1981.02.03 - Book 1, Session 17 - Oahspe

[Quantum]

You mentioned, Quantum, that you also read Urantia, did you find similar contradiction with TLOO as you did with Oahspe? or more similarities? If so we may well start a Urantia thread.

So sorry for this late response my friend. I am traveling quite a bit these days. My only reason for reading Urantia was for the express purposes of "attempting" to understand "what was not passed", so to speak, this for comparative ground as an to attempt to understand what "may constitute as passing". Alas, it would be difficult to explain if not as futile as stabbing in the dark at best. Given Urantia did not pass however, it might prove as futile for productive conversations towards the LOO.

[quote='Quantum' pid='5055' dateline='1251306702']
An interesting question however is raised. What is distortion? Dictionary.com: Distort: to twist awry or out of shape; make crooked or deformed, to give a false, perverted, or disproportionate meaning to; misrepresent: to distort the facts.
Distortion clearly is not seeing "truthfully" by this definition, whether through "perception", or "interpretation" or by "perspective".

I don't think the dictionary offers the definition as intended by Ra. The term, as used by Ra, is unique unto the Law of One context.

Again we split hairs in interpretative meaning. Even in the context of Ra and the LOO I am confident "they" meant that any truth transmitted to 3D by any definition becomes at worse grossly or at best mildly "twisted, awry or out of shape so as to offer a less than clear if not pure understanding thus rendering it as a disproportionate meaning" to its truer truth. What other definition might "distort" mean other than in fact the one ascribed to it by the English language wherein a "disproportionate meaning" is implied? I am equally confident that as proficient as Ra was in utilizing the English language that they in fact had this very meaning in mind when using it as opposed to some other special meaning potentially rendering it as non-intelligible, or worse yet as subject to being less understood and thus rendering the definition of distorted as more distorted.

I am almost as confident that one would need to define it in much the same manner, and would be equally as curious as to how one would define it otherwise? What then is distortion, per se, this in the "unique context of the LOO", as suggested, and this without remotely utilizing any of the above words, or their similarity.

Q