I feel there is a lot of truth in the hidden hand stuff spirit-wise, but that he obfuscated some real story details. I don't believe his account of yahweh history.
Interestingly enough, it’s quite close to what many of the first Christians believed.
What has convinced you to think the “israel” written about in a book ~2000 years ago is the same thing as the country founded by terrorists in the year 1948?
List the top three contradictions in your view, but note that if they are reconciled in the text that you apparently still haven’t finished reading, 5 years after I first linked it to you, I will be starting each sentence with “what are you, retarded?”
Right, the language is shared but our ontology is different. My lens shows me relational experience, monistic in its purpose. But the Hidden Hand and Law of One show a dualistic system. I think the HH/LoO must show a dualistic system so that they may justify themselves. BUT I think with the view I'm presenting, it does render them unnecessary.
Do these texts not present a picture in which the duality of physical existence (something I think is undeniable) ultimately reconcile in the monad (aka God)? That’s how I read them certainly.
Misalignment naturally arises from our own perceptions, and the catalyst for transformation is our encounter with that truth
Does this picture you paint not imply that up until that encounter with truth, Butters/we are immersed in a very real (in the sense that it can be experienced) untruth? If he never believed “she loves me”, then the truth (and furthermore, the perspective that truth brings) that “she doesn’t love me” wouldn’t be something he could experience, right?
Idk… I know where you’re coming from regarding dualism, but I don’t see that reconciliation happening at our level of existence. It seems to me that Duality is real, but a reality which ultimately springs from a Monad and is eventually reconciled in that Monad. Duality is almost an epiphenomena of existence. In order for something to “exist” in our physical reality (or to have anything approaching “meaning”), so too must exist the possibility of “ceasing to exist” in that physical reality.
Edit to add
Adam and Eve had some expectations I'm sure, but I'm not sure that the fall was caused or catalyzed by a Satan... rather he just brought their concerns to the front. I think that is the nature of finite beings. The catalyst did not start until they encountered the truth and reality.
See, I have a totally different read on the order of events there. Before satan introduces his “lie”, the Garden is in a state of static and unchanging “Truth”. They had “the truth” but without the option to choose. Untruth didn’t yet exist, according to the story. And thus there was no death, no suffering, and logically, no growth. So I see growth as an epiphenomenon of the introduction of the catalyst of “untruth” in the Garden
Regardless, it is what it is (that is - the current state of things). “Coulda, woulda, shoulda” arguments are arguments I don’t see as having a place in the discussion of the “plan” of an omnipotent and omniscient being.
I trust that the Fall was necessary to escape the stasis of forced innocence
Experiencing sadness is meaningful because it is a choice to align.
Almost like it’s some type of catalyst for growth! And a pre-requisite for growth at that! (Note: someone had to break Butters’ heart to catalyze that growth he experienced). Just as every story needs an antagonist and every achievement requires struggle, I can’t imagine the world where we get all the benefits of “growth” with none of the negatives (e.g. sadness, heartbreak, death, etc.)
Think of the Garden - was existence before the fall more or less static than it is today? Was there more, or less, capacity for growth?
Honestly I agree with most of your takes in isolation, but at the same time I see them re-affirming the content of HH/LoO, while you clearly understand them as doing the opposite, which is interesting
Reality not being static is predicated on choice. If there are no choices being made, you are just an automaton following your (static) programming. Do you think chatGPT measures a statements “truth” before it presents an answer to a query you pose it? Of course not. For “truth” to exist, so must “untruth”. Growth is only possible in the face of death. If old things never died, new things would never grow.
What are your thoughts vis a vis the southpark clip? Do you disagree with the notion it expresses?
Free will is about how aligned one is to the fabric of reality. Aligning oneself to the truth. Not about the capacity to choose two or multiple different pathways.
Except, if you aren’t free to choose between “truth” and “untruth”, then “truth” just about ceases to have meaning. “Reality” becomes a static painting, forever unchanging. You become an automaton. Pretty certain God kickstarted existence as we know it precisely because of how pointless such stasis is.
Well, thats the trap it presents right?
Is it really a trap when they tell you it’s a trap? Isn’t that just a warning at that point?
Like I said to swamp, the reactionary reaction is all but expected on this topic! It’s the easy way out of challenging one’s preconceived notions, and we are nothing if not creatures of comfort.
Sure, but also because the Bible calls satan “the god of this world.” (2 cor 4:4)
Im basically saying “don’t let the author’s word choice (and moreso your reaction to his word choice) overpower/overly taint your ability to understand what is actually being said.” God (as you know Him) still exists, just with the label “Infinite Intelligence” in these pieces
Replace every instance of “yahweh” in the Hidden Hand interview with “satan”, then wait until you’ve actually read it to start formulating responses to the claims. Should help with getting through it.
Or start with the Law of One and see it from the “other perspective” first.
As I said, reading the summaries is counter-productive, way too much context is removed
I just remember it saying evil is merely a "catalyst, a service, a contrast" which never sat well with me.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mZOM6hOnEBE
I see that line of thought from the perspective shared in this short video
I guess that is the nature of the negative path.
That’s why I recommended reading it in conjunction with the Law of One - there are two sides to the coin called “existence”, where it is made clear that ultimately the path of service to self is a dead end, but a necessary one to allow the foundation of existence, free will
Some videos of the most convincing chi practitioners I’ve ever seen:
John Chang, Mo Pai master - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TdYM0vNufwc
American student of Chang’s - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=foGu13REF7o
Russian “Pyrokinesis” - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DYTJndCpdFo
Iron Body Kung fu - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cvrID6ZlQnA
That’s literally what their entire religion of talmudism is
See:
Eruvs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv
Sabbath Ovens - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_mode
Shiksas - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiksa
Shabbat Elevators - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat_elevator
And their absolute favorite, Shabbos Goys - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbos_goy
Everyberg. Singlestein. Timeowitz.
