+- 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? - Monica - 02-14-2015
(02-14-2015, 05:04 PM)Karl Wrote: It seems to have toned down since yesterday. The conversations are kinda fizzling instead of exploding all at once.
Maybe there are some good movies that are more entertaining...or video games?
RE: Law of One Religion? - Minyatur - 02-14-2015
*throws light and love at everybody*
RE: Law of One Religion? - Monica - 02-14-2015
(02-14-2015, 05:10 PM)Minyatur Wrote: *throws light and love at everybody*
RE: Law of One Religion? - Karl - 02-14-2015
(02-14-2015, 05:05 PM)Monica Wrote:(02-14-2015, 05:04 PM)Karl Wrote: It seems to have toned down since yesterday. The conversations are kinda fizzling instead of exploding all at once.
Maybe there are some good movies that are more entertaining...or video games?
No video games and movies all follow predictable patterns. This is REAL. Anything could happen.
RE: Law of One Religion? - isis - 02-14-2015
(02-14-2015, 05:10 PM)Minyatur Wrote: *throws light and love at everybody*
ouch
RE: Law of One Religion? - Billy - 02-14-2015
There have to be some moral ground rules which are clear and objective, no? I mean look at the guidelines on this very forum, they seem pretty clear to me. As for the question of who decides which is the correct and most valid interpretation, I like to believe that a great deal of it is innate and hard-wired into us. I've even recently heard of some scientists who believe that morality can be measured and understood using the scientific method. I think the idea is that there are universal behaviours which prove beneficial to all regardless of things such as culture and environment. Interesting stuff.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Jeremy - 02-14-2015
Despite the numerous claims that the intended meaning of this thread isn't about acceptance, it sure sounds like that is the real issue.
Who is anyone to say that one cannot cherry pick quotes to base their beliefs of them? If said idolatry of the material or its channelers, improves the life of said person, what's the harm? If its having a negative impact upon the person who has enacted a personal mythology based upon this philosophy, that's their issue. If this person is negatively impacting an other self based upon this idolatry, it now becomes an issue of two. One for the giver and one for the receiver and again this is no ones concern except those involved.
Acceptance that another may covet this material as a devout Christian is perfectly fine if it improves the life of that other self and anyone around that self.
Trying to find reasons to not cherry pick sounds like unacceptance to me
RE: Law of One Religion? - Ashim - 02-15-2015
A religion starts with its founder creating doctrine. This is to be followed in order for the thoughtform to gain in spiritual mass.
Let's look at Monica's sig again:
"Humans don't need meat. Eating meat causes unnecessary suffering of other-selves. Knowingly doing so is STS. "
"Humans don't need meat" is an absolute. It is an idea that we are presumably expected to believe, although the concept would be next to impossible to prove. Is the need refered to physical, spiritual, or both?
"Humans don't need cannabis." could be an alternative opener. Some folks believe this too and have dedicated time and money towards the cause.
"Eating meat causes unnecessary suffering of other selves." OK, who is the judge of necessity? Monica?
"Drug taking causes unnecessary suffering of other selves". Well this could be seen as 'true'. For example the theft, muggings, shootings that are drug related, not to mention the social fallout within families and communities.
"Knowingly doing so is STS." It is not defined here if the action of eating meat or just being a carnivore in general warrants the STS branding.
The danger here is that someone could take this literally.
That's how a religion takes hold as a meme.
RE: Law of One Religion? - native - 02-15-2015
(02-14-2015, 06:51 AM)Ankh Wrote: We also knew that it may be a chance that we would live during times when Ra group would be able to transfer their teachings to our plane, but it was uncertain. I can imagine that Ra group planned to transfer their teachings in the way that they did for quite some time, probably ever since Akhenaton times.
Yes, it's not quite certain. It seems possible that given in the answers below, Don had made the connection that an effective way for Ra to teach would be to incarnate as a third density being such as Don and Carla, with the possibility of contacting your sixth density self. That way you preserve free will in the highest way possible by being a part of this forgetting, while also having to deal directly with your teachings as a learner (we're always doing that), and become entwined in their consequences. Trial by fire.
