Session 18 May 2019

[Pierre]

It is safe to conclude that Christianity is a target of attempts to destroy and silence it. At the moment it is hard to see how that is going to change. One can always hope the spirit of Christianity will survive in some form.

I hope so too. What we are doing here might be one of the ways that helps the spirit of Christianity to survive.

What I realized since this last session is that the attempt to destroy Christianity: the burial of Julius Caesar legacy, the distortion of Paul teaching, the positive spinning of the Templars story, the birth of Protestantism, the rise of the secular religion, etc. are only part of larger drama/opposition.

This opposition was there before Christianity, it is mentioned by the Cs, Paul, Marcion: it is law vs. love. It was already at the core of Zoroaster reforms 6,000 years ago, it was very probably at the core of the Son of the Law vs. the Sons of Belial (alluded by Cayce) in Atlantean times.

This law vs. love duality is so lasting because it is a close reflection of the STO vs. STS dual nature of the Universe, OSIT.

 

[Courageous Inmate Sort]

This opposition was there before Christianity, it is mentioned by the Cs, Paul, Marcion: it is law vs. love. It was already at the core of Zoroaster reforms 6,000 years ago, it was very probably at the core of the Son of the Law vs. the Sons of Belial (alluded by Cayce) in Atlantean times.

This law vs. love duality is so lasting because it is a close reflection of the STO vs. STS dual nature of the Universe, OSIT.

That is tremendously interesting. Would you mind fleshing out your thoughts on the law vs. love duality?

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

That is tremendously interesting. Would you mind fleshing out your thoughts on the law vs. love duality?

Seconded! I think it's a fascinating topic. I think Jordan Peterson touches upon that by stressing responsibility and meaning as virtues to strive for. You take responsibility for your life, for your actions, and towards society at large. Meaning is developed through being of service and developing towards something higher than you are at present, because all of that effort is meaningful and important. And why? Because of love. Without love what would be the point of anything? With love you feel there is something worth serving within yourself and others, and something to strive for together.

The converse would be nihilism, postmodernism, Darwinism, etc. It takes love, meaning, responsibility, and any real striving away. Then you just have pure mechanical "rules and regulations" for their own sake. We become aimless machines with no higher purpose or direction except one arbitrarily chosen for us and inscribed into law like a computer program. What good is order or chaos without a meaningful direction? A group of ants sometimes gets confused and goes around in a circle til they all die. There is a lot of order, but no meaning. Order and chaos both exist to serve something higher - order allows an intelligent/efficient approach to be figured out, chaos shuffles things around if the order accidentally becomes too stifling or loses its ultimate direction.

So in that sense, I'd say without love there is no meaning to anything, order/chaos, law/lawlessness, none of that matters without a destiny to strive for. Conversely, when there is love and STO, order can be spontaneously created by collinearity and law can even be unnecessary in those cases. But at best, it should be in service to the direction chosen by love, and prevent its hindrance by nefarious forces or just simple mechanicalness.

 

[Pierre]

That is tremendously interesting. Would you mind fleshing out your thoughts on the law vs. love duality?

This duality is partly explained in some of Paul's letters in the New Testament. Laura would explain it way better than me because she has more knowledge of the NT in general and Paul's writings in particular. But I can give it an unperfected shot. Maybe the best explanation of this idea is to be found in Romans 13:8-10, where one can read:

8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

In the excerpt above, Paul presents love as superseding/supplanting the law. The law is not intrinsically bad but when one knows love he doesn't need the law any more because he has embraced a reality of a higher order.

For Paul, the law is fulfilled because it has become unnecessary for the one who acts according to love. In this sense, love is an alternative and more effective anchor than the law.

This change in alignment from the law to love implies that one's behavior ceases to be guided by outside factors but becomes part of the responsible individual who can now act in freedom without the external obligations of the law.

It is like growing from externally assisted childhood to free response-able adulthood.

Now, the context of Paul letters is very specific, he was addressing believers who were following the "Judaizers" whose religion was based on the law, hence the strong dichotomy between love and the law. However, I think that Paul's message has a truly universal relevance. It was true at the birth of Christianity like it is today.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Now, the context of Paul letters is very specific, he was addressing believers who were following the "Judaizers" whose religion was based on the law, hence the strong dichotomy between love and the law. However, I think that Paul's message has a truly universal relevance. It was true at the birth of Christianity like it is today.

