Law of One

[MonoAccipiter]

I am obviously a bit like that because that is what everyone has ever said to me. I'm talking about real life here and not the internet. It doesn't upset me, but forgive me because that is was I have been taught by all the skeptics I know. I just skip to the chase because I can discuss and discuss, but when I ask them if they think I am mad, they basically confirm that in various ways. I apologize for sort of doing that to you (my words were actually mixed a bit) but if you do think that please tell me so. It won't offend me because it's your opinion. I respect that or any of your opinions, up to a very tight threshold anyway. Just saying you are skeptical means nothing to me personally.

I see. Well, no harm done. I'm usually not very familiar how other people who hold my point of view tend to act, so when people treat me on that basis, I tend to get confused. When I say I'm sceptical, I mean that I am sceptical of this. Not that it is in my nature or something like that. In fact, I rarely care what my nature is, because I would rather act in a way that is in accordance with my morals and what provides me with a good life, than I would want to act according to my nature, as it could be arbitrarily both bad and good, when measured according to that maxim.

 

Just to clarify, once and for all, even when I would like to prove why I believe this is untrue (because it seems an interesting point of application for scrutiny and I dislike dismissing something without proper reasoning) there should be nothing in my argument passing judgement on anyone who believe in this, as I do not think they are mad, or even dumber than me in any fashion. I don't consider myself to be particularly clever or wise, and it is unlikely that I have anymore understanding of the things that led anyone to believe in this, than I do of the things that led me to doubt it. I apologise if any contrary impression has been given.

[Guest]

I missed this so I'll add it here:

 

 

 

Sparrowprince, or more specifically, that Ra either does not know everything he pretends to, is a deceiver, or the invention of a deceiver. Which makes taking its statements for truth very problematic. Still don't think you're mad though.

 

You do believe you are sometimes just to appease people. Just in the moment for a second, but not afterward. It doesn't get to me, but it does make me wish people were more willing to believe the word of someone who only had one small phase of depression as a child. I'm not a schizophrenic or anything so I find it hard to understand sometimes. I have already said that Ra would relate more to Tech and I am asking him about it just because I want to. I can't doubt anything Tech is saying because how can I? I'd feel like some sort of hypocrite. That I guess is why people don't like discussing religious text or events because they can't prove or disprove it. I just always take the middle ground. I'd rather expand my knowledge on the subject so IF I do find out one day, at least I can tell how accurate it was. But thanks though, although I think I apologized for the assumption above already,

 

Edit:

 

 

 

When I say I'm sceptical, I mean that I am sceptical of this. Not that it is in my nature or something like that. In fact, I rarely care what my nature is, because I would rather act in a way that is in accordance with my morals and what provides me with a good life, than I would want to act according to my nature, as it could be arbitrarily both bad and good, when measured according to that maxim.

 

Well believe it or not I was always totally skeptical when something unexplained happened, even as a child. It scared me and then I was elated, but then you have this small phase of doubt. If you can cover that and you have multiple witnesses then you can be sure enough, but only enough. I don't want to say anything as I don't like making it about me to be honest, but I find it funny most of my family actually feel the same way. Some of the things they say they have experienced I had a hard time believing until something similar happened to me. That is why it's fine to remain totally skeptical. One day you may change your mind, but always question this stuff regardless.

 

 

 

I don't consider myself to be particularly clever or wise, and it is unlikely that I have anymore understanding of the things that led anyone to believe in this, than I do of the things that led me to doubt it. I apologise if any contrary impression has been given.

 

You are clever, don't doubt yourself. Don't also apologize, as I said, I am totally okay with that. If something seems like the wind it most certainly will be the wind. If you hear whispers in your ear, then there are still a number of explanations before concluding it's unexplained phenomena.

 

Oh and I'll just also say that when you have had something like this you WILL want more. It's rare enough that you may never see it ever again. But does it get to you and feel like you are missing out on your daily ecstasy tablet? Yes, yes it does. It's weirdly frustrating actually. :confused:

Edited April 19, 2017 by Guest

[TechAngel85]

Okay...so...wow...that's a lot of text. I'll attempt to hit on some notes and answer any direct questions before providing an over reply to mainly Mono and Baron.

@Mono
Psychologist? English teacher? If not, you sure could fool me! Haha!
 

You seem to confuse questioning held beliefs with passing judgement on the person who has attained that belief. I can see how some of the things Mator said was akin to passing judgement on the person believing these things, such as when he suggested you should be embarrassed for believing in them, but I intentionally avoided that because it is very unnecessary.

You are correct. I would say this is condition as most of those that I have spoken to about this type of information respond in a judgmental manner.

The quotes were just for fun. I know little to nothing about the individuals themselves with the exception of Jesus.
 

You do realise that arguing that we have an innate conception of right and wrong would necessitate that something gave us that (and that it is non-deceiving) and that you seem to argue for the validity of the things that gave us that by referring to our innate conception of right and wrong.

I meant nothing of the sort when I said that and will address this further later on.
 

I completely fail to see how inward searching, directly presupposing that there is a deposit of truth within, which is circular argumentation as it is relies on the beliefs that inward searching is said to validate; should provide you with with any form irrefutable, as well as unpresentable, answers.

I take it that you have never deeply meditated and received information that you know within your very being to be true to only have it completely validated later on? I have and I have no explanation for this other than the higher self providing this knowledge through the meditation.
 

If your measure of accuracy is not science or its means of observation, or subject to logic, what remains as a measure is your spirit, which would be a terrible judge of the truths it has presented to you in the first place. What if a prophet were to argue that he had been told certain truths by God, and that he had verified these truths by asking God if they were true? Does that suddenly mean it is true?

I honestly have no words to explain this accurately. It's as if I take in the information and present it to my spirit and from there I know if the information is good, bad, or inconclusive. I have done this for over ten years now and it has rarely let me down. Sometimes my thoughts do creep in and seed doubt, but 9/10 times if I simply trust my spirit then I'm not steered wrong. I have no explanation for how it works or word to explain the feeling. It just something I started doing around the age of 18 (I'm 31 now) and have honed it ever since. I guess you could say that in a way, it's extremely honed intuition, but it feels greater than that.
 