Quote:48.3 Questioner: Thank you. If you, Ra, as an individualized entity were incarnate on Earth now with full awareness and memory of what you know now, what would be your objective at this time on Earth as far as activities are concerned?
Ra: I am Ra. The query suggests that which has been learned to be impractical. However, were we to again be naïve enough to think that our physical presence was any more effective than that love/light we send your peoples and the treasure of this contact, we would do as we did do. We would be, and we would offer our selves as teach/learners.
48.4 Questioner: Knowing what you know now about our planetary condition and methods of communication, etc., if you, yourself as an individual had gone through the process of incarnation here as a Wanderer and now have memory of a sufficient way to have the objective that you just stated, what mechanisms would you seek out for the process of teach/learning in our present state of communication?
Ra: I am Ra. My brother, we perceive you have made certain unspoken connections. We acknowledge these and for this reason cannot infringe upon your confusion.
RE: Law of One Religion? - neutral333 - 02-15-2015
(02-09-2015, 09:15 PM)Monica Wrote: Most of us have probably had encounters with religious fundamentalists who quote scripture to justify otherwise unacceptable actions. These people truly believe that they are doing the 'right' thing and that they're not supposed to ever question the bible (or other 'holy book'). A classic example is the born-again Christian adage that 'only Christians go to heaven' because the bible says so. Religious fanatics take it even further when they attempt to justify bigotry or violence, in the name of their religion.I often think back to Law of One teachings. The book "Oneness" by Rasha is more like a "Bible" to me.
Do you think of the Law of One as a religion? Do you find yourself making decisions based on Law of One quotes, regardless of whether or not it makes sense, or feels like the right thing to do? Have you observed yourself taking action that maybe you wouldn't have done before, and then when you feel your conscience nagging you, do you tell yourself "It doesn't matter what I do...there is no right or wrong" ?
Is it convenient to quit searching for ethical solutions to life's challenges, in favor of opening the Law of One books at random and taking the first quote you see as your answer, as a Christian might do with their bible?
Are Carla, Don and Jim your gurus? Do you seek to emulate them?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, do you do this with only the Law of One, or with the other LLResearch channeled works too, such as the Q'uo sessions? Do you believe that if Q'uo said it, it must be true?
Has the Law of One, or the body of channeled works from LLResearch, become your 'bible'?
RE: Law of One Religion? - Diana - 02-15-2015
(02-14-2015, 04:31 PM)Shawnna Wrote:
This whole dialog makes me sad.
Why does it make you sad? Have you not figured out yet that humans have foibles? And, no matter how much everyone here thinks they are a wanderer, that does not preclude being in a human body and being subject to the human condition to some extent. Carla is a good example. I mean no disrespect, but she drinks diet coke and eats hamburgers. Would a 4D, 5D, 6D individual treat their body this way? What for? Even if you say that an individual can transform the substance, why do it? Why waste the energy because of taste? Why not go straight to light-based, healthy foods? Why support the industries that are keeping humans addicted to poison (diet coke and sugar-laden substances for example)?
I have a suggestion: Why not start a thread about Monica's signature and leave the topic out of this one?
Dogma is a legitimate topic of discussion.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Monica - 02-15-2015
Ashim, you are insistent upon turning this into a discussion about my sig. That wasn't the topic of this discussion. I am entitled to express my own views in my sig, just like everyone else here. But since you and others insist on talking about it, then ok, fine.
(02-15-2015, 04:37 AM)Ashim Wrote: A religion starts with its founder creating doctrine. This is to be followed in order for the thoughtform to gain in spiritual mass.
Not necessarily. Jesus didn't. It was his followers, and political leaders, who created the doctrine, out of a combination of various ancient texts, of which his story was only a small part.
(02-15-2015, 04:37 AM)Ashim Wrote: Let's look at Monica's sig again:
"Humans don't need meat. Eating meat causes unnecessary suffering of other-selves. Knowingly doing so is STS. "
"Humans don't need meat" is an absolute. It is an idea that we are presumably expected to believe, although the concept would be next to impossible to prove. Is the need refered to physical, spiritual, or both?
