Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
08-05-2016, 03:22 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-05-2016, 03:24 PM by BlatzAdict.)
#31
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
I completely disagree with what's being said here because overcrowded areas, does lead to a blending. Ra is simply saying every soul has a masculine and feminine side to it. If you only look at this in the context of being a gay human male, then sure, it's easy to mistake your physical skin suit for the androgynous nature of a soul that has attained a higher density. In the very first lesson step one is to look in the mirror and see the creator, to see a spark of the creator, I don't think this means to identify with your human skin suit which is only a temporary vehicle. most people are not even educated on what it is that defines the masculine vs the feminine side within them.

They are so used to seeing it as the PHYSICAL SEX ORGAN, the masculine side is to make space to clear, and the feminine is to enrich the space that has been made, to rest at the side of the road.


Every soul knows that they are trying to balance the feminine and masculine within themselves, which is why wanderers incarnate as androgynous looking. In the case of the homosexual, the soul in it's overconfidence ensouls a physical body of the opposite sex, thinking it will be able to better balance their divine feminine and masculine sides of their soul.

This society however, and this time period influences everyone, not just gays, to be as self entitled as any other seemingly disparaged group. I find that there are certain "mannerisms in homosexual culture that enforce someone to be led around by their emotion and focus on the fact that they have been infringed rather than discerning the catalyst that they have been provided with.

If you know you prefer men, but in your learning you go incarnate in a skin suit to be a male, i think it's your own accepted pre incarnative choice. I sense that you are looking at this from the perspective of a human, but that's not what you are at the core. You are a soul that exhibits both male and female qualities just like everyone else, in varying proportions, like you have the left and right lobe of your brain.

there's nothing wrong with distortion, we wouldn't all be here if there were no distortion, distortion is what created everything that is. however it's those distortions that created everything that is, only provide a set amount of lessons. we would cease to be different individual people if there was no distortion.

the universe would not be in a state of becoming if distortion were to cease.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes BlatzAdict's post:
WanderingOZ
08-05-2016, 04:41 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-05-2016, 05:13 PM by Chandlersdad.)
#32
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-05-2016, 03:22 PM)BlatzAdict Wrote:  I completely disagree with what's being said here because overcrowded areas, does lead to a blending.   Ra is simply saying every soul has a masculine and feminine side to it. If you only look at this in the context of being a gay human male, then sure, it's easy to mistake your physical skin suit for the androgynous nature of a soul that has attained a higher density. In the very first lesson step one is to look in the mirror and see the creator, to see a spark of the creator, I don't think this means to identify with your human skin suit which is only a temporary vehicle. most people are not even educated on what it is that defines the masculine vs the feminine side within them.

They are so used to seeing it as the PHYSICAL SEX ORGAN, the masculine side is to make space to clear, and the feminine is to enrich the space that has been made, to rest at the side of the road.


Every soul knows that they are trying to balance the feminine and masculine within themselves, which is why wanderers incarnate as androgynous looking. In the case of the homosexual, the soul in it's overconfidence ensouls a physical body of the opposite sex, thinking it will be able to better balance their divine feminine and masculine sides of their soul.

This society however, and this time period influences everyone, not just gays, to be as self entitled as any other seemingly disparaged group.  I find that there are certain "mannerisms in homosexual culture that enforce someone to be led around by their emotion and focus on the fact that they have been infringed rather than discerning the catalyst that they have been provided with.

If you know you prefer men, but in your learning you go incarnate in a skin suit to be a male, i think it's your own accepted pre incarnative choice. I sense that you are looking at this from the perspective of a human, but that's not what you are at the core. You are a soul that exhibits both male and female qualities just like everyone else, in varying proportions, like you have the left and right lobe of your brain.

there's nothing wrong with distortion, we wouldn't all be here if there were no distortion, distortion is what created everything that is. however it's those distortions that created everything that is, only provide a set amount of lessons. we would cease to be different individual people if there was no distortion.

the universe would not be in a state of becoming if distortion were to cease.
Actually, most of the gay men I know use being gay as a leverage towards personal growth. Perhaps that is just the kind of person I attract or am attracted to. I have always assumed that I was gay as a catalyst to learn about discrimination and a powerful leverage for gaining liberation from the prevailing society myths and dogma's. I am sure this is somewhat why gay men became the shamans in traditional American Indian societies. They were seen as living somewhat outside the normal life plan to grow up, mate, breed children, grow old, and die of most people, all within a social construct handed to them and accepted as reality.

However, I am sure most gay men can multi-task, so to speak. While I can accept social bigotry as a catalyst, this does NOT mean I have to accept a society that treats people this way. Not only the individual evolves but hopefully also the society. People who also realize that within a 3D context they have been "infringed" certainly have every moral and ethical right to bring this injustice to the attention of the rather slow moving lazy society, which otherwise would never bother to question its treatment of minorities. A gay man can accept his miserable treatment as catalyst, while still seeking to change such treatment, especially for the young. As I said before, statistically 50% of all teenage suicides are gay. This is unacceptable. How could anyone with even a modicum of 4th Density activation sit back and do nothing to stop the bigotry behind many of these suicides?

Finally, I find your remark that overcrowding leads to blending unbelievable in terms of leading to a homosexual orientation. Over crowding as in 200 people squashed together in a tenement in Bombay? Perhaps there is a blending. But I live in one of the USA's mega-metropolitan areas (Los Angeles). To claim that such an urban center causes aura infringement that in some RAJESTIC MAGICAL WAY causes men to be gay is the height of delusion. The sad thing is that for the true RA "believer", Ra could have claimed that disco music would turn a man gay AND such believers would defend such a claim on this forum. There is no place in my life for apologists of any dogma.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2016, 05:17 PM,
#33
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
TO EVERYONE,

This Thread will come and go, sinking into the Akashic Records of this forum. Since I know I am a student and that I probably missed the significance of what you have said to me, I just downloaded the entire thread to a file on my personal hard drive. That way, I can reread your remarks as I progress. I suspect my level of understanding will increase. I just wanted you to know you did not respond in vain. Your words are being saved in my personal files for looking at again at appropriate intervals. If you wish to share more, please do so because I will be checking for more love/wisdom posts to preserve.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 3 users Like Chandlersdad's post:
Bring4th_Jade, Verum Occultum, YinYang
08-05-2016, 05:30 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-05-2016, 06:01 PM by Chandlersdad.)
#34
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-05-2016, 02:21 AM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote:  Sorry

Do not feel sorry. You were charming and I enjoyed every one of your posts! I just didn't want the entire thread to become about general gay topics.

