[Aceroassert]

litllady hi again to all,

thx for the feelings you have on my post billy! i find this very interesting that some people might feel like they 'drift' from the law if they 'search' other sources.

the only way i search a source is if my higher self urges me to.

i understand that some may feel i go against the law of one. but it is actually the law of one that let me get in touch with this higher self. so how do we use the law of one and our intuition of our selves. i think this is very important. above all things, the true source is in each and every one of us. so if my intuition leads me to take sources and learn how there is truth speaking through them, am i going against the law of one? i would like to hear opinions on this because the last thing i want to do is interfere with the research on this site. hi, lynette, for some reason i have a hitch in my side, plus i'm having trouble remembering my name..b?bb?b? hey! vodoo isn't one of your many interests and accomplishments, is it ( thought so )

nah, just kidding. i feel pretty good -- but come to think of it the name still escapes me -- but that's nothin' new.

hmm...evidently i didn't make myself very clear. your statement suggesting the idea that those on the dc site consider searching other "truths" (sources?) being the same as drifting away from the "law", sorta leaves me fuzzy headed. actually, i read a bunch of pot-pouri spiritual writing, but if it is obviously off topic i don't bring it back here. (sometimes it is difficult to tell if it properly belongs or not.)

the term, off-topic, is sometimes misunderstood; as used here it does not mean drifting away from a thread topic, but rather it refers to the topic lists mentioned in the "rules for participation in the forum" (have you read them?)

going against the law of one? not sure how you do that. the law just is. in the statement above you make it sound like a rule of law that can be "broken". actually, the loo is a term for the philosophical concept that the cosmic all is unity. as stated in the beginning this idea is fundamental in defining one of the the main reason for the group's establishment and its on-going viability -- although it can be discussed and analyzed -- its ultimate viabilty is non-debatable on this site ( this must be or we would be flooded by trolls and other dedicated nasties trying to blow things apart...sorry...i luvs em


it seems reasonable that because of its importance to the group mind-set one should at least have a basic understanding of what the "law" is all about ... what it actually implies when it comes to analyzing our being in relationship with others and god/cosmos. most discussions here on the site implicitly assume the law of one as a taken-for-granted "given."

i found it ironic that when one claims to of use a source of information one wants to label you with that religion that the source comes from. i for one differ on this. take the religion out of it and reflect it on other sources of similar information and youll find some great truths. then you still all in all ask yourself, "does this feel right"-sometimes it takes other findings before you say, "yes, that is right" and sometimes the answer comes swiftly with no doubt that it is right immediatly. so, i posed some questions on the forum about topics that sparks my curiousities. i dont think there is one right way. i think you should take the many trails of bread crumbs and find out where they all lead to . putting a label on it? it is not the "source" of information but rather the philosophical disposition it uses to leaven ideas -- that pre-suppositional condition does deserve a label. example: for some 10 years i was a christian believer. i was particulary interested in basic theology, and especially its branch known as apologetics (defense of the faith) from my own exposure to it i know first hand that orthodox christians have a particular doctrinal view of the world and its creator... i would deal with baptists, jehovah's witnesses, mormons, arminians, calvinists, rc, trad cats...and because they had labels knew what their essential doctrines were... that saved a lot of discussion time with everyone knowing just where everyone else was coming from.

and as it turns out all of the above views are dramatically incompatible with the ra material which is founded on the law of one and is expressed in a more formal manner than previous new thought writings (that also includes the law of confusion, veil of forgetfulness, and, and,....etc. ) the ra, loo and "christianity" cannot be grafted together succesfully. the upshot is that it is not easy for a new thought christian to do the needed mental flip-flop without getting stuck halfway around and left in schizoid confusion...i know!

if one wants to follow bread crumbs, go down bunny trails, that is fine, and an example of so-called free will. i would only point out that the ra material saves us a lot of time and effort and does get us to the point of it all. intellectual explorations are fun, but an expensive luxury that infringes on our main purpose... which is to keep our eye on the main goal ... talking about that would be on topic!

peace to all,
lynette

billy-i know you werent meaning anything bad by pointing out that my ideas were going against the grain a little-but honestly, it made me feel like i was back in church being told how i should think. i know you werent meaning this, but this is why im attracted to this forum, because it didnt put boundaries and limitations around my faith. i think that some might look at the law of one as like a religion. this is not what i want to feel for i have never felt that god wanted religion. so if we are attracted to the law of one, do we have to go by what is says and thats it? i would find this a sad end to my love and passion for new discoveries in a way. lynette, i agree with you in some ways more than you realize. its not that i thought you were going against the grain but rather that you don't realize that many of your questions have already been answered and are available. for you. it isn't that they have all the answers...some they cannot give to us because it would infringe on our freedom of will. they (the ra) are not to be taken as an infallible guru or pope....the ra says that if anything in the messages doesn't resonate with you, then ignore it, dump it, as it is obviously not for you.

the thought comes to me that if you familarize yourself with the ra stuff your inner guide might have more material on hand to pass on to you.

important note!:the law of one is not a religion but a philosophy of religion (and that is a big difference!) do we have to go by what it says? nooo! that would constitute an infringment on free will i.e.,the law of confusion...the idea of having to do it is of negative polarity. bad! (bad for us positive aspirers, that is)

does the above imply that the divine cosmos is a clever negative ruse because it has rules and guidlines? hmmm. i'm too tired to discuss that one! ... something about order vs anarchy, i guess...

again, lynette, i merely wanted to help. i enjoy your comments. but being a man i make the same mistake as other males do, thinking that when a women discusses a problem she wants someone to rush in with a wrench and "fix" it"...when actually all she wants to do is vent

love and all... thanks for the opportunity to prea...whoops!, discuss things
billbobalong sorry for all the sloppy typos.