Share your vision for the harvest

[Tenet Nosce]

That would be true for this particular statement, but I was referring to posts such as the one stating "A gradualist view is very human-centric," continuing on explaining that gradualists are upset about the idea of death or "leaving someone behind."

You mean this:

A gradualist view is very human-centric. We think that the universe somehow cares that little Timmy will never get the chance to grow up and become a baseball star, or that Jane won't ever get to have her fairy-tale princess wedding, or that Gandalf the cat didn't quite make it to the next level. So because we can't imagine that there is more to life outside of our own little dramas, we would rather lie to ourselves and believe that the whole entire universe is going to wait for every last person to get their act together.

Well, yes this paragraph is meant to strike a chord. But notice I am including myself in this group, as evidenced by my use of the word "we".

Honestly, I still don't understand the point of it being gradual. What is the ontology here? What is the purpose? Assuming the Logos could have set things up either way, what goal or purpose is being served by an ongoing, multi-generational, transitional period as you later described?

I have to admit I am still having a really hard time seeing why one would favor a gradual scenario, if but for feeling negatively toward the shock factor which a more abrupt scenario implies. For example, I have not seen anybody say that they actually WISH it would all happen quickly, but unfortunately, based upon the evidence in the Ra material, they must conclude that harvest is actually gradual.

If somebody is out there who honestly believes that the preponderance of evidence is weighted toward the gradualist interpretation of harvest, but who would actually prefer it to be otherwise, please speak up!

I've accounted for the one snarky remark...have I made more I'm unaware of? I did just find this comment you got offended at, which is rather self-incriminating in a different sense for me:

A lot of people think they're interpretation is the only one which can be correct and they have (as we see) pages and pages of logical arguments to support their opinion, which like I said, I feel is derived from bias.

I won't ignore that I'm currently trying accuse others of doing something which I explicitly did here. I don't see a reason for myself, as in this situation, or anyone else to bring supposed bias into a logical argument. But, aside from that, I was rather perplexed by how offended you were at this statement, because it wasn't a jab at you or Unity or anyone else. We have ALL been discussing this for pages and pages, and ALL presenting logical arguments, and that's the point I was trying to make. The statement wasn't argumentative, but rather to point out that both camps, instant vs. gradual, have supplied many many logical arguments.

You said "a lot" of people who believe that their interpretation is the "only one" which is correct. Which, in fact, appears to represent nobody here in this forum. I am not offended so much, as finding myself in a position where I need to be defended from a false accusation. Moreover, I find myself in the even more awkward position of defending others against such accusations.

Perhaps you are not aware of the gravity of an accusation declaring another to believe their their view is the "only one and true way".

Are there any more comments you perceive as snarky or argumentative? I wouldn't mind discussing them to help clear the air.

There is no point in digging anything else up, as far as I can tell. But thanks for the offer.

I did state so specifically to you, which you did not reply to, so I figured you ignored it and I would leave it that. This was regarding Unity. Your name is only brought up because he chose to use your theory of bias as being why the discussion of gradualist vs. instant debate continued. And the posts I was referring to seeing were not the ones in which you were drawing from personal experience. I had already replied to the posts I was referring to, this particularly was an ill-conceived post to Unity, not you.

My reply is here: http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...6#pid52216

Maybe you didn't see it? I figured you ignored it.

I am still not finding where the direct reply is. I see that you offered a scenario, but then stated it not to be the scenario you have concluded it, in fact, to be. Which is...?

I'll offer an apology to you as well Tenet, though I never aimed or meant for any comment towards you to be snarky or argumentative, it seems you have perceived such and I'd rather that not be the case.

Apology accepted. And I apologize for miscontruing your words to have been directed at me.

---

These are not entities which reached intelligent infinity on this plane, they are entities harvested from other spheres who have come here for 4D experience. During the contact, there were 35,000 of the, and it was a "recent phenomenon," so you can probably guess there are many, many more now. They are 4D entities incarnating into 3D/4D bodies. It is all spelled out in session 63

So you are saying that these entities have already been harvested, and are now being born into 3D earth?

I'm not sure I see what your point is...it's not something I overlooked...right now is "prior to the complete changeover," and at that moment there were 35,000 4D entities living in dual bodies. That's the point I was making.

