, constantine, the byzantine emperor who decided to use christianity as the new method to unite the scattered eastern roman empire and give a justification to his rule. council of nicea was made to that end, deciding which should be left in the holy books and which was not fit for it.

christianity has little semblance to jesus of nazareth's message now.

[Monica]

Just look at the atheist movement. They're just as bad as the rest of people at admitting that their path is one of many. Some actually evangelize.

Oh yes, very true!

Religion to me is the cultural inheritance relating to spiritual evolution. Extremely mixed up with culture and politics.

Thank you for sharing your connotation. If we all keep in mind that what the other person is referring to when using the term, might not be the same as what we refer to when using the term, we can communicate better.

In here in bring4th, we see a strong willingness to accept and assist others. To me these are qualities I admire in saints. They are certainly not exclusive to saints, saints were just people like you and me. They made an impression certainly, but in the end this isn't knowledge that is monopolized, many of us get it. It doesn't take a theist to be a good person.

Agreed. Though I now find the idea of humans deciding which humans went to 'heaven' rather amusing. But yes, I understand what you mean by saint, St Ali!

Take the Law of One.. Considering her work as a channel, Carla is literally a prophet, isn't she? Different words, without the association of the dogmatic and terrible which we have with traditional religion. Why would those situations not be the same? We can hardly expect centuries of people to be able to express to us exactly what this or that prophet meant... Or even that these prophets were 100% accurate themselves.

Now there's a disconcerting thought! A few decades from now, the Law of One a religion and Carla a prophet! Yikes!

Since we'd be inevitably considered the 'followers' then that's all the more reason it would behoove us to do our best to keep the Law of One as free from distortion and dogma as possible.

So I guess it's a difference in how we name the thing. I don't have a big opinion of the hierarchical structures myself. I have a tremendous opinion of certain lessons. And certainly of certain people. But in the end we're all equals. We walk our own paths, and we must be our own experts. We can't go around handing our power away to every idea someone else has. The expectation of certain key people in those religions for the rest of us to do so. And our willingness to do so. Is the problem...

They must come down and if this damages the popularity of religions that's fine with me. You know me, I'm a pragmatist. And humanity is clearly more important than an institution.

Institutions come and go. Christianity, for example, seems so rock solid in our society, but it's only been around 2000 years. A blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things...

Those so inclined will find the pearls among the wreckage and build something less dogmatic. I'm with you on that one... But religion is not that one single simple thing it's a spectrum of experience. Different to different people.

Agreed. And a naturally volatile subject.

Never will religion to me mean that dogmatic shell of dirt that got wrapped around humanities most beautiful jewels. The dirt doesn't even come close to being near what we might call a true saint and literally feeling his prayer. That to me is religion.

We're dealing with semantics here. We're saying the same thing but using different terms, or, rather, the same term but in different ways.

The current head of my group (sounds official huh?) once told me as a teen he always thought of starting a religion he would call it "relaxitarianism" then he met the Sufi's and they were okay too! I guess we shouldn't take ourselves too seriously. Just do what we do with conviction... And have some fun along the way.

That reminds me of a book I saw, called F*** It. It was about that same idea, with some Buddhism thrown in.

[Ali Quadir]

wanderers do not start religions, is a generalization, and for positively oriented wanderers, it is true, unless some big miscalculation or mishap happens. since negatively oriented wanderers are too few to even constitute a statistic, the generalization would hold true.

I laughed for this one... It reminds me of the "proof" that there is no life in the universe. The average number of living entities divided by the planet count is so close to zero that we can just ignore it as an error. Anyone you meet is therefore imagined and proof you're deranged.

Similarly if a dice has enough sides that the chance of any side coming up is statistically so remote to be negligible. Then you can throw the dice and sure as hell, no side will come up!

Similarly wanderers do not start religions.

adept is an entity in 3d who is able to work with various high frequency energies, and probably an entity which is closing harvest status. adept, as a definition does not carry positive or negative leaning. the adept can be of either leaning. atlanteans causing all those catastrophes and wars, and creating entities to have them serve themselves, were also adepts.