Had there been more room in the sig, I might have said 'The human body' but I maxed it out, so I used the word 'humans' and being that we're talking about a component of diet, I thought it would be obvious that I was referring to the human body; ie. physically.
Yes, it is an absolute, proven by science. There are no nutrients in dead animals that aren't also found in plants. Even B12 can be synthesized in the human gut, given the right bacteria, though it is more appealing to most people to take a supplement instead.
It is also a fact that animals suffer when confined, they suffer when they are raped by humans doing artificial insemination, they suffer when their babies are taken away, they suffer when their balls are cut off without anesthesia, they suffer when their horns or beaks are cut off without anesthesia, they suffer when they are confined in tiny crates, unable to move around, they suffer when they are electrically prodded to move down the chute to their death, while smelling the fear and blood of the numerous animals who went before them, they suffer when their throats are slit and they bleed to death, they suffer when they are dropped into boiling water to scald their feathers while still alive, and they suffer as they die. They suffer physically, and they suffer emotionally.
This too is fact. How do we know? Because animals have pain receptors and a nervous system. Thus we know for a fact that they suffer physically. It is simple physiology.
We also know that they suffer emotionally. How do we know this? Because animal behaviorists have conducted numerous tests proving that cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, and even fish are all capable of thought, have memory, and experience a gamut of emotions similar to those experienced by a human child. This includes grief, fear, stress, terror, and even compassion towards others. (The compassion part is unlike some humans.)
So yes, these are all scientific facts. My own personal views have nothing to do with it. They are simply facts. What you do with those facts is up to you.
The last part of my sig - Knowingly doing so is STS - isn't fact. It is opinion. My opinion. It is my sig; thus it contains my opinion.
Expressing my own opinion doesn't create a religious dogma. Now if x number of people read my sig and decided that they agreed with me, and decided to create The Church of Monica, well, that would be really stupid, in my opinion, but hey, anyone could do that with anyone's views. Ten people could single out all of your posts and create a doctrine called The Church of Ashim.
We both know that this is highly unlikely. To suggest that someone will create a religious dogma out of my sig is just silly.
(02-15-2015, 04:37 AM)Ashim Wrote: "Eating meat causes unnecessary suffering of other selves." OK, who is the judge of necessity? Monica?
It is simple logic. Since it is a fact that the human body doesn't need meat, then it logically follows that eating meat is unnecessary. If it's unnecessary, then it's self-serving. It is also a fact that animals suffer. Thus, since it's a fact that eating meat is unnecessary and it's a fact that animals suffer, then it logically follows that knowingly, unnecessarily doing something that causes the suffering of other-selves is an STS act.
Why? Because, in my understanding of the Law of One, that is the very definition of STS. Not talking about simply taking care of oneself, but about polarizing in the direction of STS. Serving self with disregard towards other-selves, or worse, at the expense of other selves or while causing harm to other-selves, is polarizing in the direction of STS.
Does this make the person STS? No, of course not. Why? Because that is determined by the sum total of one's polarity, of which this action is only a part. How big a part is it? That depends on the person and circumstances, and is not for any of us to determine.
(02-15-2015, 04:37 AM)Ashim Wrote: "Drug taking causes unnecessary suffering of other selves". Well this could be seen as 'true'. For example the theft, muggings, shootings that are drug related, not to mention the social fallout within families and communities.
I suspect that if I had that in my sig, very few people would object.
What if I said "Eating tomatoes is STS"? Would anyone object to that?
(02-15-2015, 04:37 AM)Ashim Wrote: "Knowingly doing so is STS." It is not defined here if the action of eating meat or just being a carnivore in general warrants the STS branding.
I chose my words very carefully. I was careful to add qualifiers: humans, unnecessary, knowingly. This should make it clear that I'm not talking about wolves or lions in the wild.
Nor am I 'branding' any person, but an action. And even then, not even the action by itself, but the unnecessary, conscious action.