... and so after the "complete changeover" nobody will be able to discern that anything noticeable has completely changed? And if so, this plausible deniability of anything having been completely changed will be maintained for the benefit of... whom? I dunno maybe we are just talking past one another here.

Here they are one more time.

63.27 Questioner: I will make this statement and have you correct me. What we have is, as our planet is spiraled by the spiraling action of the entire major galaxy and our planetary system spirals into the new position, the fourth-density vibrations becoming more and more pronounced. These atomic core vibrations begin to create, more and more completely, the fourth-density sphere and the fourth-density bodily complexes for inhabitation of that sphere. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is partially correct. To be corrected is the concept of the creation of green-ray density bodily complexes. This creation will be gradual and will take place beginning with your third-density type of physical vehicle and, through the means of bisexual reproduction, become by evolutionary processes, the fourth-density body complexes.

63.28 Questioner: Then are these entities of whom we have spoken, the third-density harvestable who have been transferred, the ones who then will, by bisexual reproduction, create the fourth-density complexes that are necessary?

Ra: I am Ra. The influxes of true color green energy complexes will more and more create the conditions in which the atomic structure of cells of bodily complexes is that of the density of love. The mind/body/spirit complexes inhabiting these physical vehicles will be, and to some extent, are, those of whom you spoke and, as harvest is completed, the harvested entities of this planetary influence.

Please acknowledge that you see these! They're very important.

Yes, I see them!

According to my read, 63.27 is talking about the gradual transition from 3D to 4D bodies concomitant with the transition from 3D to 4D earth. And according to Ra, this transition was already complete in 1981. I acknowledge that use of the word "will" implies a process going on in the future which I am chalking up to being an artifact from an awkwardly worded query. We have to interpret this in light of the quote where Ra says, plain as day, that earth was already vibrating in the fourth density spectrum in 1981.

Ra: I am Ra. This sphere is at this time in fourth-dimension vibration

According to my read, 63.28 also supports everything I have been saying. The fourth-density physical complexes are already being inhabited, and will become, after harvest is completed, the harvested entities of this planetary influence. The harvest will be completed on or around 2011.

Questioner: Am I to understand that the harvest is to occur in the year 2011, or will it be spread out?

Ra: I am Ra. This is an approximation. We have stated we have difficulty with your time/space. This is an appropriate probable/possible time/space nexus for harvest. Those who are not in incarnation at this time will be included in the harvest.

... or will it be spread out? Don asks. Ra specifically does not say that, yes, it will be spread out. So if, in fact, it IS spread out, this constitutes a MASSIVELY HUGE blunder on the part of Ra. And in consideration of Ra's self-confessed shenanigans of the past, it seems preposterous to presume that Ra would have allowed such a grand error to have been passed along. Surely, Ra did not intend to cause greater confusion.

Those with hybrid 3D/4D bodies will find their 4D body decoupled from their 3D body. The 4D body, we are told, is electromagnetic in nature, in contrast to the 3D body, which is chemical. To those with no 4D body, it will appear that they have died. To those with the 4D body, it joins the rest of the 4D sphere, already in progress. Without the normal intercessionary life review, as unity100 has pointed out.

Keeping everybody together drops us right back into the shrinking population conundrum. Or alternatively, we are left contending with where the 7 - 10 billion harvested souls are coming from, and why. Both scenarios are absurd.

And besides, we are also informed that it is a late lesson of fourth density to learn how to stay invisible to third density. This is the whole reason that third density blinks out of activity. The 4D neophyte does not know how to control variable physicality. This is why 3D cannot persist long after harvest. It is all spelled out in the material.

So, in summary, yes there are certain quotes where the interpretation is up in the air. The wording is ambivalent. We are not exactly sure what Ra meant. But there are other quotes where no such ambivalence is present. Ra said what Ra said. It is plain as day for all to see.

Therefore, to interpret the material, or any portion thereof, such that the actual truth directly negates what Ra clearly and unambiguously said is, in effect, negating the whole thing. Such an interpretation undermines the credibility of the entire transmission, and if such is the case, we might as well assume that the whole thing is pure nonsense.