How did you build trust in Cassiopaea?

[ImaPrototype]

That is false.

Turning the other cheek stops nothing.

The demonic person (billions around us) cares nothing about you. Zero.

And nothing will ever stop them, nor will they ever do anything except whatever their programming is and gives them pleasure.

His only restraint is the knowledge of the possible social consequences, but the truly demonic person will go ahead anyway.

If you are a victim, turning the other cheek will remain a victim forever, unless you/we change the dynamic.

And it doesn't necessarily mean violent action, in fact, facing demons without violence is a highly complicated art.

But it can be done, although I think it entails accepting a personal sacrifice, which might appear to turn the other cheek.

But is not.

In fact, it is not at all.

good summing up sir

also IIRC from Malachi Martin's book the "love those who maltreat you" is one of the basic tenets of those in the lower STS hierarchy, it's a trap ultimately.

 

[BHelmet]

also IIRC from Malachi Martin's book the "love those who maltreat you" is one of the basic tenets of those in the lower STS hierarchy, it's a trap ultimately.

It all depends how you define "love" and the many possible expressions of love which might be quite different from love as being a gooshy feeling. Same goes with "turning the other cheek". Love doesn't have to always and only mean warm feelings of affection. eg, Recall the old 'joke' "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" right before you kick their ass. ("for their own good"!) It is a crazy mixed up world in which interpretation epends upon the level of understanding and, ultimately, your relationship with yourself/the creator. Or something like that.

 

[lindrie]

What really convinced you? How did you decide that what is described here might be true?

For me, I was already 90% there. Finding this forum, was the last piece of the puzzle, so to speak, that was the final link I was missing to make sense of everything I had came across in a variety of topics. And the best part, no one was trying to convince me of anything, per say. Links and sources are provided, I can make my own decision by reading for myself what they had also read/watched.

and how did a bond of trust develop?

Its not so much that I trust the C's, but I trust the work Laura has done. It was her work ethic, the way that she approached learning and presenting information, that I trusted. I actually didn't come across the "channeling" portion until I started reading The Wave Series. If I had seen the channeling first, I probably would not be here. Channeling never appealed to me, it seemed more like a parlor trick. My thoughts on this have since changed. In fact, her approach to it also was the first time it ever made sense to me! To me, the name is quite fitting, The Cassiopaean Experiment. If an experiment is getting positive results, why stop? Keep going! What else can be discovered along the way?

Other than that, what would you like to say to scientific skeptics? What has been added to the knowledge base for those who think they really learned a lot from this text?

Either they're not real scientist or they haven't done their research. And this would be for skeptics that immediate discard it, those that don't even want to think about it. Healthy skepticism is always good. It helps to have a second pair of eyes to help validate.

If you've ever had to write/read a scientific research paper, one of the main portions of it is reproducibility. There has to be enough information that another lab can reproduce the same experiment then, theoretically, they'll get the same or similar results. There is definitely enough information provided that one can theoretically attempt the same channeling approach that Laura has taken. However, whether someone is actually willing to do the work and all the hardship that comes with it I'm sure you wont find a lot of volunteers.

In a way, we all on this forum are taking on the Work. We're all here to be better version of ourselves (or so I would like to think). This forum has brought to my attention many things I probably would not have even thought about.

 

[ImaPrototype]

It all depends how you define "love" and the many possible expressions of love which might be quite different from love as being a gooshy feeling. Same goes with "turning the other cheek". Love doesn't have to always and only mean warm feelings of affection. eg, Recall the old 'joke' "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" right before you kick their ass. ("for their own good"!) It is a crazy mixed up world in which interpretation epends upon the level of understanding and, ultimately, your relationship with yourself/the creator. Or something like that.

true, i think the exact term used was "be good" in the context of being punished by the "masters"
what you're thinking relates to mirroring when very often we have to choose between aggreableness or truth, which as you stated depends on the understanding of both parts
now if love is truth is knowledge then turning the other cheek is more like aggreableness

 

[Alejo]

true, i think the exact term used was "be good" in the context of being punished by the "masters"
what you're thinking relates to mirroring when very often we have to choose between aggreableness or truth, which as you stated depends on the understanding of both parts
now if love is truth is knowledge then turning the other cheek is more like aggreableness

Or you love them, that is know them, the way you would a mosquito, or a dangerous spider. I know you, and because I do, I won't let you hurt me, I will avoid you, and if need be, push back. The truth of a poisonous snake, or spider, or a mosquito is that they will feed on you if you let them, and you may accept their existence and the condition of it, but not to the point of allowing them to turn you into their food, because that denies your own existence and your own nature of self preservation.

my two cents in here.

