[split] The Symbol of the Bible

[Diana]

...Tenet suggested that Carla's challenging of Ra in the name of Christ and her devotion to the bible, were actually limitations imposed on Ra, which actually may have distorted the contact.

I can't imagine devotion to the bible NOT having a limitation or distortion lens of some kind. Consider how much extreme violence, for instance, is in those writings (such as: kill all the men and boys—of the opposite side of a battle—then rip open the bellies of the pregnant women and take the young girls for sexual purposes). For someone to come from such a loving place, and also be devoted to a hugely violent scripture at the same time, has to have some distortion.

There are unloving things even in the new testament.

I think that Ra's protocol of only answering questions in a very direct and non-embellishing way may have mitigated the distortion of the "instrument." As pure as Carla's intentions were, intention is not everything. If one is devoted to a scripture as full as the bible is of violence and despotic control, one must do some dancing around the bulk of it to even justify whatever good is in there. 

[Aion]

Well, Ra correlated the Bible with the entity's (Carla) most direct understanding of the Law of One, so obviously Ra didn't relate to it in terms of the violent or controlling aspects... it was clearly representative of the Law of One for Carla.

[Diana]

Well, Ra correlated the Bible with the entity's (Carla) most direct understanding of the Law of One, so obviously Ra didn't relate to it in terms of the violent or controlling aspects... it was clearly representative of the Law of One for Carla.

What I meant was that Carla would have some conflict within herself. She was the channel through which Ra communicated and as such would also have constituted a filter of her own beliefs and distortions. I can only guess that the bible was a symbol to her of something she made up about it in her own mind, because the actual bible (I have read it) is a monstrosity of contradictions, littleness (jealousy, vindictiveness), and violence. How "bible" Christians can claim anything to do with God=Love is totally beyond me. Even Jesus in the new testament is purported to say and have done horrible things. If anyone who is intelligent as Carla was, were to pick out a few phrases from the bible as one would relate to standalone quotes, that would have made more sense to me. My guess would be that she had past lives of religious worship where she could focus her great amount of heart.

What you say makes sense. But still, the bible is the farthest thing away from the LOO. One would really have to stretch the imagination, and ignore the horror, to be so attached to it. One would have to shut one's mind down (resist) the majority of what it says just to have an object to be devoted to for whatever reason.

To be honest, that was the only element in the Ra changelings that gave me pause. Ra may have been able to come through because Carla was genuinely loving and saw things in a loving way. But still, the distortion must exist from an attachment so strong to a text such as the bible.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this? 

[Aion]

My thought is, are you sure you're not just projecting your own perception of negativity on to the book? I'm not saying there aren't horrible things in the book, but there are also good things in it subject to the observer who chooses what to see.

I am a fan of the Gospel of John, I think it's actually the only 'true' gospel or at least the closest to it. I might mention on that note is for the set up of the Ra contact she had her bible opened to the first pages of the Gospel of John.

I'm sure you've read the Gospel of John so surely you can see, especially in the first page or so, a deep pronunciation of the Law of One as all things stemming from a single source and all things become real through Light. The King James version is also a Frankenstein version of the Bible and is so corrupted and changed that it hardly is representative of the Bible itself. It's just the one most are familiar with.

My Oma has a bible called The Living Bible and everything in it has been reworked and reworded to produce much more positive philosophy. You can literally feel the light and love connected with this bible, not in small part by my Oma's immense dedication to Love and her many notes. I'll be inheriting it one day. Of course, my Oma is not at ALL a 'bible Christian', she is hardly a Christian, I'd more just consider her as someone with a philosophy of Love and who believes in seeing the Creator in all, however she is a great example of how something seemingly negative can be given a major positive charge.

It's just a catalyst. You choose whether you make positive or negative use of it.

[Monica]

My thought is, are you sure you're not just projecting your own perception of negativity on to the book?

I won't answer for Diana, but will share my own experience with the bible. I was brought up Catholic, and then was a born-again Christian for a few years. I was taught that the bible was the 'word of God' and during the born-again years, attended a bible study which really got into the deep meanings, by looking up words in the original Hebrew and Greek, thus avoiding the 'multiple translations and errors' issue.

So I came into it with a very positive perception of the bible. In fact, having read Cayce, Heline and Steiner, I even found a lot of deep, metaphysical meaning in the bible and for awhile there, really got into the esoteric meanings of it.

