Law of One Religion?
02-10-2015, 10:07 PM,
#31
RE: Law of One Religion?
Love is not acceptance; it is the giving of oneself with no expectation for anything in return.
Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2015, 10:26 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-10-2015, 10:26 PM by Monica.)
#32
RE: Law of One Religion?
I've never seen an explanation of Acceptance that completely describes my understanding of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2015, 10:28 PM,
#33
RE: Law of One Religion?
I totally agree with what was said in the original post.

In particular, it's very easy for many to get caught up in out of context quotes.  I see them fairly frequently.

The great irony is that Ra insists in every session that they are not an expert on any subject, and yet people do put the words of Ra in that category.  I often wonder how Ra might be troubled by the way the material is used at times - with out of context quotes being used as a surrogate for real experience and discernment..
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes ScottK's post:
Monica
02-10-2015, 11:06 PM,
#34
RE: Law of One Religion?
Yes, I wonder that too...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2015, 11:38 PM,
#35
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-10-2015, 07:07 PM)Monica Wrote:  
(02-10-2015, 06:50 PM)Minyatur Wrote:  
(02-10-2015, 05:02 PM)Monica Wrote:  For example, the concept of Acceptance is one that is commonly misused, in my opinion. Taken by itself, it is often interpreted to mean that 'anything goes' and we should never help anyone, never try to make the world a better place, never do anything, really...just let it all hang out! See someone about to murder a child...nah, just let them do it...accept everything without any discernment whatsoever. Lose your temper and hurt someone's feelings...nah, no need to apologize...they need to just accept whatever venom we decide to vomit on them...Don't bother ever trying to do any good in the world...just accept it as is...etc.

I think you also misunderstand the concept of Acceptance, this concept is a distortion of that All is One. Wether you stop the murder of a child is up to your free will and the essence of your existence remains the same as that of the murderer and as the murdered child. Whatever story unfold, the Creator always is every role as you are now one of his role, how the particular incarnation of the Creator that you are acts depends on your free will.

Ra reffered to this existence as a game and when you think about it is pretty much the case. The child that is murdered will never meet as that particular incarnation the people he would have met but will instead meet others in another incarnation that he most probably would have never met had he lived this one, and in the end his existence will never cease into Infinity and the resentment he could've had can only be a spectre of dust in his own existence.

Pain and suffering are only cycles of experiences in which the Creator learns of Himself and can be in a lot of cases a chosen experience. You are not responsible of the well being of all of Creation. Creation already is fully the Creator and every conciousness will grow in infinity toward their divine-nature, a never ending process of many densities and infinite octaves.

Accepting all that is hapenning is pretty much what every higher-density beings do to a certain extent and these groups need to be limited in what they do, to not infridge upon free will. The Earth for exemple, simply is there, it will not stop the murder of a child that you spoke of, it will heal the soul of the child afterwards and watch it as it reincarnate elsewhere either upon it's surface or leaving for another home with less suffering if it had enough. 

Ra said that the correct response to every action is Love, and that is Acceptance. Forgiveness is also knowing that there is nothing to forgive in the first place, there is the Creator making mistakes and learning, so don't expect every soul to have reached your level understanding of the Creator of Himself, this very gradation is one of the purposes of Time in my opinion.

Case in point: So are you saying that if you were to encounter someone about to murder a child, you would do nothing to stop it? (Please clarify if I'm misunderstanding you.)

I would as of my own choice of infringing upon the murderer's free will but there would still remain all the murdered child I wasn't there to save on this sphere and across the stars so I'd see it as doing this for myself and not as really making the world better.

If the child were to die, I'd probably have favoritism toward him but what I should feel is sadness for both of them a bit like when Jesus said "Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing". The murderer is another You not knowing any better but one day he will and he will face that moment with a better understanding of all and the child's consciousness will carry on it's own ascension no matter what.

What I am talking about is the goal of being perfectly balanced and recognizing each single entity no matter how different they are from you as One. To do so one must transcend the concept of duality which is STO and STS because it brings division in how one views other-selves. There is just the Creator playing each parts of this whole. Eternity also is a long time, so at some point you got to accept that Creation unfold in it's own ways and that is all part of the One Infinite Creator.

About the child again, out of this density of experiences lies many higher-density entities with a greater understanding of love and wisdom who know it is not for them to interfere with the murder of a child when nothing could be easier for them. They could most probably prevent such an event from happening ever again on this sphere.

In the idea of infinity, acceptance of all the potentials the mind can think of is required for a balanced union with what is seen of infinity
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2015, 11:58 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-11-2015, 12:05 AM by Monica.)
#36
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-10-2015, 11:38 PM)Minyatur Wrote:  I would as of my own choice of infringing upon the murderer's free will but there would still remain all the murdered child I wasn't there to save on this sphere and across the stars so I'd see it as doing this for myself and not as really making the world better.

If the child were to die, I'd probably have favoritism toward him but what I should feel is sadness for both of them a bit like when Jesus said "Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing". The murderer is another You not knowing any better but one day he will and he will face that moment with a better understanding of all and the child's consciousness will carry on it's own ascension no matter what.

What I am talking about is the goal of being perfectly balanced and recognizing each single entity no matter how different they are from you as One. To do so one must transcend the concept of duality which is STO and STS because it brings division in how one views other-selves. There is just the Creator playing each parts of this whole. Eternity also is a long time, so at some point you got to accept that Creation unfold in it's own ways and that is all part of the One Infinite Creator.

About the child again, out of this density of experiences lies many higher-density entities with a greater understanding of love and wisdom who know it is not for them to interfere with the murder of a child when nothing could be easier for them. They could most probably prevent such an event from happening ever again on this sphere.

We aren't supposed to be 'transcend polarity' in this density...we are supposed to choose and polarize.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Monica's post:
kycahi
02-11-2015, 12:33 AM,
#37
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-10-2015, 11:58 PM)Monica Wrote:  
(02-10-2015, 11:38 PM)Minyatur Wrote:  I would as of my own choice of infringing upon the murderer's free will but there would still remain all the murdered child I wasn't there to save on this sphere and across the stars so I'd see it as doing this for myself and not as really making the world better.