 

[Alejo]

dear happy poo, thank you for your extensive message. you said it in a way i can fully subscibe, and which confirms my own insights. yes, the cass are a very comforting phenomenon, and this was also a reason for my strong reaction to their affirmation about the shroud. honestly, i always look forward to the next session while trying to lead the most honest life possible. my model remains christ and not the power games held in his name. and even should the evangile be a master piece to keep the populace subdued, i still resonate to the saying of presenting the other cheek. and to so many other gems in there. and i thank laura for having made all this possible.

Just curious, have you had a chance to read From Paul to Mark? I think it may deepen your understanding of Christ. So much went on at the time, power plays, political and religious, and since that time till now, that the figure of Jesus is fascinating to understand.. and that book probably has the most comprehensive path in that direction.

 

[kenlee]

Amen.

Something very difficult to achieve.

On the other hand, when it comes to turning the other cheek, the matter is quite complex.

Why does a person do that? The intention in said act is important. Do we help someone? Do we do it by programming? Because it makes us feel good?

Now, in this matter you are not turning the other cheek very much, you are quite stubborn.

Actually I am too.

This is so true. I'm stubborn also! Turning the other cheek is indeed difficult to achieve. But it doesn't mean 'not fighting' if there is no other choice.

Bruce Lee called it the "the art of fighting without fighting." I don't think even he was able to achieve such a state but I think it was a state he aspired too. Imo, It would take a very high level of Being to achieve such a state of 'turning the other cheek'. That is, it's 'Being Able' to act fom a very high level of control and mastery of oneself so as to minimize violence and acting with a maximum of external consideration along with a minimum of internal consideration.

But it does not mean being passive when the situation calls for being active and being active when the situation calls for being passive. It's having the 'Ableness' to make the proper choices in any given situation without being controlled by emotions and instant reactions. It's a tall order for anyone for sure! But it's an ideal to work towards. It's all about internal mastery, inner calm and not acting from fear

Example:

Note how the guy in the white hair (probably a martial arts master) acted to minimize confrontation based on a choice and not from egotistical emotional reactions but he would be more then ready and able to fight if he was attacked. Before, during and after the potential deadly situation his mind was calm enough to play a game of chess. As I said that's a tall order for anyone for sure. But in my mind that would be turning the other cheek because he has the 'Ableness' to do so.

I remember Theodore Illion saying in the book 'Darkness Over Tibet' :

"Real understanding in spiritual matters is the result of much bitter fighting, of suffering, spiritual agony and soul passion. Life itself would have no meaning if there was no fighting on all planes, if all was smooth and monotonous. Everything fights in nature. Every plant fights to get more sunshine, every animal fights for food; the angels themselves fight. Constant struggle on all planes to which it has access is the birthright of the creature. Woe to him who wants to put himself on a level with the Creator and escape fighting!”

 

[heinrich]

Just curious, have you had a chance to read From Paul to Mark? I think it may deepen your understanding of Christ. So much went on at the time, power plays, political and religious, and since that time till now, that the figure of Jesus is fascinating to understand.. and that book probably has the most comprehensive path in that direction.

thank you. but my concern was the fact that the cass made an incomprehensible answer to a precise question. i am aware of the confusion surrounding the invention of christianity.

 

[verdad]

thank you. but my concern was the fact that the cass made an incomprehensible answer to a precise question. i am aware of the confusion surrounding the invention of christianity.

And if the Cs told her it was Julius Caesar why did Laura have that suspicion and belief ingrained as a possibility? besides if in 7 density it is the union with the one the cosmic consciousness could occlude to the Cs the issue of Jesus so they would see it that way since in 7 density everything is possible like making a jesus similar to the one they say exists with all powers and help....

 

[Wandering Star]

This is so true. I'm stubborn also! Turning the other cheek is indeed difficult to achieve. But it doesn't mean 'not fighting' if there is no other choice.

Bruce Lee called it the "the art of fighting without fighting." I don't think even he was able to achieve such a state but I think it was a state he aspired to. Imo, It would take a very high level of Being to achieve such a state of 'turning the other cheek'. That is, it's 'Being Able' to act fom a very high level of control and mastery of oneself so as to minimize violence and acting with a maximum of external consideration along with a minimum of internal consideration.

