Text attacking Law of One and Ra Material

[Infinite]

I found this text in Facebook:

The Law of One

by Tanaath

This one is a particularly contentious one. Like a lot of popular New Age concepts, it’s a rebranding and twisting of something very real. The Law of One states that at some level we are all one, all the same being. This is technically true, in that we are all part of Source – in this universe, we all issue from the same being and that is our Source. In other universes, we issue from other beings – the Sources of those universes. Ultimately, we, as consciousnesses, transcend universes – we exist in and of ourselves as eternal beings, created by none, beholden to none, and belonging to none but ourselves – but we do all our experiencing within universes in which we all stem from one Source while we are part of that universe. When our vessels of experiencing cease to be (in other words, we die, or whatever process that halting might take at whatever particular expression we’re in), we return to being a part of the Source Consciousness, before spinning out again to experience again. We continue this process until we tire of it and stop doing it, or the universe perishes, whichever comes first. But we are all equal expressions of the same Source. That’s what the Law of One truly is – we are all part of One Source and all of us are connected to the Tree of Life, and are part of Existence. That’s it.

However, of course, this concept has filtered down to us with a heck of a lot of nasty, disempowering baggage, and some really horrible stuff passed off as natural, normal stuff ‘the way things should be’. There are a lot of people quoting various suppositions about the Law of One, and a lot of these things are very harmful. For instance, the notion that we are all One is often used to excuse the behaviour of abusive entities – tying in with the notion that we co-create our experience, the actions of these beings are excused as something we agreed upon or chose and that we should endure without complaint or attempting to change what we don’t like, because since we are ‘One’, the bad guys are as much us as we are. Suffering for the pleasure of nasty entities gets reframed as assisting our own selves, when anyone with a brain can see that it’s anything but. Absolutely nowhere is it demanded of us that we cater to the whims of abusive beings, just because we all come from the same Source. What they choose to do is their choice – we are free to oppose those choices and demonstrate the consequence portion of choices. No one is ever obligated to suffer at the hands of another simply because at some point we were all part of the same being. Period.

Another inaccurate tenet that is often passed around as part of the ‘Law of One’ is that the experiential creation is an illusion. This may simply be a mistranslation – the experiential universe is a fractal hologram (which might be translated fast and loose as an ‘illusion’ by the ill-informed), but it is very, very real. It is a creation, it is a projection, and it is a hologram, but it is not ‘artificial’. The part of the universe that can be lived in and experienced is the whole point of making a universe. Being able to provide experience, or being able to have experiences, is what this is all about. To suggest that this is an illusion is to suggest that existence isn’t real or doesn’t matter. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Law of One is also popularly held to mean that we all return to Oneness. This is kind of true. Every time we need to take a break from experiential existence – or are forced out through death or what have you – we return to Oneness with Source. It’s part of the normal rest period that consciousnesses take before going off to have more experiences. That’s it. It’s great – without a Source to return to, the consciousness and soul matter (some call it energimata) that make up our individual selves degrade with each death if not refreshed in Source… that’s part of why we really don’t want to end up eaten by Alternate’s dead universe, because there’s no real Source to rest within, and over time any being within that dead universe will end up either annihilated due to attrition (at least as that particular expression – that person’s expression in other universes that are not affected will go on just fine, but that means nothing to the consciousness part in that dead universe), or completely batshit insane. In order to restore lost energimata, beings in a dead universe often turn to cannibalism – not literal corpse eating, but devouring the energimata of other beings in order to sustain their own existence. Life in a dead universe is vicious, cruel, intensely unpleasant, and involves doing a lot of unpleasant things just to sustain existence. That is why we need a Source, and that is why we want that Source to be connected to the Tree of Life – because otherwise we as consciousnesses are doomed to either dissolution or an interminable string of hideous experiences.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – the purpose of existence is to exist, not to find a way to dissolve your consciousness as quickly as possible. When returning to Oneness, our individual consciousnesses – that part of consciousness that is our individual selves with an identity and self-awareness – are dissolved. Our individual consciousnesses – as many as possible, doing as many things as possible – is the only way for Source to complete its objective – which is to experience itself to the greatest extent possible. It can’t do that if we’re all too busy trying to be One. At some point this Source will decide it knows all it can and we will all move into Oneness (and if even one of us isn’t in agreement and still wants to ‘play’, then we don’t do it, because clearly Source isn’t done yet in that case) – and then those of us who want to be experience providers will branch outwards as new universes while those of us who want to be experiencers will go into those new universes – and our Source here will probably tag along as a helper god for some of those new universes. And this universe will be over as a specific, singular universe and will now be a branch upon the tree. That would be the ultimate conclusion of the Law of One for a particular universe. But as long as anyone wants to continue to exist, it is not yet time for that. Nor is it a race to get to that as quickly as possible. Universes aren’t intended to be ‘speed runs’.

