Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
08-04-2016, 12:58 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-04-2016, 01:46 AM by Chandlersdad.)
#1
Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
UPDATE: After reading my post, perhaps most of my problems are with the SCOTT MANDELKER COMMENTS on YOUTUBE FOR SESSION 31 MORE THAN JUST RA.

I would like to post my thoughts on the RA Law of One Session 31, which talks a great deal about homosexuality. I am not asking anyone to approve of homosexuality. I am simply asking you to calmly reflect on my views as a gay man in response to what RA and Scott Mandelker have said.

I am studying the RA Law of One material, using the YOUTUBE series by Scott Mandelker. I have been taking diligent notes (which helps me learn a great deal and concentrate when the material otherwise might fly right over my head). Yesterday I studied Session 31. Frankly, I am very appalled and dismayed by what RA and Scott have to say about homosexuality.

RA "blames" homosexuality (which he kindly calls a severe confusion) on two causes. I would like to discuss the cause I find most absurd.

CAUSE 1:

RA blames homosexuality on over crowding in large cities, siting studies of RATS that were kept in close quarters together in experiments. Evidently, the rats began having gay sex. The same thing happens in prisons. When I read this as RA's cause for homosexuality, I burst out laughing. Then I thought "Wait a minute! I am investing serious time into studying the RA material. Yet RA has just proclaimed something that (as a gay man) I know is untrue. Does this invalidate everything RA says?"

Comparing gay people to rats in crowded living conditions, then transferring rat activity to humans is bizarre. So the "big city" turns men gay? Aren't there any women in large cities? Ra says that "sensitive" men (code word for gay?) that go to large cities come out? That may be true, but it is NOT the cause of homosexuality. Even our best medical authorities are not clear on the cause yet, although statistically, many gay men are born to mothers nearing menopause. The current meme in the medical field is that the chemical soup in the womb combined with environmental factors in the first 3 years produces gay men, not exposure to a large urban crowded center!

What about men in the military who live in crowded barracks? Do they "turn" gay? With all due respect to RA, I think he needs to go back to the drawing board on this one. His views suspiciously mirror a layman's view of homosexuality back in the early 80's, NOT the perspective of a 6th Density entity complex.

RA later in the session outrageously claims that sensitive men who go to the big city are much more likely to become Service to Self when confused about gender identification (that would be a transsexual, not a homosexual). So RA is suggesting that gay men are more likely to be negatively polarized. (If so, it is due to a bitterness that can set in after a life time of being put down by your own society).

What shocked me the most though was Scott's total acceptance of this bizarre theory. As I have gone through the YOUTUBE videos one by one, I have realized that Scott has almost a "born again" fundamentalist viewpoint of the RA material. He seems to see it as a sacred book that must not be questioned. Because RA agrees with his pre-existing Buddhist mystical faith in many areas (which he brings up constantly), Scott sees it as the eternal truth. This is very disappointing.

What is also disappointing is that Scott seems to have NO modern understanding of homosexuality, even though he claims to have gay friends. If so, then he has certainly sold them short on this one.
Scott agrees with RA that ONLY female/male sex can involve a transfer of sexual/love energy involving the 4th chakra. Scott supplements this by saying that gay men cannot share this. Then Scott suggests that gay men can only share 4th chakra love via celibate friendships! In this area, Scott seems to mirror the Vatican's recent announcement that gay men are welcome now in Catholicism AS LONG AS THEY REMAIN CELIBATE! (What a deal, eh?). I have been in a monogamous relationship with another man for 39 years. There is true love there. If anyone has shared 4th chakra love, we have.

Scott repeatedly also makes the comment that gay men feel like women in men's bodies. In effect, that gay men ARE women inside. Dear Scott, please try to keep up. I realize you are living in Asia and may not get the news, but men who feel they are women are called Transgender = transexuals like Bruce Jenner. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. Most homosexual men are quite happy to be men. They simply are attracted sexually to other men. That's it!

Scott also uses his YOUTUBE video to give a lecture AGAINST gay people who feel the need to be "proud" of being gay, such as in gay pride parades. He condescendingly lectures gay people to NOT make their sexuality their identity. He says this is very shallow.

Where has his empathy gone?

Gay people only make an issue of their sexuality because the overall society does so. This all may be invisible to heterosexuals (who presume to lecture gay people on THEIR condition), but the gay person in the USA is constantly reminded (by the GOP, for example) that they are considered evil by the church, criminal by some police, and mentally ill by some psychologists. Gay people are told in many ways that they are WRONG to exist, and that they are inferior. In response to that unending barrage of negativity, gay people have bonded together to refute that programming. As a result, Gay Pride was created. With 50% of teenagers committing suicide due to being gay (official stats), certainly a little gay pride cannot hurt - it could even save lives. Nonetheless, Scott sees it as "very shallow behavior" with NO understanding of the motivation.  Very few gay people make being gay the center of their identity. But in this society, a gay person (like me) has to be wary every time I am in public due to the homophobic tendencies of the general public. I never know when someone is going to pop up and yell at me or even attack me. This is not paranoia. It is the general wariness with which gay people live in our society unless they are in total denial.


Scott says this is not a moral judgment. Oh, no! God Forbid. But then Scott proclaims that heterosexual sex is the only appropriate sex because "there is a plug and an outlet". Ha, ha. (His little snide joke). I can hear a right wing Christian applauding and saying "Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve!"

Scott finalizes his masterpiece of prejudice by at one point referring to the average gay man as a FAG! Can you imagine the outrage that would have arisen already if Scott had referred to a Black person by the "n" word? To the ears of a gay man, the word FAG is just as horrible in its demeaning intent.

Now to be fair to Scott, he does suggest that not all gay men come from large cities. Like me, many come from rural areas and small towns. This leads us to reason 2 per RA for homosexuality.

CAUSE 2:

When an entity has a long series of female lives, then switches to a male life, there can be a lot of bleedthru, causing the man to be gay in his first male life (after such a long sequence of female lives).
Frankly, for all I know, this MAY BE TRUE. I AM FINE WITH THIS SUGGESTED CAUSE FROM A METAPHYSICAL VIEWPOINT. Ra RULES ON THiS ONE! LOL


A Few more sore points:
1. Being gay is presented by RA as something WRONG, rather than a variation on human sexuality. Per RA, it is a blockage of red ray reproductive energy. It is a serious confusion. A massive Distortion.

