+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Strictly Law of One Material (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: Law of One Religion? (/showthread.php?tid=10367)
RE: Law of One Religion? - isis - 02-12-2015
I remember on a Fool's Podcast show Rie asked Austin if they'd ever encountered anyone that made the Law of One their religion & he said no. Where are all of these people that would say something like, 'If LLResearch channeled it then it must be true.'? I don't think there's ever been anyone like that & I don't think there ever will be anyone like that.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Parsons - 02-12-2015
Monica, I would disagree that this is a tangent. For instance, you presented the example that you gave about acceptance as apparently at variance with your own. You said you were disconcerted that some people were cherry-picking an overly simplistic understanding of acceptance in which they were using as an excuse to justify behavior you perceive as negative. You related this to some religions using dogma to justify negative behavior.
However, using that same logic, I could call your signature dogmatic/religious because it as variance with my interpretation of the LOO and because I view it as very black and white thinking. In fact, I realized your signature could be interpreted as dogmatic / religious long before you even created this thread. I considered the whole concept nearly every time I read your signature. Upon further consideration, I realized anyone could take anyone else's viewpoints/stances on the material as negatively dogmatic/religious depending on their own viewpoint. Unless you are understanding the material verbatim, it is all dogma by definition. So you see, the logic of the OP kind of cancels itself out in my opinion. I even considered creating this same thread but decided against it as those living in glass houses should not throw stones.
In general, I definitely agree there is a potential for this to develop into a very dogmatic religion over time. I could see many of the things I perceive as black and white interpretations gradually develop into concrete dogma in the form of a book/bible. As mentioned elsewhere, most, if not all of the bible was written long after Jesus was dead. So who knows what could happen if the original text were lost and it were spread through word of mouth over hundreds of years passing from one distorted view to another.
TL;DR, One person's positive gospel is another person's negative dogma and vice versa
RE: Law of One Religion? - Monica - 02-12-2015
(02-12-2015, 10:44 PM)isis Wrote: Do Christians do that? I could see that not working out well for them a whole lot of the time.
Yes. Indeed they do. (Well some do, anyway. I can't speak for all of them. But yes, it is common.)
Presumably after praying first...kinda like someone might meditate, then do a Tarot reading.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Monica - 02-12-2015
(02-12-2015, 11:20 PM)Parsons Wrote: Monica, I would disagree that this is a tangent. For instance, you presented the example that you gave about acceptance as apparently at variance with your own. You said you were disconcerted that some people were cherry-picking an overly simplistic understanding of acceptance in which they were using as an excuse to justify behavior you perceive as negative. You related this to some religions using dogma to justify negative behavior.
However, using that same logic, I could call your signature dogmatic/religious because it as variance with my interpretation of the LOO and because I view it as very black and white thinking. In fact, I realized your signature could be interpreted as dogmatic / religious long before you even created this thread. I considered the whole concept nearly every time I read your signature. Upon further consideration, I realized anyone could take anyone else's viewpoints/stances on the material as negatively dogmatic/religious depending on their own viewpoint. Unless you are understanding the material verbatim, it is all dogma by definition. So you see, the logic of the OP kind of cancels itself out in my opinion. I even considered creating this same thread but decided against it as those living in glass houses should not throw stones.
In general, I definitely agree there is a potential for this to develop into a very dogmatic religion over time. I could see many of the things I perceive as black and white interpretations gradually develop into concrete dogma in the form of a book/bible. As mentioned elsewhere, most, if not all of the bible was written long after Jesus was dead. So who knows what could happen if the original text were lost and it were spread through word of mouth over hundreds of years passing from one distorted view to another.
TL;DR, One person's positive gospel is another person's negative dogma and vice versa
Ah, so that's what this is about. My sig. I should have known.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Karl - 02-12-2015
This whole thread is just turning into a big pissing contest.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Parsons - 02-12-2015
(02-12-2015, 10:44 PM)isis Wrote: I just opened the Law of One book randomly & picked the 1st quote I saw & I'm actually impressed with what I got. I was expecting something funny like, "Please expel breath over this instrument's breast."