If the child were to die, I'd probably have favoritism toward him but what I should feel is sadness for both of them a bit like when Jesus said "Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing". The murderer is another You not knowing any better but one day he will and he will face that moment with a better understanding of all and the child's consciousness will carry on it's own ascension no matter what.

What I am talking about is the goal of being perfectly balanced and recognizing each single entity no matter how different they are from you as One. To do so one must transcend the concept of duality which is STO and STS because it brings division in how one views other-selves. There is just the Creator playing each parts of this whole. Eternity also is a long time, so at some point you got to accept that Creation unfold in it's own ways and that is all part of the One Infinite Creator.

About the child again, out of this density of experiences lies many higher-density entities with a greater understanding of love and wisdom who know it is not for them to interfere with the murder of a child when nothing could be easier for them. They could most probably prevent such an event from happening ever again on this sphere.

We aren't supposed to be 'transcend polarity' in this density...we are supposed to choose and polarize.

That depends where you set your goals, Wandering is only about being here, hence the term wandering which really means were only passing by. You or your social memory complex wanted you to work on some things from a different perspective. For myself I feel this to be my 7th incarnation and my last on this sphere and as such I do not seem to hope to change the ways of man and rather come to accept them. I also wish to gain insights from this new perspective as to how to approach the need of the lessons of 7D.

Up there saying that all is One seems easy but totally understanding it from a 3D perspective seems more of a challenge that is possible because of Wandering. The sufferings of this sphere is not only a catalyst for the humans, it might be because we have things to learn from it ourselves that we chose to Wander here. 

The lessons I am working on relates much on understanding the importance of my existence as this incarnation in front of the length of my total existence which will never cease in growing closer to the One Infinite Creator. How does a moment, a feeling, a way of being have significance in an existence that will never end. That is why I feel I have decided to Wander into this incarnation. But that would be different for everyone hence what makes it interesting to talk with others.  Some resonates with your words and some make you resonate with theirs and further understanding in both parties can emerge.

In the idea of infinity, acceptance of all the potentials the mind can think of is required for a balanced union with what is seen of infinity
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2015, 12:40 AM,
#38
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-11-2015, 12:33 AM)Minyatur Wrote:  That depends where you set your goals, Wandering is only about being here, hence the term wandering which really means were only passing by. You or your social memory complex wanted you to work on some things from a different perspective. For myself I feel this to be my 7th incarnation and my last on this sphere and as such I do not seem to hope to change the ways of man and rather come to accept them. I also wish to gain insights from this new perspective as to how to approach the need of the lessons of 7D.

Up there saying that all is One seems easy but totally understanding it from a 3D perspective seems more of a challenge that is possible because of Wandering. The sufferings of this sphere is not only a catalyst for the humans, it might be because we have things to learn from it ourselves that we chose to Wander here. 

The lessons I am working on relates much on understanding the importance of my existence as this incarnation in front of the length of my total existence which will never cease in growing closer to the One Infinite Creator. How does a moment, a feeling, a way of being have significance in an existence that will never end. That is why I feel I have decided to Wander into this incarnation. But that would be different for everyone hence what makes it interesting to talk with others.  Some resonates with your words and some make you resonate with theirs and further understanding in both parties can emerge.

OK fair enough. But see, you are offering some deep thoughts here...which I respect, even if I don't completely agree. See, you aren't taking a single idea out of context and making it into a dogma, as so many others often do. When I mentioned the concept of Acceptance as an example of simplistic thinking, I was referring to those who might say "No, don't save the child...accept the murder because Ra said to accept" which completely disregards the rest of the concepts offered by Ra, in favor of focusing on only one, and not even understanding what that one means anyway...this is akin to what the religious fundamentalists do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like Monica's post:
Elros, Regulus
02-11-2015, 04:23 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-11-2015, 04:25 PM by Steppingfeet.)
#39
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-09-2015, 09:15 PM)Monica Wrote:  Most of us have probably had encounters with religious fundamentalists who quote scripture to justify otherwise unacceptable actions. These people truly believe that they are doing the 'right' thing and that they're not supposed to ever question the bible (or other 'holy book'). A classic example is the born-again Christian adage that 'only Christians go to heaven' because the bible says so. Religious fanatics take it even further when they attempt to justify bigotry or violence, in the name of their religion.

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" ?

Is it convenient to quit searching for ethical solutions to life's challenges, in favor of opening the Law of One books at random and taking the first quote you see as your answer, as a Christian might do with their bible?

Are Carla, Don and Jim your gurus? Do you seek to emulate them?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, do you do this with only the Law of One, or with the other LLResearch channeled works too, such as the Q'uo sessions? Do you believe that if Q'uo said it, it must be true? 

Has the Law of One, or the body of channeled works from LLResearch, become your 'bible'?

Monica, great questions, great thread, and great replies from everyone.

Personally I have yet to encounter a more mature philosophy that respects the free will of each; indeed, that places total power and responsibility within the self. Were someone to become a fundamentalist about the Law of One material, they would be missing its central thesis, which is that they are the Law of One, and all responsibility lies not within the material, but within themselves.

If I may risk it, to quote the Law of One:

17.2 Ra: It is impossible to help another being directly. It is only possible to make catalyst available in whatever form, the most important being the radiation of realization of oneness with the Creator from the self, less important being information such as we share with you.

Here Ra is saying the self is the messenger, the truth, the service, not their own words, though they do recognize that their words can also be "catalyst", i.e., helpful.

I think that, in general, the maturity level of the seeker who is drawn to this particular body of information - based upon my own years of observation of this demographic - is such that they are relatively immune to herd-mentality, fundamentalist thinking that certain religious interpretations of scripture can precipitate. This group tends to respect the sovereignty of the self and all selves, though certainly we all, hopefully inadvertently, infringe on others from time to time.

