(09-05-2015, 01:22 PM)Monica Wrote: ...Tenet suggested that Carla's challenging of Ra in the name of Christ and her devotion to the bible, were actually limitations imposed on Ra, which actually may have distorted the contact.

(09-06-2015, 04:52 AM)Aion Wrote: Well, Ra correlated the Bible with the entity's (Carla) most direct understanding of the Law of One, so obviously Ra didn't relate to it in terms of the violent or controlling aspects... it was clearly representative of the Law of One for Carla.

(09-06-2015, 03:09 PM)Aion Wrote: My thought is, are you sure you're not just projecting your own perception of negativity on to the book?

(09-06-2015, 03:09 PM)Aion Wrote: I'm not saying there aren't horrible things in the book, but there are also good things in it subject to the observer who chooses what to see.

I am a fan of the Gospel of John, I think it's actually the only 'true' gospel or at least the closest to it. I might mention on that note is for the set up of the Ra contact she had her bible opened to the first pages of the Gospel of John.

I'm sure you've read the Gospel of John so surely you can see, especially in the first page or so, a deep pronunciation of the Law of One as all things stemming from a single source and all things become real through Light.

(09-06-2015, 03:09 PM)Aion Wrote: My Oma has a bible called The Living Bible and everything in it has been reworked and reworded to produce much more positive philosophy

(09-06-2015, 03:09 PM)Aion Wrote: You can literally feel the light and love connected with this bible, not in small part by my Oma's immense dedication to Love and her many notes.

(09-06-2015, 03:09 PM)Aion Wrote: great example of how something seemingly negative can be given a major positive charge.

It's just a catalyst. You choose whether you make positive or negative use of it.

(09-06-2015, 03:09 PM)Aion Wrote: My thought is, are you sure you're not just projecting your own perception of negativity on to the book? I'm not saying there aren't horrible things in the book, but there are also good things in it subject to the observer who chooses what to see.

I am a fan of the Gospel of John, I think it's actually the only 'true' gospel or at least the closest to it. I might mention on that note is for the set up of the Ra contact she had her bible opened to the first pages of the Gospel of John.

I'm sure you've read the Gospel of John so surely you can see, especially in the first page or so, a deep pronunciation of the Law of One as all things stemming from a single source and all things become real through Light. The King James version is also a Frankenstein version of the Bible and is so corrupted and changed that it hardly is representative of the Bible itself. It's just the one most are familiar with.

My Oma has a bible called The Living Bible and everything in it has been reworked and reworded to produce much more positive philosophy. You can literally feel the light and love connected with this bible, not in small part by my Oma's immense dedication to Love and her many notes. I'll be inheriting it one day. Of course, my Oma is not at ALL a 'bible Christian', she is hardly a Christian, I'd more just consider her as someone with a philosophy of Love and who believes in seeing the Creator in all, however she is a great example of how something seemingly negative can be given a major positive charge.

It's just a catalyst. You choose whether you make positive or negative use of it.

(09-06-2015, 09:16 PM)Elros Tar-Minyatur Wrote: I first explored the idea of Oneness and OIC through the bible. Was a great teacher.

(09-06-2015, 10:43 PM)Diana Wrote: It stands by itself as a compilation of horrors.

(09-06-2015, 10:43 PM)Diana Wrote: I am not suggesting there is NOTHING of value in it, but what may be found of positive value, in my opinion, is so small compared to the horrors it seems absurd to me that a person would use energy trying to make the bible a source of enlightenment. 

(09-06-2015, 10:43 PM)Diana Wrote: But to take the text as a whole and study it trying to read between the lines or rework it, is not something I would want to spend any time on. I have read some reinterpretations of the bible from a "new age" perspective, but honestly, what is the value of that?

(09-06-2015, 10:43 PM)Diana Wrote:  
But what does one do with all the horrible violence? Killing children, babies, animals, pregnant women, sons who talk back to their parents, on and on and on. How does one transform that? Is there any way to see that in an STO light? If one were to use the bible, particularly the old testament and God as a role model, it might work as a guide for STS behavior.