To clarify my statements here, my statements were not made in the intent of passing judgement, but rather an observation that the general response of society (as I have observed it) to beliefs such as this is one of ridicule. The act of having a belief privately is not necessarily embarrassing, but when you present that belief to the public and it strongly differs from what the public considers "normal" or "mainstream" you may open yourself to embarrassing situations. The particular belief in UFOs and New Age spiritual movements are the kinds of things that leads our modern society to label people as "nutjobs".

That, of course, does not make the belief necessarily false. There have been many times throughout history when the majority has been wrong (e.g. Darwin's theory of evolution, the Salem witch trials, etc). That said, I think it is important for people to recognize and understand that if they hold a belief that strongly differs from what the general public considers "normal", it may not be in their best interest to parade those beliefs out in the open. Doing so may cause them to lose the respect of their peers, or subject them to public ridicule - neither of which are particularly fun.

Honestly, I think that the creation of this topic was a very naive decision of Tech's part, because it will affect how certain people in the community view him and the STEP project. Tech's personal spiritual beliefs don't really belong here on the STEP forums, and sharing them can only be detrimental to his reputation and the reputation of STEP as a whole.

Thank you for the clarification and as I said, I hold no grudges or hard feelings. Though I will point out, as others have attempted to do, that your approach attached with your wording comes off as such.

I also agree that this only holds baring on myself as other might wish to view me from revealing this information. Personally, I couldn't care less what others think about me. I'm not that kind of person. I'm extremely independent and need no approvals from anyone on my character. If someone doesn't like me, then so be it. It's a very large world filled with all sorts of people and there just so happens to be plenty of space; we're not required to interact and maintain the same space. Though, I will say that I would view those people as judgmental and likely intolerant.
 

You continually seem to talk around my main point; perhaps you didn't bring up science directly, but these texts and the 'evidence' presented by supporters do directly reference things which science has much to say about, and happen to contradict it in some pretty major areas.

I will address this very simply below, but I will say that you make a good point.
 

You truly believe your assessment is equally as valid?
You truly believe that you aren't just choosing to believe what you want to, and only reading or thinking about material in a way that supports that?
Is there any new evidence or new view/explanation of the evidence that could change your mind?
Is it not possible to take benefit from the spiritual/philosphical teachings without buying the stuff that contradicts modern science?
Are you certain that you are even accurately and completely interpreting this work in the first place, and not just making your own version of it (ie. practicing exactly the same confirmation-bias that you are already doing with the 'facts' directly to the 'teachings' themselves)?

Yes.
Yes, I've read quite a bit of material that contradicts and has alternative views.
Possibly, but I have yet to discover any.
This would be something personal which would differ from person to person, but on the possibility alone...Yes, it's certainly possible.
I will answer by saying much of what an individual interprets will be based on that individual's own mindset and the way he/she thinks, therefore, two separate individuals could provide two separate interpretations. The thing is, when we are talking about the spiritual neither interpretations are necessarily wrong.
 

I contend that if claiming your beliefs are ridiculous makes you feel uneasy - that is a sign that you aren't as sure as you claim to be, and that you would likely benefit from a little more of the 'inward searching' you claim to have already 'completed' - and probably some outward searching as well.

I took no offense to your postings and have no idea where you guys are interpreting that I'm uneasy with the the science or your views of the material. I'm not. If anything, I was frustrated from the science part because that wasn't why I started this conversation. More on this at the end of this post.
 

@baronaatista: These two parts seem rather interesting when combined: [1] [2]

If one-fifth of the planets in the Milky Way is 67000000, or 67 million, the total number of planets would be 67 * 5 = 335 million planets. According to most scientific estimates, that number is actually at least 100 billion.

I have to say that I find that article a little ridiculous and I love space stuff. First, they're making their "guess" based off the study of a single star. One star??? Second, the entire article is filled with words and phrases like "should", "points towards", " perhaps", etc. meaning they don't really know; it's just a guess. Third, the idea of the Kepler telescope has always been ify with me. They think they're finding planets, but the magnitude of what we don't know about space far outweighs what we do know. And what we do know changes every few years when we discover something new that we didn't know. Ya know? ::  Point being is they could be looking at just about anything that is between here and that star 900+ light years away which could cause a repeating pattern when the light from that star has traveled the distance it has. For all we know if there was a plant and that star could have swallowed it up by now or been destroyed by a cosmic event.

100 Billion seems to be a common theme. A quick search on NASA revealed they're estimating there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way, 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, and now we have 100 billion planets. The real answer here is, "we don't know". Unfortunately, that is the real answer for much of talks around space subjects.
 

@ All
Now it would seem that my words are being psychoanalyzed and being read WAY more into then they should be. Therefore, the best way I know to reply to everything I didn't specifically address is with this image:
[spoiler=Potentially NSFW (swear word)]

My final closing thoughts are that you all have good points. It took Mono's explanation for me to realize that regardless whether or not I wanted this discussion to be about the material or about the science behind the material, some of the material does, in fact, warrant science getting involved. Therefore when such a subject comes up that warrants it, I welcome any scientific prodding on the material. I will attempt to reply the best I can, but no promises because a lot of my scientific beliefs are on the fringes as well so I expect them to be ridiculed.

[TechAngel85]

So it says they still have some free will like you were talking about. That's an interesting take.

Yes, it is by an act of their will which causes them to become a ghost. They still have the mind and consciousness as they did when they were alive. That is my understanding.

 

If I may say something else... she once said she looked down at her hands and they were covered in blood, then when she saw this she told her son and his friend not to go out on their motorcycles that day. A few hours later his friend crashed into a bus and died instantly. What do you make of this? I will assume you will say that she could channel space/time (hopefully that's the right way around)? I'd be intrigued by your answer. To all those reading this and shaking their heads, I am not saying anything. This is just a very weird story to me. I am asking Tech how it fits into his material, if at all. Don't misquote it!