What I got:
Ra Wrote:Firstly, we underline and emphasize that this information is not to be understood literally but as a link or psychological nudge for the body and the mind and spirit.
Haha... that quote is actually PERFECT for this thread.
Actually, I don't think that was just random coincidence. You reminded me of a half-baked thought: could we use the LOO books themselves as a kind of tarot deck in exactly the same fashion you just used it in, e.g. ask a question like you would with a tarot reading then turn to a random page.
RE: Law of One Religion? - isis - 02-12-2015
(02-12-2015, 11:27 PM)Karl Wrote: This whole thread is just turning into a big pissing contest.
lol & i think u just won
RE: Law of One Religion? - Minyatur - 02-12-2015
(02-12-2015, 10:44 PM)isis Wrote:Bible Wrote:The word that Jeremiah the prophet spoke to Baruch the son of Neriah, when he wrote these words in a book at the dictation of Jeremiah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah: “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, to you, O Baruch: You said, ‘Woe is me! For the LORD has added sorrow to my pain. I am weary with my groaning, and I find no rest.’"hm...haha
The chapter (Jeremiah 45) seems to be about a man who was serving God and the prophet Jeremiah but it made him a wanted man while at first he wanted to gain notoriety out of it. I've read an interpretation of it and it says that it relates to how young fresh christian soldiers turn away at the first difficulties. The real story was only concerning that Baruch guy though.
Quote:Bible
Quote:[font=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Thus shall you say to him, Thus says the LORD: Behold, what I have built I am breaking down, and what I have planted I am plucking up—that is, the whole land.[/font]
This is what follows, I interpret this as speaking of Karma
Quote:Bible
Quote:And do you seek great things for yourself? Seek them not, for behold, I am bringing disaster upon all flesh, declares the LORD. But I will give you your life as a prize of war in all places to which you may go.”
And then there's this, Yahweh seems to promise the guy that he won't be killed wherever he goes, and to not seek great things for himself. I think I'm of Yahweh and this group seems to be weird in many ways in their interractions with this sphere, but I guess Ra was not so much better at first too.
If that doesn't speak to you maybe it will to someone else reading it here. You didn't get so bad of a verse or chapter actually. It speaks of mission and serving while confronted to karma while being faithful and humble.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Monica - 02-12-2015
(02-12-2015, 11:27 PM)Karl Wrote: This whole thread is just turning into a big pissing contest.
No, actually it happened a ways back. The pool is starting to stink like pee now, and now you're just added some dead carcass to add to the stench. Thank you all very much for the philosophical discussion about what I had thought was a very important topic.
See ya around...maybe in a few hundred years when there's The Church of Ra.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Spaced - 02-12-2015
The universe and the entities that people it will reflect back the energy you put into it. See ya round Monica.
RE: Law of One Religion? - isis - 02-12-2015
(02-12-2015, 11:37 PM)Monica Wrote:(02-12-2015, 11:27 PM)Karl Wrote: This whole thread is just turning into a big pissing contest.
No, actually it happened a ways back. The pool is starting to stink like pee now, and now you're just added some dead carcass to add to the stench. Thank you all very much for the philosophical discussion about what I had thought was a very important topic.
See ya around...maybe in a few hundred years when there's The Church of Ra.
was Gary the 1st person to pee in the pool?
RE: Law of One Religion? - Karl - 02-12-2015
(02-12-2015, 11:37 PM)Monica Wrote:(02-12-2015, 11:27 PM)Karl Wrote: This whole thread is just turning into a big pissing contest.
No, actually it happened a ways back. The pool is starting to stink like pee now, and now you're just added some dead carcass to add to the stench. Thank you all very much for the philosophical discussion about what I had thought was a very important topic.
