Law of One Religion?

[Monica]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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!