I don't think the Law of One ever talks about premonitions. If I had to guess, I would guess that a guiding entity showed her this image. The Law of One does talk about guiding entities. These are both our higher selves and part of our soul groups which haven't incarnated but chose to aid us in our current incarnation. "Guardian angels", if you will. The other possibility is as you say. She was able to use her consciousness to reach into time/space and gleam the possibility of the event. Her mind was likely only able to interpret the information she gleamed as she did with the vision.

 

So if I am correct here, you could compare this to the TARDIS in Doctor Who or a wormhole in Star Trek? Again, I don't make these comparisons to be sarcastic, merely to help me understand! :)

Sorry, I've never watched Doctor Who.    But a wormhole transports matter through time/space to another space/time. This would be like leaving your body behind, traveling to Paris in your mind, and then willing your body to be placed there. If you've ever seen the movie "Jumper" with Hayden Christensen, it would be like that. Think of a place and boom, you're there.

 

Well what I was trying to say is that if it is recycled, there should be more than enough excess then for some of it to still get stuck (unconverted) for a

while that the cogs can still keep turning elsewhere? Hopefully you understand me.

You're saying that energy could get "stuck" in a "stasis" state? Basically it's not doing anything but sitting there? Or are we talking about ghosts/spirits becoming "stuck" and not being able to move on?

[MonoAccipiter]

I take it that you have never deeply meditated and received information that you know within your very being to be true to only have it completely validated later on? I have and I have no explanation for this other than the higher self providing this knowledge through the meditation.

I do practice meditation, but sadly I start to hallucinate after a while and my eyes begin jumping up and down until it gets so rapid I can't continue. I know that one can be made aware of things through meditation though, but as I will explain below, my point was not that that is impossible.

 

Future student is my current occupation, only have high school in my backpack thus far. But I do enjoy reading a lot, both philosophy and literature, and will be studying those two come autumn.

 

I honestly have no words to explain this accurately. It's as if I take in the information and present it to my spirit and from there I know if the information is good, bad, or inconclusive. I have done this for over ten years now and it has rarely let me down. Sometimes my thoughts do creep in and seed doubt, but 9/10 times if I simply trust my spirit then I'm not steered wrong. I have no explanation for how it works or word to explain the feeling. It just something I started doing around the age of 18 (I'm 31 now) and have honed it ever since. I guess you could say that in a way, it's extremely honed intuition, but it feels greater than that.

My point is not so much that this is impossible (I would not pretend to hold knowledge about that) as it is a critique of judging information from the spirit with the spirit. You cannot fully determine whether what this method provides you with is true without presupposing that it has that capacity. You may grow to trust your spirit, but even then, you must realise that it does not validate anything. Though it might seem a good guide to you, it is very hard to determine if it is because you think it is, or because it really is, as long as it remains the judge of itself.

 

I have to say that I find that article a little ridiculous and I love space stuff. First, they're making their "guess" based off the study of a single star. One star??? Second, the entire article is filled with words and phrases like "should", "points towards", " perhaps", etc. meaning they don't really know; it's just a guess. Third, the idea of the Kepler telescope has always been ify with me. They think they're finding planets, but the magnitude of what we don't know about space far outweighs what we do know. And what we do know changes every few years when we discover something new that we didn't know. Ya know? ::  Point being is they could be looking at just about anything that is between here and that star 900+ light years away which could cause a repeating pattern when the light from that star has traveled the distance it has. For all we know if there was a plant and that star could have swallowed it up by now or been destroyed by a cosmic event.

100 Billion seems to be a common theme. A quick search on NASA revealed they're estimating there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way, 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, and now we have 100 billion planets. The real answer here is, "we don't know". Unfortunately, that is the real answer for much of talks around space subjects.

Actually, the 100 billion stars is one of the more pessimistic estimates, some estimates place it at between 200 and 400 billion. Ra even says it is 250 billion, in which case the chance of there being a planet per star would be 0.335 / 250 = 0.00134 or 0.134% (or an average of 0.00134 planets per star) something which seems to directly contradict what most scientific surveys estimate, and what observation of nearby star systems tell us. 

 

You make a valid point about the inaccuracy of science, these are estimates, though not guesses as they are based on statistical data, and could be wrong. The same could be said of anything that Ra says though, whereas it does not even originate from estimates. Obscurantism is very hard to counter, yes, but it applies universally. 

 

"Point being is they could be looking at just about anything that is between here and that star 900+ light years away which could cause a repeating pattern when the light from that star has traveled the distance it has. For all we know if there was a plant and that star could have swallowed it up by now or been destroyed by a cosmic event." This is not true. If something much closer crossed its path, it would either block light from more systems if it is closer to us, or move much, much faster than the other bodies, not to mention having no reason to repeat its motion, if being a smaller, but closer object. We can determine where the star is, what temperature it has, and how far away the blocking bodies would have to be using various models of physics and mathematics. These additional planets were found when calculating transit-timing-variations, which would not exist if the bodies observed by the telescope where somewhere else than in the system. Sure that planet "could" have exploded randomly by now, though it would most likely take more than 900 years for it to change course up until it gets swallowed, but that does not change the effect it has on statistical data. If Ra missed a couple of planets here and there, that would be unremarkable, the anomaly of 999.665 billion is what is interesting. 

 

There's also the fact that Ra claims there are confederations, including one that contains seven planetary systems. This would just serve to make the Fermi-paradox even stranger...

 

Then there's the claims of there being "humans" on Mars 75000 years ago. Should that not be verifiable? Is the response to that, that there is some world-wide conspiracy better containing information which is somehow better managed than any attempt at government, military strategy or any other case of human coordination? Why would Russia agree to hide secrets of the US and vice versa? Seems strange to me. Cui bono?