2. Don towards the end asks RA if the first sexual experience imprints on the sexual identity of the human? Ra says yes. At this point, Ra claims that homosexuality is a teenage aberration based on curiousity. Ra says that if your first experience is bad, then you may have an aversion to sex your entire life. Ra gives great power to sexual imprinting during the FIRST sexual experience. This supports the fallacious argument that the cure for impending homosexuality in a young teen is to ensure they go to bed with a woman instead, thereby imprinting in a "proper" manner. This also supports the Christian Gay Conversion Therapy (which includes electric shock treatment and brainwashing). Yet every modern medical practitioner knows that human sexual orientation is not this malleable. Again, Ra sound suspiciously like a layman's idea of homosexuality in the early 1980's.

3. Don asks if Orion targets particular people. Of course, says the great and powerful RA. Ra mentions that Orion does this to push gay men to negative polarization. But to be fair, Ra says that Orion does this with heterosexual people also. BUT!!! Orion only targets negatively leaning straight people. This remark subtly connects negativity with being gay. In other words, only gay people and NEGATIVE straight people are targeted. Misery loves company and guilt by association?

WRAP UP:

Frankly, I hope I can work past this. I have considered whether to even keep studying the Law of One after KNOWING IN MY HEART that RA is wrong. Gay people are not rats in a maze being over crowded. Gay men are following their nature and have put up with enough crap from this society without the New Age metaphysical community dumping on them also.

Scott's remarks about gay people were arrogant and ignorant. I was shocked. If you listen to Scott's YOUTUBE series very long, you get the firm impression that Scott considers himself very high consciousness, far beyond the average human. He calls himself a 6th density Wanderer and has proclaimed that humans are stupid (in one case because humans do not accept Ra's views about sentient life on Venus!). Yet how near enlightenment can a man be who holds such nasty views on gay people? His views are condescending and spiteful.

EXPLANATIONS?

Here is a very blasphemous thought (at least to Scott). Could it be that RA's views on homosexuality reflect Carla's perhaps ignorant 1980's viewpoints? She evidently had a close affinity to traditional (condemning) Christianity since a Bible and other symbols of that religion were part of the set up for her going into trance. Could RA's information have been filtered through Carla to produce this nonsense?

The other possibility is that the entire RA material is without any merit. Can anyone with an ounce of empathy respond, or am I the only gay person crazy enough to be interested in the RA Law of One?  Angry  Angry
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 3 users Like Chandlersdad's post:
Brian_Sanchez, HillOrStram, wertscott
08-04-2016, 02:48 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-04-2016, 10:18 AM by spero. Edit Reason: clearer wording )
#2
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
there are plently of gay people that have come and gone through the forum and opened some discussions on the topic. as a gay man myself i agree that ra's description of homosexuality as an impairment or a blockage isnt flattering and at odds with how i find it to be personally.

i do concede that the probability that it could stem from a large portion of incarnations in the opposite gender seem plausible

i honestly dont know who scott mandelker is aside from people mentioning his name on occasion so im not invested in his personal interpretation. if he bothers u then u are giving him too much power in this situation

Could auric infringement be a possible catalyst or trigger for those susceptible while others just might be susceptible regardless of setting....maybe. but i dont necessarily like how its phrased as a lack of desire to serve or potentially something reversible under isolation

the only real positive part is "although it is much more difficult, it is possible in this type of association for an entity to be of great service to another in fidelity and sincere green-ray love of a nonsexual nature thus adjusting or lessening the distortions of its sexual impairment." though again, its mildly off putting to hear it phrased as an impairment, distortion or for purely non sexual components to be the redeeming feature of a homosexual lifestyle.

perhaps the language is meant to be purely descriptive (a distortion or impairment could be used in a purely objective manner if we remove the connotations) or perhaps Carla biased the responses

Theres no need to take the entire ra material as gospel. there are bits in there that i consider far fetched but other parts that seem to resonant with how i actually percieve things to be. take what u want from it but dont consider it the be all and end all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 8 users Like spero's post:
Brian_Sanchez, Chandlersdad, HillOrStram, kycahi, Maggs, Nau7ik, sunnysideup, YinYang
08-04-2016, 05:32 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-05-2016, 04:16 AM by YinYang.)
#3
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
Chandlersdad Wrote:Gay people only make an issue of their sexuality because the overall society does so. This all may be invisible to heterosexuals (who presume to lecture gay people on THEIR condition), but the gay person in the USA is constantly reminded (by the GOP, for example) that they are considered evil by the church, criminal by some police, and mentally ill by some psychologists. Gay people are told in many ways that they are WRONG to exist, and that they are inferior. In response to that unending barrage of negativity, gay people have bonded together to refute that programming. As a result, Gay Pride was created. With 50% of teenagers committing suicide due to being gay (official stats), certainly a little gay pride cannot hurt - it could even save lives. Nonetheless, Scott sees it as "very shallow behavior" with NO understanding of the motivation.  Very few gay people make being gay the center of their identity. But in this society, a gay person (like me) has to be wary every time I am in public due to the homophobic tendencies of the general public. I never know when someone is going to pop up and yell at me or even attack me. This is not paranoia. It is the general wariness with which gay people live in our society unless they are in total denial.

I have many gay friends, they are generally just merrier and more creative than straights as far as I'm concerned. I even joined them in a pride parade once, which was a hell of a party, I had glitter on me for days afterwards! Lol! I know how they struggle with prejudice, some of my older gay men friends were at the forefront of the fight against homosexual prejudice during apartheid when homosexuality was still a crime punishable by up to seven years in prison, they have some stories to tell. I have spent much of my life contemplating prejudice, because here in my own country the black/white thing just wouldn't go away, it still dominates affairs. Personally I have always given more weight to Ra's explanation that a gay person has had more previous lives as the opposite sex, rather than the overcrowding thing, since I also have gay friends who grew up on farms.

Don't know who this Scott fellow is, but if you feel he's displaying signs of prejudice, I just wouldn't pay him any attention. Those who are prejudiced will find justification for their prejudices in every nook and cranny...

