Thanks! u/Graphenium:
The worldview expressed in the Law of One/“Ra Material” and the Hidden Hand interview
https://www.wanttoknow.info/secret_societies/hidden_hand_081018
The way I see things, these two sources explain existence, the state of our world, and the meaning of life far more accurately than any other. One is a “channeled” work, and the other is a long series of Questions and Answers between a conspiracy forum (RiP ATS) and a self-proclaimed world-controller. I see them as complimentary, showing a deeper reality by showing two sides of the same coin. One side being that of Service-to-Others, and the other being Service-to-Self
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ASG9Vy4Tl/round-table-suggestion-thread/c
Thread will stay open for 3-4 weeks thanks to a very helpful suggestion.
Christianity teaches unity in diversity, not unity free from polarity.
Ultimately wrong may be an absence of right, but to ignore difference between absence and presence is to lose meaning.
Invention of "densities" and of billions of years is gnostic: irrational appeal to gnosis that may be true or false.
Claims of "trying" to speak in Egypt "with mixed results" also cast doubt, indicating the speaker's professed inabilities.
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hidan_of_Maukbeiangjow&oldid=1339650755
Christianity also teaches eternal enmity with those who harbor wrongdoing, not "friendship".
It teaches that the spiritual real and the natural real are complementary, not that the natural is unreal.
It teaches infinite intelligence does recognize its potential, in its teaching that unity contains diversity.
If it could not, we could not, nor could we speak of the hypothetical, for we are less than it.
But, since "recognizing potential" is ambiguous and almost meaningless, it's possible to define it in some acceptable way.
To say a subcreator receives freewill is to acknowledge it as a gift of the One Infinite Creator who has it unlimited.
To say a law becomes Logos and cocreates an array where it can know itself is to blur Creator Logos from subcreator logos.
To say Logos creates law of light to manifest matter thereby leaves unstated whether Logos is infinite energy or subenergy.
To say the Creator "steps down" to become Logos is similarly ambiguous without specifying identities and polarities.
To imagine a hierarchy separately creating universes, galaxies, and stars as if each independently belies observed reality.
Namely, we observe one universe unconnected to any other but all galaxies and stars are interconnected.
Thus making subcreators one with a Creator but "independent" belies their dependence on and in the one Logos universe.
The theory's point is to mediate Creation to middlemen and demote Yahweh (Being) from being Being to being a sub-sub.
Yahweh as angel follows angels' rules, not as sub-sub but as the writer of the rules who can use them better than any other.
So if Lucifer and Elders pretend they are equals, they can be tested by confrontation with Yahweh.
For Lucifer to portray Adam as devoid of freewill rather than freely obeying is to attribute Yahweh's plan to himself.
For Lucifer to portray his "fall" as being "here to help" recalls Screwtape's similar spin on why Lucifer "so rapidly departed".
Incidentally, to cite a no-polarity teaching as supporting an absolute-polarity teaching is flatly contradictory.
Lucifer then portrays Yahweh as creating the desire to sin, attributing his own work of warping desire to Yahweh.
He portrays Yahweh as unaware of the Tree's consequences rather than aware and actively limiting the amount of evil.
He portrays the offering of evil as the only direction and leadership, rather than an opportunity to obey as Christ did.
He portrays the only escape from pawn to promotion is via alliance with him, again attributing Yahweh's work to himself.
"Many of us do not mean you any harm" is a singular backhanded admission and revelation of method.
Referring "between lives" to antimatter is a singularly insidious inversion that would be a complete digression to debunk.
The three-way eschatological split is just guesswork in hopes of having something for future people to point to in the past.
Relatively comparing negative hell and lukewarm hell so as to make them look relatively good is the height of ignorance.
Declaring bare spirits as "greater" more "evolved" density than physicospiritual humans is another inversion of reality.
Glorification of the negative is mere Frankism and was long ago debunked in Romans 3.
Denial of a day of judgment, in favor of an infinite evolutionary probation, motivates lukewarmness and indecision, not action.
Ultimately, pursuing 95%+ negative polarity is not rewarded.
a) Unit implies apart from one another, hence DI-verse.
b) Unity inside diversion implies an artificial summation of units nature diversifies from one another.
c) Only within polarity (balance) can free (choice) come into being. Notice furthermore that polar implies "directed opposites"...not TWO sides.
Com (together) ple (to fill) ment (mind) represents the artificial putting together of real and fake within ones mind...while ignoring that nature moves spirit through essence.
a) The LIG within intel-LIG-ence implies legere (to choose) + leg (to collect; gather)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/intelligence.
One can only artificially collect (possession) what nature sets apart from one another (potential)....the former diminishes the latter.
b) Re (to respond) CO (together) gnize (to know; perceive). Within nature...ones perception responds to all perceivable based on a separation from one another. Few shape suggestions to tempt many together into a CO-nsensus, while ignoring the natural process of separation aka knowledge.
