Questions regarding the LOO, STS and Religions

[Ali Quadir]

wanderers do not start religions, is a generalization, and for positively oriented wanderers, it is true, unless some big miscalculation or mishap happens. since negatively oriented wanderers are too few to even constitute a statistic, the generalization would hold true.

I laughed for this one... It reminds me of the "proof" that there is no life in the universe. The average number of living entities divided by the planet count is so close to zero that we can just ignore it as an error. Anyone you meet is therefore imagined and proof you're deranged.

Similarly if a dice has enough sides that the chance of any side coming up is statistically so remote to be negligible. Then you can throw the dice and sure as hell, no side will come up!

Similarly wanderers do not start religions.

adept is an entity in 3d who is able to work with various high frequency energies, and probably an entity which is closing harvest status. adept, as a definition does not carry positive or negative leaning. the adept can be of either leaning. atlanteans causing all those catastrophes and wars, and creating entities to have them serve themselves, were also adepts.

Of course, I never denied any of this, and it is exceptionally clear to me that there are religions out there started by negative adepts. You won't find them in the mainstream they do not have a tendency to be big, or if they are the biggest part is not showing the core of the religion. But you can still find them. More often than that however the religion is slowly corrupted over time by the work of negative adepts. The core, the original message remains pure and clear to positive adepts.

thus it can be said that positively oriented adepts also wouldnt start religions, whereas negatively oriented adepts may opt to do it that way, as can be seen from the examples of numerous 'religions' which are being started in the contemporary times.

It can be said, it just won't be true. You're gambling on semantics again. Jesus was the spiritual founder of Christianity. Whether he intended to turn it into a religion or not. He walked the land and taught the lessons.. Buddha, same story, Mohammed. Again same story.

And then there were saints like for example st Francis of Assisi who was the spiritual father for the franciscans. The taize community headed by frere Roger. These are not new religions but spinoffs.

If you study the lives of these saints it becomes obvious that positive adepts do start religions, even if a nearby scholar formalizes their teachings.

jesus of nazareth didnt start a religion. in his lifetime, he didnt make up any rules,

Except for at least his two commandments of course.

he didnt tell anyone what to obey.

His actions on the market square seem to indicate otherwise. He had a very clear capacity for judgment. He did not accept everything, he accepted people but rejected much behavior.

his mission had been sharing 4d vibration in its pure form, and he did. he allowed himself to be killed even.

Sometimes demonstrating is teaching.

his message was 'love each other and turn the other cheek'. religion of christianity has been created by his contemporaries, followers and followers following them in the next 300 years. and even, constantine, the byzantine emperor who decided to use christianity as the new method to unite the scattered eastern roman empire and give a justification to his rule. council of nicea was made to that end, deciding which should be left in the holy books and which was not fit for it.

christianity has little semblance to jesus of nazareth's message now.

This is merely your opinion. I've met Christians who are as fully committed to the Christ consciousness as Jesus was in his day.

I'm sure you'll call them statistical outliers and just deny their existence like before If we ignore those people you'd be right.

But even then.. Religion is more than is followed today. The council of Nicea was not a good thing to happen to Christianity, I agree with that.. To many fine lessons were abandoned in those sessions. But the council was held to converge what was considered a too divergent group. Constantine didn't care about what was put in the holy books. He didn't know theology. He really didn't care! He wanted a unified church that would fit in his empire, what their message was he didn't really care about. You suggest he decided what was put in, but judging on what we know of the council this is not true.