Saw this article shared on Facebook once:

Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice

And I think this article might give some clues as to why gay people generally are so creative - Why “Psychological Androgyny” Is Essential for Creativity

I myself lean more towards sexual fluidity anyway, especially in females. Someone I particularly admire is Ellen, I remember some fundamentalist minister in the US called her Ellen "Degenerate" when she came out, and look at her now! I guess it's a matter of "he who laughs last, laughs best"... and the best female voice on the planet is still KD Lang.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 4 users Like YinYang's post:
Chandlersdad, kycahi, swolf97, wertscott
08-04-2016, 10:47 AM,
#4
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
Chandlersdad, my advice would be to take what resonates with you from the Ra material, and discard the rest. Distortion is always possible in any channeling. You could be right.

It's also possible that there is some truth to what Ra said that we just don't presently understand. When almost every manifestation in this world has innumerable causes, its no surprise that it isn't the *complete* answer. But maybe there is something there. Who knows.  

Personally I don't think Ra means "impairment" in the way that we, as 3rd density beings, would commonly use that term. I don't think there is a moral judgment there, just a clinical description of a machine that nature uses to produce bodily complexes and the subtle energy transfers involved therein. There is of course nothing "wrong" with homosexuality. But I can certainly see how a machine that performs that particular function no longer performing that function could be clinically described as an impairment (in that particular sense). Again, that does not mean it is wrong in any shape way or form, or that it isn't serving a bunch of other valuable STO functions. But I think there are subtle energetic transfers and processes that take place in biological reproductive processes that we, as physical beings, are not wholly aware of or privy to. And this is the impairment they refer to (time/space energy transfers between male and female forms), the negation of which would probably apply to a whole lot of other subcategories and not just homosexuals (though experience has taught me that there are always new advantages formed when a so called "disadvantage" forms, meaning, there are probably great advantages to being homosexual over heterosexual in a lot of ways (yinyangs post makes some good points about that). Ra's language and description of this is detached and obtuse, which is not surprising considering their vibrational distance from 3rd density. They describe sensitive subjects like sexuality with the same clinical detachment you or I would describe the workings of a fax machine. Unfortunately, this can be off putting sometimes.    

Having said that, if something doesn't resonate with you, it isn't worth your valuable time or energy. From the tone of your last few posts on this forum, it sounds like a lot of what Ra says (not just about homosexuality) seems to bother you. And that's fine, not everybody has to find resonance with the same material. As spero said, no need to take it as gospel.

There are a great variety of channeled works out there, perhaps there is another source that you would find more agreeable. Best of luck to you.

Your faculty of will is that which is powerful within you as co-Creator. You cannot ascribe to this faculty too much importance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 7 users Like anagogy's post:
Argus Pheasant, Brian_Sanchez, Chandlersdad, eccentric1, kycahi, Parsons, sunnysideup
08-04-2016, 12:26 PM,
#5
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
Hi Chandlersdad,

Firstly, I want to say, I'm sorry that Scott's interpretation has upset you so much. To be honest, I've only listened to a little bit of his videos, but they infuriated me too so I haven't since. Tongue

Ra's comments on homosexuality are... less than sensitive. But it must be taken in context with everything else Ra calls a "distortion" and a "confusion". I think Ra likes to stress the point of sexual polarity - and also, noting, that sexual function at its core is about reproduction.

Ra doesn't mention rats in a cage, or prison, or anything like that - these are Scott's interpretations. Scott seems to have an even less sensitive view than Ra. Here's what Ra says:

Quote:31.7 Questioner: Thank you. In the material earlier you mentioned “magnetic attraction.” Could you define and expand upon that term?

Ra: I am Ra. We used the term to indicate that in your bisexual natures there is that which is of polarity. This polarity may be seen to be variable according to the, shall we say, male/female polarization of each entity, be each entity biologically male or female. Thus you may see the magnetism when two entities with the appropriate balance, male/female versus female/male polarity, meeting and thus feeling the attraction which polarized forces will exert, one upon the other.

This is the strength of the bisexual mechanism. It does not take an act of will to decide to feel attraction for one who is oppositely polarized sexually. It will occur in an inevitable sense giving the free flow of energy a proper, shall we say, avenue. This avenue may be blocked by some distortion towards a belief/condition which states to the entity that this attraction is not desired. However, the basic mechanism functions as simply as would, shall we say, the magnet and the iron.

Ra says that it is the polarity of the male/female that has a natural attraction, that does not require an act of will. It's like a magnet. In theory, sex, at its core, is about reproduction. There is a red-ray energy exchange between and male and female entity that -could- randomly result in creating another life. Two males and two females do not experience this part of the transfer. It's just matter-of-fact about the nature of polarized sexual relations.

Quote:31.8 Questioner: We have what seems to be an increasing number of entities incarnate here now who have what is called a homosexual orientation in this respect. Could you explain and expand upon that concept?

Ra: I am Ra. Entities of this condition experience a great deal of distortion due to the fact that they have experienced many incarnations as biological male and as biological female. This would not suggest what you call homosexuality in an active phase were it not for the difficult vibratory condition of your planetary sphere. There is what you may call great aura infringement among your crowded urban areas in your more populous countries, as you call portions of your planetary surface. Under these conditions the confusions will occur.

This quote is a bit insensitive. But let us look at Don's question. "We have what seems to be an increasing number of entities..." I think what Ra is trying to say is that, in most conditions, when one incarnates as a female body they want a female experience, and if one incarnates in a male body they want a male experience - as in, polarized with the other gender. However, our planet has "difficult vibratory conditions" making those who identify more on a soul level with one gender bypass their "incarnate programming" to lean towards another gender. This doesn't mean that every gay man wants to be a woman. But what it does mean is that many gay men identify with the female energy signature, therefore making a polarized relationship with another male energy signature possible. Notice, Ra uses male/female and female/male to describe gender. One energy is just slightly more dominant.

Ra says "these confusions", meaning a confusion of the intention of bisexuality. We live in an archetypical universe designed by our Logos - who had a fondness for the male/female dichotomy. But, I think Ra's answer also supports that entities are aware of the difficult vibrations of our planet right now, so might knowingly incarnate in a body/location where they would be more inclined towards homosexuality. So, no real judgement as a mistake or confusion on the entity's personal choices - a "confusion" on the magnetic intentions of the polarized bisexual nature of reality.