See ya around...maybe in a few hundred years when there's The Church of Ra.
That's just my signature. I like steak.
RE: Law of One Religion? - isis - 02-12-2015
(02-12-2015, 11:53 PM)Karl Wrote:(02-12-2015, 11:37 PM)Monica Wrote:(02-12-2015, 11:27 PM)Karl Wrote: This whole thread is just turning into a big pissing contest.
No, actually it happened a ways back. The pool is starting to stink like pee now, and now you're just added some dead carcass to add to the stench. Thank you all very much for the philosophical discussion about what I had thought was a very important topic.
See ya around...maybe in a few hundred years when there's The Church of Ra.
That's just my signature. I like steak.
*clicks on Karl's profile*
omg it really is his signature lol
RE: Law of One Religion? - Steppingfeet - 02-13-2015
(02-11-2015, 10:11 PM)Monica Wrote: Gary, I still don't understand why you said this:
Quote:GLB: I think you walk on risky ground, Monica, in the implication (correct me if I'm wrong) that people who have an interpretation of the Law of One material at variance to your own are engaging in fundamentalist thinking.
Did you really think I meant that anyone who interprets the Material differently than I do is guilty of religious fundamentalism?
Hey Monica, Diana - I really didn't intend to offend, be challenging, create friction, or otherwise hurt feelings. I'm sorry if that is what has resulted.
My wording could have been clearer, no, I did not mean to imply that you meant that "anyone who interprets the material differently from you is guilty of religious fundamentalism". In other words, I'm not saying that you said that.
But I think the greater point legitimate. In that it IS risky ground for anyone, you or me, to contend that others are engaging in fundamentalist thinking regarding the Law of One when those others have a different interpretation/application of some quote, or principle, or idea from the Law of One material.
I'm not saying that those others are not being dogmatic or fundamentalist - maybe they are, and maybe that can be measured through analysis to some extent.
All I said was that it was risky to do so because it's difficult to prove, because it could just be a different matter of interpretation. And clearly Monica does, actually, have strongly different interpretations about some portions of this material that has pitted her at odds with others.
In and of themselves, your questions in the initial post are great, Monica, and worthy of serious consideration, discussion, and internal self-reflection. I said as much, as treated your questions with the respect they deserve.
(02-12-2015, 12:28 PM)Diana Wrote: Parsons, while your comment is honest, can't you try and work out an understanding before pointing the finger?
I didn't see Parson's post as finger pointing. He conveyed his experience, saying that he had a similar reading/feeling of Monica's thoughts. It was gentle on Parson's part.
Diana, you did precisely the same by saying that my post felt "harsh". Which is fine; it is a reflection of your interpretation of my thoughts. In return I do not reply and ask you to stop finger pointing, ya know?
Instead I reflected on my thoughts and determined that I could have worded that better, but I still felt there was a legitimate point to make.
(02-12-2015, 11:20 PM)Parsons Wrote: Monica, I would disagree that this is a tangent. For instance, you presented the example that you gave about acceptance as apparently at variance with your own. You said you were disconcerted that some people were cherry-picking an overly simplistic understanding of acceptance in which they were using as an excuse to justify behavior you perceive as negative. You related this to some religions using dogma to justify negative behavior.
Precisely.
Diana or Monica, please re-read Parsons' reflection concerning one aspect (not the totality) of this thread.
Monica did, point blank, identify a particular interpretation and application of this material as a dogmatic/fundamentalist rendering.
Yes?
Okay. So back to my original thought: that is risky ground, because it could just be that Monica's interpretation of that idea is simply different from others'.
(02-12-2015, 11:20 PM)Parsons Wrote: However, using that same logic, I could call your signature dogmatic/religious because it as variance with my interpretation of the LOO and because I view it as very black and white thinking.
(Parsons', I really appreciated the clarity of your post.)
