(08-21-2009, 03:30 PM)Quantum Wrote: Certainly multiple Gods would offend Western sensibilities as much or far more than a simple reincarnation principle.
I've met many fundamentalist born-again Christians who most emphatically do believe in multiple 'gods.' In fact, they were the majority on the Christianity forum I used to belong to. I was shocked to hear them say that, as I had thought that belief in one God was foundational to Christianity. Not so. The newer generation of Christianity, which has now become the mainstream, believes in multiple 'gods' and that those of other religions worship 'other gods' while theirs is the 'true God.'
(08-21-2009, 03:30 PM)Quantum Wrote: True enough that splintering the splinters causes only more splintering. But we are not here talking about the people(s) nor the believers interpretations of a given text as in your example who cause said splintering. We are talking here about specific texts, and more specifically the texts that were passed by the Confederation. It is the texts that are splintered in diametric opposition at several core beliefs, not the people.
Passed by the Confederation when? When the idea to offer the info was presented, or after the work was channeled?
Remember that all channeled info is distorted to some degree. My understanding is that the idea to offer the info was passed by Council, not the finished work. Therefore, there is no way to assume that every detail of the book is confirmed as literally true by the Confederation, any more than we can do so with the Law of One.
There's a huge difference between granting permission to establish a certain contact in response to a call, vs approving a finished work in its distorted form.
(08-21-2009, 03:30 PM)Quantum Wrote: I do not think it naive to assume that elegant cohesiveness and truth might be expected to be in alignment by either authors of a similar belief who possess greater consciousness, or more particularly by the Confederation as the governing body passing these truths, notwithstanding your larger point that its all about "love verses belief".
Undoubtedly, were we to receive the knowledge in its pure, undistorted form, we would see such elegant cohesiveness. But you are comparing one distorted text with another distorted text, both filtered thru the lens of the human channel's biases.
We consider the Law of One to have a minimum amount of distortion, due to Carla's, Jim's and Don's diligence, but we cannot assume it to be completely without distortion. How much do we know about the distortion level of the author(s) of Oahspe?
(08-21-2009, 03:30 PM)Quantum Wrote: A strong dis-similarity between Ohaspe and the LOO has with what I consider to be, as regards the point above about "confluence of a belief", the singular and contrasting concept, as well as stark difference of what might be considered to be the core belief of the LOO teaching, i.e. Polarity.There isn't a negative STS path mentioned whatsoever, even philosophically, and certainly as such not one as a viable course. Clearly without this, there is no polarity teaching whatsoever as such. As might be understood and/or taught in any conventional Christian textbook, there is heaven and there is hell. Period. There is only truth and light, and the redemption offered to be put aright again, having gone off the path as it were, in order to once again be in realignment to reach the only path to heaven. Put more simply, as in conventional religions, there exists only one path in Ohaspe.
That sounds like a clear indication of simple distortion to me. Evidently, the author(s) was predisposed to conventional religions. Perhaps open to new ideas, but still within the framework of religion. Look at the Edgar Cayce material, as an obvious example. It too is passed by Council, is it not? Or rather, shall I say, Cayce received some sort of permission to do this work? And yet, look at how very Christian-flavored it is!!
The Law of One remains my foundation precisely because it transcends religious biases. IMHO, that is but one of many indications of its clarity and relative lack of distortion. This is not to demean the Cayce works or Oahspe in any way. My years as a student of Cayce were invaluable to me! I am grateful that Cayce offered his service. The fact that he doesn't make much mention of other holy works besides the Bible doesn't seem incongruous to me, any more than Oahspe's lack of mention of polarity would seem incongruous. I would read it as an allegory or myth, as filtered thru the channel.
(08-21-2009, 12:09 PM)Lavazza Wrote: Well spoken Monica! Please accept my applause!
Thank you!