I will always refer to this thread as the STINKY GROIN thread!  Smile Heart Heart Heart Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 3 users Like Chandlersdad's post:
Bring4th_Jade, kycahi, YinYang
08-05-2016, 05:40 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-05-2016, 05:41 PM by YinYang.)
#35
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
The world likes to believe that it is living in a period of civilization, but the truth is that civilization has not yet really begun on earth. Only its beginning stages are evident. If the word “civilization” has any meaning at all, it must mean brotherhood and sisterhood, and without that relationship it can hardly be called civilization, it is still only animality. Any failure to love another as ourselves is the measure of our lack of civilization; so it cannot be said that civilization has come to earth until there is loving of another as ourselves.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 4 users Like YinYang's post:
anagogy, Chandlersdad, Glow, Verum Occultum
08-05-2016, 06:00 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-05-2016, 06:05 PM by Chandlersdad.)
#36
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-05-2016, 05:40 PM)YinYang Wrote:  The world likes to believe that it is living in a period of civilization, but the truth is that civilization has not yet really begun on earth. Only its beginning stages are evident. If the word “civilization” has any meaning at all, it must mean brotherhood and sisterhood, and without that relationship it can hardly be called civilization, it is still only animality. Any failure to love another as ourselves is the measure of our lack of civilization; so it cannot be said that civilization has come to earth until there is loving of another as ourselves.

Yes, and I do not believe this is possible on a 3 D planet, since the human population is 3 D specifically to deal with such issues. When they learn them, they move on to 4 D somewhere else (except in a few cases, like RA's famous 150 Elder Race members who choose to stay - poor sods!).

If we had the kind of civilization you describe, this would no longer be a 3rd Density planet. Until the planet itself makes that transition to 4 D, anyone who attains that level leaves. At least that is my current understanding. Perhaps that is why Jesus said there would always be the poor (in spirit and general consciousness) on the 3 D planet Earth. Sad

Note: If I am wrong in my understanding, let me know. I just thought that utopia on 3 D Earth was not an option based on who comes here. We still have 2 groups of immigrants dumped here. One group blew up their planet. The other group made their planet unlivable by blowing off the atmosphere. THIS is pretty hard core negative, if not stupid!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2016, 06:38 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-05-2016, 07:00 PM by YinYang.)
#37
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
Well, Ra had much to say about the evolutionary level of Earthlings, we unfortunately still have a way to go:

Quote:Questioner: Then at present it would seem that our life span is much too short for those who are new to third-density lessons. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. Those entities which have, in some way, learned/taught themselves the appropriate distortions for rapid growth can now work within the confines of the shorter life span. However, the greater preponderance of your entities find themselves in what may be considered a perpetual childhood.

Quote:Questioner: At this time in our cycle, near the end, what percentage of the entities, approximately, incarnating are making their own choices?

Ra: I am Ra. The approximate percentage is five four, fifty-four [54] percent.

So practically half of earthlings are still on automatic incarnation, before they have reached the level when they plan their incarnations.

Quote:Ra: The fourth density is, as we have said, as regularized in its approach as the striking of a clock upon the hour. The space/time of your solar system has enabled this planetary sphere to spiral into space/time of a different vibrational configuration. This causes the planetary sphere to be able to be molded by these new distortions. However, the thought-forms of your people during this transition period are such that the mind/body/spirit complexes of both individual and societies are scattered throughout the spectrum instead of becoming able to grasp the needle, shall we say, and point the compass in one direction.

Thus, the entry into the vibration of love, sometimes called by your people the vibration of understanding, is not effective with the present societal complex. Thus, the harvest shall be such that many will repeat the third-density cycle. The energies of your Wanderers, your teachers, and your adepts at this time are all bent upon increasing the harvest. However, there are few to harvest.

And then in addition to that, this is a mixed harvest, so conflict, disharmony and discord is how it will be, until 4D arrives.

These bits I've shared is a bit discouraging, so I just need to mention that the Ra material overall is very uplifting, as you'll see when you read it. For one thing, it gave me a sense of calm about all that's happening, I can't quite imagine trying to make sense of world events without this source.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes YinYang's post:
Chandlersdad
08-05-2016, 07:02 PM,
#38
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-05-2016, 06:38 PM)YinYang Wrote:  Well, Ra had much to say about the evolutionary level of Earthlings, we unfortunately still have a way to go:


Quote:Questioner: Then at present it would seem that our life span is much too short for those who are new to third-density lessons. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. Those entities which have, in some way, learned/taught themselves the appropriate distortions for rapid growth can now work within the confines of the shorter life span. However, the greater preponderance of your entities find themselves in what may be considered a perpetual childhood.

Quote:Questioner: At this time in our cycle, near the end, what percentage of the entities, approximately, incarnating are making their own choices?

Ra: I am Ra. The approximate percentage is five four, fifty-four [54] percent.

So practically half of earthlings are still on automatic incarnation, before they have reached the level when they plan their incarnations.


Quote:Ra: The fourth density is, as we have said, as regularized in its approach as the striking of a clock upon the hour. The space/time of your solar system has enabled this planetary sphere to spiral into space/time of a different vibrational configuration. This causes the planetary sphere to be able to be molded by these new distortions. However, the thought-forms of your people during this transition period are such that the mind/body/spirit complexes of both individual and societies are scattered throughout the spectrum instead of becoming able to grasp the needle, shall we say, and point the compass in one direction.

Thus, the entry into the vibration of love, sometimes called by your people the vibration of understanding, is not effective with the present societal complex. Thus, the harvest shall be such that many will repeat the third-density cycle. The energies of your Wanderers, your teachers, and your adepts at this time are all bent upon increasing the harvest. However, there are few to harvest.

And then in addition to that, this is a mixed harvest, so conflict, disharmony and discord is how it will be, until 4D arrives.

This bit is a bit gloomy, so I just need to mention that the Ra material overall is very uplifting, as you'll see when you read it. For one thing, it gave me a sense of calm about all that's happening, I can't quite imagine trying to make sense of world events without this source.