With the specific ‘Law of One’ channeled material, they speak of the ‘Harvest’. This is passed along as a great returning to Oneness, and a wonderful thing and the whole point of this planet. If you look past the pretty phrasing and all the hype, what is actually being pushed here is a mass murder and a literal ‘harvest’ of energimata, and the destruction of millions or even billions of souls who are currently on Terra. The channeled ones are talking about killing us and harvesting our soul energy and framing this as some kind of positive return to Source. The ‘Harvest’ is not a natural thing, nor is it a positive thing, nor is it what we’re here for. It is simply opportunistic ET/ED beings attempting to frame their intended atrocities upon us in ways that make them seem like they’re doing something good for us. This 3D life that we have might not be working as it was intended to be, but that’s not how to fix it. It’s like burning the house down because the paint isn’t the right colour. As long as I or any of the Silver Legion exist, we will work to stop any of the rogues’ gallery of beings here slavering to participate in a harvesting of humanity.
Tanaath of the Silver Legion.

What you think?

[AnthroHeart]

It might have some weight if they channeled that in trance. Not just off the top of their head. From the Law of One I got that we're living our natural lives. Not the killing of billions.

[Infinite]

This probably is an Orion oriented channeling. The concept of Harvest is not exclusive of Ra Material. I found this in a lot of spiritual works.

[Infinite Unity]

I found this text in Facebook:

The Law of One

by Tanaath

This one is a particularly contentious one. Like a lot of popular New Age concepts, it’s a rebranding and twisting of something very real. The Law of One states that at some level we are all one, all the same being. This is technically true, in that we are all part of Source – in this universe, we all issue from the same being and that is our Source. In other universes, we issue from other beings – the Sources of those universes. Ultimately, we, as consciousnesses, transcend universes – we exist in and of ourselves as eternal beings, created by none, beholden to none, and belonging to none but ourselves – but we do all our experiencing within universes in which we all stem from one Source while we are part of that universe. When our vessels of experiencing cease to be (in other words, we die, or whatever process that halting might take at whatever particular expression we’re in), we return to being a part of the Source Consciousness, before spinning out again to experience again. We continue this process until we tire of it and stop doing it, or the universe perishes, whichever comes first. But we are all equal expressions of the same Source. That’s what the Law of One truly is – we are all part of One Source and all of us are connected to the Tree of Life, and are part of Existence. That’s it.

However, of course, this concept has filtered down to us with a heck of a lot of nasty, disempowering baggage, and some really horrible stuff passed off as natural, normal stuff ‘the way things should be’. There are a lot of people quoting various suppositions about the Law of One, and a lot of these things are very harmful. For instance, the notion that we are all One is often used to excuse the behaviour of abusive entities – tying in with the notion that we co-create our experience, the actions of these beings are excused as something we agreed upon or chose and that we should endure without complaint or attempting to change what we don’t like, because since we are ‘One’, the bad guys are as much us as we are. Suffering for the pleasure of nasty entities gets reframed as assisting our own selves, when anyone with a brain can see that it’s anything but. Absolutely nowhere is it demanded of us that we cater to the whims of abusive beings, just because we all come from the same Source. What they choose to do is their choice – we are free to oppose those choices and demonstrate the consequence portion of choices. No one is ever obligated to suffer at the hands of another simply because at some point we were all part of the same being. Period.