It was this extensive study of the bible that opened my eyes to the horror of it! I remember so clearly, reading the old testament, and suddenly realizing that here was this being, that those primitive men thought was God, commanding them to invade their neighbors, steal their land, and slaughter everyone, even going so far as to say specifically to kill all the children!

I felt as though the mud had been wiped from my eyes! Reading further, the atrocities continued: Rape, incest, slavery, vengeance, controlling, sadistic behavior...the being they thought was 'God' behaved like the very worst evil tyrant who ever lived!

It was very unsettling and really did a number on my head. It took me a few years to reconcile, because there was a part of me that had been so brainwashed into believing that this was from 'God' that I was afraid to go against that. But finally, there was just no denying how horrible that 'God' was. I finally realized that it was simply a collection of myths and historical documents, recorded by primitive men who believed that this being was 'God' but actually he was just an evil alien who was fucking with them.

Then, a couple of years after realizing this, guess what? I read the exact same thing in the Law of One! I was heartened to see this because nowhere else had I seen anyone vocalize what I had figured out on my own. (Now, decades later, many do: http://www.evilbible.com/)

The new testament is a mixed bag. Most of the words of Jesus are very profound - the ones about love, peace, compassion and forgiveness. Clearly, there was some sage who was a very evolved soul who really lived, but those who wrote about him got his story very distorted, and his story got mixed in with all that nasty, creepy old testament stuff.

I'm not saying there aren't horrible things in the book, but there are also good things in it subject to the observer who chooses what to see.

I am a fan of the Gospel of John, I think it's actually the only 'true' gospel or at least the closest to it. I might mention on that note is for the set up of the Ra contact she had her bible opened to the first pages of the Gospel of John.

I'm sure you've read the Gospel of John so surely you can see, especially in the first page or so, a deep pronunciation of the Law of One as all things stemming from a single source and all things become real through Light.

Yes, there is some good stuff in the new testament. Carla told me that she preferred to read mostly the words of Jesus.

Still, I agree with Diana that having such devotion to a book which contains such blatant STS stuff in it, surely must have been a factor of some sort in the channeling. I can only wonder to what degree, being that the Material somehow managed to prevail. My speculation is that it's to Carla's credit - and significant - that she chose to focus on the good parts of the bible, thus demonstrating Choice of STO over STS.

I have also marveled that a church-going, choir-singing Christian could channel the highest teachings in the land...why did Carla choose to incarnate as a Bible-Believer? I have wondered if, maybe on some level, she chose that to reach out to Christians, who otherwise would have thought the Material 'satanic.' (Many still did anyway though.) It's all rather weird, really. I witnessed really profound wisdom coming out of Carla's mouth when we did the radio show together, mixed in with Christianity. She somehow managed to see the highest and brightest in Christianity. I marveled then, and still do.

My Oma has a bible called The Living Bible and everything in it has been reworked and reworded to produce much more positive philosophy

I assure you that if you open it up to the early books of the old testament - the ones about the Israelites - you will find the same horrors. It's in every bible and cannot be whitewashed.

You can literally feel the light and love connected with this bible, not in small part by my Oma's immense dedication to Love and her many notes.

Then it's to your Oma's credit for focusing on the good in it, like Carla did.

great example of how something seemingly negative can be given a major positive charge.

It's just a catalyst. You choose whether you make positive or negative use of it.

I think it's more about discerning the positive from the negative, as well as transforming negative into positive. Evangelical Christians insist that we must accept the whole bible as the infallible 'word of God' but I think the real purpose of it is to show us the contrast between STS and STO.

That does a number on their head if I suggest it to them.

Having read the whole bible, I'd say it's definitely waaaaaay more STS than STO! There are some nuggets of gold buried amidst a lot of filthy rubble. No wonder this planet is so messed up! with the 3 top religions all sharing the same roots.

...

[Minyatur]

I first explored the idea of Oneness and OIC through the bible. Was a great teacher.

[Diana]

My thought is, are you sure you're not just projecting your own perception of negativity on to the book? I'm not saying there aren't horrible things in the book, but there are also good things in it subject to the observer who chooses what to see.

I am a fan of the Gospel of John, I think it's actually the only 'true' gospel or at least the closest to it. I might mention on that note is for the set up of the Ra contact she had her bible opened to the first pages of the Gospel of John.

I'm sure you've read the Gospel of John so surely you can see, especially in the first page or so, a deep pronunciation of the Law of One as all things stemming from a single source and all things become real through Light. The King James version is also a Frankenstein version of the Bible and is so corrupted and changed that it hardly is representative of the Bible itself. It's just the one most are familiar with.