Quote:31.9 Questioner: Why does density of population create these confusions?

Ra: I am Ra. The bisexual reproductive urge has as its goal, not only the simple reproductive function, but more especially the desire to serve others being awakened by this activity.

In an over-crowded situation where each mind/body/spirit complex is under a constant bombardment from other-selves it is understandable that those who are especially sensitive would not feel the desire to be of service to other-selves. This also would increase the probability of a lack of desire or a blockage of the red-ray reproductive energy.

In an uncrowded atmosphere this same entity would, through the stimulus of feeling the solitude about it, then have much more desire to seek out someone to whom it may be of service thus regularizing the sexual reproductive function.

I think Ra is saying that it's easier to make a choice to choose a partner based on sexual attraction almost primarily as opposed to social/sexual attraction. An entity through the stimulus of solitude would want to seek out a partner that it could make more humans with - therefore have a family, create a homestead where all the entities contribute to maker a greater whole. This would also require more "wooing", as in, you have less entities to choose from, so you have to treat each more delicately - and you also can't just risk alienating everyone by hitting on everyone. Lots of entities in cities have that luxury!!

Quote:31.10 Questioner: Roughly how many previous incarnations, shall we say, would a male entity in this incarnation have had to have had in the past as a female to have a highly homosexual orientation in this incarnation? Just roughly.

Ra: I am Ra. If an entity has had roughly 65% of its incarnations in the sexual/biological body complex, the opposite polarity to its present body complex, this entity is vulnerable to the aura infringement of your urban areas and may perhaps become of what you call an homosexual nature.

It is to be noted at this juncture that although it is much more difficult, it is possible in this type of association for an entity to be of great service to another in fidelity and sincere green-ray love of a nonsexual nature thus adjusting or lessening the distortions of its sexual impairment.

Now I am going out on a limb, but I think it's possible that an interpretation of the bolded line might be that an homosexual entity can have a nonsexual polarized relationship with an entity of the opposite sex that is not sexual in nature to help "lessen the distortions of its sexual impairment" i.e. learn in this lifetime to have a green-ray relationship with the opposite sex, which was the intention of choosing the biologically polarized body that we have. An entity who has been 65% male who incarnates as a female, may still want to have relationships with other females. Learning to have a green-ray nonsexual relationship with another male can help said entity still experience the intended polarized green-ray exchange.

I think it is entirely possible for two entities of the same biological gender to have a sexual energy exchange, and I do not think anything Ra says contradicts this. This isn't about biological gender. Biological gender just makes it more efficient.

Quote:31.11 Questioner: Timothy Leary, doing research, wrote that at the time of puberty, and up through that time, there is an imprint occurring on the DNA coding of an entity and that, for instance, sexual biases are imprinted due to early sexual experiences or some of the first sexual experiences of the entity. Does anything like this actually happen?

Ra: I am Ra. This is partially correct. Due to the nature of solitary sexual experiences, it is in most cases unlikely that what you call masturbation has an imprinting effect upon later experiences.

This is similarly true with some of the encounters which might be seen as homosexual among those of this age group. These are often, instead, innocent exercises in curiosity.

However, it is quite accurate that the first experience in which the mind/body/spirit complex is intensely involved will indeed imprint upon the entity for that life experience a set of preferences.

I think Ra is speaking VERY broadly here, and not just about homosexuality. I think they are speaking of all experiences. However, I do not think they are implying that we should indoctrinate children with heterosexual sex - in fact, I've known women who sought out relationships with other woman because their first experience with a man was traumatizing. The nature of the "first experience" of anything is many-layered and sets up the dominoes for our future possibility/probabilities. If it's good, we're gonna want more, if it's bad, we're gonna want something else.

Quote:31.12 Questioner: Does the Orion group use this, shall we say, as a gateway to impressing upon entities, shall we say, preferences which could create negative polarization?

Ra: I am Ra. Just as we of the Confederation attempt to beam our love and light whenever given the opportunity, including sexual opportunities, so the Orion group will use an opportunity if it is negatively oriented or if the individual is negatively oriented.

This is possibly a slight prejudice on Don to ask this question. However, please also understand that Don was celibate so sex of any kind was pretty out of his realm of comfort. Ra spins Don's biased question to being, again, something extremely broad - that anything we see as a distortion within ourselves can be used by the Orion entity. Ra does not confirm that Orion specifically targets those with homosexual inclinations to make them "wrongly sexually oriented". But, I think the whole realm of sexual relationships is a very easy area to have "unpure"/"distorted" ideas, due to our weird society - the red ray and orange rays are always an easy target to trigger distortions.

Then Don takes a turn and begins talking about Nazis who received sexual gratification from horrific means, i.e. killing people. He wasn't talking about homosexuality, but again, Don started thinking about "bad sex" and went to the darkest place he could think of. Ra then stresses/confirms that it isn't a negative entity who makes another entity make the choices that they do, the entity is responsible for its own choices: negatives will just energize them. No one is at the whims of a negative entity.

Anyway. I'm not sure if this helps or not, I brought this up with my husband and he was very upset by some of the wording Ra uses as well. I think if you're more familiar with Ra terminology, it's not as jarring. However, another thing to keep in mind is that Ra could access Don's own mind complex distortions while they were answering his questions - and again, Don wasn't fond of sexual congress in any way, let alone what were likely his distorted thoughts towards homosexual sex, what with being in the military during the middle of the last century. Ra had to be pretty clinical and detached describing these things to Don.
There is no magic greater than honest distortion toward love.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 17 users Like Bring4th_Jade's post:
Aaron, anagogy, Billy, Brian_Sanchez, Chandlersdad, eccentric1, Glow, kycahi, Lodro, Maggs, Parsons, sjel, Steppingfeet, swolf97, Verum Occultum, YinYang, Zach
08-04-2016, 01:30 PM,
#6
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
Great post, Jade. Speaking of voices, I don't think anyone will ever come close to making music like Queen again! Here's Freddy Mercury and David Bowie a cappella, goose bump stuff!



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2016, 04:23 PM,
#7
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
Quote:Ra: I am Ra. The bisexual reproductive urge has as its goal, not only the simple reproductive function, but more especially the desire to serve others being awakened by this activity.