Of course, I never denied any of this, and it is exceptionally clear to me that there are religions out there started by negative adepts. You won't find them in the mainstream they do not have a tendency to be big, or if they are the biggest part is not showing the core of the religion. But you can still find them. More often than that however the religion is slowly corrupted over time by the work of negative adepts. The core, the original message remains pure and clear to positive adepts.

thus it can be said that positively oriented adepts also wouldnt start religions, whereas negatively oriented adepts may opt to do it that way, as can be seen from the examples of numerous 'religions' which are being started in the contemporary times.

It can be said, it just won't be true. You're gambling on semantics again. Jesus was the spiritual founder of Christianity. Whether he intended to turn it into a religion or not. He walked the land and taught the lessons.. Buddha, same story, Mohammed. Again same story.

And then there were saints like for example st Francis of Assisi who was the spiritual father for the franciscans. The taize community headed by frere Roger. These are not new religions but spinoffs.

If you study the lives of these saints it becomes obvious that positive adepts do start religions, even if a nearby scholar formalizes their teachings.

jesus of nazareth didnt start a religion. in his lifetime, he didnt make up any rules,

Except for at least his two commandments of course.

he didnt tell anyone what to obey.

His actions on the market square seem to indicate otherwise. He had a very clear capacity for judgment. He did not accept everything, he accepted people but rejected much behavior.

his mission had been sharing 4d vibration in its pure form, and he did. he allowed himself to be killed even.

Sometimes demonstrating is teaching.

his message was 'love each other and turn the other cheek'. religion of christianity has been created by his contemporaries, followers and followers following them in the next 300 years. and even, constantine, the byzantine emperor who decided to use christianity as the new method to unite the scattered eastern roman empire and give a justification to his rule. council of nicea was made to that end, deciding which should be left in the holy books and which was not fit for it.

christianity has little semblance to jesus of nazareth's message now.

This is merely your opinion. I've met Christians who are as fully committed to the Christ consciousness as Jesus was in his day.

I'm sure you'll call them statistical outliers and just deny their existence like before If we ignore those people you'd be right.

But even then.. Religion is more than is followed today. The council of Nicea was not a good thing to happen to Christianity, I agree with that.. To many fine lessons were abandoned in those sessions. But the council was held to converge what was considered a too divergent group. Constantine didn't care about what was put in the holy books. He didn't know theology. He really didn't care! He wanted a unified church that would fit in his empire, what their message was he didn't really care about. You suggest he decided what was put in, but judging on what we know of the council this is not true.

[Monica]

I resonated with the LOO in part because of Carla and her religious faith. That made it so much more comfortable for me as a seeker.

Hi Shemaya! Welcome to Bring4th!

I had a similar experience when I first discovered the Edgar Cayce readings.

I feel that the STS disconnect themselves from Source/Creator and that is how they are able to do horrendous things, because they are disconnected...their hearts are not open to connect with all that is. Doesn't Ra say something about this? I have to look that one up!!!

My understanding is that they think they are disconnected, even though they really aren't, since All is One. So the mechanism for making the switch in 6D is realizing that they can't progress any further, and that they are in fact connected and have been serving the Creator all along.

I agree that forgiveness is a very big part of it, forgiveness of self.

Maybe they when they finally realize they have been serving the Creator, that helps them forgive themselves. And we know that forgiveness halts the cycle of karma. If the karma has been neutralized, then there is no need for restitution.

---

Because not only are we attached to something if the idea of letting it go offends us.. We are also attached to something if the idea of bringing it with us offends us.

Heh, good point!

the fact that most adepts are part of a religion or have started one.

Can you give an example? I can't think of any adepts who started a religion. But likely we have a difference in semantics again. Jesus and Buddha both shared spiritual teachings, so if you're using the definition of religion to mean spiritual teachings, I would agree on that point. But I don't think Jesus intended to start organizations, complete with hierarchies, highly organized structures, rules, punishments, judgments, doctrines, etc. That all came from his followers. Even if we take our differing definitions into consideration, and view it as a whole, there are many aspects of religions that have nothing to do with the original teachings.

Edit: I see you answered my question in your next post. I see both your point, Ali, and unity100's point. I think both are true but the difference is in which aspect of religion you are focusing on.