(02-15-2015, 04:37 AM)Ashim Wrote: The danger here is that someone could take this literally.
That's how a religion takes hold as a meme.
Ok so just to be sure I'm understanding you correctly: Are you saying you're not concerned about the Law of One being made into a religion, despite its following of thousands and myriad support groups, this forum, etc., but you are concerned that someone might read a single sentence in some unknown, unimportant member of this forum and make that into a religion? Despite the fact that millions of vegetarians already believe as I do, someone would choose my particular statement to make into a religion?
RE: Law of One Religion? - Monica - 02-15-2015
(02-15-2015, 01:33 PM)Diana Wrote: I have a suggestion: Why not start a thread about Monica's signature and leave the topic out of this one?
Dogma is a legitimate topic of discussion.
Lol, they seem to be more interested in my sig than the topic. I thought it was an important topic. I had been thinking about this for about a year and finally decided to start a thread about it. But they're more interested in my sig. I don't know whether to be sad or amused, along with incredulous.
But sure, if they want to make this into its own thread about Monica's Sig, go for it. I think it's silly, but whatever floats their boat.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Bluebell - 02-15-2015
(02-15-2015, 01:33 PM)Diana Wrote: I have a suggestion: Why not start a thread about Monica's signature and leave the topic out of this one?
Dogma is a legitimate topic of discussion.
the signature is dogmatic. right or wrong.
noun, plural dogmas or (Rare) dogmata
[/url]
[dawg-muh-tuh] (Show IPA)
1.
an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals,behavior, etc., as of a church.
Synonyms: [url=http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/doctrine]doctrine, teachings, set of beliefs, philosophy.
2.
a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church:the dogma of the Assumption;
the recently defined dogma of papal infallibility.
Synonyms: tenet, canon, law.
3.
prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particulargroup:
the difficulty of resisting political dogma.
4.
a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle:
the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation.
Synonyms: conviction, certainty.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma
RE: Law of One Religion? - native - 02-15-2015
Aside from starting yet another long drawn out debate about meat, why not indulge somewhat in the human experience? Is having a diet coke really that bad? "We encourage the instrument to value itself and to see that its true requirements are valued by the self. We suggest contemplation of true richness of being." It's possible that someone who is impermeable to devaluing themselves is also offered protection to what may appear to be unhealthy.
When the two paths merge, they naturally have something to offer each other I think. Consider that the sts mentality of self love is not just cast aside. Each path must be denying something about themselves, otherwise they wouldn't be separate..perhaps? I don't know..seems reasonable. I say let people enjoy themselves..see things through a lens of love and emotional support. I think by creating an environment of acceptance, those manifestations we wish to extinguish through force simply fade away over time.
RE: Law of One Religion? - AnthroHeart - 02-15-2015
they have diet coke made with Splenda, rather than Aspartame, so I assume it's better.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Bluebell - 02-15-2015
i doubt splenda is better.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Bluebell - 02-15-2015
(02-15-2015, 02:21 PM)Icaro Wrote: Aside from starting yet another long drawn out debate about meat, why not indulge somewhat in the human experience? Is having a diet coke really that bad? "We encourage the instrument to value itself and to see that its true requirements are valued by the self. We suggest contemplation of true richness of being." It's possible that someone who is impermeable to devaluing themselves is also offered protection to what may appear to be unhealthy.
When the two paths merge, they naturally have something to offer each other I think. Consider that the sts mentality of self love is not just cast aside. Each path must be denying something about themselves, otherwise they wouldn't be separate..perhaps? I don't know..seems reasonable. I say let people enjoy themselves..see things through a lens of love and emotional support. I think by creating an environment of acceptance, those manifestations we wish to extinguish through force simply fade away over time.
well said
true richness of being. that would include a little traipse down the wrong path.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Minyatur - 02-15-2015
As a reminder, being STO is just a self righteous way of being STS. There is no good or bad polarity whatever unfold is the fufilling of different desires of the One. The duality that is perceived is looking into a mirror into yourself and that is the purpose of the said duality.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Monica - 02-15-2015
(02-15-2015, 02:50 PM)Minyatur Wrote: As a reminder, being STO is just a self righteous way of being STS. There is no good or bad polarity whatever unfold is the fufilling of different desires of the One. The duality that is perceived is looking into a mirror into yourself and that is the purpose of the said duality.