In an over-crowded situation where each mind/body/spirit complex is under a constant bombardment from other-selves it is understandable that those who are especially sensitive would not feel the desire to be of service to other-selves. This also would increase the probability of a lack of desire or a blockage of the red-ray reproductive energy.

A few random thoughts about this quote.
-Ra calls what we call HETEROSEXUALITY "bisexuality"
Therefore....Is there a semantics problem from the beginning? Is the whole point lost in translation? Maybe but maybe not since they do later say "what you call an homosexual nature." The group and Ra never seemed to finally agree on the meaning of the word GALAXY, after all...

-If having SEX is "being of service to other-selves" and being homosexual is thought by Ra to be the result of not having that desire, Ra is seriously missing something here. Gay people seem to love and think about sex even more than straight people....from my experience anyway. Then again - maybe this is too much orange ray to compensate for the lack of red ray? IDK

-From the two times I have fallen in "homosexual love" ie the desire to be of service to my mate, the desire is always AWAKENED more after a sexual encounter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Manjushri's post:
Chandlersdad
08-04-2016, 04:30 PM,
#8
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-04-2016, 12:26 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote:  In theory, sex, at its core, is about reproduction. There is a red-ray energy exchange between and male and female entity that -could- randomly result in creating another life. Two males and two females do not experience this part of the transfer. It's just matter-of-fact about the nature of polarized sexual relations.

Ra Wrote:Ra: I am Ra. The bisexual reproductive urge has as its goal, not only the simple reproductive function, but more especially the desire to serve others being awakened by this activity.

Do you mean then to say "straight sex," Jade?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2016, 05:14 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-04-2016, 06:02 PM by Chandlersdad.)
#9
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-04-2016, 04:23 PM)Manjushri Wrote:  
Quote:Ra: I am Ra. The bisexual reproductive urge has as its goal, not only the simple reproductive function, but more especially the desire to serve others being awakened by this activity.

In an over-crowded situation where each mind/body/spirit complex is under a constant bombardment from other-selves it is understandable that those who are especially sensitive would not feel the desire to be of service to other-selves. This also would increase the probability of a lack of desire or a blockage of the red-ray reproductive energy.

A few random thoughts about this quote.
-Ra calls what we call HETEROSEXUALITY "bisexuality"
Therefore....Is there a semantics problem from the beginning? Is the whole point lost in translation? Maybe but maybe not since they do later say "what you call an homosexual nature." The group and Ra never seemed to finally agree on the meaning of the word GALAXY, after all...

-If having SEX is "being of service to other-selves" and being homosexual is thought by Ra to be the result of not having that desire, Ra is seriously missing something here. Gay people seem to love and think about sex even more than straight people....from my experience anyway. Then again - maybe this is too much orange ray to compensate for the lack of red ray? IDK

-From the two times I have fallen in "homosexual love" ie the desire to be of service to my mate, the desire is always AWAKENED more after a sexual encounter.

I picked up quite quickly that RA used the word "bisexuality" to refer to heterosexual sex. Service to Other has been the goal of my 39 year homosexual relationship since the beginning. Of course, it isn't always a 50-50 situation. Individuals go through difficult experiences that may require their mate to serve with little in return. Such a relationship may be 90% giving by one and receiving by the other, who is not able to reciprocate. This just reflects the ups and downs of normal life in 3 D.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2016, 05:16 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-04-2016, 05:25 PM by IndigoGeminiWolf.)
#10
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
I'm gay too. Had several partners, but never a boyfriend. It's been like 10 years since I had sex though. Cartoons work for me, so I'm not missing much.

I'm easy with the right material. In fact I *melts* with it.

Developing ability to connect to Source
My Book: http://www.thewarlockname.com
My Forum: http://www.anthroshaman.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2016, 05:19 PM,
#11
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-04-2016, 05:16 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote:  I'm gay too. Had several partners, but never a boyfriend. It's been like 10 years since I had sex though. Cartoons work for me, so I'm not missing much.

Maybe your decade-long celibacy is what Ra referred to as the lessening of your sexual impairment? Then again, sexual arousal by cartoons only as substitution seems to be more of one than less.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2016, 05:31 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-05-2016, 02:24 AM by Bring4th_Plenum. Edit Reason: edited quote for brevity )
#12
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-04-2016, 12:26 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote:  Hi Chandlersdad,

Firstly, I want to say, I'm sorry that Scott's interpretation has upset you so much. To be honest, I've only listened to a little bit of his videos, but they infuriated me too so I haven't since. Tongue

...

Anyway. I'm not sure if this helps or not, I brought this up with my husband and he was very upset by some of the wording Ra uses as well. I think if you're more familiar with Ra terminology, it's not as jarring. However, another thing to keep in mind is that Ra could access Don's own mind complex distortions while they were answering his questions - and again, Don wasn't fond of sexual congress in any way, let alone what were likely his distorted thoughts towards homosexual sex, what with being in the military during the middle of the last century. Ra had to be pretty clinical and detached describing these things to Don.

I thank you and everyone who has responded to my anger/pain laden reaction to Session 31.  

I thank you for the information about Don's sexuality. I sincerely do think Session 31 reeked of human ignorance and bias. I attributed this upfront to Carla. Perhaps it was Don or a synthesis of both the "instrument" and Don. This possibility helps me to continue.

Perhaps a large percentage of my annoyance is indeed SCOTT MANDELKER'S quite condescending remarks on the YOUTUBE RA Law of One class. He brought up the rat studies and I interjected the prison scenario myself (situations that may prompt normally heterosexual men to engage in gay sex out of pent up libido and a prison culture that promotes this sort of dominance/surrender relationship).

I HAVE NOT READ THE RA Law of One BOOKS MYSELF. I have brand new spanking RA Law of One books, but have left them on the shelf for the future. My reasoning was to take the YOUTUBE class first to break the ice, since the language of the books can be quite intimidating upfront. After taking classes about the book, where the language was interpreted, then I would read the books. I actually took this same strategy in studying the COURSE IN MIRACLES, a work that seems to often require a 'translator" to make any sense to the neophyte.

I confess that I find Scott Mandelker increasingly hard to take. At times he almost seems to enjoy leaving the novice students in the dust as he rapidly slings the LOO lingo around at a fast pace, e.g., the love/light light/love spects of intelligent infinity/Infinite Intelligence invoke the LOGOS/LOGOI  or LOGOI/LOGOS (depending on galactic or solar and subsolar levels, of course)....blah, blah, blah. (This is a made up example in case it makes no sense).

