The Confederation

[Quantum]

[quote='3D Sunset' pid='5066' dateline='1251320740']
To the center, the book most closely aligned with the instrument’s mental distortions which are allied most closely with the Law of One, that being the Bible that she touches most frequently.

Once again, as with Solo before, I feel it necessary to defend 3D here by stating that 3D did not suggest or cite this passage from Wkipedia. I did. 3D merely gave me reference I asked of where it was. See my above post #12 and his #13.

If you break down this statement grammatically, it is saying that Carla's mental distortions that are allied most closely with the Law of One are [in turn] most closely aligned with the Bible. Carla discovered resonance with the Law of One via her chosen path: mystical Christianity. So, for her, the Bible represented the highest of teachings. I don't think Ra was in any way saying that the bible itself was the most closely aligned, as compared to other books.

This is why I stated below:

the Bible is secondarily utilized as being most closely aligned with the LOO:

My point was that it was good enough for Ra that it was good enough for Carla. Maybe it was indeed good enough. If it is not intrusive, might it be asked if there there is an inherent bias on your part as regards the Bible? I feel all the books of all the religions have great wisdom in them if read merely as "calls to higher consciousness". Making them into a religion is an altogether different proposition which has inherently nothing whatsoever to do with these books calling its reader to higher consciousness. There is a vast distinction between the two. Your quote below seems evident of your feelings as regards same:

I think that is precisely what happened with the early books of the old testament.

I would suggest that this had very little to do with the message while having everything to do with it's interpretation. Same point as before. The sword of a message may cut both ways, i.e. in this case for STO or STS. Case in point The New Testament, not just the Old Testament. Much of what Jesus said has clearly been as utilized by the forces of STS as well, yet we know for a fact according to Ra that Jesus was a successful entity presumably having conveyed a successful message. This example as reference to this undeniable fact does not make the Jesus message an STS doctrine simply because STS use his message as such. Like all else, its in the eye of the beholder. Call a rose ugly, and for the caller no doubt it is.

[quote='Quantum' pid='5064' dateline='1251319786']
Assuming the book review on "Urantia" was less than flattering, one might certainly induce that the book Ohaspe might have lent itself to as much of an editorial comment were it so bent vs given it was indeed passed.

Not necessarily. That would presuppose that the same rules applied in every situation....as well as an assessment as to whether such an editorial might result in an infringement of free will.

But Ra already did give an opinion on both. Its doubtful then that giving a thumb up on the Ohaspe but a thumbs down on Urantia would be construed as an infringement given the opinion was already rendered.

I am a pragmatist. I am speaking to knowledge applied. I am not speaking to knowledge in the abstract

Oh, I thought you liked abstractions!

I (and Ra ) both like it very much. But leaving an abstraction devoid of a principle in action leaves it motionless if not sterile. Liking the one does not require dismissing or negating the other

...as though a definition in sterility void of the user applying same as much as the teacher transmitting same. In principle, yes, knowledge is static verses dynamic, as though in potentiation vs kinetic interplay. Ra and the higher STO brothers however do not teach knowledge divested of love. Neither do STS teachers. Love, I submit, is the principle which maketh things to move. Therefore knowledge conveyed has as much polarity intended as knowledge received.

I respectfully disagree. I don't think knowledge has polarity. Only the application of knowledge has polarity; or, more accurately, the intention behind that application.

It seems this is exactly what I said above as much as to the end of my last post #12 where I in fact suggest that knowledge is motionless without love as the mover.

It is not a leap of faith for me to assume that the Knowledge Ra attempted to convey was "Good" knowledge vs it being a (edited in) sterile knowledge, vs "Bad" knowledge, indeed the knowledge with which we might save our souls vs blow up the world or enslave it. By the same token I might induce that the knowledge transmitted by higher STS to lower sts might indeed, to the converse, be meant entirely to assist in the efforts towards the enslavement of humanity. Both are knowledge. I therefore submit that knowledge hardly exists, as though in static potentiation, but in fact comes alive only in dynamic kinetic interplay, i.e. polarity.

Exactly. We are saying the same thing here.

I'm not sure we are. I am indeed suggesting that the "Knowledge" conveyed by Ra is indeed meant as a Good knowledge, vs a sterile knowledge, and certainly not as a STS knowledge, thus meant to be good, and furthermore meant to be received as good, notwithstanding that it may be as perverted or bent as the Bible or any teaching. In other words the knowledge Ra conveyed was conveyed with Positive Polarity intended. Unpolarized knowledge is knowledge fixed in the unpotentiated unconscious which is "all knowing dormancy". Only when it is applied through love for either STO or STS does it move, only then to become conscious, only then being knowledge applied as aware. Love moves it, less it remain unknown. As you cited in my quote just above your last response: " I therefore submit that knowledge hardly exists, as though in static potentiation, but in fact comes alive only in dynamic kinetic interplay, i.e. polarity".

Q