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.
Regarding 3)
Again, you seem to have trouble understanding that you, a temporally limited being, are reading a description of a temporally unlimited process. No fucking shit it’s tough to describe with words. But tell us more cope about how your story has no “contradictions” like this what-so-ever. No omnipotent omniscient being getting blindsided by events so hard that he wipes the slate clean and starts over, no being overcome with emotions, no logical mismatches between eternities and ages and New Heavens and New Earths and New Testaments and supposedly timeless beings.
You’re gunna need to walk me through what it is you think you’re saying here lmao, because I assure you, it’s incorrect as fuck.
Not semantics. You imply you wish to use "become" in the sense in which one's perception of the Creator changes because one is changing when the Creator is not (e.g. Ex. 15:2, 1 Sam. 28:16, 2 Sam. 7:24, 1 Chr. 17:22, but that far there is no passage of the emotion-based kind you describe). But the material speaks of the Creator in Itself, "the Creator becomes that which may know Itself". The ordinary scenario implied by "become" is that there is a scenario in which Creator does not know Itself and one in which it does, which contradicts it being Infinite; if we argued that the implication was instead that from someone else's temporal, changing perception, Creator that actually knows Itself fully and timelessly appears to change in Its knowledge of Itself, it's contradictory to assert the appearance as reality if the reality is otherwise. (Now obviously the "all is illusion" assumption logically means that any contradiction can be entertained, but I'm assuming that we've previously established that no contradiction is to be entertained. If you don't want to pivot to "all perception is illusion" being the contradiction, then we're stuck with an "Infinite Temporally Changeable" which cannot be One and which would be inferior to the spacetime that contains it.)
The contradiction is between affirming "no right and wrong" and affirming some things are "true" and "great". If all polarity is one then all action on a true-false or great-small spectrum is one, nothing can be called out as essentially false seeing as nothing is absolute-zero false. Humanity routinely affirms right and wrong as polar opposites because if all actions have the same ultimate effect then there is no bar to breaking down any social norm. It would be impolite to directly refer to the type of life you would face if people followed the logical consequence of the denial. In the present case, affirming no right and wrong means that Lucifer is just as true as Logos and vice versa, which means satanists (and Israelis for that matter) can go on doing whatever they please without any right for you to complain. The reference to "primitive tribe" clearly entails Edenic man, which is simultaneously treated as negatively lower-density because not acting on freewill, and yet as positively embodying the oneness principles of not having right and wrong, and of having perfect contentment. That's playing both sides. Either absence of good can be rejected as such, or no evil can be rejected.
It's contradictory to say the Creator has an identity (Creator) but becoming one with him I don't have an identity (neither his nor my own). I actually have considered temporally unlimited processes. And this is not one because each phase has a finite period; in the seventh destiny we are to become one with all having "no past or future, but existing in the all". This is not logically temporal but a change from temporal to timeless; the individual is promised a (temporal) event of past and future ceasing, and that's not temporally unlimited. The eighth destiny doesn't matter then because there's no "me" going through it but some other being "created" by the Creator and all "my" experience of that other being would not be as me but as the timeless Creator (and thus already present in the 7th density). (Your appeal to ineffability doesn't deflect the fact that a contradictory statement is logically meaningless. If you move the contradiction to "reality is indescribable", it would be another pivot like before to a deeper contradiction because no proposition can be made without describability.)
Breaking it down, please choose: (1) either unchangeable or changeable Creator, (2) either fallible or infallible human freewill, (3) either substantially identifiable or completely unidentifiable Creator. The material declines to come down on either side, unless we decide that it has and interpret it to make it do so. Since you seem to want to engage now, I'd appreciate your answering those three binaries.
Side point: I told you 51% good (+1%) versus 5% good (-45%) were sketchy numbers. By inventing those numbers, the proposed system incentivizes evil 45 times more than good, in Frankist fashion. If the fourth-density "preferred" outcomes are only engaged at those thresholds and the third-density "deprecated" outcome covers the rest, then a person who wants to escape will either seek to be as bad as possible or seek to be a little better than one is worse. However, it's much easier for people to be destructive than constructive, in the short term anyway, so the same temptation comes up as in any religion, but it's inverted as it is in satanism. That's not a contradiction per se, it's just a tell.