I do wonder how much of Scott's biases and prejudices are being programmed into my understanding of the LOO. He speaks highly of 4th Density love, but I do not see it integrated into his class presentations. He seems to possibly be focused on a 5th level intellectual level, while proclaiming on several occasions to be a 6th density Wanderer far beyond the comprehension of most humans. In basic 3 D terms, the man seems to have an EGO the size of Asia, where he resides.

I am going to continue with my learning process unless Scott's unrecognized foibles get to be too annoying. But to let off steam I include my annoyance at Scott within the extensive notes I take for each class on a laptop. :-)  If there is a way to attach a PDF file here, let me know, if you wish to check out the notes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2016, 05:48 PM,
#13
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-04-2016, 02:48 AM)spero Wrote:  there are plently of gay people that have come and gone through the forum and opened some discussions on the topic. as a gay man myself i agree that ra's description of homosexuality as an impairment or a blockage isnt flattering and at odds with how i find it to be personally.

i do concede that the probability that it could stem from a large portion of incarnations in the opposite gender seem plausible

i honestly dont know who scott mandelker is aside from people mentioning his name on occasion so im not invested in his personal interpretation. if he bothers u then u are giving him too much power in this situation

Could auric infringement be a possible catalyst or trigger for those susceptible while others just might be susceptible regardless of setting....maybe. but i dont necessarily like how its phrased as a lack of desire to serve or potentially something reversible under isolation

the only real positive part is "although it is much more difficult, it is possible in this type of association for an entity to be of great service to another in fidelity and sincere green-ray love of a nonsexual nature thus adjusting or lessening the distortions of its sexual impairment." though again, its mildly off putting to hear it phrased as an impairment, distortion or for purely non sexual components to be the redeeming feature of a homosexual lifestyle.

perhaps the language is meant to be purely descriptive (a distortion or impairment could be used in a purely objective manner if we remove the connotations) or perhaps Carla biased the responses

Theres no need to take the entire ra material as gospel. there are bits in there that i consider far fetched but other parts that seem to resonant with how i actually percieve things to be. take what u want from it but dont consider it the be all and end all.

Thanks for the comments. I am a little surprised you have not heard of Scott Mandelker since he posits himself as the Grand Poohbah of the RA Law of One books. He has a very large presence on YOUTUBE, many interviews with an assortment of MA & PA Kettle New Age podcasts, and is in a sense the Saint Paul to the original concepts of Christianity (I mean that with some sarcasm).

He has a YOUTUBE class on the Law of One. He is up to lesson 64. Often 2 to 3 classes are spent going through each Session.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2016, 05:51 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-04-2016, 06:08 PM by YinYang.)
#14
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
Chandlersdad Wrote:I HAVE NOT READ THE RA Law of One BOOKS MYSELF.

I would really recommend you to read the material yourself, and not go through some third party. I have seen people skew the Ra material out of proportion. And someone who claims some exalted status is already a red flag, in my opinion. The only teacher of the Law of One I trust is L/L Research, who also happens to be the custodians of the material. Carla's Wanderer's Handbook is also great.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 7 users Like YinYang's post:
Aaron, Chandlersdad, Glow, kycahi, Maggs, Parsons, Patrick
08-04-2016, 05:57 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-04-2016, 06:16 PM by Chandlersdad.)
#15
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-04-2016, 10:47 AM)anagogy Wrote:  Chandlersdad, my advice would be to take what resonates with you from the Ra material, and discard the rest. Distortion is always possible in any channeling. You could be right.

It's also possible that there is some truth to what Ra said that we just don't presently understand. When almost every manifestation in this world has innumerable causes, its no surprise that it isn't the *complete* answer. But maybe there is something there. Who knows.  

Personally I don't think Ra means "impairment" in the way that we, as 3rd density beings, would commonly use that term. I don't think there is a moral judgment there, just a clinical description of a machine that nature uses to produce bodily complexes and the subtle energy transfers involved therein. There is of course nothing "wrong" with homosexuality. But I can certainly see how a machine that performs that particular function no longer performing that function could be clinically described as an impairment (in that particular sense). Again, that does not mean it is wrong in any shape way or form, or that it isn't serving a bunch of other valuable STO functions. But I think there are subtle energetic transfers and processes that take place in biological reproductive processes that we, as physical beings, are not wholly aware of or privy to. And this is the impairment they refer to (time/space energy transfers between male and female forms), the negation of which would probably apply to a whole lot of other subcategories and not just homosexuals (though experience has taught me that there are always new advantages formed when a so called "disadvantage" forms, meaning, there are probably great advantages to being homosexual over heterosexual in a lot of ways (yinyangs post makes some good points about that). Ra's language and description of this is detached and obtuse, which is not surprising considering their vibrational distance from 3rd density. They describe sensitive subjects like sexuality with the same clinical detachment you or I would describe the workings of a fax machine. Unfortunately, this can be off putting sometimes.    

Having said that, if something doesn't resonate with you, it isn't worth your valuable time or energy. From the tone of your last few posts on this forum, it sounds like a lot of what Ra says (not just about homosexuality) seems to bother you. And that's fine, not everybody has to find resonance with the same material. As spero said, no need to take it as gospel.

There are a great variety of channeled works out there, perhaps there is another source that you would find more agreeable. Best of luck to you.

Thanks. My little Me-me-me self requires that I respond to clarify that I do like the RA material. What is delightful about this forum is that a discussion on points of contention or concern is ALLOWED. I came here with a chip on my shoulder. Previously I had tried to share such concerns on several of the Facebook groups supposedly devoted to the "discussion" of the RA material. In one, my Op post here was banned outright. On another, people jumped on me 100% for questioning RA, saying that this reflects a very low consciousness on my part! So I soon realized that the Facebook groups were actually online churches of worship of RA, not discussion in the sense of dealing with discrepancies or concerns. I realized that the people there had no desire to understand what I have written now here. They got the general idea that I was disagreeing with RA, so they circled the wagons and began firing the classic New Age bullets of "You simply are not evolved and vibrating at the proper frequency of love and wisdom yet. You poor distorted misguided little slug!" or the classic "You are obviously a disinformation agent/Orion controlled pawn/4th dimensional negative entity". LOL Anyway, I discovered the forum and felt liberated to speak freely. I am NOT one of nature's little born-again-believers. I may enjoy information but I always remain politely skeptical at best.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like Chandlersdad's post:
Maggs, YinYang
08-04-2016, 06:04 PM,
#16
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-04-2016, 05:16 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote:  I'm gay too. Had several partners, but never a boyfriend. It's been like 10 years since I had sex though. Cartoons work for me, so I'm not missing much.

