[gardenerextraordinaire]

in the wonderful story of the wizard of oz, glenda the good witch appears to dorothy and tells her to follow the yellow brick road. glenda the good witch knew all along that all dorothy had to do was to click her heels three times and she would be home! question:now why would the good witch not tell her this at the begining?
so to with ra, there is a witholding of information on homosexuality and a witholding of a positive view on the work that is the path of many souls experiencing homosexuality . it is a diservice to remain neutral on the value and affect of millions of souls who are in that journey. sexual reproduction is the topic but reproduction and ray work is not devoid of the love and integration that is part of a wide spectrum of this human experience.to detach emotional essense from our being as if it is something to be neutralized is diservice to all beings especially to human beings with a vast range of emotional expereince. perhaps it is why we became more intensely sensitive and emotional as we deny the wonder of who we are which is more than we can possibly imagine.
i take issue with a position that does nothing to clarify a great concern of this culture by suggesting that overcrowding is the cause of homosexuality! what a side tracking answer avoidance. follow the yellow brick road ! yes there would be no story or adventure or discovery if we knew the wonder of those mysteries. it would be another fact . data, information for the paly of those so inclined.
fortunately we are limited and that is good! to know much is a weighty responsiblity!

[gardenerextraordinaire]

aproximately 10 % of the population on earth is homosexual. do you know how many that would be? do that math . now is that not important in understanding humanity and the human experience? if you are one of those individual souls would not information be important and accurate positive , affirming information be invaluable and supportive to grwing in accepatnce aiond self love. avoidance has reason. often avoidance is used, it is one in that one can not mangage the situation. there are many works written on homosexuality . i find it appaulaing that ra has only a few lines to comment on it and that they cast a light, that is rather weak a very little turth!

[SarSerceSaice]

thank you, kenneth149 for offering your perspective. i guess one can never truly understand the pain, rejection, and separation one faces in society unless they walk in one’s shoes.


id also state that i feel people who are gay are not the only ones faced with a lot of difficulties/judgements in society, nor are they the only ones who sin. if i am misreading this comment, charles obscure, i apologize. i guess this where we differ. i don’t see homosexuality as a sin, a sexual impairment, or anything else. the abuse of any sexuality whether in a heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual relationship is the real issue. i, too, stand behind my previous post. there are no pointing fingers or judgment here- reread my post and you will see i was only attempting to offer my own perspective, in a compassionate way, on a very sensitive topic. the initial starter to this thread stated: homosexuality did not resonate with him. the response by some was to use ra’s words to answer his question. it did not sit well me. at this juncture, i say we can agree to disagree.

much love

[connandoilee]

hey gang,

i'm watching these posts coming through with the grumbling and dismay rising to indignation, and i'm disappointed, as i see it's poised to get worse and worse if i don't point out the obvious.

the most prominently displayed reading on my website links right off "start here" button -- the first item below "search," entitled "what is ascension?" this was done for a homosexual client. it did not condemn him or what he was doing -- just the opposite. i put it front and center for several reasons -- and one of them was to take the edge of that oft-misinterpreted law of one quote.

ra did deliver an important truth in the law of one series regarding the fact that homosexual sex simply doesn't have the same aetheric energy quality.

the man releases an unretrievable burst of red-ray energy in orgasm (the woman does not) and the woman's physiology -- both physical and metaphysical -- is built to receive it and transform it into inspiration. there is an aetheric anatomy corresponding to the physical anatomy that enables this, which in turn is the circuitry that can activate the higher chakras.

it is a glaring omission in the law of one series that the topic was not discussed beyond this point. this is a fault of the questioner, a military man who very likely was uncomfortable discussing it, rather than the source. yet for those who are really studying the material, and not just finding one quote and flagging it out of context, the compassion behind the answer is obvious.

my reading has stood in a prominent place for years now to take the charge off. i hope others will remember this in the future if the issue is discussed again:

http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.ph...d=13&itemid=27

- david

[Peabelilt]

thank you, kenneth149 for offering your perspective. i guess one can never truly understand the pain, rejection, and separation one faces in society unless they walk in one’s shoes.