I find that RA has given me more tolerance for intolerant people, more patience with the huge population of animalistic humans on the planet. Without RA, I tend to see all humans as being on the same level. Therefore, I was constantly angry and frustrated by how stupid they could be (if I might, an example would be the hordes of Americans that find that Trump exemplifies everything they hold dear while I find him horrifying). I see that behind the physical bodies of 7 billion people are many different origins and levels within 3 D. No one can jumps start a Trump supporter and take him from 3.2 to 3.7 just by shouting at him. All you can do is let him work it out on his own over eons of time, since he is not even trying right now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like Chandlersdad's post:
Glow, YinYang
08-05-2016, 07:07 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-05-2016, 07:10 PM by Chandlersdad.)
#39
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

This may be a quite minor point, but it interests me. As someone who obviously knows the RA Law of One material very well, what infuriated you about Scott Mandelker's presentation of the material? This would help my discernment for those who purport to represent the LOO Material. This also includes David Wilcock, who I seem to find leaves me with a desire to take a shower (with plenty of soap) after listening/watching him. That is obviously purely subjective and I have not yet pinned it down. After listening to Scott, at times I want to strangle him. At other times I want to throw a cream pie in his face a la Three Stooges. I think with Scott it is a sense of feeling debased by his condescension. Of course, THIS is also subjective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like Chandlersdad's post:
kycahi, YinYang
08-05-2016, 07:34 PM,
#40
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-04-2016, 05:14 PM)Chandlersdad Wrote:  
(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.
See I always thought Ra when speaking of bisexual reproduction being sto was actually talking about raising of children(other selves)

I don't think he was implying we could not be sto with our spouse. Green Ray is always sto.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2016, 07:38 PM,
#41
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-04-2016, 05:48 PM)Chandlersdad Wrote:  
(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.
YouTube is very much about getting attention, people attracted to being gurus are not generally the source to seek out. You will find people here are not trying to push any particular agenda but work through trying to find the best understanding.

This forum would be a much more useful accurate learning space.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 4 users Like Glow's post:
BlatzAdict, Chandlersdad, kycahi, YinYang
08-05-2016, 08:16 PM,
#42
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-05-2016, 07:34 PM)Glow Wrote:  
(08-04-2016, 05:14 PM)Chandlersdad Wrote:  
(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.
See I always thought Ra when speaking of bisexual reproduction being sto was actually talking about raising of children(other selves)

I don't think he was implying we could not be sto with our spouse. Green Ray is always sto.

Without children (due to my sexual impairment) I find it easier to serve many many others vs people my age with their children are very "family selfish" - in my observation.

I don't think Ra was at all saying the "STO awakening" by straight sex is due to children.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Manjushri's post:
YinYang
08-05-2016, 08:49 PM,
#43
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-05-2016, 08:16 PM)Manjushri Wrote:  
(08-05-2016, 07:34 PM)Glow Wrote:  
(08-04-2016, 05:14 PM)Chandlersdad Wrote:  
(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.
See I always thought  Ra when speaking of bisexual reproduction being sto was actually talking about raising of children(other selves)

I don't think he was implying we could not be sto with our spouse. Green Ray is always sto.

Without children (due to my sexual impairment) I find it easier to serve many many others vs people my age with their children are very "family selfish" - in my observation.

I don't think Ra was at all saying the "STO awakening" by straight sex is due to children.
I don't have children either. I don't think it was an either /or situation but that raising children is a sto opportunity for many. I will look for the quote because I know I wasn't pulling it out of thin air.
Myself choosing to not have kids for many unselfish reasons it would have had to be quite obvious for me to read it that way. There are many people who can only give love and care to their biological offspring so it actually makes sense as an opportunity to awaken sto for some.

I will go look.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Glow's post:
YinYang
08-05-2016, 09:07 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-05-2016, 09:10 PM by Glow.)
#44
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-05-2016, 08:49 PM)Glow Wrote:  
(08-05-2016, 08:16 PM)Manjushri Wrote:  
(08-05-2016, 07:34 PM)Glow Wrote:  
(08-04-2016, 05:14 PM)Chandlersdad Wrote:  
(08-04-2016, 04:23 PM)Manjushri Wrote:  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.
See I always thought  Ra when speaking of bisexual reproduction being sto was actually talking about raising of children(other selves)

I don't think he was implying we could not be sto with our spouse. Green Ray is always sto.

Without children (due to my sexual impairment) I find it easier to serve many many others vs people my age with their children are very "family selfish" - in my observation.

I don't think Ra was at all saying the "STO awakening" by straight sex is due to children.
I don't have children either. I don't think it was an either /or situation but that raising children is a sto opportunity for many. I will look for the quote because I know I wasn't pulling it out of thin air.
Myself choosing to not have kids for many unselfish reasons it would have had to be quite obvious for me to read it that way. There are many people who can only give love and care to their biological offspring so it actually makes sense as an opportunity to awaken sto for some.

I will go look.
There might be more but I found this and it explains what I was saying.

31.4 Questioner: Can you expand somewhat on the concept that this action not only allows the Creator to know Itself better but also creates, in our density, an offspring or makes available the pathway for another entity to enter the density?
Ra: I am Ra. As we have previously said, the sexual energy transfers include the red-ray transfer which is random and which is a function of the second-density attempt to grow, to survive, shall we say. This is a proper function of the sexual interaction. The offspring, as you call the incarnated entity which takes on the mind/body complex opportunity offered by this random act or event called the fertilization of egg by seed, causes an entity to have the opportunity to then enter this density as an incarnate entity.

This gives the two who were engaged in this bisexual reproductive energy transfer the potential for great service in this area of the nurturing of the small-experienced entity as it gains in experience.

It shall be of interest at this point to note that there is always the possibility of using these opportunities to polarize towards the negative, and this has been aided by the gradual building up over many thousands of your years of social complex distortions which create a tendency towards confusion, shall we say, or baffling of the service-to-others aspect of this energy transfer and subsequent opportunities for service to other-selves.

it is an opportunity for sto polarization and I'm sure we have all seen parents who are incredibly sts but little Jimmy/Jane awakens a new part of their heart that is sto.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Glow's post:
YinYang
08-05-2016, 09:18 PM,
#45
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
I have listened to many of Scott's talks and I don't find him annoying at all. To the contrary I like him very much. But I can understand your feeling. Humans are not flawless, and the beauty of the soul is often hard to see beneath the actions and thoughts of another that arouse some disappointment in us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2016, 12:45 AM,
#46
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-05-2016, 09:18 PM)Verum Occultum Wrote:  I have listened to many of Scott's talks and I don't find him annoying at all. To the contrary I like him very much. But I can understand your feeling. Humans are not flawless, and the beauty of the soul is often hard to see beneath the actions and thoughts of another that arouse some disappointment in us.

So his referring to a gay man as a FAG in Session 31 did not bother you at all? His lecture calling gay people who espouse GAY PRIDE as shallow didn't bother you at all? I will stop there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2016, 01:08 AM,
#47
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-05-2016, 07:07 PM)Chandlersdad Wrote:  
(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

This may be a quite minor point, but it interests me. As someone who obviously knows the RA Law of One material very well, what  infuriated you about Scott Mandelker's presentation of the material? This would help my discernment for those who purport to represent the LOO Material. This also includes David Wilcock, who I seem to find leaves me with a desire to take a shower (with plenty of soap) after listening/watching him. That is obviously purely subjective and I have not yet pinned it down.  After listening to Scott, at times I want to strangle him. At other times I want to throw a cream pie in his face a la Three Stooges. I think with Scott it is a sense of feeling debased by his condescension. Of course, THIS is also subjective.

