+- 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? - Bluebell - 02-16-2015
i think it does in a way. it challenges my belief system.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Diana - 02-16-2015
(02-16-2015, 03:08 PM)jody Wrote: Is there anyone posting on here who believes that this line of debate is producing anything of positive value anymore?
I wish you all Love. =)
Catalyst is always positive in my opinion. If we aren't challenged, we have a tendency not to grow.
What about my post a few back, #234. Is that not positive?
RE: Law of One Religion? - Shawnna - 02-16-2015
(02-16-2015, 03:08 PM)jody Wrote: Is there anyone posting on here who believes that this line of debate is producing anything of positive value anymore?
I wish you all Love. =)
There hasn't been anything of value in this dialog for quite some time.
It is, however, very revealing to see those who choose to beat this topic down even further.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Monica - 02-16-2015
(02-16-2015, 05:37 PM)Shawnna Wrote: There hasn't been anything of value in this dialog for quite some time.
It is, however, very revealing to see those who choose to beat this topic down even further.
Yes, I agree. This thread was supposed to be about religious dogma, but it got totally sidetracked.
I just now noticed your sig. Are you saying I have darkness in me? I am offended by that!
RE: Law of One Religion? - Minyatur - 02-16-2015
If we want to come back about religious dogma. The Ra material should be viewed as the perspective of an entity which has not yet fully balanced wisdom and love. Nothing on this sphere can truly be dogma material and words are a poor vessel for that which we strive for.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Diana - 02-16-2015
(02-16-2015, 05:51 PM)Minyatur Wrote: . . . words are a poor vessel for that which we strive for.
So true. Posting here, with such deep and complex issues discussed, is a great opportunity to hone the skills of comprehensive written communication. I am grateful for it.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Diana - 02-16-2015
(02-16-2015, 05:37 PM)Shawnna Wrote: There hasn't been anything of value in this dialog for quite some time.
It is, however, very revealing to see those who choose to beat this topic down even further.
What does it reveal to you and why does it matter? What do you propose by mentioning this? I find it interesting that your signature encourages others to embrace their darkness, yet your above comments would suggest, according to you, there are certain unacceptable ways to post, or unacceptable things to say.
I also wonder why you continue to post if there is nothing of value in this thread. Merely to tell us that?
RE: Law of One Religion? - Minyatur - 02-16-2015
(02-16-2015, 07:06 PM)Diana Wrote:(02-16-2015, 05:51 PM)Minyatur Wrote: . . . words are a poor vessel for that which we strive for.
So true. Posting here, with such deep and complex issues discussed, is a great opportunity to hone the skills of comprehensive written communication. I am grateful for it.
What I enjoy most is clearing a misunderstanding that came from two ways of wording the same thing. In my mind it ends with : "There was no disagreement, all is well". I did a dual channeling with another wanderer and this happened the whole night. The misunderstanding often seemed to come from the influence of a negative entity which enjoyed bringing confusion when we forgot about it. So in a way it was a 3-way channeling.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Shawnna - 02-16-2015
(02-16-2015, 07:25 PM)Diana Wrote:(02-16-2015, 05:37 PM)Shawnna Wrote: There hasn't been anything of value in this dialog for quite some time.
It is, however, very revealing to see those who choose to beat this topic down even further.
{snip}
I also wonder why you continue to post if there is nothing of value in this thread. Merely to tell us that?
Yes.
Namaste.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Shawnna - 02-16-2015
(02-16-2015, 02:16 AM)Bluebell Wrote:(02-15-2015, 07:12 PM)Shawnna Wrote: Fix it please.
maybe a mod could? i can't fix Monica's post, only my quotes of it.
You can edit out my name.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Bluebell - 02-17-2015
i will but i can't change the original.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Bluebell - 02-17-2015
there u go Shawnna. i fixed it. there's still ur quotes & Monica's post. i don't have authority to fix those.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Shawnna - 02-17-2015
(02-15-2015, 05:07 PM)Monica Wrote:(02-15-2015, 04:19 PM)Bluebell Wrote: so chain smoking is ok but meat is bad?
No one said chain smoking is 'ok' in terms of health.
wild animals eat meat. they're fit & healthy.
Presumably, we're more evolved than wild animals.
i think cancer & other ill is cooking related. i eat meat currently out of health reasons. but i think cooked food in general is "bad" & meat is usually cooked, baked, fried etc.