Edited April 20, 2017 by MonoAccipiter

[TechAngel85]

I do practice meditation, but sadly I start to hallucinate after a while and my eyes begin jumping up and down until it gets so rapid I can't continue. I know that one can be made aware of things through meditation though, but as I will explain below, my point was not that that is impossible.

You should try to push past this stage. Many people do as you do and stop when they reach here because they allow fear to creep in; however, if you can push yourself past this there are deeper/higher levels to discover. I am curious as the to nature of your hallucinations. When I mediate deeply I often feel as though I stop breathing and am snapped out of the deeper mediation. This is an odd sensation as I never really stopped breathing.

 

My point is not so much that this is impossible (I would not pretend to hold knowledge about that) as it is a critique of judging information from the spirit with the spirit. You cannot fully determine whether what this method provides you with is true without presupposing that it has that capacity. You may grow to trust your spirit, but even then, you must realise that it does not validate anything. Though it might seem a good guide to you, it is very hard to determine if it is because you think it is, or because it really is, as long as it remains the judge of itself.

I'm of the opinion the spirit or higher self is probably one of the best options for judging information. You see, I've very spiritually minded these days. This third density experience is just one of many and there are so many things that simply do not matter in the grand scheme of things. Usually when I test things in this manner and receive a result that is "inconclusive", meaning I didn't really get a result, I view it as something that simply doesn't matter. At that point I would make the decision based on my head knowledge. But you are correct, there is no way of validating the validity of the information received until it takes place to be proven or disproven by reality.

 

Actually, the 100 billion stars is one of the more pessimistic estimates, some estimates place it at between 200 and 400 billion. Ra even says it is 250 billion, in which case the chance of there being a planet per star would be 0.335 / 250 = 0.00134 or 0.134% (or an average of 0.00134 planets per star) something which seems to directly contradict what most scientific surveys estimate, and what observation of nearby star systems tell us. 

 

You make a valid point about the inaccuracy of science, these are estimates, though not guesses as they are based on statistical data, and could be wrong. The same could be said of anything that Ra says though, whereas it does not even originate from estimates. Obscurantism is very hard to counter, yes, but it applies universally. 

 

"Point being is they could be looking at just about anything that is between here and that star 900+ light years away which could cause a repeating pattern when the light from that star has traveled the distance it has. For all we know if there was a plant and that star could have swallowed it up by now or been destroyed by a cosmic event." This is not true. If something much closer crossed its path, it would either block light from more systems if it is closer to us, or move much, much faster than the other bodies, not to mention having no reason to repeat its motion, if being a smaller, but closer object. We can determine where the star is, what temperature it has, and how far away the blocking bodies would have to be using various models of physics and mathematics. These additional planets were found when calculating transit-timing-variations, which would not exist if the bodies observed by the telescope where somewhere else than in the system. Sure that planet "could" have exploded randomly by now, though it would most likely take more than 900 years for it to change course up until it gets swallowed, but that does not change the effect it has on statistical data. If Ra missed a couple of planets here and there, that would be unremarkable, the anomaly of 999.665 billion is what is interesting.

Keep in mind that Ra has trouble with our words, especially when it comes to numbers. Because of this, I don't view any of the numbers in the Law of One material as being 100% sound information. There are multiple instance where Ra states this and corrects previous information. On the website you have used this can been seen in 16:35 and 17:0. In 16:35 the term galaxy is the point of confusion as Ra uses this term for our local solar system as well as for the Milky Way. To them, there is no difference but size. In 17:0 Ra corrects information dealing with years where they were 1000 years off stating that they have difficulty with our time/space when getting this information. They state this again, in 17:29 when dealing with a date. Therefore, I take all information dealing with dates and numbers in the material to be an approximation. Not a sound fact.

 

With that said, I'm not sure where your math is coming from and I'm not quite following it. I haven't been in college in years and calculators are my best friends. ::

 

There's also the fact that Ra claims there are confederations, including one that contains seven planetary systems. This would just serve to make the Fermi-paradox even stranger...

I'm glad to speak of this and the next quote below.

 

First, Ra speaks many times that there are no real paradoxes. All paradoxes as we see them have a solution:

• "We offer the Law of One, the solving of paradoxes, the balancing of love/light and light/love."
• "In our vibration the polarities are harmonized, the complexities are simplified, and the paradoxes have their solution. We are one. That is our nature and our purpose."

Second, I would have to go back to review the episodes but David Wilcock makes some compelling arguments that the Drake Equation is completely off, if not completely wrong. However, with that said, I believe his couple episodes on this was before the Drake Equation was updated in 2016.

 

Now to speak of the Confederation of Planets, the one spoken of in the Law of One contains 500 planets which serves the callings of only 7 solar systems. These 500 planets are not likely within the 7 systems. Ra states that there are many confederations which serve various systems. To put this into perspective of why so many planets sever so few systems we can take some information elsewhere that states there are approximately 635 million individuals on our planet alone (in early 1980s so this number has likely increased with population) which are calling upon the services of the Confederation. We can take the lowest assumption that there is only one planet in each system calling and that would be 4.445 billion individuals calling all at once. This is likely a low estimate. Therefore, you might be able to see why so many are only able to serve so few as I'm sure not every individual on these Confederation planets will be doing this service.

 

Our local branch, for lack of better wording, of the Confederation is called the Council of Saturn. This council's purpose is the protection of the third-density processes which take place on Earth and the uploading of the Law of One. Ra explains this council has 9 ruling members and 24 entities, called Guardians, which offer their service to the council. 7:9 explains most of this.

 

Then there's the claims of there being "humans" on Mars 75000 years ago. Should that not be verifiable? Is the response to that, that there is some world-wide conspiracy better containing information which is somehow better managed than any attempt at government, military strategy or any other case of human coordination? Why would Russia agree to hide secrets of the US and vice versa? Seems strange to me. Cui bono?

Here is where the information gets interesting.