Parsons here isn't saying that Monica's signature IS dogmatic, just that, the same logic that Monica employed earlier to suggest that readers of the Law of One are being dogmatic could, rightfully, be applied to statements that Monica makes, including her signature.
But why is this about Monica's position in any way?
The thread isn't strictly a matter of "Hey, what do you guys think about these questions?"
In addition to the good questions, Monica is directly making a charge that people with whom she disagrees are doing just what he first post asks about.
Hence Parsons's reply and my own, both of which have been quite respectful.
(02-12-2015, 11:20 PM)Parsons Wrote: Upon further consideration, I realized anyone could take anyone else's viewpoints/stances on the material as negatively dogmatic/religious depending on their own viewpoint.
This is a great point.
Of course it could indeed be the case that a difference of opinion is happening because one person is not treating the material like a fundamentalist, and another person is.
However, indicting other people as treating it that way could just as easily be a means to invalidate their position with which you (general "you") strongly disagree.
(02-12-2015, 11:20 PM)Parsons Wrote: So who knows what could happen if the original text were lost and it were spread through word of mouth over hundreds of years passing from one distorted view to another.
That would be key, I think, to developing a rigid dogma around this philosophy - the original text would have to be lost. So long as that text is available, I personally think it has too many in-built safeguards to allow too dogmatic a rendering. The whole philosophy is absolutely, unmistakably built on free will. And the organization which houses and offers it is very careful to honor and continually remind the seeker that they are their own authority.
Lots of love, GLB
PS: isis, your post - to the extent it represented your actual experience (one can never be certain with you
) - was beautiful. I'm glad that the Law of One not only helped you to heal pain, but helped to lift the vision to a greater understanding of the unity of all things. Whatever source in this world helps to lift the vision, be it the Law of One or Christmas songs, I think it helpful to put it at the center of one's life, so long as it's understood to be a tool or resource.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Ankh - 02-13-2015
I had a most vivid and magical dream this night. I was supposed to fly to Middle East or some Asia region, but re-booked my ticket to go to US instead, to Louisville, KY namely. Gary picked me up at the airport and we came to L/L house. It was one week before the L/L's annual Homecoming. Despite that, many dear and near ones were already there. Gary, Steve, Tobey and others whose names I won't mention here. We were about 20-30 people there.
We gathered in the living room, and Gary took forth a document of about 8 pages. This document was important to us all, as there was a key to some sort of puzzle that all of us there had a burning desire to solve. This puzzle was of a magical nature, like a mission of "saving the world" if one wants to be dramatic. It is difficult to convey it in words.
Anyways, this document was a mess. Gary tried to read it to us. There were pieces here and there. Fragments. Most of it could be found in the Ra material. So, we tried to read Ra quotes and understand how these quotes would help us all to understand this document, which was our "mission", but we were also in the same state of confusion and mess as this document.
I won't bore you out with the details, so long story short - at the end of the dream Gary proposed that all of would talk over the "Skype" or some sort of communication device, once a week, on Sundays, at a certain time (people all over the world were there too, not only me who is from Sweden), trying to solve the mystery of this document and coming closer to solving our mission. All of us said "yes". We agreed.
I remember that each and one of us who were there had some sort of unique or specific skills or talents, and each had a pre-determined role to play in this "group task". One girl for instance, she was already of fourth density, but her vibration didn't function because of some sort of problem, which all of us tried to solve using this document. And I, for instance, was some sort of a "creator". Not the creator as in the Infinite Almighty One, as all of us were of this vibration, but as in – it was something about coming up with the ideas or visions or things, and creating "words" or "names" or something like, which in that dream no one else could. I could do things no one else in the room could, and each and every one in that room could do things that no one else could. We were equally unique and invaluable and important. No one was more or less than any other one. Not Gary. Not me. Not Steve. Not Tobey. Not Carla. Not Jim. And so on. If this "solving the puzzle" project would to function and work, each and every one had to work together, as a team, as a group, as family and friends. All of us agreed to do this in my dream. (Pretty awesome for being just a dream, don't you think, guys??!)