[/b] if i am misreading this comment, charles obscure, i apologize. i guess this where we differ. i don’t see homosexuality as a sin, a sexual impairment, or anything else. the abuse of any sexuality whether in a heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual relationship is the real issue. i, too, stand behind my previous post. there are no pointing fingers or judgment here- reread my post and you will see i was only attempting to offer my own perspective, in a compassionate way, on a very sensitive topic. the initial starter to this thread stated: homosexuality did not resonate with him. the response by some was to use ra’s words to answer his question. it did not sit well me. at this juncture, i say we can agree to disagree.

much love

i wasnt accusing you of pointing fingers, i guess i was more trying to say that i wasnt pointing fingers. my comment on 'sin' wasnt directed specifically at homosexuality either, more so a way of reiterating the phrase 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' or in other words, we are all sinners.

[ulw7A8Po]

i am a server at a restaurant in dupont circle of washington dc and a large percentage of my customers are homosexual. i am always happy to see that my new table is gay because they are generally very kind and they tip very well. i also work with many gay people and one of my best friends happens to be gay and he is the nicest person you will ever want to meet. consider these points:

1. from what i understand, they are born into this situation. the vast majority didn't make a conscious decision to be gay and i am sure many would rather be straight to save all the pain and alienation they are bound to feel in our rigid society. they must come to grips with being who they were naturally born to be or being who society or christianity or whoever says they should be. this is a very hard life and most gay people are very kind hearted because they know all to well what it feels like to be discriminated against, ostracized and to own a feeling of low self-esteem and low self-worth. but the main point is how can you say someone is wrong when they didn't make a conscious decision and they were just born this way?

2. regardless of their sexual orientation look at all the fantastic contributions the gay society has made to our world. tim gunn (co-host of project runway and tim gunn's guide to style) is an amazing fashion designer and a wise, thoughtful, insightful and kind human being. god forbid we live in a world without my favorite artist salvador dali. there is also a theory that shakespeare was possibly gay. to be an effeminate male is actually a very powerful combination as well as being a masculine female. you have the extroverted characteristics of the male and the more introverted attention to detail and organization of the female combined into one super human being.

3. the most important point is that ra says that we are all one with the illusion of separation so to have negative feelings toward another person is the same as having negative feelings toward oneself. the way to change this world is to give unconditional love to everyone.

thanks for allowing me to share a bit of myself with you. this is a great website and all of you are great as well!!

[viiagrag]

people

i'm surprised by some of the implications i'm picking up between the lines.

as i take it the ra doesn't specialize in "fixing" transient things -- which includes uncomfortable personality shells. the fact of the matter is that everything works out in accordance with the free will of individuality. one experience is of no less ultimate value than another. ( of course it may be proposed that some paths are more gracefully transversed than others -- but that is another question entirely, and we are reminded by the ra that those taking the rockier path do eventually bring a more wealthy bundle of experience as an invaluable present to the one creator )

even when i was a bible-thumping, true-believer, the doctrine of a hell-bent destiny for "gays" stuck in my craw since some of the most admirable persons that i had known -- personally or historically of either sex -- fit that crude description. something was obviously out of wack!

so, taking in mind their stated agenda, i'm not going to to fault the ra material as being less than sufficient even in this case ... it responds to the questions asked and makes sense to me.

best, billy bob

p.s. something paraphrased from llresearch seems fitting here: "it is not the business of those entity's incarnating in third density to be right, to be in balance, to be perfect."

[Peabelilt]

hey gang,

the most prominently displayed reading on my website links right off "start here" button -- the first item below "search," entitled "what is ascension?" this was done for a homosexual client. it did not condemn him or what he was doing -- just the opposite. i put it front and center for several reasons -- and one of them was to take the edge of that oft-misinterpreted law of one quote.

my reading has stood in a prominent place for years now to take the charge off. i hope others will remember this in the future if the issue is discussed again:

http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.ph...d=13&itemid=27

- david

thank you david, that was a great read. im actually quite excited to see there are further ra transcripts available that are more recent that you have been able to channel yourself.