Schneerson
Lol
Getting retards to call everything a.i. has to have been the real psy-op all along, it’s worked so ridiculously well.
Regarding this video, the claim seems to be equally schitzo and baseless
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:
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.
In no place does the concept of “indefinitely” appear in the actual text.
Looking forward to that life-affirming, non-sterile approach
Thanks for admitting your own bias.
In as much as cognizance of history instills bias, okay, I guess. I mean, it’d be foolish to pretend “Holy Wars”, “martyrdom”, and “Sicarii” are modern inventions.
My point is that I'd rather partake whole meals than extricate what is negligible from a raft of poison that has killed others. See what you think of my initial statement.
Ironic considering the abrahamic faiths have caused literally billions of deaths, many of innocents and particularly of gnostics. Your initial statement strikes me much the same as every other time I’ve shared these links and you respond to what they think they say (filtered through your lifetime of cognitive biases) instead of what they actually say, after you briefly skim the summaries that i tell you to skip.
Invention of "densities" and of billions of years is gnostic: irrational appeal to gnosis that may be true or false.
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.
Claims of "trying" to speak in Egypt "with mixed results" also cast doubt, indicating the speaker's professed inabilities.
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!”
Christianity teaches unity in diversity, not unity free from polarity.
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:
Denial of a day of judgment
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…
Based Simpsons reference!
You’re the one setting the table, remember
I will admittedly be approaching this subject with a bias. Anything that expressly comes from channeling or a self-proclaimed world-controller is suspect from the start because it only stands or falls on its accuracy and not on claims of its power due to its allegedly extraordinary source.
Fair enough, that’s practically expected given the sources - I’d be surprised if anyone’s first reaction was something other than “channeling/illuminati? that sounds wetarded!” Or “im supposed to believe an ”evil person” is telling the truth?”. The whole reason I suggest the people here skip the summaries and just read the actual texts is so that they can augment their first reaction with their second, third, fourth, and so-on reactions. You of all people will know how easy it is to take one or two sentences of a work out of context to twist them into anything imaginable, im sure, as a mod of c/Christianity
My bias is likely to conclude that the material is composed essentially of a mix of trivialities and lies. … I'm still not likely to give something self-identifying as "Ra" material a totally equal place at the table yet.
Im just saying, wait until you’ve read as much as you can physically manage before setting that table! lol - something something angels unawares something something
Hah, glad this squeaked past the line at the last minute. Like I said in the nomination thread, the “framework of existence” that these two “writings” (for lack of a better word, lol) present is the most wholistic, coherent, understandable “framework” I’ve ever come across. They deepened my understanding and appreciation of the Bible, but also…everything else. Art. Strife. “Spirituality”. Struggle. Love. Literally existence itself and all that encompasses is enriched, imo, if you really give these links a shot
They’re long reads! I admit it! But they're worth it. The Hidden Hand link offers two shorter “summary” versions, but I recommend skipping them and just reading the thread as it is, warts and all (it was, after all, basically an AMA between an illuminati member and r/Conspiracy lmao). And it looks a lot longer than it really is, since the format of a forum back and forth has a lot of extraneous text. Regarding the Ra Material/Law of One, just read as far as you can manage, I don’t expect anyone to read every word on that website lol, but atleast the first 20 or so “sessions” should start to give you an idea of that “framework” i was talking about.
I think this duality notion might be the thing to try and drill into? If you’ll forgive what im sure will be a tangled mess of thoughts.
I agree with this, regarding what is false - but I don’t believe duality is false. Let me ask how you integrate the following (which you’re surely familiar with) into your beliefs:
> I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
That strikes me as indicating that “Creation” (as we, in our finitude, can know it) is a dualistic place via design. I’ve infact raised this in the c/Christianity community, seeking an answer that made more sense than this. Yes, yes, I know some men, very important men, labeled these ideas “Heresy”, but these discussions to me are about making an appeal to our God-given gift of reason, not an appeal to “authority”. Forgive the tangent lol. It’s all to say, the best argument I found was based on the notion of Creation being, well, created, ”all good”. And, to cut a long story short, while that sentence can be the Truth in isolation, I don’t find it convincing wholistically, I find it to be a “pushing off of responsibility”. If an omniscient being comes up with a plan to create Creation, He knows what that entails. He thus creates both Good, and Evil, and existence is all the richer for it (as I believe can be read in the Bible, and as I believe the HH/LoO stuff just kind of…updates for our time the same divine wisdom) and trying to skeeve the existence of evil off onto “Satan”, Adam, Eve, the Nephilim, you, me, whoever! just does a disservice to the true majesty of God’s creation. It’s a simplifying of the story for children. We all have a role to play, including those “vessels meant for destruction”
Did it though? Without “knowledge of Good and Evil”, what kind of choices could even be made? - “What should I eat right now?” “What should I call this animal?” - I see the choices we are capable of in a state of innocence are far more restricted than the state that came after, don’t you? They were like perfect Children at that point, babes…your baby doesn’t know right from wrong, and no parent would punish a baby for their choice made in innocent ignorance
Anyway, think I can cut myself off there, hopefully enough of that gets through lol. I’ll just say, i quite appreciate this conversation. If I ever come across combatively, it’s just because of how important I actually think the subject is. Cheers