My Oma has a bible called The Living Bible and everything in it has been reworked and reworded to produce much more positive philosophy. You can literally feel the light and love connected with this bible, not in small part by my Oma's immense dedication to Love and her many notes. I'll be inheriting it one day. Of course, my Oma is not at ALL a 'bible Christian', she is hardly a Christian, I'd more just consider her as someone with a philosophy of Love and who believes in seeing the Creator in all, however she is a great example of how something seemingly negative can be given a major positive charge.

It's just a catalyst. You choose whether you make positive or negative use of it.

I most definitely have a negative view of the Christian bible (for very good reason). But I have no need to project anything onto it. It stands by itself as a compilation of horrors. I am not suggesting there is NOTHING of value in it, but what may be found of positive value, in my opinion, is so small compared to the horrors it seems absurd to me that a person would use energy trying to make the bible a source of enlightenment. 

That is not to say that we can't find value in anything/everything. And, one can look at anything and perhaps extract "pearls of wisdom." Also, as a philosophical study of various historical texts, it is another scripture to ponder and pull threads that align throughout many disparate documents. But to take the text as a whole and study it trying to read between the lines or rework it, is not something I would want to spend any time on. I have read some reinterpretations of the bible from a "new age" perspective, but honestly, what is the value of that? 

One could rewrite the Ra Material trying to fit it into a perspective that aligns more closely with one's current understandings. In general, I don't see the point. 

For an alchemist, I can understand the desire to transmute the negative energy of the bible. But what does one do with all the horrible violence? Killing children, babies, animals, pregnant women, sons who talk back to their parents, on and on and on. How does one transform that? Is there any way to see that in an STO light? If one were to use the bible, particularly the old testament and God as a role model, it might work as a guide for STS behavior.

You are correct in your last statement, but I am not talking about my own catalyst. I have a handle on that and I can be my own observer. I am talking about a religious text that countless people follow and most of them blindly. And I am wondering why these people want to do anything, including rewriting and reworking it, to retain its importance. I feel that anyone—including Carla—who hangs onto the bible must be using an enormous amount of energy to see it in an STO (or as Christians say, God is love) light, or derive much from it that resembles love.

I agree that Carla must have been extremely pure in intention that Ra could actually come through her considering this. I have wondered if there wasn't some duality present with Don, being empirically oriented and Carla, being spiritually oriented, and the binding factor being a high level of intelligence in both of them.

[Diana]

I first explored the idea of Oneness and OIC through the bible. Was a great teacher.

How so? Would you care to elaborate?

[Aion]

If you ask me, the Bible is the perfect tool to master Jesus' teaching of FORGIVENESS. Plus, if anything, putting in effort to find the positive maybe is a way to transmute and release the karma attached to the book by reducing the negative charge. Like anything of course it's not for everyone, but it is for some.

[Monica]

It stands by itself as a compilation of horrors.

Absolutely!

Whenever Christians knock on my door to proselytize, I give them a radiant smile and say "I have a strong spiritual faith and I appreciate your dedication to what you believe, but I could never go back to being a bible-believer. I'd have to lower my morals too much!"

It's so funny...they are used to thinking that their book is some sort of moral compass, and it does a number on their head to hear someone say that it's actually immoral.

Then I tell them that I'm a big fan of Jesus, and love his teachings about love and forgiveness, but the rest is just too creepy and violent for me!

I am not suggesting there is NOTHING of value in it, but what may be found of positive value, in my opinion, is so small compared to the horrors it seems absurd to me that a person would use energy trying to make the bible a source of enlightenment. 

I'm completely mystified by that too.

But to take the text as a whole and study it trying to read between the lines or rework it, is not something I would want to spend any time on. I have read some reinterpretations of the bible from a "new age" perspective, but honestly, what is the value of that?

I agree! There are so many other, better spiritual books out there; why waste time on something that's so dark?

 
But what does one do with all the horrible violence? Killing children, babies, animals, pregnant women, sons who talk back to their parents, on and on and on. How does one transform that? Is there any way to see that in an STO light? If one were to use the bible, particularly the old testament and God as a role model, it might work as a guide for STS behavior.

...which was probably its intention.

I feel that anyone—including Carla—who hangs onto the bible must be using an enormous amount of energy to see it in an STO (or as Christians say, God is love) light, or derive much from it that resembles love.