Another inaccurate tenet that is often passed around as part of the ‘Law of One’ is that the experiential creation is an illusion. This may simply be a mistranslation – the experiential universe is a fractal hologram (which might be translated fast and loose as an ‘illusion’ by the ill-informed), but it is very, very real. It is a creation, it is a projection, and it is a hologram, but it is not ‘artificial’. The part of the universe that can be lived in and experienced is the whole point of making a universe. Being able to provide experience, or being able to have experiences, is what this is all about. To suggest that this is an illusion is to suggest that existence isn’t real or doesn’t matter. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Law of One is also popularly held to mean that we all return to Oneness. This is kind of true. Every time we need to take a break from experiential existence – or are forced out through death or what have you – we return to Oneness with Source. It’s part of the normal rest period that consciousnesses take before going off to have more experiences. That’s it. It’s great – without a Source to return to, the consciousness and soul matter (some call it energimata) that make up our individual selves degrade with each death if not refreshed in Source… that’s part of why we really don’t want to end up eaten by Alternate’s dead universe, because there’s no real Source to rest within, and over time any being within that dead universe will end up either annihilated due to attrition (at least as that particular expression – that person’s expression in other universes that are not affected will go on just fine, but that means nothing to the consciousness part in that dead universe), or completely batshit insane. In order to restore lost energimata, beings in a dead universe often turn to cannibalism – not literal corpse eating, but devouring the energimata of other beings in order to sustain their own existence. Life in a dead universe is vicious, cruel, intensely unpleasant, and involves doing a lot of unpleasant things just to sustain existence. That is why we need a Source, and that is why we want that Source to be connected to the Tree of Life – because otherwise we as consciousnesses are doomed to either dissolution or an interminable string of hideous experiences.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – the purpose of existence is to exist, not to find a way to dissolve your consciousness as quickly as possible. When returning to Oneness, our individual consciousnesses – that part of consciousness that is our individual selves with an identity and self-awareness – are dissolved. Our individual consciousnesses – as many as possible, doing as many things as possible – is the only way for Source to complete its objective – which is to experience itself to the greatest extent possible. It can’t do that if we’re all too busy trying to be One. At some point this Source will decide it knows all it can and we will all move into Oneness (and if even one of us isn’t in agreement and still wants to ‘play’, then we don’t do it, because clearly Source isn’t done yet in that case) – and then those of us who want to be experience providers will branch outwards as new universes while those of us who want to be experiencers will go into those new universes – and our Source here will probably tag along as a helper god for some of those new universes. And this universe will be over as a specific, singular universe and will now be a branch upon the tree. That would be the ultimate conclusion of the Law of One for a particular universe. But as long as anyone wants to continue to exist, it is not yet time for that. Nor is it a race to get to that as quickly as possible. Universes aren’t intended to be ‘speed runs’.

With the specific ‘Law of One’ channeled material, they speak of the ‘Harvest’. This is passed along as a great returning to Oneness, and a wonderful thing and the whole point of this planet. If you look past the pretty phrasing and all the hype, what is actually being pushed here is a mass murder and a literal ‘harvest’ of energimata, and the destruction of millions or even billions of souls who are currently on Terra. The channeled ones are talking about killing us and harvesting our soul energy and framing this as some kind of positive return to Source. The ‘Harvest’ is not a natural thing, nor is it a positive thing, nor is it what we’re here for. It is simply opportunistic ET/ED beings attempting to frame their intended atrocities upon us in ways that make them seem like they’re doing something good for us. This 3D life that we have might not be working as it was intended to be, but that’s not how to fix it. It’s like burning the house down because the paint isn’t the right colour. As long as I or any of the Silver Legion exist, we will work to stop any of the rogues’ gallery of beings here slavering to participate in a harvesting of humanity.
Tanaath of the Silver Legion.

