The Detuning of Session 17 and Ra's True Intentions Regarding 2011 - Part II

[unity100]

Yet even this simple proposition seems beyond your willingness to accept. You seem to think that this would somehow invalidate the material.

#a) excuse me tenet, but discussing with you is becoming tiring. the reason is your grand conclusions and methods devised through a lot of information lacking. the reason is below :

All it supposes is that a confused query yields a confused answer.

wrong. the questioner, don being confusing does not confuse Ra, a 6d entity which is not part of time, and which is able to telepathically see and know what the intentions of not only questioner is, BUT also negative entity tailing the group, in detail.

moreover, whenever the questioner is confused, ra not only mentions that, but also occasionally corrects the confusion, and in other times, leads him to questioning lines which would clear up the confusion. this is never to the contrary in the material.

that is a conclusion made on a wrong assumption again, and in the above block at point #a) you have made it into a thumb rule and standard.

my problem is that - if you have a standard, you apply it everywhere. you dont selectively skip it when things get uncomfortable, for any reason.

Honestly, I am not sure to what degree you are observing me to be hypocritical here, or that it really matters.

i was referring to icaro in this discussion.

However- you have continued to fail to apply your own standard to the anomalous quote:

The harvest is now.

As I stated before, you are performing the same sort of mental maneuver that you are being critical of in others. You take the word "now" and then distort it outside of its normal meaning of "in the moment or immanently" and somehow manage to twist the word "now" into meaning "30 years from now". This is the same sort of denying plain English language that you are railing against.

For my part, I am willing to accept that "The harvest is now" is just an outlier- an error. Something Ra did not go back and fix, for whatever reason. That the material could possibly suffer from any error of any kind appears to kick you in to vehemence, which I do not understand.

If the material is what it is, then it can stand up to questioning. I say the very same thing about people who refuse to entertain any questioning of their religious beliefs. If what you believe is true, then it can stand on its own two feet and is not in need of defense of criticism.

there is no failure of standards there. 'is now' is a linguistic phrase in english language that signifies imminent situation. it is not only used in literature as such, but also in political speeches. 'the time for change is now' does not mean change is under progress at that moment.

Pardon my idiocy, but when Ra says:

The recalculation indicates numbers 3,600 for Orion entry, 3,300 for Confederation entry.

That means there was a Confederation entry 3,300 years ago, in 1300 BC. Right?

yes. and notice how confederation != ra.

1300 BC entry can be any number of entities in confederation.

=======================

ill stop discussing this with you at this point tenet. you are, for some reason, doing a lot of revisits of things which have been clearly discussed as if nothing was said, or, in the case of how you have me that i couldnt deny a proposition which i have myself explicitly detailed as my perspective regarding harvest. you have forgotten that i have directly and bluntly expressed my perspective as the thing you have accused me with possibility of denying. despite you responded to me when i expressed my opinion first time and in detail. all it took 3-4 pages for you to forgot it.

all i can conclude is that in your haste you are just dumping a lot of things. i cant help discussing like that.

thank you for your discussion up till this point. what you have dug up in initial threads were really useful.

saddest point of all this story has been someone attempting to claim
that Ra material was compromised based on on-demand and on the spot
subjective non-measurements

Nope. This was based on errors themselves, especially Ra stumbling their words after sufficient detuning. If you haven't noticed..after reflecting on the channeling process itself, I have evolved my opinion to agree that Ra could not have been manipulated themselves, but perhaps lacked clarity. It seems that within the allegories, Ra was referring to negative influence that was being placed on Don. Or not..but it gets you to think, and that's the point.

Or should I not grow and evolve, so you don't have to add another chalk mark to the board where you're keeping tabs on how my opinion changes?

excuse me, there is double standard applied as explained below - this is not related to anything like opinion evolving over time :

That settles it, in my mind. It proves that when Ra said "the harvest is now" they meant an ongoing process, and were referring to the harvesting of individual souls.

And.....50.5 The incarnation was understood to be one which would take place at harvest.
Which do you prefer? At, during, is now, causing a somewhat difficult harvest...take your pick.

THIS was the hypocrisy and double standards i was talking about.

in this very thread, you argued for pages that becasue don asked about specific things/events, the contact was compromised because of this or that. you insisted incessantly on that, trying to invalidate the 2011 date about the harvest event. not to mention you have dubbed harvest a specific, transitory event to justify your claim.

then here you are, trying to reach a conclusion by using the very same kind of quotes you think that support your claim ?

with your claim in this thread, the very quotes you are trying to use as support for your claim (even if none apply) are negatively influenced specific material.

in short, another streak of hypocrisy and double standards -> quotes are negatively influenced when they oppose your view, and others of the same qualification are suddenly reliable because they support your perspective. even the concept of harvest, which was totally abstracted and metaphorized into a 'present moment' bliss and dubbed transitory suddenly became non-transitory when its needed.

double standards. no less. the problem here and the discussion is not harvest or its date. its this.

this very thread basically is a thread opened for explanation of your view about how specific questions for specific information compromises contact. you supposedly used this proposition to invalidate the 2011 quote you dont like. then, at this point you came and relied on accuracy of the quotes of SAME specific kind, therefore totally going against the standard you proposed in this thread. that is basically a switch.

if you are claiming that you have changed your perspective, so that now you dont propose that your original proposition that asking specific information compromised Ra contact, say so.

otherwise, your reliance on specific answers to specific questions as in the above, becomes hypocritical.

we are still under the title of very thread and first post you have claimed Ra contact was compromised because of date of harvest specific questions/answers. now, you cannot use questions/answers that have harvest specific dates as evidence for anything. it CONTRADICTS the very thread you opened and proposition you have been defending.