 

They weren't humans, they were of another species of humanoids. There is a lot of history here in the Law of One concerning this spanning many sessions. It would take a lot of typing to explain it all. To summarize the end, these "Martians" were reincarnated on Earth after the destruction of the planet which was caused by the explosion of Maldek. There is scientific data that supports the theory of one side of the planet being blasted by giant asteroids as would be seen in a nearby planetary explosion pellet bombing Mars, thus striping Mars of it's atmosphere and altering its magnetic field. The other side of that is the striping of the atmosphere was done by solar winds from the Sun, but this doesn't hold up well when all the other planets still have their atmospheres intact.

 

Without getting into conspiracy theory, there might very well be proof, but we haven't sent any archeologist to Mars have we? In fact, the only things we have of Mars are some nice pictures from rovers and satellites and some scientific data from these instruments. It's interesting that NASA has announced water on Mars, though [1], [2]. That would be one step toward proving that there could have been life present at one time...or there still is and we simply haven't found it yet.

[TechAngel85]

Edit:

Added a bit of info

[MonoAccipiter]

Water on mars would be on step towards pointing to microbial life, not civilisations. The only "scientific" proof I have seen of Mars being bombarded is from a plasma physicist who thinks two craters indicate a nuclear war, which is pretty much a huge correlation fallacy summarised into a theory. 

 

The problem with things like Maldek is that most of this New Age theory has similarities with previous legends or assumptions, and as such there could be correlation without that actually meaning anything. It could be that it is based on truth, and that the similarities are there because of that, or it could be because if this is untrue, then New Age theory has a long history of "taking" aspects of other legends or earlier theories, such as the pyramids, Jesus, etc. That can virtually point in any direction, which is why if I would want to invent my own religion, it would have been one hell of a good way to start. Theories of an additional planet between Mars and Jupiter have been around since 16th century, though it is usually called Phaeton. 

 

The reason for why solar winds could strip Mars' atmosphere is not based on something arbitrary (like supposing it was bombarded by the remnants of an exploding planet) but on the fact that it lost its magnetic field, which was what protected the atmosphere. It is estimated that the loss of the magnetic field happened billions of years ago, which again, is not simply assumed, but justified by it cooling off. I'm not sure how asteroid impacts would remove an atmosphere and the magnetic field at the same time, and at a rate much more rapid that that which the commonly subscribed to theory suggests, perhaps you could explain it to me?

 

 

Keep in mind that Ra has trouble with our words, especially when it comes to numbers. Because of this, I don't view any of the numbers in the Law of One material as being 100% sound information. There are multiple instance where Ra states this and corrects previous information. On the website you have used this can been seen in 16:35 and 17:0. In 16:35 the term galaxy is the point of confusion as Ra uses this term for our local solar system as well as for the Milky Way. To them, there is no difference but size. In 17:0 Ra corrects information dealing with years where they were 1000 years off stating that they have difficulty with our time/space when getting this information. They state this again, in 17:29 when dealing with a date. Therefore, I take all information dealing with dates and numbers in the material to be an approximation. Not a sound fact.

This, to me, becomes obscurantism. We reach the point of an impossibility, and you refute it based on an unreliable narrator. It seems extremely peculiar that an entity that is capable of telepathic communication is unable to properly formulate what it needs to say (although being more than able to speak the language in question for some undisclosed reason) being almost omniscient in all other aspects. Yes, there is no actual way for me to refute it, at least not that I can think of, but that is because it relies on virtually no evidence. 

 

 

I'm glad to speak of this and the next quote below.

 

First, Ra speaks many times that there are no real paradoxes. All paradoxes as we see them have a solution:

"We offer the Law of One, the solving of paradoxes, the balancing of love/light and light/love."

"In our vibration the polarities are harmonized, the complexities are simplified, and the paradoxes have their solution. We are one. That is our nature and our purpose."

Second, I would have to go back to review the episodes but David Wilcock makes some compelling arguments that the Drake Equation is completely off, if not completely wrong. However, with that said, I believe his couple episodes on this was before the Drake Equation was updated in 2016.

I don't really see how this solves any paradoxes. It merely says they are solved. I am capable of doing that right now without anything happening to paradoxes. Even if it was true, there would be little that was extremely impressive about it, paradoxes usually indicate there is a distance between how we understand the world and how the world functions, they are very useful to encourage development within our ways of viewing the world. Take Zeno's paradoxes for instance, meant to indicate that there is no movement at all in the world, but ending up giving us new methods for describing the movement of time, what instants are and so forth. The solutions of paradoxes are interesting, not the worlds in which they are absent. There was no world where Achilles couldn't outrun a turtle in Ancient Greece, but Zeno's supposition was still very interesting for mathematics and logic.

 

This also brings up the question of why the channellers wouldn't give Ra an extremely basic method of verifying what it is saying: such as asking it to solve a simple mathematical problem that we have yet not acquired a solution for. The idea that the solution of such a paradox would somehow impede our ability to evolve is preposterous, it could be something as simple as Zeno's Rows which we already have a solution for, but which would obviously require some knowledge on the part of the entity. Even though this could also be faked, because there are solutions for this exact problem, something like that would still lend more weight to their claims because the act of not asking such a question is the easiest form of back-covering there is.

 

 

Now to speak of the Confederation of Planets, the one spoken of in the Law of One contains 500 planets which serves the callings of only 7 solar systems. These 500 planets are not likely within the 7 systems. Ra states that here are many confederations which serve various systems. To put this into perspective of why so many planets sever so few system we can take some information elsewhere that states there are approximately 635 million individuals on our planet (in early 1980s) which are calling upon the services of the Confederation. We can take the lowest assumption that there is only one planet in each system calling and that would be 4.445 billion individuals calling all at once. This is likely a low estimate. Therefore, you might be able to see why so many are along able to serve so few.

 

The Drake Equation is completely reliant on whatever numbers you put into it, but I avoided that specifically, because it is unnecessary once you assume there actually is intelligent life. And that's when the Fermi paradox (though not really a paradox per say, since it relies on an equation with currently unknown variables) becomes really interesting, because supposing that there is alien life, it has not destroyed itself, and it is capable of sending out signals, already clears out a lot of the variables in the Drake equation. It should be even more alerting to the people believing in these entities that there is an absence of such signals, than it was to Fermi, who never supposed anything as optimistic as that in the number he was presented.