Quoting
I don't see anything inherently wrong with quoting Ra to help substantiate a point. All of us rely on sources outside ourselves to form our worldview and opinions. Not a single bipedal* on this planet forms their views in a vacuum, all by themselves without reliance upon others for information.

*Sorry primates, not talking about you.

We tend to draw upon sources we find credible, trustworthy, competent, and knowledgeable ina given field of inquiry, and use the information those sources provide. Some of us with total and blind acceptance, the discernment-filter turned down to zero; others with the discernment turned to high such that we are overly skeptical and suspicious of everything.

If someone is atop the mountain while I am in the valley, they can communicate what they see of the terrain beyond the mountain. If I am (at least currently) unable to see that terrain with my own eyes, and I feel that they are a credible source, I can trust them and use their account of the coming terrain to figure into my own decision-making process and worldview.

Those drawn to this body of work find Ra credible, along with, to a varying degree, other consciously channeled Confederation sources; and find their description of the terrain beyond the mountain to be intelligible, and so far as our intuition tells us, accurate.

For instance

For instance, you in an earlier post wrote, "We aren't supposed to be 'transcend polarity' in this density...we are supposed to choose and polarize."

I agree entirely. But would point out that this is a statement based almost exclusively on what Ra (and other Confederation sources) said about reality.

I think it's okay to rely upon other sources, so long as we recognize that reliance, and know that no source of information is infallible. But some are better than others. : )

Gurus
Regarding gurus, you're right, Carla and Jim want that only as much as they would enjoy a hole in their head. But I don't think it free-will-abdicating to seek to emulate another person. Not to attempt to be a carbon copy of them, but to be inspired by their example and seek to live, through your own unique life circumstances, by similar principles to those that motivated their life. One can find a lot of strength and courage in the examples of others.

Gandhi, for instance, was a way-shower, and set an example that I think would be to the world's benefit to emulate.

Interpretation
Independent of your valid and great questions which began this thread (meaning those questions stand on their own regardless of what I'm about to say), I think you walk on risky ground, Monica, in the implication (correct me if I'm wrong) that people who have an interpretation of the Law of One material at variance to your own are engaging in fundamentalist thinking. That is, they are mis-using, mis-understanding, and mis-quoting the Law of One, thereby reaching incorrect conclusions.

I'm not a proponent of the idea that all interpretations and conclusions are equal. I do think there is a scale or hierarchy of better and worse. But I think you have to be very, very careful that your position doesn't stray into claiming alternate interpretations are wrong because they derive from a fundamentalist mindset.

Much love,
GLB

PS: Unbound, does it matter how many times a discussion of the meaning of acceptance is had? To the extent that the discussion is enjoined, it must be helpful/needed/appreciated for those involved.

Explanation by the tongue makes most things clear, but love unexplained is clearer. - Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 3 users Like Steppingfeet's post:
isis, Nicholas, Parsons
02-11-2015, 05:05 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-11-2015, 05:13 PM by Monica.)
#40
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-11-2015, 04:23 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:  Personally I have yet to encounter a more mature philosophy that respects the free will of each; indeed, that places total power and responsibility within the self. Were someone to become a fundamentalist about the Law of One material, they would be missing its central thesis, which is that they are the Law of One, and all responsibility lies not within the material, but within themselves.
Interesting. I have had the opposite observation; hence, this thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2015, 05:44 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-11-2015, 05:45 PM by Ashim.)
#41
RE: Law of One Religion?
I think many folks would be somewhat suspicious of any new religion these days, especially the indigo children.
As Prot said "..every being in the universe knows right from wrong."

Religion has served its course and has proven to be a wonderful institution, providing inspiration, movement and tremendous growth to the 3rd density planet.

I think it's time to say thanks, your services are no longer required. Your job is complete. You are free to go as you wish.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2015, 05:52 PM,
#42
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-09-2015, 09:15 PM)Monica Wrote:  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" ?

Humans have a tendency to blind themselves concerning their follies. We rationalize to protect the ego and our subconscious pain. I seriously doubt that any of us, including all here, are completely immune to this.

There is a very wide gray area between religious zealotry and rationalizing behaviors. I have observed what I interpret to be rationalizing because of what Ra said go on here. This is an observation only, from a distant standpoint in cyberspace. 

While I highly respect the Ra material, I make up my own mind and heart. I don't use the quotes from any of the channelings here as justification for my viewpoints. However, I am capable of using any arguments to my favor when trying to make a point. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Diana's post:
Steppingfeet
02-11-2015, 07:10 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-11-2015, 07:10 PM by Monica.)
#43
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-11-2015, 04:23 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:  
(02-09-2015, 09:15 PM)Monica Wrote:  Most of us have probably had encounters with religious fundamentalists who quote scripture to justify otherwise unacceptable actions. These people truly believe that they are doing the 'right' thing and that they're not supposed to ever question the bible (or other 'holy book'). A classic example is the born-again Christian adage that 'only Christians go to heaven' because the bible says so. Religious fanatics take it even further when they attempt to justify bigotry or violence, in the name of their religion.

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" ?

Is it convenient to quit searching for ethical solutions to life's challenges, in favor of opening the Law of One books at random and taking the first quote you see as your answer, as a Christian might do with their bible?

Are Carla, Don and Jim your gurus? Do you seek to emulate them?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, do you do this with only the Law of One, or with the other LLResearch channeled works too, such as the Q'uo sessions? Do you believe that if Q'uo said it, it must be true? 

Has the Law of One, or the body of channeled works from LLResearch, become your 'bible'?

Monica, great questions, great thread, and great replies from everyone.

Personally I have yet to encounter a more mature philosophy that respects the free will of each; indeed, that places total power and responsibility within the self. Were someone to become a fundamentalist about the Law of One material, they would be missing its central thesis, which is that they are the Law of One, and all responsibility lies not within the material, but within themselves.