What you think?

Sounds like some zealot 4th density understanding. Seems like they see themselves as the antibodies of the universe. I believe you can see within the text there directly involved in 'the war'.

And a lot of text is just my god is bigger then your god jargon bs.

[Glow]

The thing is, if we are going down the rabbit hole of oneness we have to go all the way.
Following that it means even those who attack Ra and the LOO are doing exactly as they need to do.
Working through some facet of the creator.

[APeacefulWarrior]

No Earthly text will ever be able to describe the higher order of things perfectly. The spoken Dao is not the true Dao. Just about every philosophy/cosmology/etc will have elements of truth and elements of falsehood. Everyone is confused, to some extent or another. So there's very little to be gained from getting all self-righteous over differences in opinion over the structure of things; fundamentally it's an argument which can never be "won" and will just tend to increase ill-will on both sides.

[AnthroHeart]

I used to think that I relished confusion.
And choice was paradox.

[The Traveler]

Hm, I sort of resonated with his version of Oneness where the Creator wont proceed until every soul/aspect says they are done. I personally don't want to return to the Creator and lose my individuality. I would very much like to become a Creator not necessarily creating universes but rather my own personal solar system and, I want to be the sun/star that shines light on the planets around me and once in a while I will send an avatar of myself down the the planets to explore and walk among my creations (plants and animals, nothing higher than 2nd Density).

Sort of like Trance Gemini from the Andromeda series

[AnthroHeart]

Yeah Traveler, I want to be a solar Logos too.

I've heard a channeling that said something like if you believe, you will get your own Universe. I guess your universe could start out as one solar system, or maybe a galaxy. It probably doesn't have to be huge, unless you want lots of stars like we have it.

[Jeremy]

Hm, I sort of resonated with his version of Oneness where the Creator wont proceed until every soul/aspect says they are done. I personally don't want to return to the Creator and lose my individuality. I would very much like to become a Creator not necessarily creating universes but rather my own personal solar system and, I want to be the sun/star that shines light on the planets around me and once in a while I will send an avatar of myself down the the planets to explore and walk among my creations (plants and animals, nothing higher than 2nd Density).

Sort of like Trance Gemini from the Andromeda series

If you haven't read journey of souls and Destiny of souls, I'd highly recommend them for ya. In some of the regression sessions, people said doing such creating were part of their lessons between incarnations. Once they passed certain lessons, they were given the ability to create worlds exactly how you described it. If you haven't read these books, I wonder if you're having bleed through of passed experiences of doing such things.

[Infinite]

If you haven't read journey of souls and Destiny of souls

These books are of Michael Newton?

[Nau7ik]

No Earthly text will ever be able to describe the higher order of things perfectly. The spoken Dao is not the true Dao. Just about every philosophy/cosmology/etc will have elements of truth and elements of falsehood. Everyone is confused, to some extent or another. So there's very little to be gained from getting all self-righteous over differences in opinion over the structure of things; fundamentally it's an argument which can never be "won" and will just tend to increase ill-will on both sides.

Absolutely! Thank you APW. Perfect response.

[AnthroHeart]

No Earthly text will ever be able to describe the higher order of things perfectly.  The spoken Dao is not the true Dao.  Just about every philosophy/cosmology/etc will have elements of truth and elements of falsehood.  Everyone is confused, to some extent or another.  So there's very little to be gained from getting all self-righteous over differences in opinion over the structure of things; fundamentally it's an argument which can never be "won" and will just tend to increase ill-will on both sides.

Absolutely! Thank you APW. Perfect response.

Just like you can't name Infinity. Because in naming, it is no longer infinite.