[moderator note: charles had asked about readings, which were in the article also. dw hasn't done those for years. if you go into his other articles , why he stopped is written about all over the place-take care]

[JulieSmithdccd]

i don't see what all the controversy is about. homosexuality could be caused by peanuts for all we know. big deal. ra also attributed man's warring nature to opposable thumbs, which makes as much sense to me as attributing gaiety to overcrowding, and is equally unoffensive.

from what i've seen, the point isn't who you love, but that you love. or, as ra would probably term it, that you learn to see the creation as your own self. so if you find that love with another man, who cares? jump in feet first!

as for having sex with another man, that's an entirely different issue and it's too bad that our culture has steadfastly refused to come up with separate terms for these two very distinct classifications: feeling romantic love for those of the same gender, and engaging in sex acts with those of the same gender. we really should have two words, and until we do, our discussions will continue to be difficult, like this one.

[Peabelilt]

ra also attributed man's warring nature to opposable thumbs, which makes as much sense to me as attributing gaiety to overcrowding, and is equally unoffensive.

just to clear up some confusion here --i believe ra was talking about the nature of war here on earth, as opposed to 'mans warring nature'. to suggest the reason why we fight war is because of the grasping thumb is i feel clearly missing the mark. further evidence of this is shown in the fact that war is extremely prevelant in 4th and 5th density negative planets (mental warfare) as well as any negatively harvestable 3rd density planet, regardless of the body form.

just as ra's detailing of causes for homosexuality were quite a bit more intricate than 'over-crowding'. to suggest ra made such claims is way over simplified and not at all accurate.

here is the quote you were reffering to:

ra: i am ra. it is correct that the logos designed its experiment to attempt to achieve the greatest possible opportunities for polarization in third density. it is incorrect that warfare of the types specific to your experiences was planned by the logos. this form of expression of hostility is an interesting result which is apparently concomitant with the tool-making ability. the choice of the logos to use the life-form with the grasping thumb is the decision to which this type of warfare may be traced.

[ulw7A8Po]

i don't see what all the controversy is about. homosexuality could be caused by peanuts for all we know. big deal. ra also attributed man's warring nature to opposable thumbs, which makes as much sense to me as attributing gaiety to overcrowding, and is equally unoffensive.

from what i've seen, the point isn't who you love, but that you love. or, as ra would probably term it, that you learn to see the creation as your own self. so if you find that love with another man, who cares? jump in feet first!

as for having sex with another man, that's an entirely different issue and it's too bad that our culture has steadfastly refused to come up with separate terms for these two very distinct classifications: feeling romantic love for those of the same gender, and engaging in sex acts with those of the same gender. we really should have two words, and until we do, our discussions will continue to be difficult, like this one.

well said. what is all the hype about? we are all in the same boat. just love each other!!!!!

[gardenerextraordinaire]

thank you daivd for intervening and calling for the raising of the bar of consciousness. st. francis's feast day is coming oct. 4 . he achieved a mystical union with his beloved our lord jesus christ and bares the marks of this intimate union the "stigmata." no one questions the total passionate emotional love and devotion francis acheived that brought him to the intimate union of the profoundest sense one could experience here. such passion for jesus christ, such passion for all creation and oneness with all things gave francis the vision that we all need to see: seeing each other as the glowing cherubims he saw! yet with all his fire francis was humble and loved all things unto poverty itself naming her lady poverty his bride.
st. francis intimate union with christ is one of great pain and beauty. it speaks volume on the journey of those who love intimately those of their own. it is divinely transformed in total surrender and humilty marked with the absolute knowing of the beloved. the sign is the result. the love we so lightly speak of as same love bears little of this signature. any love that is selfish bares the fruit of it's labor. it grows to no end. francis love expanded to inclued all of creation . i hail the beloved saint who so loved with such passion the beloved of his soul and grew to love all creatures.

[CathBraun]

dear kenneth and everyone,
you may want to see this about st. francis:

http://www.rosicrucian.com/ami/amien...rt_2_chapter_7

"...constant contemplation of christ and unceasing efforts to imitate him in all things. these exterior stigmata comprise not only the wounds in the hands and feet and that in the side but also those impressed by the crown of thorns and by the scourging. the most remarkable example of stigmatization is that said to have occurred in 1224 to francis of assisi on the mountain of alverno. being absorbed in contemplation of the passion he saw a seraph approaching blazing with fire..."