If I may risk it, to quote the Law of One:

17.2 Ra: It is impossible to help another being directly. It is only possible to make catalyst available in whatever form, the most important being the radiation of realization of oneness with the Creator from the self, less important being information such as we share with you.

Here Ra is saying the self is the messenger, the truth, the service, not their own words, though they do recognize that their words can also be "catalyst", i.e., helpful.

I think that, in general, the maturity level of the seeker who is drawn to this particular body of information - based upon my own years of observation of this demographic - is such that they are relatively immune to herd-mentality, fundamentalist thinking that certain religious interpretations of scripture can precipitate. This group tends to respect the sovereignty of the self and all selves, though certainly we all, hopefully inadvertently, infringe on others from time to time.

Quoting
I don't see anything inherently wrong with quoting Ra to help substantiate a point. All of us rely on sources outside ourselves to form our worldview and opinions. Not a single bipedal* on this planet forms their views in a vacuum, all by themselves without reliance upon others for information.

*Sorry primates, not talking about you.

We tend to draw upon sources we find credible, trustworthy, competent, and knowledgeable ina given field of inquiry, and use the information those sources provide. Some of us with total and blind acceptance, the discernment-filter turned down to zero; others with the discernment turned to high such that we are overly skeptical and suspicious of everything.

If someone is atop the mountain while I am in the valley, they can communicate what they see of the terrain beyond the mountain. If I am (at least currently) unable to see that terrain with my own eyes, and I feel that they are a credible source, I can trust them and use their account of the coming terrain to figure into my own decision-making process and worldview.

Those drawn to this body of work find Ra credible, along with, to a varying degree, other consciously channeled Confederation sources; and find their description of the terrain beyond the mountain to be intelligible, and so far as our intuition tells us, accurate.

For instance

For instance, you in an earlier post wrote, "We aren't supposed to be 'transcend polarity' in this density...we are supposed to choose and polarize."

I agree entirely. But would point out that this is a statement based almost exclusively on what Ra (and other Confederation sources) said about reality.

I think it's okay to rely upon other sources, so long as we recognize that reliance, and know that no source of information is infallible. But some are better than others. : )

Gurus
Regarding gurus, you're right, Carla and Jim want that only as much as they would enjoy a hole in their head. But I don't think it free-will-abdicating to seek to emulate another person. Not to attempt to be a carbon copy of them, but to be inspired by their example and seek to live, through your own unique life circumstances, by similar principles to those that motivated their life. One can find a lot of strength and courage in the examples of others.

Gandhi, for instance, was a way-shower, and set an example that I think would be to the world's benefit to emulate.

Interpretation
Independent of your valid and great questions which began this thread (meaning those questions stand on their own regardless of what I'm about to say), I think you walk on risky ground, Monica, in the implication (correct me if I'm wrong) that people who have an interpretation of the Law of One material at variance to your own are engaging in fundamentalist thinking. That is, they are mis-using, mis-understanding, and mis-quoting the Law of One, thereby reaching incorrect conclusions.

I'm not a proponent of the idea that all interpretations and conclusions are equal. I do think there is a scale or hierarchy of better and worse. But I think you have to be very, very careful that your position doesn't stray into claiming alternate interpretations are wrong because they derive from a fundamentalist mindset.

Much love,
GLB

PS: Unbound, does it matter how many times a discussion of the meaning of acceptance is had? To the extent that the discussion is enjoined, it must be helpful/needed/appreciated for those involved.
Apparently I failed to convey my point, or you have misunderstood. There's nothing wrong with quoting Ra! I have quoted Ra numerous times! Presumably, we are studying the Material, right?

My point was in regards to taking a single quote out of context, or as a stand-alone idea, which can more easily lend itself to rigid dogma.

You said: "so long as we recognize that reliance, and know that no source of information is infallible" and that, too, is part of m point: Isn't that a characteristic of fundamentalist religion, when people think that their source is infallible? So I'm wondering if some of our members think that way about the Law of One. I think some do. Furthermore, single phrases, taken out of context, are sometimes considered infallible, so it's a double whammy.

I wasn't referring to emulating the admirable traits of another person. I was referring to emulating another person not because we admire those particular traits, but because of who the person is. 

To illustrate: Emulating Mother Theresa's compassion because it's an admirable trait, vs wearing black robes because Mother Theresa wears black robes, not because we like to wear black robes, but simply because Mother Theresa is an authority, so if she does it, it must be good.

It's a subtle but important distinction.

Finally, you said for me to correct you if you're wrong, so here it is: You couldn't be more wrong. I don't how you got that out of what I said.  Huh  It has nothing to do with agreement on interpretation, and everything to do with taking single phrases out of context and building a dogma out of a fragment. Perhaps you haven't yet read all of the posts and missed post # 38, in which this exact thing was stated clearly, right on the heals of a slight difference in interpretation, which had absolutely no relevance at all to the point, and was thus not even an issue at all, in favor of reiterating the point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2015, 09:55 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-11-2015, 10:08 PM by Steppingfeet.)
#44
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-11-2015, 07:10 PM)Monica Wrote:  Apparently I failed to convey my point, or you have misunderstood. There's nothing wrong with quoting Ra! I have quoted Ra numerous times! Presumably, we are studying the Material, right?

My point was in regards to taking a single quote out of context, or as a stand-alone idea, which can more easily lend itself to rigid dogma.

Ah, sorry if I misunderstood.

Regarding rigid dogma, I think elaborate formulations are just as susceptible to dogmatic interpretations as single quotes taken out of context.


(02-11-2015, 07:10 PM)Monica Wrote:  You said: "so long as we recognize that reliance, and know that no source of information is infallible" and that, too, is part of m point: Isn't that a characteristic of fundamentalist religion, when people think that their source is infallible? So I'm wondering if some of our members think that way about the Law of One. I think some do.

I think the majority of readers of the Law of One who fall in love with this philosophy find Ra a more credible, reliable, and trustworthy source of information than most if not all other terrestrial sources of information. Which isn't to say that human beings cannot be equally reliable and trustworthy, they can. But if in the event one finds a human pure in heart, that human still lacks the utterly singular and wide perspective that Ra seems to possess.