So all that stuff Ra said about Choice, and the 2 paths, is, what? Meaningless?
RE: Law of One Religion? - Monica - 02-15-2015
(02-15-2015, 02:21 PM)Icaro Wrote: Is having a diet coke really that bad? "We encourage the instrument to value itself and to see that its true requirements are valued by the self. We suggest contemplation of true richness of being." It's possible that someone who is impermeable to devaluing themselves is also offered protection to what may appear to be unhealthy.
Is smoking cigarettes really that bad?
We've all heard of someone's Uncle Charlie who smoked 2 packs of cigarettes per day, ate junk food, and drank tequila every night, and was never sick a day in his life and lived to be 99. So yes, some people get away with it. You can tell who they are, because they are never sick, and live to be 99!
(02-15-2015, 02:21 PM)Icaro Wrote: I say let people enjoy themselves..see things through a lens of love and emotional support. I think by creating an environment of acceptance, those manifestations we wish to extinguish through force simply fade away over time.
No one is forcing anyone to do anything. We couldn't even if we wanted to. This is just an internet discussion. After we leave the computer, we each make our own choices.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Diana - 02-15-2015
(02-15-2015, 02:21 PM)Icaro Wrote: Aside from starting yet another long drawn out debate about meat, why not indulge somewhat in the human experience? Is having a diet coke really that bad? "We encourage the instrument to value itself and to see that its true requirements are valued by the self. We suggest contemplation of true richness of being." It's possible that someone who is impermeable to devaluing themselves is also offered protection to what may appear to be unhealthy.
When the two paths merge, they naturally have something to offer each other I think. Consider that the sts mentality of self love is not just cast aside. Each path must be denying something about themselves, otherwise they wouldn't be separate..perhaps? I don't know..seems reasonable. I say let people enjoy themselves..see things through a lens of love and emotional support. I think by creating an environment of acceptance, those manifestations we wish to extinguish through force simply fade away over time.
Yes, let people enjoy themselves. To vibrate with joy is a great gift to existence. I am making no judgments about what anyone does. (Although, I can say human decisions sadden me very much in that so much cruelty exists in this world.) A person's choices are their own. I wonder what human, here, could be impermeable to devaluing themselves? I do think there is an abundance of protection offered. But this is like a parent protecting a child. The child doesn't know how to act responsibly yet because he/she doesn't have the necessary experience or capacity to make good decisions, so the parent guides the decisions out of love. I am suggesting that humans, in evolving and growing spiritually, would endeavor to take responsibility for their decisions and not do whatever knowing someone else will protect them from the effects.
And, in speculation: If a being outside of 3D protects a human here from their decisions, say, to drink a diet coke, isn't that indirectly adding to the bigger problem of our poisonous food supply, and thus interfering? Because the being protects the human from the ill effects of the diet coke, the human will have no consequences, therefore the human may continue to drink poisonous substances and support the market of producing them. I really don't think an evolved being, one who "helps" here, would do this sort of thing in general.
Finally, this thread doesn't have to be about meat. If everyone could stay on topic and not fixate on Monica's signature, we could talk about the human experience. Why not "accept" Monica's signature for her own expression, and not make it an issue? Why react to it? If someone here wants to discuss Monica's signature, then as I suggested, create a thread about it.
RE: Law of One Religion? - native - 02-15-2015
(02-15-2015, 03:05 PM)Monica Wrote: So yes, some people get away with it.
It's strange isn't it. So the real question is why and how is that possible?
Quote:No one is forcing anyone to do anything. We couldn't even if we wanted to. This is just an internet discussion. After we leave the computer, we each make our own choices.
It was just food for thought.