My opinion, as stated previously, is that it's highly questionable whether STO people in religions are polarizing because of their religion or in spite of their religion. I contend that their STO nature will seek out the good in whatever they encounter, so they will find the gems no matter how distorted the religion may be. But that's not necessarily to the credit of the religion. The religions undoubtedly have gems, and undoubtedly have STS influences too. But the same could be said of 3D life in general. Isn't that the purpose of 3D life, to choose amongst the catalyst, even though we're veiled?

To be clear: I have utmost reverence for great avatars like Jesus and Buddha. But I have more faith in the human spirit than I do in organized structures. I think religion, as an organized structure, is given too much credit. I think more of that credit should go to the people who sought out the gems, or removed the shackles as the case may be, in or from their respective religions, to accommodate the choice made by their indomitable spirit.

How does this all relate to the Law of One? Case in point: What happened when Ra manifested physically to the Egyptians? They deified Ra and corrupted the teachings. Does this sound familiar? Jesus too was deified by his followers. Are the teachings of Jesus, as represented in the Christian faith, any more or less pure/distorted than the original teachings of Ra to the Egyptians?

[unity100]

Of course, I never denied any of this, and it is exceptionally clear to me that there are religions out there started by negative adepts. You won't find them in the mainstream they do not have a tendency to be big, or if they are the biggest part is not showing the core of the religion. But you can still find them. More often than that however the religion is slowly corrupted over time by the work of negative adepts. The core, the original message remains pure and clear to positive adepts.

you know from Ra that moses was positively inclined, however he contacted negative orion entities, and the entities have given him negative information, and then built up on the information, creating the current judaism religion and accompanying sects.

we dont know what orientation was mohammad. yet, examining his sayings and what he has done in his lifetime, and his acts, tell a lot about his orientation. an examination of the islam religion also ends up in a similar situation with judaism.

these two religions are mainstream.

It can be said, it just won't be true. You're gambling on semantics again. Jesus was the spiritual founder of Christianity. Whether he intended to turn it into a religion or not. He walked the land and taught the lessons.. Buddha, same story, Mohammed. Again same story.

jesus of nazareth is not the founder of anything. moreover, he is actually the destroyer of a religion, a philosophy, in the form of then existing judaism. moreover, ra says that his intention and plan was to share love in purest form. this is not founding any religions or bringing any rules and else. 'spiritual founder' is something that only you attribute to him. 'we are inspired by him' is quite different than 'he founded a religion'.

buddha didnt found anything. the only person who founded a religion, brought out rules, and ordered people around, is mohammad in those examples.

Except for at least his two commandments of course.

everything regarding jesus of nazareth is relayed to us by apostles and followers. not him. the very people who founded the christianity religion actively immediately after his death, are the very same people.

His actions on the market square seem to indicate otherwise. He had a very clear capacity for judgment. He did not accept everything, he accepted people but rejected much behavior.

he has been tearing apart an existing religion in the market square.

This is merely your opinion. I've met Christians who are as fully committed to the Christ consciousness as Jesus was in his day.

christ consciousness as jesus was in his day is not christianity. moreover, it doesnt matter how many christians are committed to that consciousness. as long as they adhere to anything that is in christianity, they will be adhering to a religion.

But even then.. Religion is more than is followed today. The council of Nicea was not a good thing to happen to Christianity, I agree with that.. To many fine lessons were abandoned in those sessions. But the council was held to converge what was considered a too divergent group. Constantine didn't care about what was put in the holy books. He didn't know theology. He really didn't care! He wanted a unified church that would fit in his empire, what their message was he didn't really care about. You suggest he decided what was put in, but judging on what we know of the council this is not true.

council of nicea decided what to put in, and what to put out, and 4 major books came out as thus from that council. all else was forbidden afterwards, and in the following centuries, under penalty of death. a lot of persecution happened as a result.

[Monica]

jesus of nazareth is not the founder of anything. moreover, he is actually the destroyer of a religion, a philosophy, in the form of then existing judaism. moreover, ra says that his intention and plan was to share love in purest form. this is not founding any religions or bringing any rules and else. 'spiritual founder' is something that only you attribute to him. 'we are inspired by him' is quite different than 'he founded a religion'.