[Jeremy]

If you haven't read journey of souls and Destiny of souls

These books are of Michael Newton?

Yup 

[Infinite Unity]

The thing is, if we are going down the rabbit hole of oneness we have to go all the way.
Following that it means even those who attack Ra and the LOO are doing exactly as they need to do.
Working through some facet of the creator.

Agreed. And it doesn't bother me one way or another, that they attack Re or The LOO. As both are just concepts of The Truth of Oneness. There like hooked on phonics in a spiritual sense. They are almost like learning curriculum, but only relenquish there is a mystery. What does mystery imply? Something to be investigated, to be pondered.

Merely giving my opinion, which is useless in this case, and purely communicating to do so.

I largely agree with APW here, and as usual APW's synopsis is very well harmonized with higher wisdom, and 3d reality. Or the nature of things here.

You cannot name true Infinity. You can say words that point to the mystery. They do not reveal the mystery. True Infinty can only be experienced, it can only be done. There are no catagories, landmarks, or separation to understand, in true Infinity.

The mind is taking one component, and making the illusion, or what seems like infinite portions/ pieces. You see light, feel vibrations, and yet all there is, is Creator/ Infinite Intelligence.

[Steppingfeet]

This person has lots of interesting, albeit from my standpoint debatable, insight into the nature/purpose/meaning/direction of existence and evolution. He or she has clearly contemplated the mystery.

But this seeker seems also to want to speak with authority and objectivity on the subject: Things are this way; things are not that way. Etc.

He or she makes declarative statements based upon what they believe the Law of One is communicating, which may have distortions relative to what Ra intended to communicate.

Fortunately or not, we live in a universe of plurality where the perspective are as diverse as the entities, and where no one entity or group, Ra included, has the final say on what is/is not truth. (I say all objectively n stuff.)

Though certainly there is a spectrum of more distortion, and less. And we should try to share/compare/contrast our perspectives to help refine our individual understandings.

I got a chuckle out of IU's "my god is bigger than your god."

[Patrick]

The Law of One

by Tanaath

...the notion that we are all One is often used to excuse the behaviour of abusive entities – tying in with the notion that we co-create our experience, the actions of these beings are excused as something we agreed upon or chose and that we should endure without complaint or attempting to change what we don’t like, because since we are ‘One’, the bad guys are as much us as we are. Suffering for the pleasure of nasty entities gets reframed as assisting our own selves, when anyone with a brain can see that it’s anything but. Absolutely nowhere is it demanded of us that we cater to the whims of abusive beings, just because we all come from the same Source. What they choose to do is their choice – we are free to oppose those choices and demonstrate the consequence portion of choices. No one is ever obligated to suffer at the hands of another simply because at some point we were all part of the same being. Period...

 
I see subtle differences in there compared to my own understanding of the LOO.  I believe the author is speaking about certain interpretations of the LOO and trying to give it a new light.  I do not see the LOO attacked per se, only certain interpretations of it.
 

[Steppingfeet]

No Earthly text will ever be able to describe the higher order of things perfectly.  The spoken Dao is not the true Dao.  Just about every philosophy/cosmology/etc will have elements of truth and elements of falsehood.  Everyone is confused, to some extent or another.  So there's very little to be gained from getting all self-righteous over differences in opinion over the structure of things; fundamentally it's an argument which can never be "won" and will just tend to increase ill-will on both sides.

Just came across this:


26.4 Questioner: ...I was wondering if the Law of One in either written or spoken form has been made available within this past 3000 years in any complete way such as we’re doing now? Is it available in any other source?

Ra: I am Ra. There is no possibility of a complete source of information of the Law of One in this density. However, certain of your writings passed to you as your so-called holy works have portions of this law.

*********

Also:

28.1 This concept is incorrect as is any concept of the one intelligent infinity.

[Night Owl]

Seems to me like this person was rejecting the concepts before he/she actually got a grip of them. It's easy to attack the material based on reading people's interpretations. A lot of his preconceptions about certain concepts seems increadibly distorted to me.