 

I'm sorry for misrepresenting what was said though, I didn't intend to use a straw man, it was a mistake in reading on my part. 

 

 

You should try to push past this stage. Many people do as you do and stop when they reach here because they allow fear to creep in; however, if you can push yourself past this there are deeper/higher levels to discover.

I haven't stopped, but these are very uncommon hallucinations. It's like a growing object that eventually grows so large it feels like it is about to swallow me, which gives the feeling of having something shoved in your face over and over. Eventually that feeling jerks me out of my trance because it is much like if someone would pull a chair you're sitting on, your whole body reacts instinctively. I don't fear them, in fact, I know they are completely harmless, but that does not stop my body from attempting to react. As I said, there are physical effects of this too, my eyes move up and down extremely rapidly. I've meditated in front of my psychology therapist to confirm this.

 

 

I'm of the open the spirit or higher self is probably one of the best options for judging information. You see, I've very spiritually minded these days. This third density experience is just one of many and there are so many things that simply do not matter in the grand scheme of things. Usually when I test things in this manner and receive a result that is "inconclusive", meaning I didn't really get a result, I view it as something that simply doesn't matter. At that point I would make the decision based on my head knowledge.

We have reached an impasse. You seem to judge with the spirit that the spirit is one of the best options for judging information. If you do not see the problem with this kind of circular reasoning, there is no point for me pursuing that particular notion any further, and I will let it rest.

 

EDIT: Just wanted to note that the part about inventing my own religion was only meant to show that such evidence is very difficult to work with, not to be derisive. I replaced the word robbing withh taking as I think the former submitted an unnecessary tone. Sometimes I get a bit too caught up in my writing to go back and grasp what tone it has before submitting.

Edited April 20, 2017 by MonoAccipiter

[baronaatista]

So I really like martial arts - huge fan of the UFC/MMA.  

 

There is a well known phenomenon in the world of MMA - 'tough guys'.  

 

For whatever reason there are some people that - maybe they're a little athletic, strong, maybe have a little training, and think they're tough.  These guys will say things like 'I could beat those guys in the UFC, it's my mentality - I just can't lose'.  

 

They'll make all sorts of bold claims about their abilities to physically conquer opponents.  You can go on like this for quite a while if you never meet the wrong person, and even have it confirmed back to you in smaller encounters where you clash with other un-trained people.

 

Until the day they choose to mess with the wrong person, and they wander into a fight with an actual trained fighter.  The difference between 'tough guy' and trained martial artist is vast, and in this encounter the 'tough guy' cannot help but understand the difference, as they are essentially helpless.

 

This is what I think of when I hear you say things like 'I present information to my spirit and just know if it's good or bad' or that you're as qualified to judge the validity of astrophysics reports as an astrophysicist.

[TechAngel85]

Water on mars would be on step towards pointing to microbial life, not civilisations. The only "scientific" proof I have seen of Mars being bombarded is from a plasma physicist who thinks two craters indicate a nuclear war, which is pretty much a huge correlation fallacy summarised into a theory.

 

The reason for why solar winds could strip Mars' atmosphere is not based on something arbitrary (like supposing it was bombarded by the remnants of an exploding planet) but on the fact that it lost its magnetic field, which was what protected the atmosphere. It is estimated that the loss of the magnetic field happened billions of years ago, which again, is not simply assumed, but justified by it cooling off. I'm not sure how asteroid impacts would remove an atmosphere and the magnetic field at the same time, and at a rate much more rapid that that which the commonly subscribed to theory suggests, perhaps you could explain it to me?

I had to return to the episodes of Wisdom Teachings where this was discussed. It's been a while since I've been into that information and I'm just going to quote from the episodes. David uses one source from Richard C. Hoagland titled "A New Model of Mars as a Former Captured Satellite: Bi-modal Distribution of Key Features Due to Ancient Tidal Stress". This is not a scientific source, but is based on some of Dr. Thomas Van Flandern's (PhD in Astronomy) unpopular in "mainstream science" works. Evidence to support that Mars was once a moon of Maldek, thus being destroyed by Maldek's own destruction includes:

• Mars is much less massive than any planet that is not already being suspected of being a former moon.
• The orbit of Mars is more elliptical than any other major planet.
• The spin of Mars is slower than larger planets, except where a massive moon's gravity has intervened.
• Mars possesses a large offset of center of figure from the center of mass. Meaning the heaviest part of Mars is not in the center of the planet which is what happens with moons captured in the gravity of a larger planet.
• The "crustal dichotomy" boundary is nearly a great circle which aligns with photo evidence that one half of the planet is fairly clear of craters vs the other half that has been completely blasted by asteroids. This aligns with what would happen if it was a moon of Maldek when it exploded. (Photo evidence is shown in the episode)
• Further on the point above is the northern hemisphere has a smooth, 1-km thick crust where the southern hemisphere has a 20-km thick crust. The crustal thickness in the south decreases gradually toward the crustal dichotomy boundary as would be seen in such a massive impact or multiple, near simultaneous impacts.
• Lobate scarps occur at the boundary divide compressed perpendicular to the boundary (which apparently happens during such impacts...I didn't bother looking it up)
• Xe129, a product of nuclear fission, has an excess abundance on Mars. (this one hit major news networks) What is interesting about this is the Law of One says that Maldek's destruction was a result of nuclear war.

This was all me merely quoting the information from the episode...

 

I'm not sure how asteroid impacts would remove an atmosphere and the magnetic field at the same time, and at a rate much more rapid that that which the commonly subscribed to theory suggests, perhaps you could explain it to me?