You also include a wondrous goalpost move, from up-down determination of contradictions in OP to comparative weighing of alleged contradictions in different systems. So let's try it. (a) Creator that appears blindsided because of a 1-year event with a death toll of millions, despite planning for survival and flourishing; versus Creator (without characterizing how he appears) that needs 7 billion years to carry out a plan for flourishing. (b) Plan that appears sketchy for perhaps 200 billion deaths that happen on one planet under natural conditions for 6,000+ years; versus plan that appears sketchy for having 7 billion years of deaths on 67 million planets (16.26) times an uncounted number of galaxies, where over 100 million years of those deaths are sentient 3rd-density creatures. (c) Plan where one cataclysm that does not extinguish most species is characterized as "wiping slate clean and starting over"; versus plan that may involve 16 similar cataclysms over 25,000 years, times such 3 periods to make 75,000 years, only for the very briefest of eight density transitions, without wondering if that counts as wiping slates clean. (d) Creator that appears overcome with emotions by expressing Itself in human terms; versus Creator who cannot express Itself to creatures at all but allows sub-sub-Logos creatures to express everything and to still constantly complain about the weakness of using our "sonic vibratory symbols" (words) to communicate (and also the weakness of using a human instrument (channeler) as if they are different from any other channelers, who happen to be described accurately in the other Creator's book thousands of years ago). (e) Single timeline from Alpha Point without any temporal end being experienced; versus cyclical timeline where eighth density is the same as the first without any advance from the previous time around (seeing as our first density has no evidence of being the eighth density of some prior experience), with the same Lethe fallacy as reincarnation but on a more cosmic background. (f) One Creator to all creatures without mediator; versus an aeonic hierarchy to sub-sub-Logos that mediates the incommunicative Creator. (g) A destiny of spirit-body harmony in the Creator's presence as his Bride "soon" (not millions of years ahead); versus an apparently contradictory destiny of loss of identity, of knowledge of good and evil, of past and future, after 100 million years of reincarnative striving to meet percentage quotas, without reference to the observed body or the perceived spirit. (h) A covenant delivered over many centuries by many authors in agreement, culminating in a demonstration of a body raised from death, which has a large (though imperfect) body of upholders that advance good in the world; versus a material delivered by one channeler without any promises or guarantees except all destinies ("good" or "bad") being one, whose most salient points are its responsive rejection of essentials of that other covenant. (i) One changeless timeless being encompassing all phases of all temporal beings; versus an apparently contradictory temporal "event" of a temporal being "becoming" timeless and yet continuing to undergo more "becoming" "afterward" in another "density" that recapitulates a prior one.
Would you like then to propose that one of those two systems is obviously more contradictory than the other? Are we agreed that we have certain power to winnow out contradictions and come to preferred versus deprecated narratives?
A straight up retarded position. If someone told you “yeah, there are two ways to reach the goal. In the first path, there is a 1* incline, a very gentle slope, straight up to the goal. There also exists a route where to pass, you must climb an 89* incline, ceaselessly for your entire life, in fact, the climb is beyond the capabilities of basically anyone not destined for the role. Oh, and even if you manage to climb up, you’ll need to then “make up for” all your prior climbing by assisting others on the other path during your descent. You’ll feel horrible and almost certainly fail on the way up.”
That’s not “incentivizing” anything you fucking retard, what a disingenuous take. That’s like saying the Bible “incentivizes” betraying Christ for your own personal 40 pieces of silver. You’d have to be legitimately fucking retarded to make that argument.
Not a goalpost shift in the slightest, retard, it was infact the entire conceit of the post. I’ll refer you to the OP:
No contradiction there retard. The set of all numbers from zero to infinity (God) still starts at zero (not knowing itself) and ends at infinity (knowing itself), but to get from one to the other still requires counting to infinity (the grand theatrical production we call “SpaceTime”). You’re so disingenuous, because I know you know all this, and would readily make an identical argument in some other unrelated scenario of biblical apologia.
Thanks for at least joining an argument even if your demand that namecalling be permitted remains in use. I have a little experience with mathematical infinity so I'm not sure the illustration will help you.
A set is not a set element.
A set does not go from zero to infinity as infinity is not a natural number.
Counting to infinity cannot be done in spacetime.
Physical objects do not have neatly assigned rank to compare them to countable numbers.