Certainly, cooking is a factor, among many other factors to health.
The most comprehensive study ever done on diet shows that:
Animal Protein "Turns On" Cancer Genes - T. Colin Campbell PhD
meat eating isn't ideal but the more i get judged for it by self righteous people the less i feel wanting to stop is my decision & i instinctively go against oppression.
shrug
Please fix your quotes. I did not say the above. Thank you in advance for making sure your attributions are accurate.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Shawnna - 02-17-2015
(02-17-2015, 12:36 AM)Bluebell Wrote: there u go Shawnna. i fixed it. there's still ur quotes & Monica's post. i don't have authority to fix those.
Thank you very much. I've asked Monica to fix her misquotes as well.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Monica - 02-17-2015
(02-17-2015, 01:07 AM)Shawnna Wrote:(02-17-2015, 12:36 AM)Bluebell Wrote: there u go Shawnna. i fixed it. there's still ur quotes & Monica's post. i don't have authority to fix those.
Thank you very much. I've asked Monica to fix her misquotes as well.
You did? Where?
Oh, found it. Sorry! Post # 174 has been fixed.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Shawnna - 02-17-2015
Thank you.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Steppingfeet - 02-17-2015
Hey remember in Post 74 I was like:
Quote: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.
And then Monica responded with a Chorus of "No"
Okay, now that we’re caught up on where my contribution to this thread intersects with Monica’s, some examination.
Monica, I meant you only kindness and respect. I gave your questions time and space for consideration. As I said a couple of times, I felt they were quite good in and of themselves.
But you magnified one particular comment I made, and on that point did pivot the conversation in a different direction. I didn’t intend for that to happen, but as it has, I’d like to address your befuddlement, and help explain how others could reach the conclusion that your questions are not just good, general, objective, knowledge-seeking questions, but also contain your feeling that Bring4th members (with whom you disagree) are mistreating/misunderstanding/misapplying this information, that is, are being dogmatic-fundamentalist.
You said this in Post #40
And then Post #69
And then I read this morning a most excellent post from you that asks really challenging, complex, and thought-provoking questions that could be the fuel for very intensive, stimulating discussion.
Post #225
But what that post also does is further substantiate the assertions made by Parsons, myself, and others.
I myself am befuddled that you can write a post like that while simultaneously stating that you are not charging other members with exactly the scenario your OP questions identify.
I think I get that post. You are trying to understand how and why other members disagree with you and have the reactions they do to your positions, and one of your conclusions, it seems, is explained in Post 225. Your conclusion, though, is exactly what I was saying.
Diana, am I just way out in left field here? Am I grievously misreading Monica?
Monica, you are so brilliant. I’ve always admired your intelligence, your principles, your convictions, and your capacity be outspoken. I don’t share that latter quality with you, but I would enjoy more of that strength.
There are different ways to explain why you clash with others here. From my own limited view in the corner of a very big room, it’s not so much the convictions, per se, but how you go about the discussion process.
With love/light,
GLB
PS: I seldom create threads, but were I to create one, and were it to veer from its intended course, I might diligently and gently shepherd it back to its original course. Or attempt it.
And a big lololol
RE: Law of One Religion? - Monica - 02-17-2015
(02-17-2015, 01:04 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: but also contain your feeling that Bring4th members (with whom you disagree) are mistreating/misunderstanding/misapplying this information, that is, are being dogmatic-fundamentalist.
There is nothing in any of those quotes that say anything about them disagreeing with me. I have observed fundamentalist thinking here, independent of whether they happen to agree with me or not.
My objection was to your strong pronouncement, which you just did again, that it was because of the disagreement.
That is patently absurd. As stated previously, I've observed fundamentalist thinking in areas in which I agree! It has nothing to do with agreement.
Yet you continue to insist that it does...
That is rather audacious, for you to tell me why I think a certain way, after I repeatedly told you that I don't think that way. Who are you to tell me what I think?
If you read all of those posts, you will see that I said nothing about agreement, and in fact said the exact opposite. It is you who are reading more into my words.
(02-17-2015, 01:04 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: But what that post also does is further substantiate the assertions made by Parsons, myself, and others.
Gary, you walked into this conversation with veiled jabs, and immediately fanned the flames of discord. You, Parsons, "and others" have made it very clear that you were distracted by my sig, and all of this off-topic stuff has been about my sig. You seem to have had your minds made up at the beginning of this thread, and when people's minds are already made up, they can read anything as 'substantiating'.