(02-11-2015, 07:10 PM)Monica Wrote:  Furthermore, single phrases, taken out of context, are sometimes considered infallible, so it's a double whammy.

This single phrase thing... it sounds like you have a single phrase (or two) in mind.

EDIT: Forgot that you said quote(s) on acceptance being one example of "taken out of context".

(02-11-2015, 07:10 PM)Monica Wrote:  I wasn't referring to emulating the admirable traits of another person. I was referring to emulating another person not because we admire those particular traits, but because of who the person is. 

To illustrate: Emulating Mother Theresa's compassion because it's an admirable trait, vs wearing black robes because Mother Theresa wears black robes, not because we like to wear black robes, but simply because Mother Theresa is an authority, so if she does it, it must be good.

It's a subtle but important distinction.

Roger that. Well put, indeed an important distinction.

And I can imagine another specific example you might use to illustrate your point here.


(02-11-2015, 07:10 PM)Monica Wrote:  Finally, you said for me to correct you if you're wrong, so here it is: You couldn't be more wrong. I don't how you got that out of what I said.  Huh  It has nothing to do with agreement on interpretation, and everything to do with taking single phrases out of context and building a dogma out of a fragment. Perhaps you haven't yet read all of the posts and missed post # 38, in which this exact thing was stated clearly, right on the heals of a slight difference in interpretation, which had absolutely no relevance at all to the point, and was thus not even an issue at all, in favor of reiterating the point.

It is possible that an individual can take a single statement out of context and build a dogma around it.
It is also possible that an individual can take books and books of information and build a dogma around them.

I was only saying that the issue could also, actually, be a difference in interpretation regarding the meaning and application of the culprit statement.

Person A interpreting it one way. Person B interpreting it another way. And Person A, not liking Person B's interpretation, accusing Person B of "taking it out of context" or being "rigidly dogmatic".

All above-described scenarios are possible. I suppose it would require examination of specific instances to determine what is happening in any given case.

I went back to the post you just linked to. In that post you wrote:

(02-11-2015, 07:10 PM)Monica Wrote:  ...which completely disregards the rest of the concepts offered by Ra, in favor of focusing on only one, and not even understanding what that one means anyway...this is akin to what the religious fundamentalists do.

Just a quick side comment about religious fundamentalist taking a quote out of context, that is, focusing on one idea and excluding all the others...

If a student of religious scripture took the whole religion into account when forming their conclusion, it might end up a very confused conclusion. There is no unity or internal consistency within any religious work of which I'm aware. (Note: I am not a scholar of religious work. Endnote.)

Point being: I think that to form a coherent vision from religious study necessarily includes either:

a) Selective reading. That is, ignoring/discarding the contradictory or oppositely polarized information.

b) Learning to creatively interpret the entire scripture through one particular lens. For instance, Paramahansa Yogananda wrote a passage-by-passage interpretation of the New Testament that envisions the New Testament through his worldview.

Explanation by the tongue makes most things clear, but love unexplained is clearer. - Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Steppingfeet's post:
Parsons
02-11-2015, 10:11 PM,
#45
RE: Law of One Religion?
Gary, I still don't understand why you said this:

Quote:I think you walk on risky ground, Monica, in the implication (correct me if I'm wrong) that people who have an interpretation of the Law of One material at variance to your own are engaging in fundamentalist thinking.

Did you really think I meant that anyone who interprets the Material differently than I do is guilty of religious fundamentalism?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2015, 01:56 AM,
#46
RE: Law of One Religion?
I've seen many here who take great exception to something someone writes if it differs from their own world view.

To me, fundamentalism isn't exclusive to religions.

All walk a unique path; all paths are to be honored as they are unique.

It's really that simple. IMHO
Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Shawnna's post:
Elros
02-12-2015, 07:10 AM,
#47
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-11-2015, 10:11 PM)Monica Wrote:  Gary, I still don't understand why you said this:


Quote:I think you walk on risky ground, Monica, in the implication (correct me if I'm wrong) that people who have an interpretation of the Law of One material at variance to your own are engaging in fundamentalist thinking.

Did you really think I meant that anyone who interprets the Material differently than I do is guilty of religious fundamentalism?

Regardless of you conscious intentions, that is the way you are coming across to me.
-==-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Parsons's post:
Spaced
02-12-2015, 12:28 PM,
#48
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-12-2015, 07:10 AM)Parsons Wrote:  
(02-11-2015, 10:11 PM)Monica Wrote:  Gary, I still don't understand why you said this:




Quote:I think you walk on risky ground, Monica, in the implication (correct me if I'm wrong) that people who have an interpretation of the Law of One material at variance to your own are engaging in fundamentalist thinking.

Did you really think I meant that anyone who interprets the Material differently than I do is guilty of religious fundamentalism?

Regardless of you conscious intentions, that is the way you are coming across to me.

Yikes. Poor Monica. Sad

Okay guys, let's give give Monica a break here. Can't we all give her the benefit of the doubt before passing judgment?

Gary, that "risky ground" bit is a little harsh, and a misinterpretation in my opinion.

Parsons, while your comment is honest, can't you try and work out an understanding before pointing the finger?

Where's the love? Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2015, 02:00 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-12-2015, 02:07 PM by isis. Edit Reason: left out a word )
#49
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-09-2015, 09:15 PM)Monica Wrote:  Do you think of the Law of One as a religion?

Yes...& I think of it as my religion.

(02-09-2015, 09:15 PM)Monica Wrote:  Do you find yourself making decisions based on Law of One quotes,...?

