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.
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