Well... Imagine that the Earth, as it is now, is the moon of a planet. This planet has a mass 81 times that of Earth (this is the Earth/Moon ratio for familiarity). BOOM! This planet explodes. Just what do you think would happen to the Earth? Massive chucks of that planet will be colliding with Earth at high velocities. This might not be enough to complete destroy Earth, but most of the atmosphere would likely have been blasted off along will most of the oceans vaporizing into space. The magnetic field would certainly change with such massive impacts as well. I would imagine that Earth would become a planet much like to Mars with such an event happening at such a close range. Or perhaps I simply have any overactive imagination. ::

 

This, to me, becomes obscurantism. We reach the point of an impossibility, and you refute it based on an unreliable narrator. It seems extremely peculiar that an entity that is capable of telepathic communication is unable to properly formulate what it needs to say (although being more than able to speak the language in question for some undisclosed reason) being almost omniscient in all other aspects. Yes, there is no actual way for me to refute it, at least not that I can think of, but that is because it relies on virtually no evidence.

I'm not refuting anything. I simply said that I don't trust the numbers in the Law of One to their fullest extent and meant nothing more than that. To "refute" is to prove something wrong. You should consider law school because you are rather good at turning words around to mean something else out of context. No jabs here. I'm serious. You would likely make a good prosecutor if you like that sort of thing. But also seriously, don't put so much weight on my words. My vocabulary is not near good enough for me to hide my intentions in a well worded paragraph. I'm typically straightforward and say exactly what I mean.

 

As for Ra's difficulty with our time/space you are missing a lot of information to completely grasp the concept, which would hopefully help you understand this a bit better. It's hard to fully discuss a book in a book club if you haven't read the book. With that said, it's actually difficult for me to fully explain without writing a book of my own... I will attempt to summarize.

 

Ra is of the sixth density. They are not omniscient in any way. It would be no different than you or I once we reach that density. Ra explains contact with us telepathically is quite challenging and accurately interpreting our numbers such as dates is equally challenging. In fact, they explain that they searched for many years before being able to find a group of the correct configuration before they were able to even make the contact. To put it simply, anyone of a higher density greater than fourth would have a hard time communicating with us in such a way because of the requirements for contact which is to be able to match our vibrational level to an extent. The higher you go in density the harder it would become because the greater the change would have to be for the contact to happen.

 

As for the numbers, I've already explained this a little, but you have to grasp time/space. In space/time we experience time by moving through space and only experience one space at a time. However, in time/space we could experience all of space at that same time. The past, the present, the future would all be available in what we currently experience as the present. Therefore, you might be able to imagine the difficulty of pinning down specific dates when all is one at at a single instance. Then there is the information that Ra experiences time very differently than we do so they are also having to interpret our "time".

 

The language is, however, a result of the telepathic contact. They are able to use the channeler's mind as well as scan the mind of the other's present in the room to communicate. During the channeling, the channeler is putted out of their body and kept in a safe place and then Ra is able to use the mind and body of the channeler to speak. This is how Ra describes it. So imagine putting your consciousness into the developed mind of a foreigner. You would likely have access to all that foreigner knows, including their language.

 

I don't really see how this solves any paradoxes....

 

This also brings up the question of why the channellers wouldn't give Ra an extremely basic method of verifying what it is saying: such as asking it to solve a simple mathematical problem that we have yet not acquired a solution for. The idea that the solution of such a paradox would somehow impede our ability to evolve is preposterous, it could be something as simple as Zeno's Rows which we already have a solution for, but which would obviously require some knowledge on the part of the entity. Even though this could also be faked, because there are solutions for this exact problem, something like that would still lend more weight to their claims because the act of not asking such a question is the easiest form of back-covering there is.

I only merely stated that, to Ra, all paradoxes have a solution. I'm not too keen on paradoxes myself.

 

Ra will not break the Law of Free Will or the Law of Confusion. There are a ton of questions asked that Ra simply stated they won't answer because it would break these Laws for the ones present or for others that could potentially read the material. We're meant to figure things out on our own, not to be handed the keys. I can understand why. Even for something simple it could have large implications. For example, what if someone 10 years from the date the question was answered was suppose to come up with the answer themselves and that relation lead to other discoveries that defined the person's career, and eventually altered all of the world because from that one simple discovery it inspired that person to dig deeper to eventually discover the cure for all disease. This is an extreme example, but it makes the point that even the smallest of information can have profound effects.

 

You should take most of this information that isn't scientific no differently than you would pages from the Bible. It's a book written by man from events that may or not be true and factual. It's up to you to decided what you believe.

 

I haven't stopped, but these are very uncommon hallucinations. It's like a growing object that eventually grows so large it feels like it is about to swallow me, which gives the feeling of having something shoved in your face over and over. Eventually that feeling jerks me out of my trance because it is much like if someone would pull a chair you're sitting on, your whole body reacts instinctively. I don't fear them, in fact, I know they are completely harmless, but that does not stop my body from attempting to react. As I said, there are physical effects of this too, my eyes move up and down extremely rapidly. I've meditated in front of my psychology therapist to confirm this.

Wow... That is very interesting. It's the first time I've heard of something like that during mediation and is not what I was thinking of. Are you shifting your focus to the hallucination once you get a image of it or is it something that seems out of your control?

 

This is what I think of when I hear you say things like 'I present information to my spirit and just know if it's good or bad' or that you're as qualified to judge the validity of astrophysics reports as an astrophysicist.

Well, I can say that you certainly have the wrong impression of me. I'm not like what you explained at all. I actually quite humble. Though it's hard to get an accurate impression of anyone from just words on a page...which is why I don't do online dating.

 

That was a great example of a personal jab, though. Thank you but I don't accept it as being valid for my life.

 

Don't worry, I'm not going to give you a warning. Do note, however, that if you had said that to anyone else and the user reported you it would certainly be grounds for an "Impolite Post" warning that comes with 1 warning point attached.

 

I, too, love the martial arts. I was a red belt in Tae Kwon Do as a kid and nearly a black belt in PaSaRyu Karate in my late teens. I had the honor of meeting Master Kang Rhee a couple of times. I still have a picture with him sitting in the closet somewhere. I absolutely loved PaSaRyu Karate as it was so much more advanced than Tae Kwon Do.