I don't mind sharing, I think I have before. When I entered my second layer of studying the archetypes, I went through a phase where I was avidly consuming everything else that had been written by others about the tarot per Ra's interpretations. Once I hit the limit of what I had to consume, I sought out Scott Mandelker because I knew he was regarded as proficient. I don't usually listen to/watch videos very often, I prefer to consume by reading. Anyway, I found his video discussing the Matrix of the Body - the Judgement card. It was the first card I felt was still a riddle to me. He started describing the symbolism on the card, but it seemed like it was the first time he'd ever thought about it - and mind you, it's one of the most symbolically complex cards, and Ra says the first step to learning the tarot is deciding upon a meaning for each of the symbols. Scott was basically like "Hmm, I think that looks like a ____, it might be a ____..." which, is what infuriated me, because he hadn't completed step one before he began lecturing on the tarot. I also at one point attempted to listen to his take on the Transformation of the Mind, and he made such a rudimentary mistake (in fact, the same one that David makes in his analysis) - that the imp is punishing the left hand path. Ra very specifically says that the imp is protecting the left hand path. So Scott spends 10 minutes talking about the imp getting retaliation on the left hand transformation of the mind, and then finally reads to the end of the session aloud and realizes that he had been wrong and just sort of quickly corrects himself. I personally think one should at least read the session through before they turn on their mic and begin a lecture...

My personal feeling from the ~2 hours or so I've listened to him, is that he is a great lecturer. But, as far as being able to interpret what Ra is saying "between the lines", I'm not sure he's quite there yet.

As for David Wilcock, you will find PLENTY of threads here discussing him in depth. There's even a current one discussing him and Corey Goode.

Anyway. Discernment is a good thing. I don't want anyone to substitute my thoughts for theirs. I just hold those who claim very publicly to be teachers of the Law of One to a much higher standard, which probably isn't fair. My frustration was that Scott couldn't teach me anything I didn't know on the specific subject I sought him for, which also isn't fair. I guess this is the Ra quote that comes to mind:

Quote:101.8 Questioner: Thank you. Could Ra give information on any way that we could give information to Greta Woodrew as to how to alleviate her present condition of swelling?

Ra: I am Ra. We may only suggest that the honor of propinquity to light carries with it the Law of Responsibility. The duty to refrain from contumely, discord, and all things which when unresolved within make way for workings, lies before the instrument of which you speak. This entity may, if it is desired by the scribe, share our comments upon the working of the latter entity.

The entity which is given constant and unremitting approval by those surrounding it suffers from the loss of the mirroring effect of those which reflect truthfully rather than unquestioningly. This is not a suggestion to reinstate judgment but merely a suggestion for all those supporting instruments; that is, support, be harmonious, share in love, joy, and thanksgiving, but find love within truth, for each instrument benefits from this support more than from the total admiration which overcomes discrimination.

If Scott calls homosexuals fags at some point during his lecture, this is hate speech (contumely). I'm really not trying to pass judgement, but that actually bothers me more than him just being unprepared for a presentation. If he's using the Law of One to perpetrate superiority over homosexuals, he's mistaken in the meaning behind the text.
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 5 users Like Bring4th_Jade's post:
Brian_Sanchez, Chandlersdad, Glow, Verum Occultum, YinYang
08-06-2016, 04:10 AM,
#48
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
What an interesting discussion. My take on other's beliefs is to respect their free will. Of course, I wouldn't support someone's hate speech. I would try to show them where the truth is in the matter as where can one find love within arrogance? However, most people who see the world in such a manner are rather stubborn, thus I would simply tolerate their beliefs to respect their free will. We can only help others learn when they are ready to see the world in a new light.

I would agree with the OP on our pre-incarnate choices. Everything happens for a reason even if we are blind to the reasoning. Thus, as the spirit of forgetfulness overcomes us as we enter into an incarnation. We must trust ourselves in who we are and what we do, working towards the best path available (the truth of who we are).
Thus, we should be honest with ourselves. What others' say may have no sway, since at the end of the day; we are our own judge and jury.

Just take whatever resonates with you. Everything else is just there to resonate with someone else. Earth has given us the opportunity to mix up our beliefs with the infinite amount of different beliefs out there. Thus, even if you're gay, that's just one part of who you are. There will still be STO gays and STS gays. The same is true with all human beings. It is your choice on how you wish to define yourself. Your actions are what others see and it is within them that the truth is made known.

Goodluck on your journey!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like Brian_Sanchez's post:
Verum Occultum, YinYang
08-06-2016, 09:27 AM,
#49
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-06-2016, 12:45 AM)Chandlersdad Wrote:  So his referring to a gay man as a FAG in Session 31 did not bother you at all?  His lecture calling gay people who espouse GAY PRIDE as shallow didn't bother you at all? I will stop there.

I have listened to many of his talks, but not all of them. At least presently I don't remember what you have described.

To a great extent other-selves' remarks don't bother me anymore, but of course it's not nice if he had the intention of attacking gay people, or any being(s) personally.

I checked the discussion of homosexuality in Scott's youtube session 31 (2). I didn't hear him refer to gay people as fags, but I might've missed that. I think what you are describing is more of a point of view that on Scott's part is not too well-informed on one hand, but he said that some people identify themselves with sexual orientation solely, which is in his opinion shallow, and he didn't take into account the larger picture of what gay pride represents. It wasn't a vicious attack though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Verum Occultum's post:
Chandlersdad
08-06-2016, 11:26 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-06-2016, 11:30 AM by BlatzAdict.)
#50
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
regardless of whether scott has called gays fags or not, perhaps it was taken out of context. at some point one needs to realize:

"Ra: I am Ra. Let us give the example of the man who sees all the poker hands. He then knows the game. It is but child’s play to gamble, for it is no risk. The other hands are known. The possibilities are known and the hand will be played correctly but with no interest.
In time/space and in the true-color green density, the hands of all are open to the eye. The thoughts, the feelings, the troubles, all these may be seen. There is no deception and no desire for deception. Thus much may be accomplished in harmony but the mind/body/spirit gains little polarity from this interaction.
Let us re-examine this metaphor and multiply it into the longest poker game you can imagine, a lifetime. The cards are love, dislike, limitation, unhappiness, pleasure, etc. They are dealt and re-dealt and re-dealt continuously. You may, during this incarnation begin — and we stress begin — to know your own cards. You may begin to find the love within you. You may begin to balance your pleasure, your limitations, etc. However, your only indication of other-selves’ cards is to look into the eyes.
You cannot remember your hand, their hands, perhaps even the rules of this game. This game can only be won by those who lose their cards in the melting influence of love; can only be won by those who lay their pleasures, their limitations, their all upon the table face up and say inwardly: “All, all of you players, each other-self, whatever your hand, I love you.” This is the game: to know, to accept, to forgive, to balance, and to open the self in love. This cannot be done without the forgetting, for it would carry no weight in the life of the mind/body/spirit beingness totality."