You also initiated talk about my 'strong views' which had NOTHING to do with the conversation. And then you tell me I should have tried to keep the thread on-topic?? When you helped take it off-topic?
(02-17-2015, 01:04 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: I myself am befuddled that you can write a post like that while simultaneously stating that you are not charging other members with exactly the scenario your OP questions identify.
Again, you twist my words, and leave out key points. I do not deny, and in fact have reiterated, that yes, I do observe fundamentalist thinking here.
BUT NOT BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH ME.
Can you please re-read the above sentence a few times? I have stated this numerous times already, and I don't know how to make it any clearer.
(02-17-2015, 01:04 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: I think I get that post. You are trying to understand how and why other members disagree with you
OMG NO!!!! WHY do you keep insisting it's about disagreement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????????
I don't care if others disagree! I don't expect agreement!
(02-17-2015, 01:04 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: and have the reactions they do to your positions,
I know exactly why they react as they do to my positions, and that is completely irrelevant to the topic of this discussion.
(02-17-2015, 01:04 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: and one of your conclusions, it seems, is explained in Post 225. Your conclusion, though, is exactly what I was saying.
WTF??? Post 225 does the exact opposite! It lists examples of fundamentalist thinking! It says NOTHING about disagreement!
(02-17-2015, 01:04 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: Diana, am I just way out in left field here? Am I grievously misreading Monica?
Gary, you are crossing a line here. Have things changed so much since the days when I was mod? Back then, I would NEVER have asked another member to analyze some other member publicly!
And as mod, I would NEVER have analyzed any member publicly! We handled matters privately as much as possible. I haven't violated any guidelines, and you know that. And even if I did, this isn't the right way to go about it. You don't have any right to add fuel to the fire, and let people think it's OK to start analyzing someone. A lot of what happened in this thread started with you and got perpetuated by you, by your continual insistence that I expect others to agree with me, despite me telling you repeatedly that it has nothing to do with agreement.
I am stunned!
(02-17-2015, 01:04 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: There are different ways to explain why you clash with others here.
From my own limited view in the corner of a very big room, it’s not so much the convictions, per se, but how you go about the discussion process.
That's just bullshit and you know it, Gary. You know damn well that in the early days of the meat discussions, my comments were exceedingly polite and it DID NOT MATTER. It never mattered how nicely I stated my views. I got exactly the same reaction back then as I do now.
So don't start telling me it's because of 'how' I 'go about the discussion'. That's just BS.
You are showing your own biases here, Gary. You dare to publicly confront me...for WHAT??? For remaining firm on my convictions? While you ignore people who directly, blatantly call me names? which is a direct violation of the guidelines!
So it's ok for people to call me a bigot and other vile things - that is OK??? But it's not ok for me to express my own views in my signature?
(02-17-2015, 01:04 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: PS: I seldom create threads, but were I to create one, and were it to veer from its intended course, I might diligently and gently shepherd it back to its original course. Or attempt it.
I DID attempt it! REPEATEDLY!!! I am astounded that you dare to tell me that, when I attempted it numerous times and you are one of the people who took it off-course!
I direct you once again to this exchange:
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10367&pid=170808#pid170808
RE: Law of One Religion? - Diana - 02-17-2015
(02-17-2015, 01:04 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: Diana, am I just way out in left field here? Am I grievously misreading Monica?
I do think Monica and her intentions have been misunderstood.
1. I do think you (and others) misunderstand Monica, and perhaps, her style of communicating. I may think this because I know her a little better personally than most do here. There are many members here who ruffle feathers, some of whom are adulated to my continued astonishment—and I won't mention to whom I refer. I would suggest to ALL here that you try to work WITH Monica in understanding, and stay on point to the subject of the thread.
2. Furthermore, why are you publicly calling her out in this way? Remember 3D Monkey? He was blatantly abusive (not that I minded at all, because I didn't). You and the other Mods handled that privately. I feel that your posts (you asked, so here it is) are passive-aggressive and I feel you are trying to justify yourself. That said, I find (from my point in cyberspace) you to be an intelligent, sensitive person.
3. Like all of us, Monica is an imperfect human. She has been expressing her views. We all do. Can't we all give her a break? Why is everyone so freaked out about her views on animals and her signature? Everyone spouts free will here for themselves—what about for Monica?