This person speaks of many sources, which in any case invalidate the very concept of a source. If there is a source, there can only be one source, else it is not the source yet. Just like his understanding of the illusion seems to be based on someone else's very limited understanding of it. There is an almost black and white difference between seeing the world as something that is not how it appears to be and seeing the world as non existant.

This person also seems to reject the concept of releasing the ego but clearly that person has not yet found the limits of one's ego. Nowhere in the material does it say that we should be almost empty shells with no souls walking around.

The part about letting nasty entities abuse others seems also based on interpretations of someone else because clearly Ra never stated such a thing. There is an abyss of perception between working on one's own perceptions of unity and letting someone else abuse you.

I can surely understand his/her fears of harvest, but to me the point of harvest is exactly about releasing any forms of judgment towards the self and other self, rather than weighting the soul on every action, which kind of end up having the opposite effect and leads one to fear the harvest. His understanding of the harvest seems based on the idea that the harvest is an event occuring where everything changes suddenly. I do not believe the universe works that way. The universe always operates in a subtle way, like the flow of a river, constant and seamless. If you see the harvest as something ever happening, like the present moment, then there is no fear that this is just some entitie's plan to feed on your soul but rather just a step in your own process.

[loostudent]

I think Tanaath should have read the whole Material (and maybe several times) before stating a serious and honest opinion.

[rva_jeremy]

I know sometimes I reject schools of thought based on a cursory review of the concepts, letting whatever knee-jerk reaction to my first, short understanding is settle the matter. This is of course totally unfair, but I acknowledge it's a human thing to do. When one finds something challenging, it's natural to want to shut it down and move on, and it takes effort to avoid that behavior. That is very much what this sounds like, because there are several parts that are like "I don't really know if this is what they mean, but I'm going to interpret it in the way that's easiest to reject."

The way the author discusses the concepts leads me to believe that he or she, like Gary said, has contemplated the kinds of concepts those of Ra discuss. He or she simply doesn't want to engage with those of Ra's wording and representation of them. That's totally cool, and it's important that we realize Ra's diction asks much of a reader. I don't blame anybody for not wanting to digest Ra's wording.

I agree with Gary that there is some rigidity of thought here ("bad guys") that lends itself in my experience towards rejecting the Law of One as taking insufficiently strident, seemingly detached, or unacceptably amoral positions on the big questions. That's totally cool, too. I have a relative who knows enough about the Law of One to know it's not really for her. Thankfully we have both worked to ensure it doesn't prevent us from walking our paths and sharing our truths with each other.

[Turtle]

Who dares attack TLoO?!?!?!

*launching counter attack meme*
.
.
.
*FIRE*

[BlatzAdict]

I found this text in Facebook:

What you think?

that guy didn't watch battlestar galactica, or legend of galactic heroes and all it is all of everything that has ever happened in human history as well as the histories of all races on any planet EVER to infinty, is a choice between fear and love... control (respect for one) service to self and sovereignty (mutual respect) service to others.

that all of the s*** we can do has been done, and we can either learn to flourish, or destroy ourselves.

[loostudent]

I've found another one. Attacking also other channelings. What do you think?

"Channeling is simply a new word for mediumship. It is in no way different from the 'spirit' messages received by spiritualists in the 19th and 20th centuries. The deceitful entities responsible for such communications, wrongly perceived as 'spirit guides' and 'extraterrestrials', swarm like a shoal of hungry sharks within the Astral gloom; ever on the look out for easily influenced and gullible individuals, in order to unload within their untrained minds the fantasies they can no longer hold themselves ... "

More: http://www.occult-mysteries.org/channeling.html

[Patrick]

"...The deceitful entities responsible for such communications, wrongly perceived as 'spirit guides' and 'extraterrestrials', swarm like a shoal of hungry sharks within the Astral gloom; ever on the look out for easily influenced and gullible individuals, in order to unload within their untrained minds the fantasies they can no longer hold themselves ... "

I have to admit that I agree in part with what is said. But I also believe that there are positive beings trying to communicate with us and not just the sharks.  The sharks are so much easier to reach though.