RE: Law of One Religion? - native - 02-15-2015
(02-15-2015, 03:05 PM)Diana Wrote: If a being outside of 3D protects a human here from their decisions, say, to drink a diet coke, isn't that indirectly adding to the bigger problem of our poisonous food supply, and thus interfering?
What I'm getting at involves this type of question. Is the poisonous food supply a cause or effect of some lower blockage? I think that by valuing ourselves, certain decisions that on the outside may seem to support something negative, might lead to positive transformations elsewhere, thus supporting collective health. I think it's interesting to consider things non-linearly when it comes to self-acceptance.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Monica - 02-15-2015
(02-15-2015, 03:14 PM)Icaro Wrote: It's strange isn't it. So the real question is why and how is that possible?
Apparently, there are myriad factors to health. Ultimately, everything is catalyst, and that alone can explain why 1 person can smoke cigarettes and get lung cancer, while another doesn't, or why 1 person might get arthritis from drinking sodas, while another doesn't.
Surely, one's attitudes, emotions, genetics, stress level, environment, karma, etc. all come into play.
But, overall, people aren't getting away with ingesting these poisons. 1 out of 2 women and 1 out of 3 men get cancer, and 1 in 3 children will get diagnosed with diabetes. We know that excess acidity causes cancer, diabetes, arthritis, and other degenerative diseases. Soda is the most acidifying thing one can put in their body. The acidifying effect is even worse than sugar or aspartame (which can cause brain tumors), so diet soda is a double whammy and is probably the single most toxic substance one can ingest, next to maybe cigarettes.
Many people think they are 'getting away with it' for many years, but the diseases eventually catch up with them. They just might not link their cancer or arthritis to the sodas they've been drinking for decades, unless they do some research and get educated on the subject, because in the US, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, etc. are generally considered 'just things that happen out of the blue' with very little regard to causes, and drugs are given that treat the symptoms, without addressing the root cause.
Yet, still some people do get away with it...like Uncle Charlie. Knowing that most people don't, we each make our own choice as to whether we think we'll be like Uncle Charlie.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Monica - 02-15-2015
(02-15-2015, 03:05 PM)Diana Wrote: If a being outside of 3D protects a human here from their decisions, say, to drink a diet coke, isn't that indirectly adding to the bigger problem of our poisonous food supply, and thus interfering?
Good point. I hadn't thought of it that way.
(02-15-2015, 03:21 PM)Icaro Wrote: What I'm getting at involves this type of question. Is the poisonous food supply a cause or effect of some lower blockage? I think that by valuing ourselves, certain decisions that on the outside may seem to support something negative, might lead to positive transformations elsewhere, thus supporting collective health. I think it's interesting to consider things non-linearly when it comes to self-acceptance.
Maybe it's both. It might also just be a convenient way for lots of people to exit this planet. With the new GMO issue, cancer rates will likely skyrocket even higher than they are now. Since most people didn't consciously choose to consume cancer-causing GMOs, then there must be some collective conscious choice at work here.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Diana - 02-15-2015
(02-15-2015, 03:14 PM)Icaro Wrote:(02-15-2015, 03:05 PM)Monica Wrote: So yes, some people get away with it.
It's strange isn't it. So the real question is why and how is that possible?
Many people who are focused on the spiritual path tend to forget we have physical bodies with a material, physiological basis, which should be taken into consideration. Some people have better physical genetic lines and stronger immune systems inherited in the DNA. They may have chosen this for whatever reasons. But if you were to do an autopsy on Uncle Charles who lived to be 99 while smoking 2 packs of cigarettes per day, I guarantee you would find evidence of the effects. It's just that some human bodies are better able to deal with toxins. There may be other reasons as well, but let's not forget that DNA and many other physical factors have some relevance.
I do think that we have the ability (not very much understood as yet) to consciously create our own reality regarding our bodies. We do it unconsciously, which may help to explain Uncle Charles as well. Illnesses can often be traced to emotional issues.
On another note, there is the example of Yogananda, whose body showed no signs of deterioration after he died until he was buried (or whatever they did with his physical body). But few humans have reached the level of evolution he had (in my opinion). He was also a vegetarian and I doubt very much he disrespected his physical body.