I'm easy with the right material. In fact I *melts* with it.

I assume you have not had sexual interaction with another man in 10 years because this is what seems natural to you now. I desperately hope it isn't a self-administered repression to please some mythical entity and/or RA. Frankly, I think LUST is highly underrated. ;-)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2016, 06:11 PM,
#17
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-04-2016, 05:51 PM)YinYang Wrote:  
Chandlersdad Wrote:I HAVE NOT READ THE RA Law of One BOOKS MYSELF.

I would really recommend you to read the material yourself, and not go through some third party. I have seen people skew the Ra material out of proportion. And someone who claims some exalted status is already a red flag, in my opinion. The only teacher of the Law of One I trust is L/L Research, who also happens to be the custodians of the material. Carla's Wanderer's Handbook is also great.

Thanks. I purchased the Wanderer's Handbook, the LIGHT/LINES - first 25 years book, and the Aaron/Q'uo Dialogues.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Chandlersdad's post:
YinYang
08-04-2016, 06:15 PM,
#18
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-04-2016, 06:04 PM)Chandlersdad Wrote:  
(08-04-2016, 05:16 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote:  I'm gay too. Had several partners, but never a boyfriend. It's been like 10 years since I had sex though. Cartoons work for me, so I'm not missing much.

I'm easy with the right material. In fact I *melts* with it.

I assume you have not had sexual interaction with another man in 10 years because this is what seems natural to you now. I desperately hope it isn't a self-administered repression to please some mythical entity and/or RA.  Frankly, I think LUST is highly underrated. ;-)

No, last time I had sex with someone, his groin stank, so not really been into it lately.

Developing ability to connect to Source
My Book: http://www.thewarlockname.com
My Forum: http://www.anthroshaman.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like IndigoGeminiWolf's post:
GentleReckoning, Glow
08-04-2016, 06:23 PM,
#19
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-04-2016, 06:15 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote:  
(08-04-2016, 06:04 PM)Chandlersdad Wrote:  
(08-04-2016, 05:16 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote:  I'm gay too. Had several partners, but never a boyfriend. It's been like 10 years since I had sex though. Cartoons work for me, so I'm not missing much.

I'm easy with the right material. In fact I *melts* with it.

I assume you have not had sexual interaction with another man in 10 years because this is what seems natural to you now. I desperately hope it isn't a self-administered repression to please some mythical entity and/or RA.  Frankly, I think LUST is highly underrated. ;-)

No, last time I had sex with someone, his groin stank, so not really been into it lately.

I usually spray down my potential partners with the garden hose beforehand. ;-)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 3 users Like Chandlersdad's post:
Billy, kycahi, truth4me
08-04-2016, 06:45 PM,
#20
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
My best friend who is gay won't do anything with me. He only lets me do to him. So that gets boring, and I haven't in awhile.
Maybe it's been less than 10 years. I don't know exactly, but it's been awhile.

Developing ability to connect to Source
My Book: http://www.thewarlockname.com
My Forum: http://www.anthroshaman.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes IndigoGeminiWolf's post:
Billy
08-04-2016, 07:09 PM,
#21
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-04-2016, 06:23 PM)Chandlersdad Wrote:  
(08-04-2016, 06:15 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote:  
(08-04-2016, 06:04 PM)Chandlersdad Wrote:  
(08-04-2016, 05:16 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote:  I'm gay too. Had several partners, but never a boyfriend. It's been like 10 years since I had sex though. Cartoons work for me, so I'm not missing much.

I'm easy with the right material. In fact I *melts* with it.

I assume you have not had sexual interaction with another man in 10 years because this is what seems natural to you now. I desperately hope it isn't a self-administered repression to please some mythical entity and/or RA.  Frankly, I think LUST is highly underrated. ;-)

No, last time I had sex with someone, his groin stank, so not really been into it lately.

I usually spray down my potential partners with the garden hose beforehand. ;-)

Perhaps I should have showered before engaging with my friend.

Developing ability to connect to Source
My Book: http://www.thewarlockname.com
My Forum: http://www.anthroshaman.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2016, 07:32 PM,
#22
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
I think the lead singer to Nickelback is hot.

Developing ability to connect to Source
My Book: http://www.thewarlockname.com
My Forum: http://www.anthroshaman.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes IndigoGeminiWolf's post:
tamaryn
08-04-2016, 10:47 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-05-2016, 02:21 AM by Bring4th_Plenum. Edit Reason: edited quote for brevity )
#23
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-04-2016, 05:31 PM)Chandlersdad Wrote:  I thank you and everyone who has responded to my anger/pain laden reaction to Session 31.  

...

I am going to continue with my learning process unless Scott's unrecognized foibles get to be too annoying. But to let off steam I include my annoyance at Scott within the extensive notes I take for each class on a laptop. :-)  If there is a way to attach a PDF file here, let me know, if you wish to check out the notes.

If i could make a suggestion, i would recommend reading it first then listening to the videos. Otherwise i think your impressions and 'resonator' could be tainted by the information from the videos. Sort of like watching the movie before you read the book. when you do that you picture the people in the movie when you read. just a thought. Also, I just finished the books for a second run through and had a very different experience. i got so much more of the material the second time around. things i could not believe i missed. best of luck to you and thank you for starting this discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 3 users Like Lodro's post:
Chandlersdad, Glow, YinYang
08-04-2016, 11:10 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-05-2016, 02:22 AM by Bring4th_Plenum. Edit Reason: edited quote for brevity )
#24
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-04-2016, 10:47 PM)Lodro Wrote:  If i could make a suggestion, i would recommend reading it first then listening to the videos. Otherwise i think your impressions and 'resonator' could be tainted by the information from the videos. Sort of like watching the movie before you read the book. when you do that you picture the people in the movie when you read. just a thought. Also, I just finished the books for a second run through and had a very different experience. i got so much more of the material the second time around. things i could not believe i missed. best of luck to you and thank you for starting this discussion.

