08-04-2016, 05:57 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-04-2016, 06:16 PM by Chandlersdad.)
(08-04-2016, 10:47 AM)anagogy Wrote: Chandlersdad, my advice would be to take what resonates with you from the Ra material, and discard the rest. Distortion is always possible in any channeling. You could be right.
It's also possible that there is some truth to what Ra said that we just don't presently understand. When almost every manifestation in this world has innumerable causes, its no surprise that it isn't the *complete* answer. But maybe there is something there. Who knows.
Personally I don't think Ra means "impairment" in the way that we, as 3rd density beings, would commonly use that term. I don't think there is a moral judgment there, just a clinical description of a machine that nature uses to produce bodily complexes and the subtle energy transfers involved therein. There is of course nothing "wrong" with homosexuality. But I can certainly see how a machine that performs that particular function no longer performing that function could be clinically described as an impairment (in that particular sense). Again, that does not mean it is wrong in any shape way or form, or that it isn't serving a bunch of other valuable STO functions. But I think there are subtle energetic transfers and processes that take place in biological reproductive processes that we, as physical beings, are not wholly aware of or privy to. And this is the impairment they refer to (time/space energy transfers between male and female forms), the negation of which would probably apply to a whole lot of other subcategories and not just homosexuals (though experience has taught me that there are always new advantages formed when a so called "disadvantage" forms, meaning, there are probably great advantages to being homosexual over heterosexual in a lot of ways (yinyangs post makes some good points about that). Ra's language and description of this is detached and obtuse, which is not surprising considering their vibrational distance from 3rd density. They describe sensitive subjects like sexuality with the same clinical detachment you or I would describe the workings of a fax machine. Unfortunately, this can be off putting sometimes.
Having said that, if something doesn't resonate with you, it isn't worth your valuable time or energy. From the tone of your last few posts on this forum, it sounds like a lot of what Ra says (not just about homosexuality) seems to bother you. And that's fine, not everybody has to find resonance with the same material. As spero said, no need to take it as gospel.
There are a great variety of channeled works out there, perhaps there is another source that you would find more agreeable. Best of luck to you.
Thanks. My little Me-me-me self requires that I respond to clarify that I do like the Ra material. What is delightful about this forum is that a discussion on points of contention or concern is ALLOWED. I came here with a chip on my shoulder. Previously I had tried to share such concerns on several of the Facebook groups supposedly devoted to the "discussion" of the Ra material. In one, my Op post here was banned outright. On another, people jumped on me 100% for questioning Ra, saying that this reflects a very low consciousness on my part! So I soon realized that the Facebook groups were actually online churches of worship of Ra, not discussion in the sense of dealing with discrepancies or concerns. I realized that the people there had no desire to understand what I have written now here. They got the general idea that I was disagreeing with Ra, so they circled the wagons and began firing the classic New Age bullets of "You simply are not evolved and vibrating at the proper frequency of love and wisdom yet. You poor distorted misguided little slug!" or the classic "You are obviously a disinformation agent/Orion controlled pawn/4th dimensional negative entity". LOL Anyway, I discovered the forum and felt liberated to speak freely. I am NOT one of nature's little born-again-believers. I may enjoy information but I always remain politely skeptical at best.