I agree that Carla must have been extremely pure in intention that Ra could actually come through her considering this. I have wondered if there wasn't some duality present with Don, being empirically oriented and Carla, being spiritually oriented, and the binding factor being a high level of intelligence in both of them.

I do know that Carla had a profound spiritual experience with a Being she believed to be Jesus. So, I think her devotion was really more to the intense peace and love she perceived from Jesus, but somehow that got wrapped up with the bible too. Maybe some of it was cultural. I don't remember her talking about going to church as a child, but she certainly did later, and it was apparently a spiritual experience for her.

I had the opposite experience with church. I found it suffocating to be inside a church. I much preferred being outside. I used to get sick in church all the time. My husband said it probably stirred up memories of being burned at the stake or something.

In fairness to Carla, whenever we talked about this on the radio show, she always encouraged people to focus only on the good parts of the bible, and certainly wasn't anything near fundamentalist. But sometimes she'd surprise me by talking about advanced spiritual concepts, and then follow that with "Jesus is my savior" and I never quite understood how she reconciled all that.

So I asked her. And she said that she focused on the words of Jesus, which were all about love and forgiveness. Really, if we could just extract those words and discard the rest, most of his word are profound, except for a few things that were creepy, like telling his followers to abandon their families, and that he came to bring not peace but a sword, and those words really don't jive with the other things he said. Who knows what he really said anyway? The oldest fragment of parchment is dated several decades after his death, and is the size of a credit card!

But ya know, we all are reaping the benefits of the Law of One. Would we feel as confident about the purity of the Material if we'd been in Carla's shoes? Being approached by advanced alien beings, setting herself aside so they could use her body, being endangered by negative entities...WOW Carla was VERY courageous to do what she did!

The bible was an anchor for her...a source of comfort.  Knowing what I know about the creepy stuff in it, I really don't think the whole bible itself was her comfort, but I suspect it was more the cultural attachment from having had positive experiences going to church, and of course her experiences with Jesus. Maybe if she hadn't had that anchor, she would have been more susceptible to being thrown off-center. Maybe it wouldn't have mattered so much what her anchor was, but just that she had some sort of anchor that, to her, represented love...?

...

[Minyatur]

I first explored the idea of Oneness and OIC through the bible. Was a great teacher.

How so? Would you care to elaborate?

My perception of GOD was very inspired by the bible as it was how I started my spiritual path. I may admit my focus could've been more on what resonated with me, and there surely has been misguidance too.

It is still in a way limited as a book and I never had the  common perception of it as I was self-taught. But I am still thinking of reading it one more time as I do think there is much wisdom in it.

[Aion]

Found this quote that appears, to me, to explain why Ra found the use of the Bible still within their distortions.

60.18 Questioner: Was this a device for communication then? You said they also drew power from it. What type of power? How did this work?

Ra: I am Ra. This was charged by means of the materials with which it was built being given an electromagnetic field. It became an object of power in this way and, to those whose faith became that untarnished by unrighteousness or separation, this power designed for negativity became positive and is so, to those truly in harmony with the experience of service, to this day. Thus the negative forces were partially successful but the positively oriented Moishe, as this entity was called, gave to your planetary peoples the possibility of a path to the One Infinite Creator which is completely positive.

This is in common with each of your orthodox religious systems which have all become somewhat mixed in orientation, yet offer a pure path to the One Creator which is seen by the pure seeker.

[AnthroHeart]

Afterlife books are like my Bible.

[Aion]

I wouldn't say I have a bible, but I am quite familiar with the Ra Material at this point.

[Billy]

I have a soft spot for some parts of the bible, and especially towards Jesus.  I am similar to Carla in that Jesus is a great source of comfort and love for me.  I have loved Jesus for as long as I can remember and think that if he weren't a positive being, my feelings would not have persisted for as long as they have, so I trust them.  I don't know why I have such a strong affinity with the being named Jesus, as religion and the bible were not forced upon me, even though I did grow up in a orthodox home. Where my feelings come from, I do not know. I can understand why Carla was so passionate and dedicated in her love for the man. I do get concerned though with some of the words and deeds attributed to him in the bible, but I simply put them aside and focus on what feels loving and good.    

I feel similar to Monica and Diana that large parts of the bible are so blatantly negative that attempts to justify them just boggle my mind.  I have not read it all the way through though I admit.  