To try in all sincerity to make some meaning out of your illustration, in set theory a set either includes itself (recursively) or it doesn't. If it includes all things and even itself (i.e. the included "infinity" means the "set"), and it represents a God that knows Itself, then yes it would include something (Itself) that fully knows Itself, and it would include many other things that do not fully know themselves, but there is an unbridgeable gap between the infinite Itself and any finite thing (number or set). There is no point at which you can count from a number "to infinity" in the same way as you count from a number to the next number. There is nothing you can point to to represent a "becoming" between a finite number or set and an infinite number or set. Mathematicians do not speak of becoming infinite but of approaching infinity (infinitely): something is either infinite or it isn't, there's no bridge between them. Even if you approached an asymptote at a speed approaching infinity such that there's a finite time at which the function becomes undefined, there is still no becoming, either the value is finite or it's infinite but its remaining distance to infinity is always infinite no matter how close it gets. Further, our creation is quantized and granular, not infinitesimally divisible. So there's no infinite approach to infinity either, there are natural limits, like lightspeed; so you can't even use an asymptote.
Now, maybe you want to imagine a narration in which "counting to infinity" actually "gets to" "infinity", despite this betraying all math and logic. As I explained, "getting" somewhere is the same as "becoming" something; you envision it as a tertium-quid transition between two things, a finite number and an infinity. But the finite cannot comprehend the infinite, philosophers note. The transition between temporal and timeless cannot happen in spacetime as you propose. If it could possibly happen to somebody at a point in time from which the rest of the universe had a future, the somebody would disappear from the universe as a self, having become one with all being including all future; or, if it happened to the whole universe, there would be no more future but only an Omega Point at an end of time. However, this hypothetical is ultimately something we cannot experience except by being God, therefore by definition we cannot know for certain that it ever will happen or has happened; if it had happened to somebody there would be no way to prove it or describe it. We could not speak of "Me Becoming God", let alone "God Becoming Me", because a temporal subset (timeslice) of being is already present in all being and therefore its relation to that subset, which it already is, would not be "becoming". If we were to speak of all Other "becoming" Self, that might make more sense, because then Self remains Self but absorbs Other; but in that case the distinction, the Self-Other boundary, ceases to exist, including the boundary that separates the present from other times. And that would mean Other is not "becoming" Self at all (because the distinction between them ceases to exist) but both "become" One. And that's not a becoming at all, it's just a perspective or name change, and we could just as easily shift perspective in the opposite direction. That is, I could pick any Self at any instant and decree that I am perceiving that the Self and the Other are One and that I perceive that One to be God, and I could also decree in reverse that I am perceiving God to be delineated as a Self in a present, and all Other. But God always means the infinite, all being, and Self and Other always mean subsets of being. There's no bridge.
Any concept you propose as the meaning of "becoming God" cannot be proven because by definition it is beyond anyone's experience except God's. I could claim to have experienced any definition you propose, just as easily as I could claim that any definition you propose is impossible: because either way it's unprovable. I could say I end at infinity, I know myself, I have gotten to infinity, I count to infinity at any point in time, and you couldn't possibly contradict my statement of experience. You can only say it's unlikely because of your substantial rather than infinite knowledge of human behavior. And the fact that knowledge is substantial rather than infinite, and that Planck units are granular rather than infinitesimal, indicates that we should focus on the finite rather than pretend that we comprehend all infinities.
So: it's fun to try to interact with your poetry, but there comes a point where it's no longer useful. I try to redirect to what I find useful (choose either the changeable God or the changeless God but not both or neither), but that only works if two are playing. More important, the way you've always operated here has not led to real-world growth IMHO, such as the fact that you don't seem to find any path toward the morality of avoiding namecalling, nor any peace about the atrocities you see Israel committing, nor any power to call down fire yourself, etc. You're bowled over by these things but you don't connect yourself to any commitment. There will come a finite time at which you and I will be done discussing this, conclusively, and the conclusion will be binary, either we will agree or we will disagree, forever. My choice to respond is always based on whether I think some good exists in it, for you, me, or the audience. The degree to which you avoid direct questions and dance to sidelights without making any commitments will factor in heavily. Your proposal of all being having a becoming is by definition a Temporal Timeless and is a contradiction. I'm concerned that every day you amuse yourself with such contradictions is a day you avoid the commitments that matter. I've hung with you, often defended you, because I've believed you don't ultimately avoid. When your comments have the same general tenor one after another, the ability to comment ends after a finite number, it doesn't go on infinitely.
[Downvote]
Yeah lmao, it’s the one where the supposed god of the universe ignores the entire universe to instead invest all his time and energy in the jews while simultaneously telling them to genocide other groups of humans.
Your timeless entity feels regret. Lmao.