Most channelings "out there" are probably coming from negatives, at least that is how it looks to me.

Except for L/L Research.  I have not often felt anything other than positivity from their channelings.
 

[Cannon]

I've found another one. Attacking also other channelings. What do you think?

From what I've read, they didn't provide any arguments for the Ra Material being wrong or untrustworthy aside from the claim that positive teachings through the channeling technique are far less likely than negative ones, that 'good' mediumship is essentially impossible, and in their minds that settled the whole thing. And that it should settle the matter for you as well. They provided no new ideas, or even seemed to have put any honest effort in examining the Material itself to find any particular aspects to find fault with aside from a cursory reading. They also personally insulted Carla and the others in a way I found genuinely disgusting, even moreso considering Don's dramatic suicide due to the whole thing which is spoken of at the end of the work, which I doubt they were even aware of. They would have if they finished reading it. They were very arrogant throughout the entire conversation, to say the least.

They also seem to foolishly think that if a source has some entry level information in it, or even mentions well known ideas, then it is safe to assume that entry level information is all that it contains and disregard it entirely. They did so in the interview, at least, scoffing when the Material introduced the idea of the Law of One. There is also apparent in their conversation a sort of dogmatic preference for what they consider 'ancient wisdom', traditional sources, as if the ideas of the past were always right, that ancient sages were simply infallible, or that true teachings could never corrupted throughout history. For anyone who takes the Ra Material seriously to any degree they provided nothing intellectual to change one's mind. They gave no arguments to consider, no new facts, no new ideas, only the obnoxious bullying associated with a blocked yellow ray center/solar plexus Chakra that should be set aside in favor of the humility required for unconditional love. They themselves were of confused (and ineffectual) positive polarity at best, and I see no reason to look into anything else they have ever or will ever produce.

[Patrick]

 
Also, I think it is important that there is stuff out there that would help someone disregard the Law of One.  For example, if the missions you chose before incarnation requires you to remain fully "down to earth" or materialistic; and you stumble upon TLoO which might ring too much of a bell with you, you'll want (need) to find ways to convince yourself that the Ra material is bogus.  So anything speaking against the material will actually be helpful to such people.
 

[Diana]

I think debunkers are one of the most uninteresting persons on Earth.

[Minyatur]

I think debunkers are one of the most uninteresting persons on Earth.

There might be a potential for confusion in labeling.

What if whom you consider a debunker is simply someone genuinely interested in the subject with valid reasons to be critical?
What if your ideology is debunkable by sincere seeking that had consideration for the values involved in this ideology?

Edit : A good example : My spiritual path started in Christianity because it was the gateway to what I had known in term of spiritual seeking. Why I am not a Christian anymore is because I've debunked it, but only after having resonated with aspects of truth from within this teaching.

[Minyatur]

I've found another one. Attacking also other channelings. What do you think?

From what I've read, they didn't provide any arguments for the Ra Material being wrong or untrustworthy aside from the claim that positive teachings through the channeling technique are far less likely than negative ones, that 'good' mediumship is essentially impossible, and in their minds that settled the whole thing. And that it should settle the matter for you as well. They provided no new ideas, or even seemed to have put any honest effort in examining the Material itself to find any particular aspects to find fault with aside from a cursory reading. They also personally insulted Carla and the others in a way I found genuinely disgusting, even moreso considering Don's dramatic suicide due to the whole thing which is spoken of at the end of the work, which I doubt they were even aware of. They would have if they finished reading it. They were very arrogant throughout the entire conversation, to say the least.

If you told them about the suicide, and they were unaware of it, then they'd probably think it is even more likely that the channeling was being interfered with to great extents.