[Minyatur]

Negativity does not need to be justified, it is a mirror that is there to be understood and loved.

And this is unavoidable, does not need to be now but awareness that you will love every dark entity or any of their act is good in my view.

Why higher positive entities have a harder time loving those (if you exclude blanket love which is just rejected as something considered mindless), it simply comes from the fact that negative entities are not willing to be understood, which makes it hard. The effects are seen without the causes behind them.

[Monica]

I have a soft spot for some parts of the bible, and especially towards Jesus.  I am similar to Carla in that Jesus is a great source of comfort and love for me.  I have loved Jesus for as long as I can remember and think that if he weren't a positive being, my feelings would not have persisted for as long as they have, so I trust them.  I don't know why I have such a strong affinity with the being named Jesus, as religion and the bible were not forced upon me, even though I did grow up in a orthodox home.  Where my feelings come from, I do not know.  I can understand why Carla was so passionate and dedicated in her love for the man. I do get concerned though with some of the words and deeds attributed to him in the bible, but I simply put them aside and focus on what feels loving and good.    

I feel similar to Monica and Diana that large parts of the bible are so blatantly negative that attempts to justify them just boggle my mind.  I have not read it all the way through though I admit.  

I was amazed when Ra said that Jesus wasn't even around here anymore, but was off on another assignment somewhere. At first, I had trouble reconciling that with all those Christians praying to Jesus and claiming to have a 'personal relationship' with him and get daily guidance. Clearly, they have a relationship with someone, but is it Jesus?

I think it's really their own Higher Self that they have a relationship with, but they think it's Jesus.

Then again, with so many millions of people believing in the entity Jesus as GOD, I think Jesus has become a thought-form that is now bigger than the original entity of that name.

The thought-form has certain attributes, primarily love, peace and forgiveness, so when we think of Jesus, we perceive those attributes associated with that thought-form.

This though-form is independent of the bible, which has many atrocities. I think the more horrible aspects of the bible aren't really associated with the thought-form Jesus much, because most Christians don't even know about those things, and if they do, they've glossed over them or are in denial about them.

Here are some websites that have compiled the nastier bible passages:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkB...ntents.htm

http://www.evilbible.com/

http://z7.invisionfree.com/Believe_it_or...r/t304.htm

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/31/11_kinds...e_partner/

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=21

Jesus was cool. The bible, not so much.

...

[Matt1]

I think the bible works fairly well for those who study it. If you want the negative or the positive polarity, you have the choice in the text. I guess the problem comes when you believe in everything it says. I tend to see it as a mixture of history and allegory. However None of that really matters, it simply boils down to how one person interprets the bible, they will do so in the way they wish.

The Christ is a more universal concept in my understanding, some what like the title of Buddha. Christians in this view would worship and pray to the Christ rather than the entity Yeshua.

[Diana]

I think one of the nexus points, if not THE nexus point at least in 3D, in conscious evolution is thinking for one's self. This is the central problem with attaching one's self to a text or religion or philosophy. This includes the Ra Material.

In the case of Jesus, or the bible, this entity of Christianity has grown to huge proportions. If thought of as electromagnetic energy it has become very powerful. If an individual is looking for something to tell them what to think, the existence of something as powerful and pervasive as Christianity is there to attract them. 

It is imperative, in my mind, that if we want to advance in consciousness we must detach from authority outside of ourselves. It's one thing to learn/teach as Ra says, and another to worship, or be devoted to, or to be blindly attached to a particular set of perceptions, or in the case of the bible, to a text of an extremely dubious nature.

[APeacefulWarrior]

To a large extent, how one reacts to the Bible is going to depend on how they look at it. If one realizes going in that it's largely a collection of folklore and tribal history, then it can be seen as a sort of Fool's Journey of a single people -the Hebrews- struggling towards the light from the near-total darkness of our animalistic pre-history. It can even be seen to illustrate the "transformation" of God, or at least the concept of God, from the dark vengeful entity dreamed up by an early people struggling for survival in a very harsh environment, to eventually producing the teachings of Jesus, which attempted to clarify the distortions which had been introduced previously.

The problem, of course, is as Ra discussed on several occasions: Jesus's message got distorted heavily almost immediately after he delivered it. It was too "high level" for an ancient people who were still largely accustomed to the control systems and power focus of the early tribal materials, and his ministry was cut short before he'd fully had time to develop his message. It's likely his own followers didn't really understand and so, left to their own devices, further misunderstandings were inevitable.