Yes. Before I found the Law of One, I would cry if I saw someone eating meat. I would cry even if it was humanely raised & slaughtered meat bc I knew, for sure, that killing was wrong - even though I couldn't exactly prove that it was wrong. I would cry even if I saw someone eating roadkill that got accidentally killed. Hell, I would cry even if they were eating the meat of animal that lived a long & great life & then died of old age - but then I found the Law of One & that's when everything changed. That's when I made the decision to stop the tears from flowing as much as I could. That's when my life became all about keeping my vibration high in order to lighten the planetary vibration & thus aid in harvest. I used Ra's words to let nothing get me down & to live in a near-constant state of Nirvana. After I found the Law of One, there was only Oneness - all was the One Infinite Creator and I was that. Everywhere I looked, all I could see was my own precious & mysterious identity. All I could see was perfection. All was well, all had always been well, & all would always be well. After I found the Law of One, I could do no wrong & neither could anyone else bc I knew that all would be reconciled at some point in my dance through the mind/body/spirit complex.

(02-09-2015, 09:15 PM)Monica Wrote:  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"?

I'm able to tell beforehand if my conscience would nag me about something. I don't do anything to piss it off bc I don't like being nagged - especially by myself. I use that 'no right nor wrong' quote to keep me from crying all day & night about current events - not as an excuse to go around chopping off people's limbs & whatnot.

(02-09-2015, 09:15 PM)Monica Wrote:  Is it convenient to quit searching for ethical solutions to life's challenges, in favor of opening the Law of One books at random and taking the first quote you see as your answer, as a Christian might do with their bible?

Yes. I consider the Law of One to be a holy book & I make sure to never put it lower than my waist.

(02-09-2015, 09:15 PM)Monica Wrote:  Are Carla, Don and Jim your gurus? Do you seek to emulate them?

Yes. I read where Jim wrote in Carla's blog, about a week ago, that she drank a diet coke & I had never had a diet coke before (bc I read a lot of bad things about it on the net) but when I found out that Carla drinks it I had to try it myself. That's just one example, out of many, of how I seek to emulate Carla. I seek to emulate Don & Jim as well.

(02-09-2015, 09:15 PM)Monica Wrote:  Has the Law of One, or the body of channeled works from LLResearch, become your 'bible'?

Yes. Judge me if you will. So be it. I can take it.

"I am all that has been, and is, and shall be..."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 8 users Like isis's post:
Bring4th_Austin, Bring4th_Jade, Elros, Icaro, IndigoGeminiWolf, Matt1, Spaced, Steppingfeet
02-12-2015, 02:04 PM,
#50
RE: Law of One Religion?
Ra showed me cute animated characters on a wall. They were so adorable I could hardly stand it. For that I am grateful to them.

There is an anthro somewhere who needs me and I need them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes IndigoGeminiWolf's post:
isis
02-12-2015, 02:57 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-12-2015, 03:15 PM by Elros.)
#51
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-12-2015, 02:00 PM)isis Wrote:  
(02-09-2015, 09:15 PM)Monica Wrote:  Has the Law of One, or the body of channeled works from LLResearch, become your 'bible'?

Yes. Judge me if you will. So be it. I can take it.

The word bible can have different connotation, but the bible itself is a great book if you can detect Orion's group influence in it. Yahweh channelled light and love but the Jews wanted to hear of them being an elite and prefered an entity which said this.

I view the Ra material as a perspective from a higher density being which in turn can be used as a spiritual guide book just like the bible is meant to be used.

Ra says thought to not take his words as a gospel and to take what we resonate with which is a better approach then "this book's words are all truth", he admits he can make errors and that his words are his perspective and not absolute which is great IMO.

The bible could've been better is the jews didn't give in to entities that told them they were the chosen people to rule Creation.

In the idea of infinity, acceptance of all the potentials the mind can think of is required for a balanced union with what is seen of infinity
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Elros's post:
isis
02-12-2015, 05:33 PM,
#52
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-12-2015, 02:57 PM)Minyatur Wrote:  The bible could've been better is the jews didn't give in to entities that told them they were the chosen people to rule Creation.

If you are speaking of the Jews, you must be referring to the old testament. "Could've been better?????? Tongue It was a bunch of nonsense and violence (in my opinion of course). I know many highly intelligent Jewish people and I'm always flummoxed that they can subscribe to such a horrid, aberrant "authority." 

This thread must be yet another volatile subject, hitting people in their dark, or unacknowledged, or "protected" places. My advice is to follow this path where it leads and shed light on the darkness. If I may suggest something: if anyone is reacting and getting defensive, look within and not outside of self to find out why.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Diana's post:
Monica
02-12-2015, 05:43 PM,
#53
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-12-2015, 02:00 PM)isis Wrote:  Yes. I read where Jim wrote in Carla's blog, about a week ago, that she drank a diet coke & I had never had a diet coke before (bc I read a lot of bad things about it on the net) but when I found out that Carla drinks it I had to try it myself. That's just one example, out of many, of how I seek to emulate Carla. I seek to emulate Don & Jim as well.

My dear isis, I'm quite sure that neither Carla, Jim or Don would want this. However, it is your choice. By emulating someone, you are possibly abdicating your own responsibility for your actions. I would encourage you to make decisions based on your own conclusions and not because someone else does something.

If you care about honoring your body, I would avoid poisonous substances such as diet coke. It's not just the Internet babble saying it's bad. Good doctors will tell you this. 

Why Carla drinks this stuff when in such bad health, I don't know. But she has her own personal reasons (or foibles). This is NOT something to emulate, if you must emulate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Diana's post:
isis
02-12-2015, 05:58 PM,
#54
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-12-2015, 05:43 PM)Diana Wrote:  Why Carla drinks this stuff when in such bad health, I don't know.

Amen to that, my dear Diana.

I learned that she drinks it when I read her blog that was posted on February 5, 2015...& I nearly cried.

Jim Wrote:We headed for Frisch's on the way home so Carla could finally have some food as she had been told to fast since midnight. She got a grilled cheese sandwich, fries, and a diet coke...

The crazy thing was the night before reading that I had a dream where I saw that someone drinks diet coke & it made me sad.