[TechAngel85]

Edit:

Added info...I seem to be doing that here lately. ::

[baronaatista]

I'm not really sure how that was a personal jab... I was using a metaphorical situation to give a context for the general point I've been attempting to make.

 

I apologize if the context of a violent confrontation came off as threatening or whatever, not at all my intention - it's just subject matter I'm familiar with, and I think an effective small-scale demonstration of a concept.

 

I was only trying to say - it's easy to 'think' and 'believe' that you have certain abilities, characteristics, knowledge, etc. but when put to test in practical application the truth shines through.

 

I just find it odd that you can really think you're as good a judge of scientific research as actual scientists... 

As far as I understand it you do some coding/scripting?  I'd imagine you'd concede though you're not the best scripter (?terminology?) in the world?  There are probably people you look up to or see as authorities in this discipline?  If those people explained something you were unaware of or not knowledgeable about - you would place a degree of trust in them, yes?  Because you recognize that they know more than you, perhaps have designed programs far more complex than you can understand... ?

[TechAngel85]

I'm not really sure how that was a personal jab... I was using a metaphorical situation to give a context for the general point I've been attempting to make.

 

I apologize if the context of a violent confrontation came off as threatening or whatever, not at all my intention - it's just subject matter I'm familiar with, and I think an effective small-scale demonstration of a concept.

 

I was only trying to say - it's easy to 'think' and 'believe' that you have certain abilities, characteristics, knowledge, etc. but when put to test in practical application the truth shines through.

 

I just find it odd that you can really think you're as good a judge of scientific research as actual scientists...

As far as I understand it you do some coding/scripting? I'd imagine you'd concede though you're not the best scripter (?terminology?) in the world? There are probably people you look up to or see as authorities in this discipline? If those people explained something you were unaware of or not knowledgeable about - you would place a degree of trust in them, yes? Because you recognize that they know more than you, perhaps have designed programs far more complex than you can understand... ?

The way you did it was by association. You associated me with characters you described as "puffed up", "egoistical", and "full of themselves" until they are knocked down by someone greater. That is how I read it and I really don't see any other way of reading it. I accept your apology, but really...no harm done.

 

You are correct in assuming that there is no way of me validating the "feelings" that I receive when I test information for any practical standardized test which would prove my "spirit testing" accurate or not. In most of these cases I wouldn't expect to receive any validation from my spirit because they would be over mundane matters of no real significance to my life. However, I don't consider it any sort of ability. Actually hearing it as such sounds ridiculous to me. Haha! It's my opinion that anyone could do it.

 

I'm puzzled as to where this notion that I'm as good as actual scientists came from unless it was from those earlier discussions about Backster. Seriously, the papers I were able to read were not hard to interpret. Anyone of high school education level would have been able to do so and understand them. The rest that I've researched has been articles explaining the papers in plain English, for the most part. When more advanced maths crop up that I can't understand I start to tune out.

 

I only do scripting when forced to. I hate it and there are people worlds ahead of me (Mator...though I don't know if he knows Papyrus, Chesko, etc). However, I can read just about any Papyrus script and tell you what it's doing. I get the jest of what you're getting at here and yes, there are some subjects that I know nothing about and it would take a good about of research to understand them. However, don't forget that I've had nearly a year to do some of this research over topics unfamiliar to me. It's not like I picked this stuff up a month ago and then started posting about it. That why I've maintained that I've done my questioning of the material of my own accord. Certainly I am open to new information; however, very little of what has been posted here has been anything new that I haven't already ran across or considered myself. Honestly, Mono seems to be bringing more new "thoughts" that I haven't considered than anyone else. I mean no offense, but yours and Mator's approaches have been the typical or standard approach that the majority of the internet is soundboarding on in regards to the material of the Law of One.

[Guest]

[baronaatista]

*EDIT - was not trying to associate you - at least not directly - with a ****** tough guy.  Again, that was genuinely only about the ease of believing you know a thing without having to actually test it's validity, and how when applied to the real world the truth shakes out.

 

baronaatista, on 19 Apr 2017 - 1:24 PM, said:

You truly believe your assessment is equally as valid?

You truly believe that you aren't just choosing to believe what you want to, and only reading or thinking about material in a way that supports that?

Is there any new evidence or new view/explanation of the evidence that could change your mind?

Is it not possible to take benefit from the spiritual/philosphical teachings without buying the stuff that contradicts modern science?

Are you certain that you are even accurately and completely interpreting this work in the first place, and not just making your own version of it (ie. practicing exactly the same confirmation-bias that you are already doing with the 'facts' directly to the 'teachings' themselves)?

Yes.

Yes, I've read quite a bit of material that contradicts and has alternative views.

Possibly, but I have yet to discover any.

This would be something personal which would differ from person to person, but on the possibility alone...Yes, it's certainly possible.

I will answer by saying much of what an individual interprets will be based on that individual's own mindset and the way he/she thinks, therefore, two separate individuals could provide two separate interpretations. The thing is, when we are talking about the spiritual neither interpretations are necessarily wrong.

 

Perhaps I've misread you but it seems like I asked if you thought your assessment of scientific subjects was equally as valid as those of a scientist, and your reply was yes?

 

This is the point you keep talking around.  You say on one hand that you respect the knowledge of people in specific disciplines... and then in the next sentence say 'I've had over a year to research topics unfamiliar to me' .... 

I mean just a couple pages back you're debating Mono about astrophysics...  Those numbers physicists arrive at are not in any way guesses, and to think that you are aware of variables that they're not taking into account... ?  You might as well explain to Mator how he could optimize the coding of Merge Plugins!  And I imagine he would admit he knows less about that than astrophysicists do about astrophysics.

Or the age of the Earth?  Dinosaurs co-existing with man?

These are not subjects that science has little to say about.

 

Anyway.  I think I've really said everything I have to say and I'll butt out of this.  Didn't mean to mess up the party, lol.

Edited April 21, 2017 by baronaatista