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.
6,018. "Let's stick to the facts here." Plus the point is taken, you're not defending OP language so there's no point to OP.
Just not that interested in what Ra has to say, compared to other pursuits. I'm actually not writing to convince, but I have a whole lot all ready to share and so it looks like conviction. OTOH I can't say that you have convictions in your mind, just a couple unaccountable ones in your actions. "I want to talk Ra", e.g., and whether one agrees with Ra or ignores him or ridicules him or fights him your desire to talk doesn't change. That's called "groupie".
What’s the title of the thread again?
And wow I just checked, you are one disingenuous faggot, here’s the quote you’re pissing yourself over:
So obviously a joke. What are you retarded?
Calling a user a faggot would be a rule 1 violation, even if you're frustrated.
Are you willing to edit?
I told him exactly how I would respond if he posted bullshit, and I followed through on that promise. Leave it up til he replies to it then do whatever you want. Not like anyone else is reading this thread lmao
Tangentially: Any luck finding the two hours needed to read anything I’ve posted yet?
I know what you said, doesn't change the rules.
I have read some of it. I didn't know I should prepare a book report for you but I guess I'll have to put more effort for you so we can continue talking. Can I add suggestions for reading too? Or have you already formed your opinion on our Creator?
Since the time on the thread is almost run out, I'm using the luxury to be direct.
The namecalling as soon as something is questioned, yeah I remember it all, Graph. If "the worldview expressed" "far more accurately than any other" feels free to play fast and loose with Hollow Earth, that's more likely revelation of method than it is actual belief and allegiance. I don't know why you cling so uncritically to particular crystallized moments in time if it isn't some kind of euphoric experience you've gotten out of them and a hope to recover it; it isn't about logic, as it goes to a defense of some kind of inerrancy at least as strong as my reasoned defense of Biblical inerrancy.
Okay, I've got the intro page open to "it is also my opinion that this book and the subsequent volumes of the Ra material contain the most useful information that I have discovered". Now I'm currently reading a complete different book on a different subject by a guy who thinks he understands science and trances, so I'm not guaranteeing I'm coming back to this soon because it's unhealthy to do too many of these at once, but I'll keep it open.
Problem is, just as HH is easy to fake, Ra is so perfectly aligned to the Biblical narrative in which the channeled entities are the Bad Guys that there's little room for a view in which the channeled might be Good Guys. If they say the Bible is wrong without a commensurate evidentiary argument, that's a marker of Bad; if they say there's an amoral or supermoral sentient race beyond our ken, or common human morality is misguided, that's a marker of Bad; if they promote sympathy for the devil in some way other than those Christians who are seeking to define a hopeful universalism, that's a marker of Bad. Not because the Bible is automatically subjectively "Good" but because the Bible has objectively passed many tests of truth that Ra has not. For people who don't have a Christian mythopoeia, any developed fictional worldbuilding will do because it feels "better" (more constructed) than other things one has confronted. Especially if a person gets deep with the myth and shallow with the Bible, having had some bad experience with it because people do misinterpret and mischaracterize it, they insulate themselves doubly against truth, (as the Bible says) building their own broken cisterns and rejecting the spring of the water of life in the same move. But the youth who has been exposed to the whole Bible consistently can gainsay the weltanschauung zeitgeist.
Now I suppose I should say that since the generic grey-reptilian alien war story is easily debunked for its cover I should be glad that you're giving me opportunity to investigate the potentially more insidious 4th-density harvest story. But of course it's the same, the greys want to take us to the age of Aquarius (an event you also believe in), the Ra entities want to take us to the 4th density, it's just about getting our misleadingly informed consent. Genesis 3 again. Yesterday we campaigned, today you voted. I'm already on record for the heaven that I chose, or that chose me, I don't have a reason for review of the 4th-density attempt, or the Urantian or Mayan attempts. For your sake if there's something I can learn to help us communicate, well and good, but if your worldview is "whatever Carla Rueckert says in a trance" then you're kinda tied to a particular Gospel that is at its core contradictory to the good news I've learned. If "all is one" then destroying you is the same as blessing you and there is no basis for social relationship or in fact doing or not doing anything.
If you think it worth my while, the pages I'll keep open are Previous Synopsis and Synopsis (!) and check their links, at my convenience.
6,000,000 words and none of them were “you’re right, my bad, I shouldn’t be such a disingenuous faggot.”
Oh well, maybe sometime in the next 5 years hey?
First, I don't use that word to mean your definition of "willful misinterpreter".
Second, it's very rare that I'm willful and disingenuous about my misinterpretation. The closest I come is when I say something like "if you really want me to believe what you're saying literally", to demonstrate the gap between what's said and what the person thinks he said. That did happen here. Also you didn't see the gap, so I failed that.
Now, I do admit mistakes, including greater ones than misguessing that a person was able to follow my argument. We two have indeed had conversations where I've said I was wrong to make a hasty judgment from a difficult parse. But this is not one of those times. But, since you don't see it, I'm not pressing it, because that's not the point of OP. I have edited the comment out of consideration, even though I believe it was not namecalling or violation.
I suppose I also deserve a little pushback for my trying to honor you by returning to your material and my seeking to be honest with you enough to get conversation going. So I won't complain about your side swipes. But we can return to collegiality anytime. The central issue I'm working today is whether you ever want to make a commitment to a worldview or whether you want to be free to promote anything based solely on gut emotion without reference to logic. Sometimes I work with you winsomely to suggest propositions, sometimes I work more antagonistically to narrow down propositions. But it seems like when it's time to come down on a core belief, Graphenium Usually Always Chickens Out.
If we were to explore "all is one" we might get so far as agreeing that all that exists is true creation and all that is false does not exist. Reality exists, thoughts exist, thoughts map reality truly or falsely. Thoughts that map truly harmonize the reality of the thought and the reality it refers to; thoughts that map falsely refer to no reality. So the thought that "evil is good" would be false, because evil as a construct can never be a real creation but only an absence or deficiency effect of a real creation. And I don't see Ra/HH saying anything differently from "evil is good", no matter how we slice it. So try a proposition for me.