Either way, though, the Bible has inspired some of the best AND the worst that western civilization has to offer. It gave us the Inquisition and the Crusades, but it also gave us Bach and Mozart and Michelangelo and Copernicus and Newton. (People always forget that Newton spent a lot of his time investigating Bible codes.) It contains whatever the reader seeks to find. If they look for God's love, they can find it. If they look for excuses to be a-holes, they can find that too.

Given that it's a book compiled from dozens of sources composed over the course of centuries, there's really no other way it could be. The real problem comes when people refuse to look into the history of it, and try to give equal weight to every piece, with no regard to the cultural\temporal context of each specific chapter.

[Diana]

To a large extent, how one reacts to the Bible is going to depend on how they look at it.  If one realizes going in that it's largely a collection of folklore and tribal history, then it can be seen as a sort of Fool's Journey of a single people -the Hebrews- struggling towards the light from the near-total darkness of our animalistic pre-history.  It can even be seen to illustrate the "transformation" of God, or at least the concept of God, from the dark vengeful entity dreamed up by an early people struggling for survival in a very harsh environment, to eventually producing the teachings of Jesus, which attempted to clarify the distortions which had been introduced previously.

The problem, of course, is as Ra discussed on several occasions:  Jesus's message got distorted heavily almost immediately after he delivered it.  It was too "high level" for an ancient people who were still largely accustomed to the control systems and power focus of the early tribal materials, and his ministry was cut short before he'd fully had time to develop his message.  It's likely his own followers didn't really understand and so, left to their own devices, further misunderstandings were inevitable.

Either way, though, the Bible has inspired some of the best AND the worst that western civilization has to offer.  It gave us the Inquisition and the Crusades, but it also gave us Bach and Mozart and Michelangelo and Copernicus and Newton.  (People always forget that Newton spent a lot of his time investigating Bible codes.)  It contains whatever the reader seeks to find.  If they look for God's love, they can find it.  If they look for excuses to be a-holes, they can find that too.

Given that it's a book compiled from dozens of sources composed over the course of centuries, there's really no other way it could be.  The real problem comes when people refuse to look into the history of it, and try to give equal weight to every piece, with no regard to the cultural\temporal context of each specific chapter.

The bible did not give us the bolded individuals. Michelangelo, for instance, only painted religious scenes because that's all he could get as commissions. Newton's physics did not derive from the bible, they derived from observation. And Copernicus's idea that the sun, rather than the earth, is the center of our celestial system runs counter completely to the egocentric bible. Mozart's genius certainly did not derive from the bible or study of it.

On the other hand, the teachings in the old testament surely did justify the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, along with genocides throughout history.

If one were to look for God's love in the bible, they would have to look so hard between all the hate, jealousy, despotism, and cruelty it seems absurd to even try. Why do it? I really do not understand the point. I think the point is attachment to something that carries the energy of control, keeping people from thinking for themselves. If seen a s a socio-historical text, that is another thing altogether.

[APeacefulWarrior]

Well, you're welcome to your opinion on the matter, but you're also being awfully dismissive and choosing to focus entirely on the negative in the Bible. As I (and others) said, it contains whatever someone seeks within it. And it has ALSO inspired many great works of art, and many great thinkers over the centuries.

If it's not to your own personal tastes, that's fine, but seems rather overzealous when you try to dismiss any of the positive contributions that have come from it as well. I mean, honestly, saying that BACH wasn't inspired by it? Come on, that just doesn't hold water. And Copernicus was active in the church, and ran a chapter canonry for some years. Gregor Mendel would be another example along the same lines - he was a friar who did his research on the side.

There's no reason to be so absolutist about this. Good things have come out of Christianity as well. There's no purely black-and-white interpretation here.

[Diana]

Well, you're welcome to your opinion on the matter, but you're also being awfully dismissive and choosing to focus entirely on the negative in the Bible.   As I (and others) said, it contains whatever someone seeks within it.  And it has ALSO inspired many great works of art, and many great thinkers over the centuries.

If it's not to your own personal tastes, that's fine, but seems rather overzealous when you try to dismiss any of the positive contributions that have come from it as well.  I mean, honestly, saying that BACH wasn't inspired by it?  Come on, that just doesn't hold water.  And Copernicus was active in the church, and ran a chapter canonry for some years.  Gregor Mendel would be another example along the same lines - he was a friar who did his research on the side.  