When I woke up, I started to analyze this dream. What was that about?? It was pretty vivid and rich in many details which I didn't mention here.
And I realized that we... We - who are alive right now and reading this text, we - who are members of this board, we - who found Ra material and resonate with it on various levels, are freaking previliged.
Not only did we get a spot in front seats, by being incarnated in third density space/time during the Final Harvest here, we also are incarnated during times when sixth density was able to transfer their teachings to us without significant distortions. They told us about the Ways of One, which is a rare thing.
So, we have this material, teachings of the One, which was transfered to us at a great cost. It costed this planet a life of one great and bright soul and we also risked the mind/body/spirit complex of another great and amazing being, and at the end - here we are - incarnated during the Harvest having the teachings of the ways of One, in our hands...
What shall we do now then...?
What I am trying to say is that - let us not to forget the bigger picture here. Why did we come here? Why are we here? What was our mission here?
And imho, discussions like this muddy our true purpose of being here at this time and are not of bigger importance. If some people want to worship Carla and Jim as Gods - psheesh! Let them! If some people want to turn LOO into a religion (whatever theat might mean for each) - let them do that too! It wouldn't be the first time probably either. Are we here to tell other people that they are wrong or to do something else perhaps? All is function of free will imo. Including of course discussions in this thread. So if you guys, want to continue to argue and yap about things like this - do that. No wrong in that. I just thought that I would also add my voice into this bowl of confusion, which is - there is a bigger picture here. One can almost see it or dream about it - sometimes. Our purpose is to find it, and then try to live it.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Diana - 02-13-2015
(02-13-2015, 10:39 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:(02-12-2015, 12:28 PM)Diana Wrote: Parsons, while your comment is honest, can't you try and work out an understanding before pointing the finger?
I didn't see Parson's post as finger pointing. He conveyed his experience, saying that he had a similar reading/feeling of Monica's thoughts. It was gentle on Parson's part.
Diana, you did precisely the same by saying that my post felt "harsh". Which is fine; it is a reflection of your interpretation of my thoughts. In return I do not reply and ask you to stop finger pointing, ya know?
Instead I reflected on my thoughts and determined that I could have worded that better, but I still felt there was a legitimate point to make.
Fair enough. You are correct—it was my interpretation in both cases. I did feel that in both instances the comments were unwarranted, but hey, that's what discussions are for. To discuss, and open up ideas, and enlightenen subjects.
And, pointing the finger can be done in very subtle ways, even unconscious ways. I do strive to be honest with myself and others. I also strive to allow free will. Sometimes this is a very delicate balance.
RE: Law of One Religion? - isis - 02-13-2015
(02-13-2015, 12:39 PM)Ankh Wrote: What I am trying to say is that - let us not to forget the bigger picture here. Why did we come here? Why are we here? What was our mission here?
And imho, discussions like this muddy our true purpose of being here at this time and are not of bigger importance. If some people want to worship Carla and Jim as Gods - psheesh! Let them! If some people want to turn LOO into a religion (whatever theat might mean for each) - let them do that too! It wouldn't be the first time probably either. Are we here to tell other people that they are wrong or to do something else perhaps? All is function of free will imo. Including of course discussions in this thread. So if you guys, want to continue to argue and yap about things like this - do that. No wrong in that. I just thought that I would also add my voice into this bowl of confusion, which is - there is a bigger picture here. One can almost see it or dream about it - sometimes. Our purpose is to find it, and then try to live it.
ANKH, YOU'RE PEEING *A WHOLE LOT* IN THE POOL!!!!!!! jk. absolutely wonderful post. i really enjoyed it. thanks for sharing that awesome dream.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Bluebell - 02-13-2015
great post, Ankh. awesome dream!