In looking to the heart of the self, we should not be looking to judge others, and learn to separate others from their actions. Scott in his videos tries to be as real as possible without showing any sort of front, which ends up with his videos becoming sort of stream of consciousness. Pointing out one thing he did, is like the little kid that wants to tell his mom what the bully did. In truth the threat may be illusory as first Scott doesn't intend to single out homosexuals, second he is also a spark of the one infinite creator doing his best to learn about, and teach love.

Is it fair then to say that one person is idiotic, or malicious? I think all it does is serve to give your power away by simply acknowledgement of how society views gays, it's ultimately a blockage of the orange chakra. The sense of self. god hood, knowing that you are a spark of awareness before you are a human body, and perceptibly a gay male. If someone goes and says gays are stupid, getting mad over that is like saying, you believe on some level that what they are saying is even valid. It's a form of giving consent to what it is that you don't even want to see in the world. Why even give your consent?

You are unique and needed at this time, and it's easy to focus on the one wrong thing someone does instead of looking at their totality of expression. There are tons of worse people out there who go out of their way to shame others. Just because he says something once, I don't think it to be a marker for anyone's character, other than the offer to mirror what it is about yourself you may have a problem with facing. So what if someone says you are invalid, do you believe you are invalid because someone else believes it to be so? That doesn't make you any less valid or any more, because it has nothing to do with who you are and everything to do with what would be perhaps Scott's own personal block with regard to his personal journey.

Everyone is constantly recreating the world with the people they meet in their memories. No matter how well you think you know someone it is always your perception of that person in your own thinking. In that sense you're not really making any social contact with other selves, and still hitting against your own personal blockages, to create aggressors who are not there. True interaction does not occur with other selves, until you learn to start looking at the world with fresh eyes. If you are only bogged down by illusions of people trying to spite you, then you give your power away by agreeing to their opinion, instead of standing in your own light, which would include the love and understanding of what you are, which is nowhere below or above anyone else. We are all equal co creators.

Let's take a look at a more grounded description of what blending is.. You have metrosexuals, guys who are straight who get manicures, pedicures, and go out of their way to look presentable and trendy. Todays society does not realize this is a divine feminine quality, to simply take care of oneself.

Okay, that is a blending, why because societally this was shunned and looked down upon earlier in time by the average male. You have a blending of preference occuring... Look how it is trendy to wear unisex clothing, just 20 years ago this was not the case and it was shunned upon.

This is blending. does it necessarily make someone gay or not? no, again that has to do with the preference of the soul itself... if you are a soul and you like guys then you are going to continue liking guys, simiilarly if you are a soul and you like girls then you will continue to like girls. the fact that you picked a skin suit that was either male or female, is of no consequence since it is your soul that animates your skin suit. EVERYTHING from your dreams, desires, to your emotional blocks, are all animated and perpetuated by your spark of awareness or spark of the one infinite creator.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 3 users Like BlatzAdict's post:
Billy, Brian_Sanchez, Verum Occultum
08-06-2016, 11:36 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-06-2016, 12:10 PM by YinYang.)
#51
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
Well, I've just listened to the Youtube clip in question, and I have to concur with Chandlersdad, he is definitely condescending towards homosexuals. Then he confidently proclaims they don't have the need to make a family... wha?? Says who? So according to him a gay couple isn't a family, kids or no kids, it's irrelevant. Then he says a gay man thinks "I'm a girl" and a lesbian woman thinks "I'm a guy"! I have yet to meet a gay man who thinks of himself as a girl or a gay woman thinks of herself as a guy, quite the contrary, they are very happy with their own gender. They just happen to be attracted to their own gender. He's confusing transgenderism with homosexuality.

Then he goes on to say "according to Ra, this is by no means a moral or punishable sin"... as if anything according to Ra is a moral or punishable sin. There is no such thing as "punishable sin" in the material. There is no right or wrong.

Then he says "there are many angry gay people in the world, who identify with being gay, which is shallow"... saying "I'm not proud to be white..." ~chuckle-chuckle~ With such smugness... He carries on to say they are very angry, and have deep pain and self-hatred... and says "do you really like yourself? Do you really like yourself? Are you really well?"

Then he says "sooory, that's just what Ra says..."

I switched it off, I've heard enough.

Just to touch on the family thing, I know two gay couples who are awesome parents to their kids. In fact, they did a study a while back to see how kids raised by gay couples compare against their peers, and interestingly enough they do better than their peers.

Children Of Gay Parents Are Happier And Healthier Than Their Peers, New Study Finds

Children of lesbian parents do better than their peers
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like YinYang's post:
Chandlersdad, kycahi
08-06-2016, 12:18 PM,
#52
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
[quote='Manjushri' pid='210563' dateline='1470442569']
[quote='Glow' pid='210561' dateline='1470440069']
[quote='Chandlersdad' pid='210463' dateline='1470345266']
[quote='Manjushri' pid='210461' dateline='1470342182']
[quote]


Without children (due to my sexual impairment) I find it easier to serve many many others vs people my age with their children are very "family selfish" - in my observation.

I don't think Ra was at all saying the "STO awakening" by straight sex is due to children.
[/quote]
On a planet where 40,000 children die every single day from starvation, I do NOT consider being gay (and not producing yet more mouths to feed on an exhausted planet) an "impairment".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2016, 12:25 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-06-2016, 12:28 PM by Chandlersdad.)
#53
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-06-2016, 11:36 AM)YinYang Wrote:  Well, I've just listened to the Youtube clip in question, and I have to concur with Chandlersdad, he is definitely condescending towards homosexuals. Then he confidently proclaims they don't have the need to make a family... wha?? Says who? So according to him a gay couple isn't a family, kids or no kids, it's irrelevant. Then he says a gay man thinks "I'm a girl" and a lesbian woman thinks "I'm a guy"! I have yet to meet a gay man who thinks of himself as a girl or a gay woman thinks of herself as a guy, quite the contrary, they are very happy with their own gender. They just happen to be attracted to their own gender. He's confusing transgenderism with homosexuality.

Then he goes on to say "according to Ra, this is by no means a moral or punishable sin"... as if anything according to Ra is a moral or punishable sin. There is no such thing as "punishable sin" in the material. There is no right or wrong.

Then he says "there are many angry gay people in the world, who identify with being gay, which is shallow"... saying "I'm not proud to be white..." ~chuckle-chuckle~ With such smugness... He carries on to say they are very angry, and have deep pain and self-hatred... and says "do you really like yourself? Do you really like yourself? Are you really well?"

Then he says "sooory, that's just what Ra says..."