(09-06-2015, 10:43 PM)Diana Wrote: I feel that anyone—including Carla—who hangs onto the bible must be using an enormous amount of energy to see it in an STO (or as Christians say, God is love) light, or derive much from it that resembles love.

I agree that Carla must have been extremely pure in intention that Ra could actually come through her considering this. I have wondered if there wasn't some duality present with Don, being empirically oriented and Carla, being spiritually oriented, and the binding factor being a high level of intelligence in both of them.

(09-06-2015, 10:45 PM)Diana Wrote:

(09-06-2015, 09:16 PM)Elros Tar-Minyatur Wrote: I first explored the idea of Oneness and OIC through the bible. Was a great teacher.

How so? Would you care to elaborate?

Quote:60.18 Questioner: Was this a device for communication then? You said they also drew power from it. What type of power? How did this work?

Ra: I am Ra. This was charged by means of the materials with which it was built being given an electromagnetic field. It became an object of power in this way and, to those whose faith became that untarnished by unrighteousness or separation, this power designed for negativity became positive and is so, to those truly in harmony with the experience of service, to this day. Thus the negative forces were partially successful but the positively oriented Moishe, as this entity was called, gave to your planetary peoples the possibility of a path to the One Infinite Creator which is completely positive.

This is in common with each of your orthodox religious systems which have all become somewhat mixed in orientation, yet offer a pure path to the One Creator which is seen by the pure seeker.

(09-13-2015, 05:21 AM)Folk-love Wrote: I have a soft spot for some parts of the bible, and especially towards Jesus.  I am similar to Carla in that Jesus is a great source of comfort and love for me.  I have loved Jesus for as long as I can remember and think that if he weren't a positive being, my feelings would not have persisted for as long as they have, so I trust them.  I don't know why I have such a strong affinity with the being named Jesus, as religion and the bible were not forced upon me, even though I did grow up in a orthodox home.  Where my feelings come from, I do not know.  I can understand why Carla was so passionate and dedicated in her love for the man. I do get concerned though with some of the words and deeds attributed to him in the bible, but I simply put them aside and focus on what feels loving and good.    

I feel similar to Monica and Diana that large parts of the bible are so blatantly negative that attempts to justify them just boggle my mind.  I have not read it all the way through though I admit.  

(09-13-2015, 02:10 PM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: To a large extent, how one reacts to the Bible is going to depend on how they look at it.  If one realizes going in that it's largely a collection of folklore and tribal history, then it can be seen as a sort of Fool's Journey of a single people -the Hebrews- struggling towards the light from the near-total darkness of our animalistic pre-history.  It can even be seen to illustrate the "transformation" of God, or at least the concept of God, from the dark vengeful entity dreamed up by an early people struggling for survival in a very harsh environment, to eventually producing the teachings of Jesus, which attempted to clarify the distortions which had been introduced previously.

The problem, of course, is as Ra discussed on several occasions:  Jesus's message got distorted heavily almost immediately after he delivered it.  It was too "high level" for an ancient people who were still largely accustomed to the control systems and power focus of the early tribal materials, and his ministry was cut short before he'd fully had time to develop his message.  It's likely his own followers didn't really understand and so, left to their own devices, further misunderstandings were inevitable.

Either way, though, the Bible has inspired some of the best AND the worst that western civilization has to offer.  It gave us the Inquisition and the Crusades, but it also gave us Bach and Mozart and Michelangelo and Copernicus and Newton.  (People always forget that Newton spent a lot of his time investigating Bible codes.)  It contains whatever the reader seeks to find.  If they look for God's love, they can find it.  If they look for excuses to be a-holes, they can find that too.

Given that it's a book compiled from dozens of sources composed over the course of centuries, there's really no other way it could be.  The real problem comes when people refuse to look into the history of it, and try to give equal weight to every piece, with no regard to the cultural\temporal context of each specific chapter.