(from max heindel's ancient and modern initiation)
your sharing re-st. francis was perfect timing - this link was waiting in the wings for where to place! nina

[viiagrag]

dear kenneth and everyone,
you may want to see this about st. francis:

http://www.rosicrucian.com/ami/amien...rt_2_chapter_7

"...constant contemplation of christ and unceasing efforts to imitate him in all things. these exterior stigmata comprise not only the wounds in the hands and feet and that in the side but also those impressed by the crown of thorns and by the scourging. the most remarkable example of stigmatization is that said to have occurred in 1224 to francis of assisi on the mountain of alverno. being absorbed in contemplation of the passion he saw a seraph approaching blazing with fire..."

(from max heindel's ancient and modern initiation)
your sharing re-st. francis was perfect timing - this link was waiting in thewings for where to place! nina

dear nina

i really don't know what to make of the stigmatist phenomena since i have a gut feeling that something is, well, perhaps 'extreme' would be a safe term.

i have a dear friend who belongs to a reactive splinter group described as "traditional catholics". from her i pick up a sense of a glorification in the punishment of the physical body -- via the attempted sharing of that pain and suffering of jesus on the cross which is considered to be of great spiritual merit. i stupidly mentioned to her that protestant's view of this attitude was that "the catholics never took jesus down from the cross." geri's response to my bit of innocently shared information was to scream, "get out of my life, mr.darkness...and take your demons with you!" (my hearing is not as it was before she slammed the phone down)

did i mention that she is a dear friend? so i did manage to patch up things after i told her that, according to "science", the whole linear time business was questionable and that jesus could still be up there after all.

extreme discipline of the body worries me. this is 3d. a 2d density animal has given up its life to enable our spiritual evolution ... and then we abuse it? except for the other-than-self-love aspect, such over-the-top rigid self-discipline resembles the high road to negative polarity!

it is dangerous to push oneself into a higher spiritual realm out of season. it is not for us to try to become "more spiritual". (this subject was discussed in earlier postings) we are here to grow potatoes in the good earth, not fragile orchid's in an isolated and protected greenhouse. (a ra compatible observation of stuart edward white in a precious little book of long ago, "the job of living"

good grief! i'm giving a heretical sermon! sorry.

here is something important from q'uo at llresearch.org

march 1st 1998 #69
###
the next time that you experience the catalyst of feeling that you are yet an incomplete spiritual being, remember the truth of subtracting, of dropping away that which is not. and as you experience those realizations that enable you to drop a part of the ego away, rejoice. you cannot make it happen. you cannot rush it. but there come moments that you perceive that you no longer have that pride or that particular fear. and of that you may be proud and happy, and if that is a distortion also, then so be it. for you are not here to go beyond distortion but to live within distortion by faith, to express within this confusion a trust in the plan that placed you here, a trust in the destiny that is absolutely yours. a feeling, that cannot come from proof or words, that all that is yours will come to you and that you do not need to reach but only ask “thy will for me today. what is it? and i will try my best.” that is all that you must do. so do not give up on the self because it continues to have distortions and confusions. that is all right. you are not supposed to be without illusion.

ah, precious incarnation. if we could but share with you the realization of the opportunity that is now yours. if we could share that perception with you fully, you would jump for joy. you would rejoice most fully and heartily, for here is the place where you choose your path by faith alone, and this choice, this expression of faith, however imperfect, creates within that permanent self, which is beyond space and time, tremendous changes in consciousness which you cannot achieve outside of this third density of yours. for in other densities the veil of forgetting is lifted, and what virtue is it then to realize that you are your brother and that all those things your brother has are yours? there is no virtue in perceiving the color red if your eyes are open. but, ah, with the eyes closed. here you are in a world of color with your eyes closed. for you are in the equivalent of a black and white movie. you are up there on the screen, and watching yourself the pigment of the movie screen is grainy, and some of the voices are distorted. it’s kind of a corny story, and it’s over too soon. but, ah, when you come out of the theater into the light and you look back on that black and white movie, you see the hope and the faith and the caring and the love and the compassion that you truly have had, with no reason for it but just that constant desire for love, to know love, to know the truth, to express that love. each of you is a gallant, gallant soul, and we both envy you and honor you, for you do much that you do not know. even as you suffer, you heal worlds.

so be content. that is what we would say to you. be content, and simply look carefully, and more carefully, and with more and more open eyes at all that there is about you.