Oh wow, I'd have to say I agree with this! Pure, undistorted love isn't a religion or philosophy. And it is true that we know from Ra that was the intention of Jesus, his mission.

buddha didnt found anything. the only person who founded a religion, brought out rules, and ordered people around, is mohammad in those examples.

Did Buddha write anything?

everything regarding jesus of nazareth is relayed to us by apostles and followers. not him.

This is true. Jesus didn't write anything. We don't really know what he actually taught.

the very people who founded the christianity religion actively immediately after his death, are the very same people.

Actually, the gospels were all written several decades after Jesus' death. We can only wonder how good the apostles' memories were. This further complicates the issue of the words written about Jesus, vs what he actually taught.

[unity100]

buddha didnt found anything. the only person who founded a religion, brought out rules, and ordered people around, is mohammad in those examples.

Did Buddha write anything?

i do not think writing anything, some methods, some thoughts or some basic thinking would constitute founding a religion even if he did.

if such, we can easily say that Ra and ll group started a religion by undertaking the channeling and publication work they did.

[Monica]

christ consciousness as jesus was in his day is not christianity.

Christ Consciousness may be found in Christianity, ie. among Christians, just as it may be found among those of other paths. But that's usually not what we think of when we think of the term Christianity. Ask any self-proclaimed Christian. Their definition of being a Christian has very little to do with what we refer to when we say Christ Consciousness.

moreover, it doesnt matter how many christians are committed to that consciousness. as long as they adhere to anything that is in christianity, they will be adhering to a religion.

It matters in the sense of illustrating how the confines of a religion can be transcended. But I think what you're saying is that it doesn't matter in the sense of whether it's defined as a religion or not. Could a person immersed in a mainstream religion have Christ Consciousness? I would guess that such a person would have left rigid thinking behind long ago. They might still flavor their spirituality with religious tones and textures, but it's easy to see that they aren't the same as the average, mainstream person following that same religion.

A good example is Paramahansa Yogananda, who flavored his teachings with Hindu tones. However he was able to transcend Hinduism, and even wrote a huge discourse on Jesus. Yogananda's teachings were vastly different from that of mainstream Hindus. Was Yogananda a Hindu? He obviously came from the Hindu tradition, but I would never call him a Hindu. That label is far too limiting for such a master as he.

Interestingly, Yogananda did write copious amounts of material. His state of enlightenment was obvious from this. Contrast that with the written works of the followers of any of the mainstream religions, particularly the Abrahamic religions. To read the words written about Jesus, vs the words written by Yogananda, shows a stark contrast. This illustrates to me the value of an avatar's own teachings, vs the highly distorted teachings recorded by his followers.

[unity100]

It matters in the sense of illustrating how the confines of a religion can be transcended. But I think what you're saying is that it doesn't matter in the sense of whether it's defined as a religion or not. Could a person immersed in a mainstream religion have Christ Consciousness? I would guess that such a person would have left rigid thinking behind long ago. They might still flavor their spirituality with religious tones and textures, but it's easy to see that they aren't the same as the average, mainstream person following that same religion.

i think they couldnt be able to manifest proper love, or any higher vibration while being immersed in a religion like christianity or other middle eastern ones. they have rigid rules, they discriminate, they contain punishment and many more.

for a person to manifest proper love or any higher frequency, (in positive sense), they would need to ignore a majority of the aforementioned religions' rules and orders. that would in the end, basically make them someone who is not in that religion.

[Ali Quadir]

buddha didnt found anything. the only person who founded a religion, brought out rules, and ordered people around, is mohammad in those examples.

Did Buddha write anything?

i do not think writing anything, some methods, some thoughts or some basic thinking would constitute founding a religion even if he did.

Just google it you two Not only did the buddha after he awoke in Siddhārtha Gautama began teaching people and to give sermons. He continued to do this in many incarnations. Buddha is not a person. Buddha is a state of being, just like Christ. Just like 4th density. Jesus is not christ. Jesus became christ in the desert. He went to teach shortly after that. Jesus knew his death was required to get the message out. He was a 4d entity. He was actually killed not for being Jesus an innocent lamb, obviously not. He was dragging people away from the traditional religion. Which he clearly did not kill. Judaism is alive and well today in many many different forms. Including my personal favourites the Rastafarians.