RE: Law of One Religion? - dreamliner - 02-15-2015
I guess monica has something in her mind since the beginning of this thread, to "take care" of Law of One in a unique way.
(02-10-2015, 05:10 PM)Monica Wrote: Do you think we have some responsibility in protecting the material from being turned into a religion? Is there anything we can do to prevent that from happening?
(02-10-2015, 05:44 PM)Monica Wrote: This is a good point, Gemini. A lot of the material could be confusing or even fear-inducing to those who aren't ready for it. How, then, do we act responsibly with the material, in the age of the internet?
(02-12-2015, 09:30 PM)Monica Wrote: I don't recall anyone even talking about this topic before and I think it's an important one. We, as caretakers of this Material, have a role to play as to whether or not it gets turned into a religion.
However, it seems that she couldn't manage to reveal what was in her mind yet. As far as I could observe, monica has been either "counterarguing" (with the help of many fallacies & demagogies; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue ) with objecting/suspecting parties:
(02-10-2015, 07:07 PM)Monica Wrote: Case in point: So are you saying that if you were to encounter someone about to murder a child, you would do nothing to stop it? (Please clarify if I'm misunderstanding you.)
(02-10-2015, 11:58 PM)Monica Wrote: We aren't supposed to be 'transcend polarity' in this density...we are supposed to choose and polarize.
(02-12-2015, 11:37 PM)Monica Wrote: See ya around...maybe in a few hundred years when there's The Church of Ra.
(02-10-2015, 02:38 PM)Monica Wrote: Agreed! The reason I started this discussion is that I've been observing a rather disconcerting trend in some of the discussions, wherein people sometimes state "Ra said xyz therefore it is fact" seemingly with no regard of the rest of what Ra said. A single phrase is taken out of context, ignoring myriad other points made by Ra that could flesh out the concept. This is akin to a Christian taking a single bible verse and using it to justify whatever they like...for example, an old testament quote in which the 'god' of the bible commanded his 'chosen few' to invade their neighbors, steal their land and slaughter all their children could be used by an extremist to justify violence and bigotry, while ignoring the teachings of Jesus about love, peace, forgiveness and compassion. I've seen this happen in the religious community numerous times.
(02-10-2015, 02:38 PM)Monica Wrote: An example of such cherry-picking can be found here. For example, "Ra said there is no right or wrong" while ignoring the 2 paths. Or, "Ra said the key is acceptance" while ignoring the importance of free will and choice. Or "Carla does xyz therefore I can too" which isn't fair to Carla, since she has expressly stated that she doesn't wish to be anyone's guru. Or "I am a 6D Wanderer so I don't need to have compassion...that is a 4D trait" which seems to be missing the point about why we're here in the first place.
(so, is positive path "right", and is negative path "wrong"?)
(02-10-2015, 02:38 PM)Monica Wrote: In all these cases, it seems to be a matter of picking a single point alone, while ignoring the bigger picture...similar to the religious person who creates an entire doctrine based on that single scripture. There are literally thousands of variations just in the Christian religion alone...all because of slight differences in interpretation. The mainstream Christian religions all agree that only those who have been 'saved' by believing in Jesus will go to 'heaven' and families have been torn apart by this single belief, political decisions have been made, wars have been fought...this is the power of religious dogma.
(02-10-2015, 02:38 PM)Monica Wrote: I contend that no beliefs are completely immune, not even the Law of One, unfortunately. Perhaps the reason is that some people are simply trading their Christian dogma for Law of One dogma. I see the shimmering of religious, dogmatic thinking bleeding into Law of One discussions. I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this?
(02-10-2015, 05:02 PM)Monica Wrote: For example, the concept of Acceptance is one that is commonly misused, in my opinion. Taken by itself, it is often interpreted to mean that 'anything goes' and we should never help anyone, never try to make the world a better place, never do anything, really...just let it all hang out! See someone about to murder a child...nah, just let them do it...accept everything without any discernment whatsoever. Lose your temper and hurt someone's feelings...nah, no need to apologize...they need to just accept whatever venom we decide to vomit on them...Don't bother ever trying to do any good in the world...just accept it as is...etc.