I didn't drink diet coke just bc she did to emulate her - I was joking. You should know my gurus are actually you and Monica. Tongue

"I am all that has been, and is, and shall be..."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes isis's post:
Bring4th_Jade
02-12-2015, 07:55 PM,
#55
RE: Law of One Religion?
Religion - Middle English (originally in the sense 'life under monastic vows'): from Old French, or from Latin religio(n-) 'obligation, bond, reverence', perhaps based on Latin religare 'to bind'.

I personally find the meaning of religare to be the most insightful. To bind us with laws and restrictions in an attempt to mitigate against a chaotic and barbaric atmosphere.

I love abstract philosophy and have found what I was unconsciously seeking. Karen Ramirez sung a song titled "Looking For Love" and the part where she sings "Didn't know I was looking for love till I found you" really exemplifies how I felt after reading The Law of One.

My reason for starting my post with the etymology of the word religion is that different people have different definitions or meanings to the same grammatical set of symbols.

For example if I asked what a collar, cuffs and tie meant to 2 people I could get a rational and perhaps slightly perplexed reply from one person, and an emotionally charged and rebellious reply from the other.
Meaningless to one but meaningful to the other.

This is just my attempt to put a different slant on Ra's humble offerings (by the way I think RA should be DJ'ing on the main stage when the confederation do their millennium metafestival! Big Grin )

Quote:18.6 Questioner: Basically I would say that to infringe on the free will of another self or another entity would be the basic thing never to do under the Law of One. Can you state any other breaking of the Law of One than this basic rule?

Ra: I am Ra. As one proceeds from the primal distortion of free will, one proceeds to the understanding of the focal points of intelligent energy which have created the intelligences or the ways of a particular mind/body/spirit complex in its environment, both what you would call natural and what you would call man-made. Thus, the distortions to be avoided are those which do not take into consideration the distortions of the focus of energy of love/light, or shall we say, the Logos of this particular sphere or density. These include the lack of understanding of the needs of the natural environment, the needs of other-selves’ mind/body/spirit complexes. These are many due to the various distortions of man-made complexes in which the intelligence and awareness of entities themselves have chosen a way of using the energies available.

Thus, what would be an improper distortion with one entity is proper with another. We can suggest an attempt to become aware of the other-self as self and thus do that action which is needed by other-self, understanding from the other-self’s intelligence and awareness. In many cases this does not involve the breaking of the distortion of free will into a distortion or fragmentation called infringement. However, it is a delicate matter to be of service, and compassion, sensitivity, and an ability to empathize are helpful in avoiding the distortions of man-made intelligence and awareness.


So the bits highlighted are what convey loving "acceptance" to me. I have challenging catalyst at work and at home (mirror mirror on the wall please lie to me and let me fall) and have found this body of work offered by Don, Carla and Jim to be such a great help to me.

Carla and Jim have embodied this philosophy into their daily lives, and so I thank them for their continuing focus as this is helpful for me as I say to that mirror on the wall "I take that back, I am not quitting until I am dead!"

Nice to see you back btw Monica, I think I am also a lifer like you Tongue  
...the highest wisdom is to suffer all men to have full liberty to think on all subjects in their own way. - OAHSPE  
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 3 users Like Nicholas's post:
Spaced, Steppingfeet, sunnysideup
02-12-2015, 08:49 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-13-2015, 02:32 PM by dreamliner.)
#56
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-12-2015, 05:43 PM)Diana Wrote:  Why Carla drinks this stuff when in such bad health, I don't know. But she has her own personal reasons (or foibles). This is NOT something to emulate, if you must emulate.

Just speculating; she may have issues with sucrose (table sugar; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose ) and/or fructose (fruit sugar; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose), and as a result may be preferring artificially sweetened coke.

Nowadays, some health professionals highly recommend people to stop consuming any kind of sugar (especially sucrose, fructose etc.), because of their high glycemic index/load ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_load). Some even label sugars as "poison".

All cells in the body, and especially the brain, need blood sugar (i.e. glucose; which is different than table sugar or fruit sugar, table sugar is converted to glucose after digestion) to function. Blood sugar should neither be low, nor be high. When it's "dangerously" low, which is called hypoglychemia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoglycemia ), symptoms and effects like anxiety, blurred vision and seizure arises. It can cause even death. When it's "dangerously" high, which is called hyperglychemia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperglycemia ) some other health problems occur in the long run.

Blood sugar (i.e. glucose) is regulated by a very delicate mechanism/metabolism, main players of which are pancreas -secreting insulin and glucagon ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucagon )- and liver. Liver overcomes sudden increase in blood sugar (caused by high glycemic index/load) by converting to fat and storing around the belly -mostly-. That's why, "some health professionals highly recommend people to stop consuming any kind of sugar". Instead of high glycemic index/load foods, they recommend proteins (preferably vegetable protein, any kind of meat, egg, etc.), butter (not trans fats), olive oil, dairy products, yoghurt, beans etc., which are converted to blood sugar slowly.

People having problems with their "blood glucose regulating metabolism" (such as diabetic people, people who have insulinoma/hypoglycemia, etc.) usually enjoy "zero sugar" beverage like diet-coke. Although artificial sweeteners are generally considered "harmful", the benefit-cost ratio is high compared to ordinary/normal sugar for those kind of people.

Nevertheless, I would recommend "stevia-coke" ( http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/health/stevia/ ) instead of diet-coke, if it is available.

Stevia is a natural sweetener and superior to any other artificial sweetener: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia

It is so superior that, the whole "artificial sweetener industry" have been carrying out black propaganda against it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes dreamliner's post:
isis
02-12-2015, 09:28 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-12-2015, 10:36 PM by Monica.)
#57
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-12-2015, 08:49 PM)dreamliner Wrote:  
(02-12-2015, 05:43 PM)Diana Wrote:  Why Carla drinks this stuff when in such bad health, I don't know. But she has her own personal reasons (or foibles). This is NOT something to emulate, if you must emulate.

Just speculating; she may have issues with sucrose (table sugar; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose ) and/or fructose (fruit sugar; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose), and as a result may be preferring artificially sweetened coke.