RE: Law of One Religion? - AnthroHeart - 02-13-2015
I agree, it's fantastic to find secret knowledge in a dream.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Shawnna - 02-13-2015
(02-13-2015, 12:39 PM)Ankh Wrote: {snip}
What I am trying to say is that - let us not to forget the bigger picture here. Why did we come here? Why are we here? What was our mission here?
And imho, discussions like this muddy our true purpose of being here at this time and are not of bigger importance. If some people want to worship Carla and Jim as Gods - psheesh! Let them! If some people want to turn LOO into a religion (whatever theat might mean for each) - let them do that too! It wouldn't be the first time probably either. Are we here to tell other people that they are wrong or to do something else perhaps? All is function of free will imo. Including of course discussions in this thread. So if you guys, want to continue to argue and yap about things like this - do that. No wrong in that. I just thought that I would also add my voice into this bowl of confusion, which is - there is a bigger picture here. One can almost see it or dream about it - sometimes. Our purpose is to find it, and then try to live it.
I took the liberty of emphasizing sections of the above as this is incredibly important.
RE: Law of One Religion? - AnthroHeart - 02-13-2015
I see Ra as a god, but not God. Any 4D-7D being is potentially a god compared to us in 3D.
In 6D (and probably 5D) they can manifest cartoons. That's most excellent.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Minyatur - 02-13-2015
(02-13-2015, 02:49 PM)Shawnna Wrote:(02-13-2015, 12:39 PM)Ankh Wrote: {snip}
What I am trying to say is that - let us not to forget the bigger picture here. Why did we come here? Why are we here? What was our mission here?
And imho, discussions like this muddy our true purpose of being here at this time and are not of bigger importance. If some people want to worship Carla and Jim as Gods - psheesh! Let them! If some people want to turn LOO into a religion (whatever theat might mean for each) - let them do that too! It wouldn't be the first time probably either. Are we here to tell other people that they are wrong or to do something else perhaps? All is function of free will imo. Including of course discussions in this thread. So if you guys, want to continue to argue and yap about things like this - do that. No wrong in that. I just thought that I would also add my voice into this bowl of confusion, which is - there is a bigger picture here. One can almost see it or dream about it - sometimes. Our purpose is to find it, and then try to live it.
I took the liberty of emphasizing sections of the above as this is incredibly important.
There are two kind of people, those who enjoy muddy discussions and those who don't, I'd say they have their own purpose.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Bluebell - 02-13-2015
i think to treat anything as above u or below u is to treat it as separate from u... once u feel truly equal the ego is no longer in the way... we take our time getting there. i can't say i'm there.
but either way, the Ra material is hardly the type of text that would be easy to turn into religious cookery. in the material Ra blatantly cautions against believing blindly & it's very left brain & w/o confusing parables from ages ago. it doesn't attract the blindly religious type.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Diana - 02-13-2015
(02-13-2015, 03:28 PM)Minyatur Wrote:(02-13-2015, 12:39 PM)Ankh Wrote: All is function of free will imo. Including of course discussions in this thread. So if you guys, want to continue to argue and yap about things like this - do that. No wrong in that. I just thought that I would also add my voice into this bowl of confusion, which is - there is a bigger picture here. One can almost see it or dream about it - sometimes. Our purpose is to find it, and then try to live it.
There are two kind of people, those who enjoy muddy discussions and those who don't, I'd say they have their own purpose.
I have a few things to say about the above statements, and the thread in general.
1. I do think there are more than two kinds of people.
Even regarding a certain type of discussion. (See #4 below.)2. Ankh, I daresay most people here, if not all, want what you describe—to see the bigger picture. Let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt. We are all working out our stuff as we can. I think there are members here, for example, who are very young adults—so how can we expect everyone to act like an avatar?
3. This place, here on Earth, now, is no picnic. Everything isn't hunky dory. Even while we hold the vision of the bigger picture, let's not pretend that things are all easy and love for everyone. Some people may be going through tough times.