Christianity is the adopting of christ consciousness. It is the core that was heavily distorted over the years mostly due to extreme politics. But inside cloisters and monasteries the christ consciousness was passed on. Many reached sainthood. Even today this happens. But not everywhere. The vatican was probably one of the first places where the flame died to succumb to politics.

I think you guys see religion as merely a structure in spite of which enlightenment is a possibility. I see it as a lineage of consciousness. Just like every religion I studied so far turned out to be. These things are alive. They will set you on fire if you let them. And you don't even have to become a member to have that happen. It's factual, I've had spiritual experiences in different religious surroundings. And I witnessed the people with me experience the same.

You don't need to be in a religion to ignite yourself.. Certainly not these days. But it is a possibility and I am a product.

Everyone used to use this technique, all religions have this sense of spiritual heritage. Keeping the flame alive and passing her down through history. People these days accept it with ease from pagan religions, from buddhism, hinduism, practically all occult traditions. But christianity for unclear reasons is different, it is just an empty shell of rules and has nothing to do with these teachings... This is true even to many followers. We cannot imagine our parents and grandparents and uncle bob to be members of an initiatory tradition. But they are if we look at the evidence.

Not only does the church use the exact same form of rituals in their own initiations. They follow the exact same structure as any other tradition. I could walk you through the cathedrals here in europe and point out the occult meanings. If you are like most you don't see it until it's explained that's why it's called occultism. The papal line is a line of initiation, just like the pharaoic tradition every next pope was given the "papal-consciousness" whatever they call it by the previous one.. Signified by the transfer of a hat buddhism does it the same way. Obviously for them the flame got extinct along the way and people failed to notice. But at the same time there are people inside the church, young people old people who just like you and me here are trying to find the right path to achieve this 4d consciousness that they call communion, and in their world 2012 is called rapture, the returning of christ, the MASSIVE returning of christ consciousness!

I cannot look at these similarities and then claim that they are somehow different. I know that most of what passes for "those big three" these days is rubble and ruins compared to what it still is in some places. Most religions really are no different. And in part this is good, this is the time of loss of structure. These structures are not required for people to reach enlightenment any more.. Some claim they once used to be, that may be true, but they clearly are not now. And we should form a new relationship to them. A more empowering one.

When I was 16 I had access to world wide communication for the first time... My first fidonet found buddy was a Singapore boy my age. He expressed his utter amazement for the compassion and love of Christianity. His buddhist parents would never be this enlightened... Of course we here think the exact opposite is true! I learned that the religion is always better on the other side of the globe.

It may sound terrible that the Law of One may one day become a religion. But be honest, it is as important to you as a religion could be. It is to me. The Law of One taught me extremely much. I would not be at the level I am today without it. It doesn't have thousands of years of peer pressure on it, and we can actually identify with the people who helped pull it unto the earth plane, it's still pure and awesome. But do you remember the first time? When Ra worship reached the level of involuntary monotheism? He was already gone at that point of course.

Take religion from it's base as infallible, see it as a flawed human institution built around the initiatory transfer of knowledge and consciousness. And you're just about spot on. Good and bad things happen there. Absolute sweeping generalizations really never do justice to reality. I acknowledge your feelings that religion in many places has become empty, and restrictive, sometimes even evil. Please acknowledge mine that there are also still places where christ consciousness is alive. That's obviously the part I care about, the structure and empty rules can collapse for all I care.

I met this woman, a catholic school teacher, exactly like you'd expect from the description. But her aura is shouting priestess. And she's demonstrating priestess qualities. She's no less than any of us. She knows christ I am absolutely convinced of this. And after she went for a few days with her group and I saw her again her consciousness had actually expanded and slowly went back to normal a week after. That's the same pattern I've seen in every religion including Sufism, my own.

The christian church I was raised in most certainly did not have that.

[Shemaya]

Hey Ali,

That is a magnificent post.

Thank you