Sorry late to the party but wanted to chime in as a gay man (and native earth or maybe mars person) that has been in a wonderful relationship for 20+ years with an amazing wanderer. I have only listened to a few of the videos. I've read the material twice now. I took it a bit hard when i read the parts about us in the material too. upon reflection the part about changing gender life after life resonated with me. Honestly i think i can even buy into the whole overpopulation thing. mother nature has her way of making things work out. The language in the books isn't what we would use in modern day and seems a bit harsh now, but i feel the same way when i watch something or read a book from 20+ years ago. Our attitudes have changed, thank goodness. In 20 more they will be even more different.

But it seems to me that RA speaks in a fashion that can be understood at the time, just like they did with the Egyptians. And as others have mentioned, i think working through an instrument is sort of like drawing a picture when you only have 3 or 4 colors of crayon. you have to work with what's in there. if you have blue and yellow you can sort of make green but not really. \
I still believe much of the Ra material, if not all (the stuff about bigfoot gives me pause). However, i do believe that I planned this life with the partner i have to learn the lesson of love as only he could teach it. I believe that he and i chose this life to avoid the karmic entanglement of children, and to allow us to focus on our own work. It's the perfect fit for us. We can still care for others without the constant distraction of children. I believe he came with me on this journey to teach me about love, for surely i didn't believe it existed before we met and told him as much. So for me, while it may be true that people are sometimes gay because mother nature is evening out the herd, or i've been a female too much  (i do have a little bit of a bias here that makes me think this is true.).

For me, what causes it isn't really the important part. if you go back far enough heterosexuality may have come about because snails figured out how to penetrate each other. who knows. But now that it happened there is the option when we incarnate to choose this lifestyle. now i know that is not the popular way to say that but i do believe it was one of my pre-incarnative choices. I believe i chose this and my husband.  I have so many biases even as a gay man that i suspect this was supposed to help me to have empathy for people who are discriminated against. I like to think it has worked. Suffering makes empaths of us all, especially when we see our suffering in others. I would also agree that as gay people we do learn some "life skills" as a result of living this way and learning these lessons  that can give us the propensity to go down dark paths; drugs, co dependency, just being plain mean. No different than lots of other types of people who struggle. it's all about how we react to it.

so all in all i agree with the kind other selves that have said take what resonates with you and try not to be to put out by other's ignorance. And if you don't like the version of things that Ra provided look within and there find what your heart tells you. that's where everyone keeps telling me the truth lies Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 3 users Like Lodro's post:
Brian_Sanchez, Chandlersdad, YinYang
08-05-2016, 01:00 AM,
#25
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-04-2016, 05:51 PM)YinYang Wrote:  
Chandlersdad Wrote:I HAVE NOT READ THE RA Law of One BOOKS MYSELF.

I would really recommend you to read the material yourself, and not go through some third party. I have seen people skew the Ra material out of proportion. And someone who claims some exalted status is already a red flag, in my opinion. The only teacher of the Law of One I trust is L/L Research, who also happens to be the custodians of the material. Carla's Wanderer's Handbook is also great.

I second YinYang's recommendation.

I can't stress enough the importance of thinking for yourself. Otherwise you will just be following someone else's subjective beliefs. 

I love and appreciate the work of L/L Research and all it's members I've encountered, but I respectively wouldn't blindly accept any teaching from them (or anyone in 3D for that matter). My philosophy on the matter is the only authority that exists on Law of One material is one's own discernment through directly reading the material. Some "reader's digest" version is going to fall especially far from the mark. 

The same applies to myself, of course. I may feel I have a much firmer grasp on the material than most, but I do not proclaim myself an authority.
-==-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 3 users Like Parsons's post:
Chandlersdad, kycahi, YinYang
08-05-2016, 01:55 AM,
#26
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-04-2016, 07:32 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote:  I think the lead singer to Nickelback is hot.

I think we are getting far afield of the subject of this thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2016, 02:06 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-05-2016, 02:12 AM by Chandlersdad.)
#27
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
I am going to read the original RA Law of One books. I actually started today while seated in a doctor's office waiting room. There were about 15 people waiting (it is a large clinic). One person asked me what I was reading. I confess it felt very strange to tell someone about channeling, Ra, The Law of One, chakras and densities in the middle of a crowd of mainstream (mostly elderly) people. Turns out that the guy who asked me just wanted to make a date, so I could have said it was a romance novel. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 5 users Like Chandlersdad's post:
Bring4th_Jade, kycahi, Nicholas, Parsons, YinYang
08-05-2016, 02:21 AM,
#28
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
Sorry

Developing ability to connect to Source
My Book: http://www.thewarlockname.com
My Forum: http://www.anthroshaman.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2016, 03:31 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-05-2016, 06:27 AM by YinYang.)
#29
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
Chandlersdad Wrote:"You are obviously a disinformation agent/Orion controlled pawn/4th dimensional negative entity"

Oooh I'm familiar with a group online who exhibits this type of behaviour! Let's just say the "new age" is no more immune to human folly and cult formation than any other philosophy.

Chandlerstad Wrote:Turns out that the guy who asked me just wanted to make a date, so I could have said it was a romance novel. Big Grin

Lol!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like YinYang's post:
Parsons, truth4me
08-05-2016, 11:56 AM,
#30
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-04-2016, 06:15 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote:  
(08-04-2016, 06:04 PM)Chandlersdad Wrote:  
(08-04-2016, 05:16 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote:  I'm gay too. Had several partners, but never a boyfriend. It's been like 10 years since I had sex though. Cartoons work for me, so I'm not missing much.

I'm easy with the right material. In fact I *melts* with it.

I assume you have not had sexual interaction with another man in 10 years because this is what seems natural to you now. I desperately hope it isn't a self-administered repression to please some mythical entity and/or RA.  Frankly, I think LUST is highly underrated. ;-)

No, last time I had sex with someone, his groin stank, so not really been into it lately.

Truly you are wise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes GentleReckoning's post:
truth4me




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)