I switched it off, I've heard enough.

Just to touch on the family thing, I know two gay couples who are awesome parents to their kids. In fact, they did a study a while back to see how kids raised by gay couples compare against their peers, and interestingly enough they do better than their peers.

Children Of Gay Parents Are Happier And Healthier Than Their Peers, New Study Finds

Children of lesbian parents do better than their peers

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO ACTUALLY LISTEN TO THE YOUTUBE SESSION 31 BY SCOTT MANDELKER. Sincerely, I just want to say thank you. I was beginning to wonder if there was no common sense here at all. Are the people here so RAginated, RAginized, bowing to the RAjestic majesty that they have lost all common sense? All an aware modern gay person has to do is actually LISTEN to him and his prejudice, arrogance and condescension oozes out of the YOUTUBE video like a leaky toilet.

For the record, my husband and I raised his daughter. When we met, he had a 6 year old daughter and was going through divorce. He got custody. So 2 gay men in the heart of the Castro District of San Francisco raised a daughter. I made many mistakes that I regret (my parents were very harsh and I tended to be this way at first). But she is a wonderful person with 3 children of her own now.

Scott Mandelker is a great teacher. However, he is blind to the immense size of his EGO. Alas, he claims that the ego does not really exist. I honestly do not see how a man who claims to be of such a high consciousness can be so totally blind to his own arrogance and condescension. It stands in glaring contradiction to all his intellectualism of 4th/5th ckakra LOVE and WISDOM. But how many people on our 3 D planet actually practice what they preach?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like Chandlersdad's post:
HillOrStram, YinYang
08-06-2016, 12:43 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-06-2016, 12:46 PM by Chandlersdad.)
#54
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-06-2016, 11:26 AM)BlatzAdict Wrote:  regardless of whether scott has called gays fags or not, perhaps it was taken out of context. at some point one needs to realize:

"Ra: I am Ra. Let us give the example of the man who sees all the poker hands. He then knows the game. It is but child’s play to gamble, for it is no risk. The other hands are known. The possibilities are known and the hand will be played correctly but with no interest.
In time/space and in the true-color green density, the hands of all are open to the eye. The thoughts, the feelings, the troubles, all these may be seen. There is no deception and no desire for deception. Thus much may be accomplished in harmony but the mind/body/spirit gains little polarity from this interaction.
Let us re-examine this metaphor and multiply it into the longest poker game you can imagine, a lifetime. The cards are love, dislike, limitation, unhappiness, pleasure, etc. They are dealt and re-dealt and re-dealt continuously. You may, during this incarnation begin — and we stress begin — to know your own cards. You may begin to find the love within you. You may begin to balance your pleasure, your limitations, etc. However, your only indication of other-selves’ cards is to look into the eyes.
You cannot remember your hand, their hands, perhaps even the rules of this game. This game can only be won by those who lose their cards in the melting influence of love; can only be won by those who lay their pleasures, their limitations, their all upon the table face up and say inwardly: “All, all of you players, each other-self, whatever your hand, I love you.” This is the game: to know, to accept, to forgive, to balance, and to open the self in love. This cannot be done without the forgetting, for it would carry no weight in the life of the mind/body/spirit beingness totality."


In looking to the heart of the self, we should not be looking to judge others, and learn to separate others from their actions. Scott in his videos tries to be as real as possible without showing any sort of front, which ends up with his videos becoming sort of stream of consciousness. Pointing out one thing he did, is like the little kid that wants to tell his mom what the bully did. In truth the threat may be illusory as first Scott doesn't intend to single out homosexuals, second he is also a spark of the one infinite creator doing his best to learn about, and teach love.

Is it fair then to say that one person is idiotic, or malicious? I think all it does is serve to give your power away by simply acknowledgement of how society views gays, it's ultimately a blockage of the orange chakra. The sense of self. god hood, knowing that you are a spark of awareness before you are a human body, and perceptibly a gay male. If someone goes and says gays are stupid, getting mad over that is like saying, you believe on some level that what they are saying is even valid. It's a form of giving consent to what it is that you don't even want to see in the world. Why even give your consent?

You are unique and needed at this time, and it's easy to focus on the one wrong thing someone does instead of looking at their totality of expression. There are tons of worse people out there who go out of their way to shame others. Just because he says something once, I don't think it to be a marker for anyone's character, other than the offer to mirror what it is about yourself you may have a problem with facing. So what if someone says you are invalid, do you believe you are invalid because someone else believes it to be so? That doesn't make you any less valid or any more, because it has nothing to do with who you are and everything to do with what would be perhaps Scott's own personal block with regard to his personal journey.

Everyone is constantly recreating the world with the people they meet in their memories. No matter how well you think you know someone it is always your perception of that person in your own thinking. In that sense you're not really making any social contact with other selves, and still hitting against your own personal blockages, to create aggressors who are not there. True interaction does not occur with other selves, until you learn to start looking at the world with fresh eyes. If you are only bogged down by illusions of people trying to spite you, then you give your power away by agreeing to their opinion, instead of standing in your own light, which would include the love and understanding of what you are, which is nowhere below or above anyone else. We are all equal co creators.

Let's take a look at a more grounded description of what blending is.. You have metrosexuals, guys who are straight who get manicures, pedicures, and go out of their way to look presentable and trendy. Todays society does not realize this is a divine feminine quality, to simply take care of oneself.

Okay, that is a blending, why because societally this was shunned and looked down upon earlier in time by the average male. You have a blending of preference occuring... Look how it is trendy to wear unisex clothing, just 20 years ago this was not the case and it was shunned upon.

This is blending. does it necessarily make someone gay or not? no, again that has to do with the preference of the soul itself... if you are a soul and you like guys then you are going to continue liking guys, simiilarly if you are a soul and you like girls then you will continue to like girls. the fact that you picked a skin suit that was either male or female, is of no consequence since it is your soul that animates your skin suit. EVERYTHING from your dreams, desires, to your emotional blocks, are all animated and perpetuated by your spark of awareness or spark of the one infinite creator.

I do appreciate your comments. What you seem to fail to understand is that I was trusting Scott Mandelker to objectively teach the RA Law of One. Then I hit Session 31 and discovered that he was letting his personal prejudice and ignorance taint his "sermon on the mount". He went out of his way to demean gay people. He arrogantly took upon himself the pulpit to lecture gay people without an ounce of empathy or knowledge of their condition.

Now, unless a gay man lives in constant denial (and many do to keep their psyche intact), he recognizes the homophobic ranting going on 7 by 24 in our society. I keep abreast of it, but let it go.