(09-13-2015, 02:39 PM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: Well, you're welcome to your opinion on the matter, but you're also being awfully dismissive and choosing to focus entirely on the negative in the Bible.   As I (and others) said, it contains whatever someone seeks within it.  And it has ALSO inspired many great works of art, and many great thinkers over the centuries.

If it's not to your own personal tastes, that's fine, but seems rather overzealous when you try to dismiss any of the positive contributions that have come from it as well.  I mean, honestly, saying that BACH wasn't inspired by it?  Come on, that just doesn't hold water.  And Copernicus was active in the church, and ran a chapter canonry for some years.  Gregor Mendel would be another example along the same lines - he was a friar who did his research on the side.  

There's no reason to be so absolutist about this.  Good things have come out of Christianity as well.  There's no purely black-and-white interpretation here.

Quote:"...Very soon, nevertheless, Copernicus' theory was attacked with Scripture and with the common Aristotelian proofs. In 1549 Philipp Melanchthon, Luther's principal lieutenant, wrote against Copernicus, pointing to the theory's apparent conflict with Scripture and advocating that "severe measures" be taken to restrain the impiety of Copernicans.

"The works of Copernicus and —the latter for asserting that was compatible with Catholic faith—were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of March 5, 1616 (more than 70 years after its publication): This Holy Congregation has also learned about the spreading and acceptance by many of the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the earth moves and the sun is motionless, which is also taught by Nicholaus Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium and by Diego de Zúñiga's  ... Therefore, in order that this opinion may not creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Congregation has decided that the books by Nicolaus Copernicus and Diego de Zúñiga be suspended until corrected..."

(09-13-2015, 01:33 PM)Diana Wrote: I think one of the nexus points, if not THE nexus point at least in 3D, in conscious evolution is thinking for one's self. This is the central problem with attaching one's self to a text or religion or philosophy. This includes the Ra Material.

In the case of Jesus, or the bible, this entity of Christianity has grown to huge proportions. If thought of as electromagnetic energy it has become very powerful. If an individual is looking for something to tell them what to think, the existence of something as powerful and pervasive as Christianity is there to attract them. 

It is imperative, in my mind, that if we want to advance in consciousness we must detach from authority outside of ourselves. It's one thing to learn/teach as Ra says, and another to worship, or be devoted to, or to be blindly attached to a particular set of perceptions, or in the case of the bible, to a text of an extremely dubious nature.

(09-14-2015, 05:09 AM)Billy Wrote:

(09-13-2015, 01:33 PM)Diana Wrote: I think one of the nexus points, if not THE nexus point at least in 3D, in conscious evolution is thinking for one's self. This is the central problem with attaching one's self to a text or religion or philosophy. This includes the Ra Material.

In the case of Jesus, or the bible, this entity of Christianity has grown to huge proportions. If thought of as electromagnetic energy it has become very powerful. If an individual is looking for something to tell them what to think, the existence of something as powerful and pervasive as Christianity is there to attract them. 

It is imperative, in my mind, that if we want to advance in consciousness we must detach from authority outside of ourselves. It's one thing to learn/teach as Ra says, and another to worship, or be devoted to, or to be blindly attached to a particular set of perceptions, or in the case of the bible, to a text of an extremely dubious nature.

Would you apply this same sentiment to asking your higher self for clarity and what to think?  I often do this but wonder if I am in some way shirking responsibility and would be better served trying to think for myself (but isn't my higher self myself?).  I have always wondered if one can be too heavily reliant on their guidance system.

(12-08-2021, 01:28 AM)Quincunx Wrote: The Ra Material uses a lot of uncommon language unless you have a dictionary handy. I wonder why they didn't try to dumb it down so it would be easier to digest. Could it be to look at what they are saying in a different way or maybe read in between the lines. They always talk about Free Will and I was actually surprised to see that they refused to talk about certain things.