[snip]

please check it out!

best! billyblabberbuttered, aka mr. darkness

[Peabelilt]

well said. what is all the hype about? we are all in the same boat. just love each other!!!!!

i agree johnasmodeus over all message was good! i hope i didnt come across as im knit picking the ra stuff, that is not my intention...only to clarify what i percieved to be misperceptions, but im thinking now perhaps this was not really necessary at all, as johnasmodeus was merely trying to find humor in the situation with those comments, not meaning them quite so seriously!!

[ulw7A8Po]

i don't see what all the controversy is about. homosexuality could be caused by peanuts for all we know. big deal. ra also attributed man's warring nature to opposable thumbs, which makes as much sense to me as attributing gaiety to overcrowding, and is equally unoffensive.

from what i've seen, the point isn't who you love, but that you love. or, as ra would probably term it, that you learn to see the creation as your own self. so if you find that love with another man, who cares? jump in feet firt.

well said. it's not who you love but that you love. i concur.

[CathBraun]

dear bill,(and everyone)
view topic exploration worthwhile, not to make us feel "less than" at all, rather perhaps a fuller understanding of the phenomena. lucky you were able to restore your friendship w/geri! (sadly not always possible). will hope to share more in future. nina

[DoterForeva]

i was painting my kitchen this morning when i had a personal ah-ha! it seemed to fit this thread.

it all started earlier this week when i found myself excitedly sharing with my brother (who'd helped with the wall preparation) my plans for the curtains i was going to hang. mid-way through my visualization with him, i realized, and acknowledged vocally to him, that he couldn't possibly care what i did with the curtains in my kitchen! i've been wondering what got into me ever since, and while revisiting the moment this morning, something emerged with joy that i just have to share here.

i realized that at this time period in human consciousness every human here (in one form or another) is working towards the fullness and balanced integration of the masculine/feminine in what was initially an off-balanced to the masculine, patriarchal society. the ways to the manifestation of that goal are broad and many--a very holistic approach--and instead of pointing fingers at whose got the "right or wrong" way of bringing in the balance, it's more important to celebrate the enormous diversity and accept with joy the unique, one-of-a-kind light each being type brings to the mix.

every human here is a soul manifested with a purpose for the evolution of consciousness.

thus, homosexual men are holding their identities as intellectual males (a strength) while outwardly exploring their more feminine (emotional--to name one) attributes. lesbians and feminists are seeking to strengthen the feminine and understand and empathize more fully with men by tasting of masculine approaches and traits.

look at the various forms of relationship and how each one adds a specific ingredient to the way humanity communicates with each other. women have a unique way of communicating with women, and men bond with men in a special way. women and men who are just close friends enjoy an additional form of communication. and spouses and living partners and children all add their unique ingredient to the communication aspect that helps us express what it's like to be human.

transsexuals bring a special consciousness and awareness to the mix, as well as cross dressers.

heterosexuals contribute in many and varied ways. i have a husband confident enough in his masculinity to openly enjoy shopping for clothes, curtains and items to decorate a house with. he's been tantamount in helping me embrace that feminine aspect of myself.

anyway, just had to get some of it down while the thoughts and images were fresh.

i guess what i'm saying here is that maybe another way of serving this ascension process is simply to open myself to enjoyment of the many ways of being. at least, that's what resonates with me--and i'm sticking to it. grin. please don't apologize to me for being you--ever. you're always bearing me a loving gift--let the packages be many and varied! that's my joy!

with love,
penny

[Hodstcopter]

homosexuality seems to be a big topic from the news to discussions at bars and especially school. in school they basically say it is genetic with a mix of personal enviroment and is kind of like a fetish. i tried yahooing edgar cayce to see if he had any thoughts about this subject i couldn't find it. although i do not judge people i am not a big fan of homosexuality. it just doesn't resonate with my heart anyone have any thoughts or opinions on this ?

[Bletlemof]

i don't know anything if cayce or dw has written about this subject at all, but there is a danish writer/philosopher named "martinus" (1891-1981) who actually write about this subject. he means that we (all lifeforms) develop through our experiences towards a more understanding and loving state of conciousness that we begin to near ourselves to people of the same sex and that our feminine and masculine poles are going to melt into one... or something like that. a little bit hard to explain in another language like this.. (and my apologies if this is a off topic in this forum?) but in short it's about "our growing capacity of love will include all living beings".