In THIS case however, I could not do that because Scott Mandelker so often in his YOUTUBE videos takes on the mantle of being a very advanced high consciousness being. He proclaims to be a 6th density Wanderer whose life purpose was to share the ONLY truth, that being the RA Law of One. In many ways, he is very similar to the Bible thumping right wing fundamentalist Christian who preaches the "sacred truth" about homosexuality and other sins. The contradiction in what he teaches (the foundation of love in the universe) and his own actions is very shocking. I went to this man for guidance and was spit in the face in Session 31.

Of course, all through the sessions I have glimpsed cracks in his better-than-human facade. His judgment seems rather lacking at times. For example, he totally believes in the Billy Meier Pleiadian contacts, although investigators have proven repeatedly that BM has faked all his photos. Scott also expresses at times deep disdain for humans who do not follow the Law of One.

I suspect that with time I will simply accept who Scott really is, versus what he thinks he is. I will take value from what he can offer that is not tainted by his condescension and HUGE EGO.

Regardless of what he claims, he is just another human being with foibles great and small. I am very disappointed in him. If a man cannot accept the basic dignity of gay people, then that means that the pedestal that HE has put himself on is made of sand that (in my case) has crumbled.

NOTE: I urge you to read the latest post by YIN/YANG about his reaction to listening to Scott Mandelker's YOUTUBE Session 31. I do believe that anyone who is not prone to be an apologist for Scott will share YY's reaction, as I did.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like Chandlersdad's post:
Billy, YinYang
08-06-2016, 12:50 PM,
#55
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-06-2016, 12:43 PM)Chandlersdad Wrote:  
(08-06-2016, 11:26 AM)BlatzAdict Wrote:  regardless of whether scott has called gays fags or not, perhaps it was taken out of context. at some point one needs to realize:

"Ra: I am Ra. Let us give the example of the man who sees all the poker hands. He then knows the game. It is but child’s play to gamble, for it is no risk. The other hands are known. The possibilities are known and the hand will be played correctly but with no interest.
In time/space and in the true-color green density, the hands of all are open to the eye. The thoughts, the feelings, the troubles, all these may be seen. There is no deception and no desire for deception. Thus much may be accomplished in harmony but the mind/body/spirit gains little polarity from this interaction.
Let us re-examine this metaphor and multiply it into the longest poker game you can imagine, a lifetime. The cards are love, dislike, limitation, unhappiness, pleasure, etc. They are dealt and re-dealt and re-dealt continuously. You may, during this incarnation begin — and we stress begin — to know your own cards. You may begin to find the love within you. You may begin to balance your pleasure, your limitations, etc. However, your only indication of other-selves’ cards is to look into the eyes.
You cannot remember your hand, their hands, perhaps even the rules of this game. This game can only be won by those who lose their cards in the melting influence of love; can only be won by those who lay their pleasures, their limitations, their all upon the table face up and say inwardly: “All, all of you players, each other-self, whatever your hand, I love you.” This is the game: to know, to accept, to forgive, to balance, and to open the self in love. This cannot be done without the forgetting, for it would carry no weight in the life of the mind/body/spirit beingness totality."


In looking to the heart of the self, we should not be looking to judge others, and learn to separate others from their actions. Scott in his videos tries to be as real as possible without showing any sort of front, which ends up with his videos becoming sort of stream of consciousness. Pointing out one thing he did, is like the little kid that wants to tell his mom what the bully did. In truth the threat may be illusory as first Scott doesn't intend to single out homosexuals, second he is also a spark of the one infinite creator doing his best to learn about, and teach love.

Is it fair then to say that one person is idiotic, or malicious? I think all it does is serve to give your power away by simply acknowledgement of how society views gays, it's ultimately a blockage of the orange chakra. The sense of self. god hood, knowing that you are a spark of awareness before you are a human body, and perceptibly a gay male. If someone goes and says gays are stupid, getting mad over that is like saying, you believe on some level that what they are saying is even valid. It's a form of giving consent to what it is that you don't even want to see in the world. Why even give your consent?

You are unique and needed at this time, and it's easy to focus on the one wrong thing someone does instead of looking at their totality of expression. There are tons of worse people out there who go out of their way to shame others. Just because he says something once, I don't think it to be a marker for anyone's character, other than the offer to mirror what it is about yourself you may have a problem with facing. So what if someone says you are invalid, do you believe you are invalid because someone else believes it to be so? That doesn't make you any less valid or any more, because it has nothing to do with who you are and everything to do with what would be perhaps Scott's own personal block with regard to his personal journey.

Everyone is constantly recreating the world with the people they meet in their memories. No matter how well you think you know someone it is always your perception of that person in your own thinking. In that sense you're not really making any social contact with other selves, and still hitting against your own personal blockages, to create aggressors who are not there. True interaction does not occur with other selves, until you learn to start looking at the world with fresh eyes. If you are only bogged down by illusions of people trying to spite you, then you give your power away by agreeing to their opinion, instead of standing in your own light, which would include the love and understanding of what you are, which is nowhere below or above anyone else. We are all equal co creators.

Let's take a look at a more grounded description of what blending is.. You have metrosexuals, guys who are straight who get manicures, pedicures, and go out of their way to look presentable and trendy. Todays society does not realize this is a divine feminine quality, to simply take care of oneself.

Okay, that is a blending, why because societally this was shunned and looked down upon earlier in time by the average male. You have a blending of preference occuring... Look how it is trendy to wear unisex clothing, just 20 years ago this was not the case and it was shunned upon.

This is blending. does it necessarily make someone gay or not? no, again that has to do with the preference of the soul itself... if you are a soul and you like guys then you are going to continue liking guys, simiilarly if you are a soul and you like girls then you will continue to like girls. the fact that you picked a skin suit that was either male or female, is of no consequence since it is your soul that animates your skin suit. EVERYTHING from your dreams, desires, to your emotional blocks, are all animated and perpetuated by your spark of awareness or spark of the one infinite creator.

I do appreciate your comments. What you seem to fail to understand is that I was trusting Scott Mandelker to objectively teach the RA Law of One. Then I hit Session 31 and discovered that he was letting his personal prejudice and ignorance taint his "sermon on the mount".  He went out of his way to demean gay people. He arrogantly took upon himself the pulpit to lecture gay people without an ounce of empathy or knowledge of their condition.  

Now, unless a gay man lives in constant denial (and many do to keep their psyche intact), he recognizes the homophobic ranting going on 7 by 24 in our society. I keep abreast of it, but let it go.

In THIS case however, I could not do that because Scott Mandelker so often in his YOUTUBE videos takes on the mantle of being a very advanced high consciousness being. He proclaims to be a 6th density Wanderer whose life purpose was to share the ONLY truth, that being the RA Law of One. In many ways, he is very similar to the Bible thumping right wing fundamentalist Christian who preaches the "sacred truth" about homosexuality and other sins. The contradiction in what he teaches (the foundation of love in the universe) and his own actions is very shocking. I went to this man for guidance and was spit in the face in Session 31.

