Law of One Religion?

[Monica]

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.

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'?

Monica, great questions, great thread, and great replies from everyone.

Personally I have yet to encounter a more mature philosophy that respects the free will of each; indeed, that places total power and responsibility within the self. Were someone to become a fundamentalist about the Law of One material, they would be missing its central thesis, which is that they are the Law of One, and all responsibility lies not within the material, but within themselves.

If I may risk it, to quote the Law of One:

17.2 Ra: It is impossible to help another being directly. It is only possible to make catalyst available in whatever form, the most important being the radiation of realization of oneness with the Creator from the self, less important being information such as we share with you.

Here Ra is saying the self is the messenger, the truth, the service, not their own words, though they do recognize that their words can also be "catalyst", i.e., helpful.

I think that, in general, the maturity level of the seeker who is drawn to this particular body of information - based upon my own years of observation of this demographic - is such that they are relatively immune to herd-mentality, fundamentalist thinking that certain religious interpretations of scripture can precipitate. This group tends to respect the sovereignty of the self and all selves, though certainly we all, hopefully inadvertently, infringe on others from time to time.

Quoting
I don't see anything inherently wrong with quoting Ra to help substantiate a point. All of us rely on sources outside ourselves to form our worldview and opinions. Not a single bipedal* on this planet forms their views in a vacuum, all by themselves without reliance upon others for information.

*Sorry primates, not talking about you.

We tend to draw upon sources we find credible, trustworthy, competent, and knowledgeable ina given field of inquiry, and use the information those sources provide. Some of us with total and blind acceptance, the discernment-filter turned down to zero; others with the discernment turned to high such that we are overly skeptical and suspicious of everything.

If someone is atop the mountain while I am in the valley, they can communicate what they see of the terrain beyond the mountain. If I am (at least currently) unable to see that terrain with my own eyes, and I feel that they are a credible source, I can trust them and use their account of the coming terrain to figure into my own decision-making process and worldview.

Those drawn to this body of work find Ra credible, along with, to a varying degree, other consciously channeled Confederation sources; and find their description of the terrain beyond the mountain to be intelligible, and so far as our intuition tells us, accurate.

For instance

For instance, you in an earlier post wrote, "We aren't supposed to be 'transcend polarity' in this density...we are supposed to choose and polarize."

I agree entirely. But would point out that this is a statement based almost exclusively on what Ra (and other Confederation sources) said about reality.

I think it's okay to rely upon other sources, so long as we recognize that reliance, and know that no source of information is infallible. But some are better than others. : )

Gurus
Regarding gurus, you're right, Carla and Jim want that only as much as they would enjoy a hole in their head. But I don't think it free-will-abdicating to seek to emulate another person. Not to attempt to be a carbon copy of them, but to be inspired by their example and seek to live, through your own unique life circumstances, by similar principles to those that motivated their life. One can find a lot of strength and courage in the examples of others.

Gandhi, for instance, was a way-shower, and set an example that I think would be to the world's benefit to emulate.

Interpretation
Independent of your valid and great questions which began this thread (meaning those questions stand on their own regardless of what I'm about to say), 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. That is, they are mis-using, mis-understanding, and mis-quoting the Law of One, thereby reaching incorrect conclusions.

I'm not a proponent of the idea that all interpretations and conclusions are equal. I do think there is a scale or hierarchy of better and worse. But I think you have to be very, very careful that your position doesn't stray into claiming alternate interpretations are wrong because they derive from a fundamentalist mindset.

Much love,
GLB

PS: Unbound, does it matter how many times a discussion of the meaning of acceptance is had? To the extent that the discussion is enjoined, it must be helpful/needed/appreciated for those involved.

Apparently I failed to convey my point, or you have misunderstood. There's nothing wrong with quoting Ra! I have quoted Ra numerous times! Presumably, we are studying the Material, right?

My point was in regards to taking a single quote out of context, or as a stand-alone idea, which can more easily lend itself to rigid dogma.

You said: "so long as we recognize that reliance, and know that no source of information is infallible" and that, too, is part of m point: Isn't that a characteristic of fundamentalist religion, when people think that their source is infallible? So I'm wondering if some of our members think that way about the Law of One. I think some do. Furthermore, single phrases, taken out of context, are sometimes considered infallible, so it's a double whammy.

I wasn't referring to emulating the admirable traits of another person. I was referring to emulating another person not because we admire those particular traits, but because of who the person is. 

To illustrate: Emulating Mother Theresa's compassion because it's an admirable trait, vs wearing black robes because Mother Theresa wears black robes, not because we like to wear black robes, but simply because Mother Theresa is an authority, so if she does it, it must be good.

It's a subtle but important distinction.

Finally, you said for me to correct you if you're wrong, so here it is: You couldn't be more wrong. I don't how you got that out of what I said.    It has nothing to do with agreement on interpretation, and everything to do with taking single phrases out of context and building a dogma out of a fragment. Perhaps you haven't yet read all of the posts and missed post # 38, in which this exact thing was stated clearly, right on the heals of a slight difference in interpretation, which had absolutely no relevance at all to the point, and was thus not even an issue at all, in favor of reiterating the point.