4. I feel in general that a lot of judging goes on in these threads. I don't mind. People don't even know they are doing it most of the time, in my opinion.
5. I suppose Jim, and Carla, (and Don), by throwing themselves out to the public, accepted the responsibility of possibly inciting adulation of some sort. But I wouldn't wish it on them. It's not just about being unproductive for the follower.
The thing is, we are all guessing at what "our purpose is." If anyone thinks otherwise, please let me know what facts you have regarding the purpose of life. One may have a "knowing," but this is really not a fact. The Ra Material is Ra's opinion and perspective. If someone takes it as gospel, so be it; but I hope for better, now, or soon, after so many centuries of religious tyranny.
I like to encourage free thinking. So discuss away everyone. The confusion, the catalysts, the differences of opinion don't bother me. I welcome it. We have opportunities all the time to shed light on the shadows. Holding a vision of love and joy will not work while resisting the shadows. Embracing the shadows is to accept and love what is, that it may be expressed, acknowledged, and transformed into light from darkness.
In my not so humble, rather poetical-at-the-end opinion.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Monica - 02-13-2015
(02-13-2015, 10:39 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: In that it IS risky ground for anyone, you or me, to contend that others are engaging in fundamentalist thinking regarding the Law of One when those others have a different interpretation/application of some quote, or principle, or idea from the Law of One material.
I agree. But that's NOT what I said. Ever. If you thought that's what I meant, then you have completely misunderstood.
(02-13-2015, 10:39 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: And clearly Monica does, actually, have strongly different interpretations about some portions of this material that has pitted her at odds with others.
Why do you even bring that up? That has nothing to do with this conversation whatsoever. And, what's with the bold?
(02-13-2015, 10:39 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: I didn't see Parson's post as finger pointing. He conveyed his experience, saying that he had a similar reading/feeling of Monica's thoughts. It was gentle on Parson's part.
His comments had nothing to do with the conversation. Nor were they about my views on this topic. They were about my views in general. He took an impersonal discussion and made it personal.
(02-13-2015, 10:39 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: Diana, you did precisely the same by saying that my post felt "harsh". Which is fine; it is a reflection of your interpretation of my thoughts. In return I do not reply and ask you to stop finger pointing, ya know?
That wasn't the same thing. She was referring to a particular comment in this discussion. Parsons brought up something completely unrelated.
(02-13-2015, 10:39 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:(02-12-2015, 11:20 PM)Parsons Wrote: Monica, I would disagree that this is a tangent. For instance, you presented the example that you gave about acceptance as apparently at variance with your own. You said you were disconcerted that some people were cherry-picking an overly simplistic understanding of acceptance in which they were using as an excuse to justify behavior you perceive as negative. You related this to some religions using dogma to justify negative behavior.
Precisely.
You have both completely missed the point. Did you read post #38? The Acceptance example had nothing to do with whether I agreed with their interpretation or not! I chose that as an example of taking a single word or phrase and building a dogma about it, disregarding other concepts. I could have agreed with their interpretation and it still would have been a good example of dogma.
For the nth time: It has nothing to do with agreement on interpretation!
(02-13-2015, 10:39 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: Monica did, point blank, identify a particular interpretation and application of this material as a dogmatic/fundamentalist rendering.
Yes?
NO. Not for the reason you think I did. It had nothing to do with interpretation.
(02-13-2015, 10:39 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: Okay. So back to my original thought: that is risky ground, because it could just be that Monica's interpretation of that idea is simply different from others'.
This entire conversation has become about "Monica expects everyone to agree with her" and I find that HIGHLY offensive! ...being that I have explicitly stated several times that that is NOT what I meant! I never said any such thing. How many times do I have to clarify? Why do you, Gary, continue to reinforce this misunderstanding after I have clarified several times?