There's no reason to be so absolutist about this.  Good things have come out of Christianity as well.  There's no purely black-and-white interpretation here.

I don't think I am being dismissive or choosing to focus on the negative. I think I am being logical and reasonable.

By the way, I said nothing about Bach. But regardless of any influence in the content of his music, talent is not something that relies on inspiration or a muse. That may be helpful, but to say Bach's genius was inspired by the bible is inaccurate. His genius would have been there already (my opinion.) He may have found an emotional muse in his religious beliefs, but barring that he would have found inspiration in anything to express what was in him to express. 

Do you think Copernicus's scientific achievements were inspired or derived from going to church? How? From Wikipedia on Copernicus's work:

"...Very soon, nevertheless, Copernicus' theory was attacked with Scripture and with the common Aristotelian proofs. In 1549 Philipp Melanchthon, Luther's principal lieutenant, wrote against Copernicus, pointing to the theory's apparent conflict with Scripture and advocating that "severe measures" be taken to restrain the impiety of Copernicans.

"The works of Copernicus and —the latter for asserting that was compatible with Catholic faith—were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of March 5, 1616 (more than 70 years after its publication): This Holy Congregation has also learned about the spreading and acceptance by many of the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the earth moves and the sun is motionless, which is also taught by Nicholaus Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium and by Diego de Zúñiga's  ... Therefore, in order that this opinion may not creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Congregation has decided that the books by Nicolaus Copernicus and Diego de Zúñiga be suspended until corrected..."

I'm not trying to argue with anyone. I just think we have had enough of Christianity, and all monotheistic religions, for one planet in space-time to tolerate (and all the negative results of them). The urge to worship and devote one's self, in my opinion, has its roots in not wanting to face the vast void of unknowing with an empty cup because it's too scary. There is personal comfort in things such as the bible, but is that worth the destruction that has been done (and continues to be done) in its name?

[Kaaron]

The bible is an account of offerings from BOTH sides.
If you deny the existence or potential for both STS and STO, you're not fully realizing that you have been both.
It is a matter of what resonates with you.
Let that which resonates as STO (if that's your preference) sink down and that which doesn't, let go.

I used to have strong bias against the Bible until I realized that there are a few real life confederation contacts. (Joseph/Ezekiel/John - Revelation/obviously Jeshua)

It's an account of WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS PLANET...the good AND the bad.

IMO

[Billy]

I think one of the nexus points, if not THE nexus point at least in 3D, in conscious evolution is thinking for one's self. This is the central problem with attaching one's self to a text or religion or philosophy. This includes the Ra Material.

In the case of Jesus, or the bible, this entity of Christianity has grown to huge proportions. If thought of as electromagnetic energy it has become very powerful. If an individual is looking for something to tell them what to think, the existence of something as powerful and pervasive as Christianity is there to attract them. 

It is imperative, in my mind, that if we want to advance in consciousness we must detach from authority outside of ourselves. It's one thing to learn/teach as Ra says, and another to worship, or be devoted to, or to be blindly attached to a particular set of perceptions, or in the case of the bible, to a text of an extremely dubious nature.

Would you apply this same sentiment to asking your higher self for clarity and what to think?  I often do this but wonder if I am in some way shirking responsibility and would be better served trying to think for myself (but isn't my higher self myself?).  I have always wondered if one can be too heavily reliant on their guidance system.

[Jade]

I think it's a paradox that requires accepting the self as the All, and allowing the self to be a channel/instrument for the All. We have the choice to hand over/shirk the power, or embrace it as our own.

[Reaper]

I can say from experience that being raised in a devout Christian household can have a dramatic impact on the rest of one's life. From the time I could understand words, I was having Biblical philosophy pumped into my head in intensive fashion at least three times a week, not to mention the stuff my parents taught me. The fear of hell was imbued within me at a very early age, and so for decades I never questioned what I was taught, even if it seemed wrong or confusing to me. I remember on one occasion I asked my preacher about a contradiction in the Bible and he told me "You're just not supposed to think about it." I was very young, and this was a man I trusted. A man my parents had placed on a pedestal and regarded as a role model. So I tried to follow his instructions and just not think about it.

