Share your vision for the harvest

[unity100]

Unity - My only reason for trying to sort this out has nothing to do with me personally, or needing time. It has to do with people going around parading that death is approaching in 2011 with almost absolute certainty, when there is clearly enough room for interpretation as to when the harvest would begin. My argument has always been as to when it will begin, and evidence to suggest whether or not is has been occurring. And there is clearly disagreement with your viewpoint, because I was listening to a podcast the other day where Carla reiterated that she believes we will normally live out our lives. Your opinion is clearly subjective, which you continue to disbelieve, as it seems there are quite a few who have been studying this material since its inception and they would disagree with you. You seem hell-bent on proving your opinion on this to yourself and others. Why are you so offended when others can't supposedly understand your viewpoint or rational? Something to think about.

- then it means you have a problem with the death approach in 2011 with almost absolute certainty. its just another problem in the list of problems which cause people to attempt extreme interpretations of things that could not be interpreted.

- Carla is not Ra. if its Ra's word over Carla's its Ra's word. when Carla disincarnates, joins Ra or any other social memory complex suitable for her, her social memory complex undertakes a meticulously clear and precise work of channeling, only then it can be "Carla's social memory complex's word".

- i am not hell bent on proving anything. what i am hell bent on is arguing against blatant denial of things bluntly, directly, clearly told in the material. 'harvest will happen in 2011' does NOT mean 'it will begin'. it means, harvest 'will happen' in 2011. this may be 2012, this may have been 2010, its a different matter and the matter of the 'approximate nexus' you speak of. the approximate nexus Ra has mentioned, fits in a YEAR. not 900 years.

you are trying to shove that in into a sentence that does not have that, and this is why we have argued for that long. if i am 'offended' at anything, the offense is someone coming up saying 'ra had said apple, but i think they meant banana'.

and again, no - there is never room for that kind of 'interpretation' in any kind of information transmitted in between any two party - because it is not 'interpreting' anything at all - it is first, IGNORING, then REWRITING it as something that is acceptable to the personal bias.

again, "harvest will happen in 2011" means, harvest is something that fits in a year. and before you again rewrite the entire thing in your mind - no, they did not say it 'would begin'. they said, it would HAPPEN. and if it was to begin and last for x amount of years, ra would just SAY it. the question asked was whether harvest was something that would be spread out or happen at a certain date, and the answer was at a certain date. you cant rewrite this to be 900 years additional.

as for the potential of certain death, i have been just talking on the information we see in the material, whether i like it or not, WITHOUT rewriting it, 'interpreting' it, or trying to make room for anything. and i have clearly and explicitly put references and the pointers. you are continually denying it. there is no discussion on the subject anymore, but constant reiteration of your personal preference. this, indeed has caused me to adamantly argue what you are objecting against, because you were blatantly denying openly worded sentences and totally rewriting them. if you didnt do that, i wouldnt be 'offended' and argued that long, if we explain it with the words you preferred to use, however misplaced and incorrect.

And besides, Ra never said it would happen in 2011. Don asked Ra if it would happen in 2011 which they said was a reasonable date. If Don were to have asked if it will happen in 2020, Ra would have said "Yes, that is a reasonable time frame."

don didnt ask if 2011 was a reasonable date. and Ra never said it was a TIME FRAME. the exact quote is as follows :

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session...=1&ss=1#29

17.29 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.

the answer is a CERTAIN DATE, even if it is an approximation. there is no timeframe involved.. the answer of the question of whether harvest going to be spread out or at a certain date, IS A CERTAIN DATE. moreover, in the extra information given about those not in incarnation being included at the harvest, 'AT THIS TIME' phrase is used.

there is no way to 'interpret' this other than a bias.

if you go interpreting like that, you can as well reinterpret what positive/negative means. just like someone attempted at some point when it didnt suit with personal biases in a discussion some months ago.

Time in time/space isn't relative to time in space/time. What occurs in a few moments in time/space could be a longer in space/time.

i dont even think you are really aware of what you are saying anymore. or whether you are intentionally subconsciously forgetting the basic information given in the material regarding what you are using as alibi :

time/space, astral part of existence, is the place where time is plenty. space is less. this was explained as the reason how it was possible to see everything, including past lives of an entity by the entity in grand scale, because time was plenty and readily accessible.

the opposite holds for space/time - space is plenty, there is room for much movement, yet, time is limited. so it is possible to act, but not to see the grand picture.

in short, time is slower in time/space than in space/time. what takes 1 minute in space/time, would allow many many 'time' units in time/space. this would mean that 'happen in 2011' as a year period would mean that it would take much less time for harvest to happen in space/time terms if you use the above approach. something that is very long in time/space, would take just months in space/time.

what you said, reinforces, not reduces what you are objecting against.

...............

correct approach to truth seeking, is seeking the actual truth, nomatter how unexplainable parts of that truth is, nomatter how uncomfortable that truth is, nomatter how unsatisfactory that truth is.

seeking the true nature of things, is the seeking of truth.

most people seek 'explanations'. there is conformism carried in seeking explanations in a hidden fashion. if something is explained, and the entity is satisfied to a degree with the explanation, things are ok. when you speak of 'explanation' you impliedly include satisfaction in it. and with that mindset, satisfaction can easily take form of what is acceptable to the personal biases of the entity.

truth seeking should be a constant act, and it should be in the form of seeking the true nature of things regardless of what they are and how disturbing, uncomfortable or happy they may be. there is no 'comfort' or 'satisfaction' in seeking truth - there is seeking, and continual unraveling of what is unknown.

same applies in this debate - people have a lot of biases. and some, are spending extra effort to find the truth about something, regardless of how disturbing it may be to their or orhers' biases.

and there are some who are totally denying plainly constructed, precise sentences and rewriting them behind the veil of 'interpretation'.