(02-13-2015, 10:39 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: Parsons here isn't saying that Monica's signature IS dogmatic, just that, the same logic that Monica employed earlier to suggest that readers of the Law of One are being dogmatic could, rightfully, be applied to statements that Monica makes, including her signature.
But why is this about Monica's position in any way?
The thread isn't strictly a matter of "Hey, what do you guys think about these questions?"
In addition to the good questions, Monica is directly making a charge that people with whom she disagrees are doing just what he first post asks about.
NO NO NO NO!!! That is NOT what I said AT ALL!
RE: Law of One Religion? - native - 02-13-2015
Pretty awesome dream Ankh..I can imagine some sort of similar situation as we were all gathered together before we incarnated. It was nice to hear what the Law of One has done for isis as well
RE: Law of One Religion? - Shawnna - 02-13-2015
(02-13-2015, 09:09 PM)Diana Wrote: {snip}
The thing is, we are all guessing at what "our purpose is." If anyone thinks otherwise, please let me know what facts you have regarding the purpose of life. One may have a "knowing," but this is really not a fact.
Those who feel they know their own unique purpose would likely disagree.
RE: Law of One Religion? - isis - 02-13-2015
(02-13-2015, 10:51 PM)Shawnna Wrote:(02-13-2015, 09:09 PM)Diana Wrote: {snip}
The thing is, we are all guessing at what "our purpose is." If anyone thinks otherwise, please let me know what facts you have regarding the purpose of life. One may have a "knowing," but this is really not a fact.
Those who feel they know their own unique purpose would likely disagree.
i don't have any proof but i strongly suspect that one can only do one's purpose. in other words, i think that whatever one may find themselves doing in any given moment is one fulfilling their own unique purpose...so i certainly don't ever sit around wondering what my purpose is. what's my purpose right now? to post this here post. i love (what i perceive to be) my purpose(s).
RE: Law of One Religion? - Shawnna - 02-13-2015
(02-13-2015, 11:15 PM)isis Wrote:(02-13-2015, 10:51 PM)Shawnna Wrote:(02-13-2015, 09:09 PM)Diana Wrote: {snip}
The thing is, we are all guessing at what "our purpose is." If anyone thinks otherwise, please let me know what facts you have regarding the purpose of life. One may have a "knowing," but this is really not a fact.
Those who feel they know their own unique purpose would likely disagree.
i don't have any proof but i strongly suspect that one can only do one's purpose. in other words, i think that whatever one may find themselves doing in any given moment is one fulfilling their own unique purpose...so i certainly don't ever sit around wondering what my purpose is. what's my purpose right now? to post this here post. i love (what i perceive to be) my purpose(s).
We all have a Purpose for this incarnation; I like referring to this as my Life Purpose. We fulfill our Life Purpose by how we engage our Life Lessons. (Life Lessons are always mandatory; the learning is optional).
We all also have purpose with each task or encounter we engage in so I agree with you on that. My purpose in this post is to clarify what I should have made clear in my original post.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Monica - 02-13-2015
(02-13-2015, 09:09 PM)Diana Wrote: I suppose Jim, and Carla, (and Don), by throwing themselves out to the public, accepted the responsibility of possibly inciting adulation of some sort. But I wouldn't wish it on them. It's not just about being unproductive for the follower.
Carla has told me several times on the radio show that she didn't want to be anyone's guru. I have always admired this about her. You are right though, that sharing personal details about her life has sort of put her in the spotlight. I don't think that was her intention though. If anything, I think she wants everyone to know that she's just a regular person and to NOT put her on a pedestal!
After 3 years of interviewing Carla every week, I was always impressed by how humble she was. This is one of the reasons I cringe whenever I see people putting her in that position. By working with her so closely for 3 years, I developed a strong love for her as a person, not just as the channeler of the Law of One. So yes, it does bother me when I see people do the exact opposite of what she wanted. I guess I feel protective of her.