Nowadays, some health professionals highly recommend people to stop consuming any kind of sugar (especially sucrose, fructose etc.), because of their high glycemic index/load ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_load). Some even label sugars as "poison".

All cells in the body, and especially the brain, need blood sugar (i.e. glucose; which is different than table sugar or fruit sugar, table sugar is converted to glucose after digestion) to function. Blood sugar should neither be low, nor be high. When it's "dangerously" low, which is called hypoglychemia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoglycemia ), symptoms and effects like anxiety, blurred vision and seizure arises. It can cause even death. When it's "dangerously" high, which is called hyperglychemia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperglycemia ) some other health problems occur in the long run.

Blood sugar (i.e. glucose) is regulated by a very delicate mechanism/metabolism, main players of which are pancreas -secreting insulin and glucagon ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucagon )- and liver. Liver overcomes sudden high blood sugar (caused by high glycemic index/load) by converting to fat and storing around the belly. That's why, "some health professionals highly recommend people to stop consuming any kind of sugar". Instead of high glycemic index/load foods, they recommend proteins (any kind of meat, egg, etc.), butter, dairy products, yoghurt, beans etc., which are converted to blood sugar slowly.

People having problems with their "blood glucose regulating metabolism" (such as diabetic people, people who have insulinoma/hypoglycemia, etc.) usually enjoys "zero sugar" beverage like diet-coke. Although artificial sweeteners are generally considered "harmful", the benefit-cost ratio is high compared to ordinary/normal sugar for those kind of people.

Nevertheless, I would recommend "stevia-coke" ( http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/health/stevia/ ) instead of diet-coke, if it is available.

Stevia is a natural sweetener and superior to any other artificial sweetener: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia

It is so superior that, the whole "artificial sweetener industry" have been carrying out black propaganda against it.

The aspartame in diet sodas is worse than sugar. But the worst thing about sodas is the acidifying aspect. 

That would be a good topic for its own thread. Getting back on topic, this is an example of emulating an unhealthy action, because of who the person is, rather than emulating their admirable qualities, not because of who did xyz action, but because xyz action is worthy of emulating.

Whether it's Carla, or a priest, the pope, or even Gandhi or Yogananda, they are/were all human. Putting any of them on a pedestal is characteristic of religious fundamentalism.

Mega-church pastors, priests, and other religious leaders set themselves up for that. Those are established religions and it's part of their belief system that their leaders are more 'spiritual' than their flocks, and the flocks are expected to look up to their leaders.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2015, 09:30 PM,
#58
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-12-2015, 07:10 AM)Parsons Wrote:  
(02-11-2015, 10:11 PM)Monica Wrote:  Gary, I still don't understand why you said this:



Quote:I think you walk on risky ground, Monica, in the implication (correct me if I'm wrong) that people who have an interpretation of the Law of One material at variance to your own are engaging in fundamentalist thinking.

Did you really think I meant that anyone who interprets the Material differently than I do is guilty of religious fundamentalism?

Regardless of you conscious intentions, that is the way you are coming across to me.

Parsons, I was incredulous that Gary could have thought that, and pretty sure that wasn't what he actually meant, so I was actually asking him for clarification. I wasn't inviting you or anyone else to start analyzing how I 'come across' and once again I'm incredulous that this discussion is going off on tangents.

Agreement/disagreement regarding interpretation and treating the Material as a religious dogma are 2 entirely different things. To think that someone is a fundamentalist because they disagree...doesn't even make sense.

I don't recall anyone even talking about this topic before and I think it's an important one. We, as caretakers of this Material, have a role to play as to whether or not it gets turned into a religion. 
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2015, 10:44 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-12-2015, 11:12 PM by isis.)
#59
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-09-2015, 09:15 PM)Monica Wrote:  ...opening the Law of One books at random and taking the first quote you see as your answer, as a Christian might do with their bible?

Do Christians do that? I could see that not working out well for them a whole lot of the time.

I just opened the Law of One book randomly & picked the 1st quote I saw & I'm actually impressed with what I got. I was expecting something funny like, "Please expel breath over this instrument's breast."

What I got:

Ra Wrote:Firstly, we underline and emphasize that this information is not to be understood literally but as a link or psychological nudge for the body and the mind and spirit.

Now I'll try that open-randomly-pick-1st-quote-you-see thingy with the bible.

I got:

Bible Wrote:The word that Jeremiah the prophet spoke to Baruch the son of Neriah, when he wrote these words in a book at the dictation of Jeremiah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah: “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, to you, O Baruch: You said, ‘Woe is me! For the LORD has added sorrow to my pain. I am weary with my groaning, and I find no rest.’"
hm...haha

"I am all that has been, and is, and shall be..."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 4 users Like isis's post:
Bring4th_Jade, Nicholas, Parsons, Steppingfeet
02-12-2015, 11:06 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-12-2015, 11:08 PM by Elros.)
#60
RE: Law of One Religion?
(02-12-2015, 10:44 PM)isis Wrote:  
(02-09-2015, 09:15 PM)Monica Wrote:  ...opening the Law of One books at random and taking the first quote you see as your answer, as a Christian might do with their bible?

Do Christians do that? I could see that not working out well for them a whole lot of the time.

Christians do that, but you don't just do it for the fun of doing it, you do it while seeking an answer to something. You can view it as a form of christian tarot. It works when you're in a spiritual state in which you know there is no such thing as random. 

The act of openning the bible at random is for christians the act of asking guidance from the Holy Spirit, which you can view as Intelligent Infinity or your Higher Self. The verse you get is like a tarot card for your interpretation, if you seek nothing surely you will get nothing. 

Reality is like a dream, there is no random, just significative events and unsignificative ones. Or at least that was my interpretation as an ex-christian.

In the idea of infinity, acceptance of all the potentials the mind can think of is required for a balanced union with what is seen of infinity
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 3 users Like Elros's post:
isis, Monica, Spaced




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)