Of course, all through the sessions I have glimpsed cracks in his better-than-human facade.  His judgment seems rather lacking at times. For example, he totally believes in the Billy Meier Pleiadian contacts, although investigators have proven repeatedly that BM has faked all his photos.  Scott also expresses at times deep disdain for humans who do not follow the Law of One.

I suspect that with time I will simply accept who Scott really is, versus what he thinks he is. I will take value from what he can offer that is not tainted by his condescension and HUGE EGO.

Regardless of what he claims, he is just another human being with foibles great and small. I am very disappointed in him. If a man cannot accept the basic dignity of gay people, then that means that the pedestal that HE has put himself on iss made of sand that (in my case) has crumbled.

I will save you time in future anyone who would put the self on a pedestal is showing you their ego.

I will also comment that even wanderers in 3d are going to have distortion and ego can get the better of them. There is nothing in 3d without distortion.
Read Law of One but know the main point of all the books is we are one. So being disappointed in his ignorance maybe see we all as individual selves are ignorant of something in this 3dstate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 5 users Like Glow's post:
BlatzAdict, Bring4th_Jade, Chandlersdad, Verum Occultum, YinYang
08-06-2016, 01:10 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-06-2016, 01:22 PM by YinYang.)
#56
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
Chandlersdad Wrote:I went to this man for guidance and was spit in the face

And this brings us to the heart of the matter with regard to those who position themselves as spiritual teachers. I have also placed such trust in "spiritual teachers" in the past, and when it all comes crushing down, it feels like a personal betrayal.

It was my lesson to learn, to become the authority in my spiritual life, and TRUST MYSELF. "Within within!" as the Tao Te Ching says!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 9 users Like YinYang's post:
Billy, BlatzAdict, Brian_Sanchez, Bring4th_Jade, Chandlersdad, HillOrStram, outerheaven, Patrick, zhaich
08-06-2016, 01:38 PM,
#57
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
I started listening to his session 31.2 lecture yesterday but the cadence of his voice drives my husband mad. If someone would tell me about where his ranting starts, I will try to listen here at work while I have time.

Not only is Scott a Law of One scholar, he also has a PhD with a master's in counseling. Chandlersdad, it might be worth your time to take up your grievances with him directly. I refer back to the quote I posted earlier about how giving others constructive criticism is more helpful than blind, unremitting praise. But, you are in turn now yourself somewhat ranting about something you don't accept in another... their apparent homophobia. It might do Scott well to know that his insensitivity (and incorrectness) has really struck a chord, and it might also do you well to get if off your chest directly to him.
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 4 users Like Bring4th_Jade's post:
BlatzAdict, Chandlersdad, HillOrStram, Verum Occultum
08-06-2016, 03:06 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-06-2016, 03:18 PM by Chandlersdad.)
#58
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-06-2016, 01:38 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote:  I started listening to his session 31.2 lecture yesterday but the cadence of his voice drives my husband mad. If someone would tell me about where his ranting starts, I will try to listen here at work while I have time.

Not only is Scott a Law of One scholar, he also has a PhD with a master's in counseling. Chandlersdad, it might be worth your time to take up your grievances with him directly. I refer back to the quote I posted earlier about how giving others constructive criticism is more helpful than blind, unremitting praise. But, you are in turn now yourself somewhat ranting about something you don't accept in another... their apparent homophobia. It might do Scott well to know that his insensitivity (and incorrectness) has really struck a chord, and it might also do you well to get if off your chest directly to him.

I have taken my issues directly to him via the only way I know, which is his email address on his website. He has not responded. I suspect he will not do so.

I certainly will not PAY him to discuss my grievances with him, which is what he would expect if I arranged a one-on-one consultation with him via Skype or phone usage. He advertises his expertise as a counselor and I am sure it is reimbursed comfortably for him. I cannot afford to pay him for his hallowed presence. Quite frankly, I suspect that Scott has a much quicker mind than mine. I do not see any way I would be able to convince him of the validity of my feelings. He has NO empathy for what it is like to be gay in a hostile society. My telling him about it is not going to sway him. You cannot talk someone to a higher consciousness on a topic (at least in politics and religion). As I have said before, to Scott it is definitely clear that RA is a religion. He also proclaims it is the ONLY TRUTH via channeling. All other channeling is bogus. This indication of mind set does not give me any hope of a serious conversation. I suspect I would be dodging intellectual bullets the entire time from a man extremely versed in the use of language to promote his point of view.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Chandlersdad's post:
kycahi
08-06-2016, 03:14 PM,
#59
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
(08-06-2016, 09:27 AM)Verum Occultum Wrote:  
(08-06-2016, 12:45 AM)Chandlersdad Wrote:  So his referring to a gay man as a FAG in Session 31 did not bother you at all?  His lecture calling gay people who espouse GAY PRIDE as shallow didn't bother you at all? I will stop there.

I have listened to many of his talks, but not all of them. At least presently I don't remember what you have described.

To a great extent other-selves' remarks don't bother me anymore, but of course it's not nice if he had the intention of attacking gay people, or any being(s) personally.

I checked the discussion of homosexuality in Scott's youtube session 31 (2). I didn't hear him refer to gay people as fags, but I might've missed that. I think what you are describing is more of a point of view that on Scott's part is not too well-informed on one hand, but he said that some people identify themselves with sexual orientation solely, which is in his opinion shallow, and he didn't take into account the larger picture of what gay pride represents. It wasn't a vicious attack though.

I am not on a vendetta against Scott. It is really only an issue for me predominantly on this thread! LOL Outside the thread I continue my LOO study.

I think we all would define "vicious" in our own way. No, he did not rant and bellow like a southern Baptist minister on a roll. He always maintains a rather smug professorial stance. But the implication comes through. He used the term "FAG" very late in the session. Granted, he said it was a crude term. Nonetheless, he willingly used it to describe gay men. I believe he referred to Lesbians with another term that Lesbians would probably not appreciate (cannot exactly remember what it was). This was after he PROCLAIMED that gay men fell like women inside, and gay women feel like men inside. This is all such 1950's mainstream society thinking about gay people that I am astounded to hear this in 2016.

Nonetheless, this is not an issue that is holding me down. I actually listened to Scott doing his number on Seesion 34 today and took notes.

I urge you to read YinYang's posts. One of them described HIS reaction to listening to Scott pontificate on Session 31 about homosexuals (also a term he likes to use although it is a mid-century clinical term of diagnosis).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2016, 03:44 PM,
#60
RE: Session 31 - As a Gay Man, I think RA's take on Homosexuality is idiotic
I don't see how a culture of gays can cause overcrowding. It doesn't make sense. Or so was mentioned before.

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




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)