Eventually my intelligence outweighed my programming and I just could not rationalize the dogma I was following any longer, but even after I'd sworn off everything Christian (I even tried to be an Atheist for a while), I found the philosophy manifesting in my life in many small ways. Some of the ethical values I still carry (dressing modestly, having sex with only one partner) are completely held over from my childhood training. In spite of being able to rationally understand that there is no hell, I still feel uncomfortable wearing revealing clothes. I would probably have a very difficult time getting a divorce if my marriage ever were to fail (which it certainly has not), simply because of how many times I was told it was WRONG as a child. I also still greatly enjoy the quite atmosphere presented by churches, though aside from funeral services I haven't set foot in one in years.

In my case, I, for a long time, attempted to balance these leftovers with very non-Christian preferences. I even became a full-blown Satanist for a while. However, to me it is very easy to see how some people just try to rework the religion as their ideas evolve. It is what their brain was built around, and attempting to sever all ties can be traumatic for some individuals. It might seem like a lot of work to try to find something good in something that is obviously full of negative philosophy, but often this is seen as easier than trying to completely rework one's programming and accept an entirely new world-view.

In Carla's case, she told me she had memories of past lives as a nun. I believe she was also raised in a religious household, so I could imagine these influences doubled up in her case to give her a very strong Christian bias. There were also her mystical encounters with Jesus as a child, which I think probably shaped her devotion to Jesus more than anything else. It seems to me that she purposefully chose to work with the Christ archetype within her incarnation, in spite of the distortions that work placed upon her. I was never able to completely agree with her perspective, but it isn't particularly confusing to me as to why she held it.

[Diana]

I think one of the nexus points, if not THE nexus point at least in 3D, in conscious evolution is thinking for one's self. This is the central problem with attaching one's self to a text or religion or philosophy. This includes the Ra Material.

In the case of Jesus, or the bible, this entity of Christianity has grown to huge proportions. If thought of as electromagnetic energy it has become very powerful. If an individual is looking for something to tell them what to think, the existence of something as powerful and pervasive as Christianity is there to attract them. 

It is imperative, in my mind, that if we want to advance in consciousness we must detach from authority outside of ourselves. It's one thing to learn/teach as Ra says, and another to worship, or be devoted to, or to be blindly attached to a particular set of perceptions, or in the case of the bible, to a text of an extremely dubious nature.

Would you apply this same sentiment to asking your higher self for clarity and what to think?  I often do this but wonder if I am in some way shirking responsibility and would be better served trying to think for myself (but isn't my higher self myself?).  I have always wondered if one can be too heavily reliant on their guidance system.

Yes, asking my higher self would be part of thinking for myself. What other guidance system do we have? Our own guidance system would include our feelings and our "knowing." These can get muddled by outside influences (childhood in dysfunctional families; religions; popular and underground media; government authority; and so on). To get one's self clear of outside influence is what I mean about thinking for one's self.

When I read something, such as the Ra Material, however wowed I might be or how much I resonate with it, I don't then make the leap to seeing it as higher or better or somehow magical. That is separation. I just use the material as a tool or part of research into the nature of reality.

This is different than devotion to a text, an idea, a religion. Devotion is very akin to attachment. I seek to detach—not in the sense that I am separate from everything, but in the sense that I am not stuck in the drama or story of anything. You can see this idea in Ra. Ra was not concerned about anything other than answering a call, and had no attachment to an outcome.

In the case of the bible, if it weren't for the centuries of destruction wrought using it as the justification, it could just be an historical manuscript to study if one were inclined. But to see it as a carrier of the message of love or a way to guide one's life would be a real feat, considering the actual content and considering the energy of destruction it carries from centuries of devotion and negative justifications.

But I feel the urge to back out of this conversation. I don't want to convince anyone of anything. And I don't want to take comfort away from anyone. I cross the line sometimes when looking at the bigger picture of the world today. From that view, the bible and all religious scriptures don't appear to be helping anything and seem to be doing the opposite in many ways.

[Quincunx]

-------

[zedro]

The Ra Material uses a lot of uncommon language unless you have a dictionary handy. I wonder why they didn't try to dumb it down so it would be easier to digest. Could it be to look at what they are saying in a different way or maybe read in between the lines. They always talk about Free Will and I was actually surprised to see that they refused to talk about certain things.

This is what the Law of Confusion is (LoC), they cannot give answers to which is needed to be learned. This is why all Divine texts feel to be full of contradiction, paradoxes, or mystery, because if a teacher gives a student the answers to the test, then a new harder test is required. This I believe is why contact from ascended masters (such as Christ, or Ra in Egypt) comes at such a high price, and may add further to the confusion or polarization potential of the opposite nature. Ra is definitely not being fully truthful, and they even say as much.