(02-11-2015, 12:40 AM)Monica Wrote: OK fair enough. But see, you are offering some deep thoughts here...which I respect, even if I don't completely agree. See, you aren't taking a single idea out of context and making it into a dogma, as so many others often do. When I mentioned the concept of Acceptance as an example of simplistic thinking, I was referring to those who might say "No, don't save the child...accept the murder because Ra said to accept" which completely disregards the rest of the concepts offered by Ra, in favor of focusing on only one, and not even understanding what that one means anyway...this is akin to what the religious fundamentalists do.
(02-13-2015, 11:30 PM)Monica Wrote: 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.
(02-14-2015, 12:03 PM)Monica Wrote: Yes, I agree. Many public figures revel in that. It becomes an ego thing for them. Not so for Carla.
...which makes it all the more disturbing when people put her in that position, especially when it's ridiculous things and not even her admirable traits, of which she has many.
Or collecting the approvals/gratidues from approving parties:
(02-14-2015, 12:05 PM)Monica Wrote:(02-14-2015, 01:34 AM)Regulus Wrote: It seems your thoughts, Monica, are in congruence with the Confederation of Planets in the Service of the One Infinite CreatorYES!!! Exactly! Thank you for finding that very valuable and astute quote!
How polarity of a person takes shape is a complex issue. Intention/desire, thought, action, interactions, consequences, etc.; all are the concepts which have effects on the resultant polarity.
Even good intentions may turn into some negative polarity. That is, it does not matter solely what is in your mind; you are not living in a universe all by yourself. Patton and lincoln are the two examples to this:
http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?q=patton&o=s
http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?q=%22cumulative+feelings%22
And, the case of fifth-density wanderers turning into "ruthless despots" in venus, is another excellent instance of universal tragicomedy.
http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?q=wisdom-oriented
There are many techniques of "control over others" and "domination". The problem is, whether "honoring the free will", "manipulation", "control over others" and "domination" live together, or not. I think, not.
"too much order is by its essence, negative": http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?q=%22too+much+order+is+by+its+essence+negative%22
Monica, if you can be more specific about what "caretakers of Law of One" might/should do to "prevent" it gets turn into a religion -in the name of "right", of course-, then I guess "caretakers of Law of One" might respond more specifically as well.
RE: Law of One Religion? - native - 02-15-2015
I don't know the answers, but I can see the unity. I'm all for self-discipline and seeking health/harmony..I spent 10 minutes considering whether or not I should comment in here as I try to avoid speaking against opinions more than I used to these days. I like to share what I think but at the same time I don't want to be controlling as I just want others to be themselves also.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Minyatur - 02-15-2015
(02-15-2015, 02:58 PM)Monica Wrote:(02-15-2015, 02:50 PM)Minyatur Wrote: As a reminder, being STO is just a self righteous way of being STS. There is no good or bad polarity whatever unfold is the fufilling of different desires of the One. The duality that is perceived is looking into a mirror into yourself and that is the purpose of the said duality.
So all that stuff Ra said about Choice, and the 2 paths, is, what? Meaningless?
Ra said himself that both are one and the same if I remember correctly and that there is no duality, only the illusion of duality. Ra's main message is about Oneness not promoting duality. Law of One not Law of Two.
The two path holds true until your reach the point of transcending this duality and recognizing it as only a mirror into yourself. Prior to that there is only the act of service to self/others which is still service of One. The services always answer a need for them, there is nothing that is not called for.
Creation is the perfect arrangement for the fufilling of every desires as Creation is the manifestation of those desires.
STO is STS because it is unconsciously fufilling your desire of being STO which is your service to self. While STS is STO because it is unconsciously fufilling the desires of others of learning lessons that come into being because of this duality.
Each different individuality is a servicing mirror for other ways of being to understand each other into Oneness. There is nothing that has no purpose into existence for all is One.