Diversification implies each unit set apart from one another aka FREE to choose by oneself. Few suggest unitarianism to tempt many into a consensus representing containment.
If God implies unity, then each unit of being within implies diversity from one another. God isn't a container, but a diviner/divider...
Meaning implies a measurement taken from another by ones free will of choice aka the corruption of RE (ones response) with CO (together with another) aka ones choice selecting a chosen one aka the trick used to tempt one to willingly sacrifice potential by taking possession of "meaning".
Furthermore...holding onto meaning establishes ambiguity aka doubt thanks to circular thinking (logic) within self turning into contention (reason) against another.
It's ones (singular) consent to suggested we (plural) which places (thesis) one under (hypo) another. Consent always lessens choice.
De (to divide) finit (to end) ion (action)...action divides into reaction. Others suggest FINIT in-between DE and ION to corrupt ones expressed potential into self repression by possession. Definition affixes potential...if held onto.
"Express yourself; don't repress yourself...and I'm not sorry...it's human nature"
What of "unity implying diversity"?
What of unity of real with real? What if "the spiritual real and the natural real are" polar?
Is One within All?
Bro, you don’t get the call the scientific consensus “irrational” nor an “appeal to gnosis”. Your young earth creationism is far more of an “appeal to secret knowledge”, considering all the holes in the story.
It’s called “free will of choice” bro, unless you look at Jesus on the cross and think to yourself “golly, that guy sure was inept! He couldn’t even convince those jews to pick his life over the life of a convicted murderer and thief!”
What is the polarity of Light again? Oh…non-polar you say? And all the matter in the universe is made of slowly vibrating light? Wow, you don’t say…
You give a big list of what “Christianity teaches” in an attempt to contrast it with the linked sources - I’d suggest you take a step back and understand those are simply lessons you’ve learned from other people.
Your points clearly indicate you didn’t read the links either. For example you say:
Uhhh, buddy, are we reading the same thing? The Capital H “Harvest” is one of the key points of the text. So it explains your little “Day of Judgement” far more wholistically than even you can, yet you frame it as “denial”. Odd…
There is no scientific consensus on existence of Venusians. However, the scientific consensus for all history has been recent creation, with the exception of a blip caused by a few folks who wanted to be identical to apes. All creation stories speak of order arising from outside, none speak of order gradually arising without direction by billions of steps that we don't have time for even in the evolutionary timeframe. And that's all beside the point because it's only about similarity between your or my worldview proposed and your or my scientific origin story, which isn't a final criterion.
Looking at Jesus's results as compared to Barabbas's or Ra's or anyone else's seems to uphold his view of freewill over theirs. That is a pretty good criterion.
We have two metaphors about light. One, God is light and in him is no darkness at all (nonpolar). Two, God dwells in inapproachable light and God dwells in deep darkness (polar). Thus unity in diversity.
When you speak of matter made of light you ignore the suppression of light via its absence of light (i.e. we're back at black holes after all). There is no light phenomenon detectable beyond the event horizon. So the fact that matter allows structures that locally preclude light suggests that we cannot speak of all being one in the sense of light and black hole being the same. But the nonpolarity teaching entails that they are ultimately the same in all respects, instead of teaching that light is creative and a black hole is nihilist.
Both Christianity and channelers are simply lessons learned from other people. I put the lessons of Christianity here because it's clear the channelers wish to contradict them. Only one half of a binary can be true. The channelers aren't out there saying "the Bible is true but the opposite is also true in a different sense"; they're saying the Bible isn't true. So I've already taken the step back. So far the conclusion by comparing the two isn't working out well for the gnostic channelers.
I read the summaries I quoted. The "harvest" theory says clearly if you don't choose then you can stay in your "third density" reincarnating indefinitely. That means no final judgment confirming you in either good or evil. Thanks for making an assumption about my ability to describe the day of judgment though. But, again, the idea of "evolve or don't, it's all one" is set up to contradict the Christian teaching of judgment by appointment.
As we progress, I'll probably come to a point where I can list all the differences and criteria and indicate a more comprehensive conclusion. All this is just to scratch the surface of the material as I have time and inclination. While the rest of the community reviews it (or ignores it), it might be wise for both of us to keep working on that brotherhood paradigm we've discussed. The Origenist method of reviewing everything no matter how repugnantly Grecian might help us here, even though I generally deprecate the method otherwise.
It’s funny how you flit between “the science on the rocks under our feet can’t be trusted!” and “let’s spin our wheels on black holes!”
I don’t want to start doing the thing where I have to copy and paste each sentence and respond to it with a one liner, so hopefully at some point in the next couple weeks you just give the actual texts an honest chance, holding back your judgements as much as humanly possible until you’re done reading, and then you’ll surely be inspired to write something from the standpoint of outreach and understanding rather than sterile “debunking”. For example your tact here:
In no place does the concept of “indefinitely” appear in the actual text.
Looking forward to that life-affirming, non-sterile approach