RE: Law of One Religion? - Steppingfeet - 02-17-2015
Hello Monica,
We are completely missing one another here. I don’t see the possibility of reconciling our viewpoints without considerable expenditures of time and energy, and even then I think it would be a long shot.
It is the wiser course, then, to respectfully bow out of this thread so that you may have the discussion you most desire.
I am sorry I have provided such upsetting catalyst. I hope you get out of this thread what you are seeking.
L/L, GLB
PS: Diana, thank you for the civility of your reply even in disagreement.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Monica - 02-17-2015
(02-17-2015, 02:02 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: Hello Monica,
We are completely missing one another here. I don’t see the possibility of reconciling our viewpoints without considerable expenditures of time and energy, and even then I think it would be a long shot.
It is the wiser course, then, to respectfully bow out of this thread so that you may have the discussion you most desire.
I am sorry I have provided such upsetting catalyst. I hope you get out of this thread what you are seeking.
That is your choice. It needn't be so. All I am asking of you is to take my words at face value, instead of reading something into them that isn't there. When I say it's not about disagreement, I mean: It's not about disagreement. Very simple.
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10367&pid=170808#pid170808
Right now, we are in disagreement about reconciliation. Personally, I prefer to reconcile with people, rather than just sweep it all under the rug. But I accept your choice to disagree, and I wish you well.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Bluebell - 02-17-2015
(02-17-2015, 01:58 PM)Diana Wrote:(02-17-2015, 01:04 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: Diana, am I just way out in left field here? Am I grievously misreading Monica?
I do think Monica and her intentions have been misunderstood.
1. I do think you (and others) misunderstand Monica, and perhaps, her style of communicating. I may think this because I know her a little better personally than most do here. There are many members here who ruffle feathers, some of whom are adulated to my continued astonishment—and I won't mention to whom I refer. I would suggest to ALL here that you try to work WITH Monica in understanding, and stay on point to the subject of the thread.
2. Furthermore, why are you publicly calling her out in this way? Remember 3D Monkey? He was blatantly abusive (not that I minded at all, because I didn't). You and the other Mods handled that privately. I feel that your posts (you asked, so here it is) are passive-aggressive and I feel you are trying to justify yourself. That said, I find (from my point in cyberspace) you to be an intelligent, sensitive person.
3. Like all of us, Monica is an imperfect human. She has been expressing her views. We all do. Can't we all give her a break? Why is everyone so freaked out about her views on animals and her signature? Everyone spouts free will here for themselves—what about for Monica?
free will to express opinion includes other people's expression of disagreement. why is Monica exempt?
sure sometimes emotions get out of hand & things could have gone more civilly but ur judging people having emotion in first place. the sig called people here STS, u don't think that would "freak people out"?
Monica did express herself freely, so wut's ur beef? that people disagreed?
RE: Law of One Religion? - Monica - 02-17-2015
(02-17-2015, 02:18 PM)Bluebell Wrote: the sig called people here STS,
No it didn't. Please re-read it. That's not what it says.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Ashim - 02-17-2015
I just harvested the first dozen or so signatures I came across, no cherry picking.
Here they are:
Quote:Embrace your darkness; your angels will sing.
Quote:There is no right or wrong, all is well .
Quote:Be aware and you'll grow
Quote:Enjoy http://www.whatthebleep.com
It got me to "The Ra material" and in here !
Quote:Laugh and enjoy yourself
- Quo
Quote:can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Quote:You are everything you choose.
Quote:Lee as
kycahi
Quote:And as all things were from One, by the meditation of One, so from this One Thing come all things by adaptation.
Quote:Service to Others means Service to All. That includes yourself.
Quote:There is no magic greater than honest distortion toward love.
Quote:"I am all that has been, and is, and shall be..."
Quote:"A mountain holds an echo deep inside. That's how I hold your voice."
Most of these are either philosopical in nature, or neutral.
Monica's signature strikes me as being dogmatic.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Monica - 02-17-2015
Ashim, do you want to start a thread about signatures? We could analyze everyone's signatures.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Bluebell - 02-17-2015
(02-17-2015, 02:20 PM)Monica Wrote:(02-17-2015, 02:18 PM)Bluebell Wrote: the sig called people here STS,
No it didn't. Please re-read it. That's not what it says.
uh, yes it did. people here eat meat, it says knowingly doing so is STS. u forgot wut it says?