But it does not mean being passive when the situation calls for being active and being active when the situation calls for being passive. It's having the 'Ableness' to make the proper choices in any given situation without being controlled by emotions and instant reactions. It's a tall order for anyone for sure! But it's an ideal to work towards. It's all about internal mastery, inner calm and not acting from fear

Example:

Note how the guy in the white hair (probably a martial arts master) acted to minimize confrontation based on a choice and not from egotistical emotional reactions but he would be more then ready and able to fight if he was attacked. Before, during and after the potential deadly situation his mind was calm enough to play a game of chess. As I said that's a tall order for anyone for sure. But in my mind that would be turning the other cheek because he has the 'Ableness' to do so.

I remember Theodore Illion saying in the book 'Darkness Over Tibet' :

"Real understanding in spiritual matters is the result of much bitter fighting, of suffering, spiritual agony and soul passion. Life itself would have no meaning if there was no fighting on all planes, if all was smooth and monotonous. Everything fights in nature. Every plant fights to get more sunshine, every animal fights for food; the angels themselves fight. Constant struggle on all planes to which it has access is the birthright of the creature. Woe to him who wants to put himself on a level with the Creator and escape fighting!”

I think that is the most accurate that can be said with words.

The action is only called for what is necessary to maintain balance. And the action stops at the exact moment it is achieved. And while the action is not necessary, the person is prepared in an explosive wait or stillness. Quiet, but prepared.

To an external observer it will seem that someone has turned the other cheek or is a victim, but that action has been exactly measured by the person who suffers it, since with it they achieve a more harmonious or positive result, of all the possible ones in that action or dynamic in which it is involved.

Words are poor to clearly define the concept, but you have come very close.

 

[Wandering Star]

That is, it's 'Being Able' to act fom a very high level of control and mastery of oneself so as to minimize violence and acting with a maximum of external consideration along with a minimum of internal consideration.

I would say that this phrase of yours would be in a painting in the entrance of Yoda's house.

If there is a path to Yedai, this is it without a doubt.

 

[ImaPrototype]

Or you love them, that is know them, the way you would a mosquito, or a dangerous spider. I know you, and because I do, I won't let you hurt me, I will avoid you, and if need be, push back. The truth of a poisonous snake, or spider, or a mosquito is that they will feed on you if you let them, and you may accept their existence and the condition of it, but not to the point of allowing them to turn you into their food, because that denies your own existence and your own nature of self preservation.

my two cents in here.

yeah, more or less what was meant without getting philosophical

 

[gottathink]

thank you. but my concern was the fact that the cass made an incomprehensible answer to a precise question. i am aware of the confusion surrounding the invention of christianity.

However to have valid answers the question itself needs to be well formulated.
Formulating answerable questions is something that takes understanding, to a reasonable level, the topic being explored (so that the knowledge gaps can be identified) and then practice formulating answerable questions.

Otherwise, one can end up question begging (making assumptions before the question is asked) or excluding the middle (the option of the actual truth is diverted by the questions formulation).
In other words, the question is so poorly posed it is not even wrong.

 

[Laura]

i agree with you. but the question of why the cass gave a reply in contradiction with established facts as documented in bibleetnombres remains. i see no benefit in giving a wrong answer and i am still perplexed.

As others have said, read "From Paul to Mark" before you even continue to wonder.

Just a few items from the Wikipedia article on the topic: Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia

The shroud's authenticity as a holy relic has been disputed even within the Catholic Church, and radiocarbon dating has shown it to be a medieval artifact.

The microscopist Walter McCrone found, based on his examination of samples taken in 1978 from the surface of the shroud using adhesive tape, that the image on the shroud had been painted with a dilute solution of red ochre pigment in a gelatin medium. McCrone found that the apparent bloodstains were painted with vermilion pigment, also in a gelatin medium. (McCrone, Walter C. (1990). "The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist's Pigment?") http://www.mccroneinstitute.org/uploads/the_microscope__shroud_small-1422560933.pdf

In 1988, radiocarbon dating by three different laboratories established that the shroud's linen material was produced between the years 1260 and 1390 (to a 95% confidence level). Radiocarbon dating the Shroud of Turnin https://escholarship.org/content/qt6x77r7m1/qt6x77r7m1.pdf?t=nus03r and Nicolotti, Andrea (2019). The Shroud of Turin: The History and Legends of the World's Most Famous Relic. Translated by Jeffrey M. Hunt and R. A. Smith. Baylor University Press.

 

[heinrich]

As others have said, read "From Paul to Mark" before you even continue to wonder.

Just a few items from the Wikipedia article on the topic: Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia

dear laura, thank you. i have provided two references with more recent evidence:
- the book by pierre milliez, 2022
- the article in bibleetnombres, the most recent being from 2018. this one is of great interest...