RE: Law of One Religion? - Shemaya - 02-17-2015
It is revealing to compare / contrast other signatures. Yes, Ashim, that's a really good point. Very true. This is the definition of dogmatic:
[inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.
synonyms: opinionated, peremptory, assertive, insistent, emphatic, adamant, doctrinaire, authoritarian, imperious, dictatorial, uncompromising, unyielding, inflexible, rigid
"your being so dogmatic does not attract me to your religious philosophy"]
RE: Law of One Religion? - Shemaya - 02-17-2015
**directly from Google**
RE: Law of One Religion? - Minyatur - 02-17-2015
Why do everyone think there is a problem with this thread? Instead of rejecting something, one should seek the meaning of why it is there. This thread is a 3D density argumentation or discussion, isn't that the purpose of being here and having the veil? Instead I'm gonna start a thread where the only two words accepted are Light and Love, everyone is gonna love it but it won't have much purpose. The title will be : "Light light light love light love love".
All tried to bring to this thread is that STS needs as much understanding and acceptance as STO as there is nothing that is not the Creator.
And Monica, who implied that saving someone is worse than killing someone? I've endlessly tried to tell you that both happen to those to which it needs to happen and if you ever save someone that's great but remember you weren't there to save much more as your soul didn't respond to a need for you to be there. If you polarize the planet positively, that's your role and it's great but don't blame humans for polarizing the planet negatively when that's the freaking reason they were even born on the surface of this sphere. It seems to me you want everyone to have the same role as you do in this clockwork but the clockwork is made of each individual different roles.
This is the essence of what I've been trying to tell you : The main reason you are here is not to polarize this Sphere, that is the indirect reason if you will. The main reason is about you, it's always been about you, you are here upon the surface of this sphere which you don't understand and seem to reject it's ways and hope it would be different because this is exactly what you need to be confronted with. You are just wandering here, you are not partaking in this stage of evolution even if you help it in many ways, consciously or not. You simply have something to bring to this Sphere to give it a little push in polarization and this Sphere has something to bring to you in your understanding of the Creator of Himself. We are not here at random, this place is the only place in the whole of Creation that responded to what you currently need, isn't that meaningful?
To come back to the subject of this thread, speaking of religious dogma. Ra words about STO/STS are not to be taken litteraly because as a 6D social memory complex, he has not yet fully balanced wisdom and love and it is what he wishes to do. The wanderers of Ra have the purpose toward Ra of bringing greater knowledge of this balance between Love and Wisdom so that Ra may harvest into 7D and become a Logos, which is the loss of individuality or understanding that things don't have to be your way. We are not here to become Ra (or whatever group you are from), remove the veil and that's what you already are, we are here to make Ra evolve into an harvestable entity which he is not. A Logos do not think in term of STS/STO which is why I've saying so much that is it an illusion. We are here to work upon imbalances of our social memory complexes not try to impose them upon others. But this still happens because of the veil and has it's own purpose because of the Law of Confusion and it will bring greater understanding, so all is well.
I'll tell you Monica, you are an STO entity and everything you do will mostly be STO during this incarnation and that is great (don't delude yourself into thinking you are 100% STO tough), I'm not telling you to become an STS entity. Far from it, I'm telling you that we all have things to learn from the STS side of Creation and Ra seemed to have a bias toward STS entities. As I pierced the veil further this bias became apparent and came to me as what Ra also thinks. Earth is the place where it seems impossible for anyone to understand all-others, so IMO it seems like the perfect trainning ground for this purpose.
This is a suggestion. Rather than trying to find information in the LOO material about STS/STO, you can always consciously channel Ra and expand your understanding of it. Ra has evolved since the material and the material was directed toward 3 individuals at a given time.
RE: Law of One Religion? - Diana - 02-17-2015
(02-17-2015, 02:36 PM)Minyatur Wrote: Why do everyone think there is a problem with this thread? Instead of rejecting something, one should seek the meaning of why it is there. This thread is a 3D density argumentation or discussion, isn't that the purpose of being here and having the veil?
I'm gonna start a thread where the only two words accepted are Light and Love, everyone is gonna love it but it won't have much purpose. The title will be : "Light light light love light love love".
I won't love it. What fun is that?