Yep, when Paul was writing, he was talking about the law as Torah. But like you say, it's universal. One of the main points of his criticism of the Jewish law was that it was like a schoolmaster enforcing "good behavior". But schoolchildren just follow rules; they haven't internalized the principles or values that inspire those rules. Like we learned from the endo and exo-skeleton concept, OPs, etc, there are some who probably cannot internalize those values - they will always need rules. But for anyone with the seed of a soul, that should be the goal: to make our convictions active with love. In TPD terms, it's the difference between second factor (socialization) and third factor (self-directed). And in Covey's 7-habits terms, it's the development from dependence to independence - rejecting socialization in order to be your own person with your own self-developed values. After which comes interdependence, which is Paul's idea of the church or assembly: the place in which to actually practice love.

So the principles apply everywhere there are rules or laws governing behavior. They may serve their purpose, but anyone "in Christ" is above the law, because they have it written on their hearts, not imposed from outside.

 

[Pierre]

So the principles apply everywhere there are rules or laws governing behavior. They may serve their purpose, but anyone "in Christ" is above the law, because they have it written on their hearts, not imposed from outside.

In some places, Paul is even more antagonistic towards the law, presenting the law not only as a lower principle relative to love but as an impediment on the way towards love:

What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.

Romans 7:7-25

In Paul's cosmogony, "life" also equates "faith" (in love in Christ). With that in mind, it seems that, for Paul, it is the law that creates sin and kills the faith.

Although it appears counter-intuitive (law is supposed to encourage virtue and prevent sin). Upon further inspection, it might makes sense. A believer who applies moral laws might conclude about is own goodness, although, he merely applies arbitrary laws that restrict his morality to the material sphere (hygiene, cleanliness).

Furthermore, he applies those arbitrary moral laws not for the sake of goodness but for his own interest, i.e. to prevent the punishments from the angry god.

This self-satisfaction in the application of arbitrary laws focusing on materiality might indeed be an impediment on the way to faith (in love).

After all, why the one who is righteous in the application of materialistic laws would even consider remote spiritual things like faith (in love)? Why would the one convinced that he is chosen and protected by the righteous god even consider love?

 

[Bluegazer]

So in that sense, I'd say without love there is no meaning to anything, order/chaos, law/lawlessness, none of that matters without a destiny to strive for. Conversely, when there is love and STO, order can be spontaneously created by collinearity and law can even be unnecessary in those cases.

I agree And it occurs to me that by virtue of STO following a tendency to be organized in a natural and organic way, in balance and harmony you follow the laws of creation and therefore you are living law.

 

[Glenn]

The converse would be nihilism, postmodernism, Darwinism, etc. It takes love, meaning, responsibility, and any real striving away. Then you just have pure mechanical "rules and regulations" for their own sake. We become aimless machines with no higher purpose or direction except one arbitrarily chosen for us and inscribed into law like a computer program.

Very well put.

I think people are designed to strive for a higher purpose, and this is exploited, like you say, with substituting spiritual goals or life, with the strictly material. It is like creating a vacuum, and then filling that vacuum with false ideas, and beliefs. So those seeing all the injustices of the world, can be lead by false prophets, and false institutions. Like the LGBT agenda, climate change, racism, etc.

 

[genero81]

Although it appears counter-intuitive (law is supposed to encourage virtue and prevent sin). Upon further inspection, it might makes sense. A believer who applies moral laws might conclude about his own goodness, although, he merely applies arbitrary laws that restrict his morality to the material sphere (hygiene, cleanliness).

Furthermore, he applies those arbitrary moral laws not for the sake of goodness but for his own interest, i.e. to prevent the punishments from the angry god.

This self-satisfaction in the application of arbitrary laws focusing on materiality might indeed be an impediment on the way to faith (in love).

After all, why the one who is righteous in the application of materialistic laws would even consider remote spiritual things like faith (in love)? Why would the one convinced that he is chosen and protected by the righteous god even consider love?

I love this discussion because I think it really gets to the crux of the matter in regards to the higher development potential in man.

I think people are designed to strive for a higher purpose, and this is exploited, like you say, with substituting spiritual goals or life, with the strictly material.

And so here is a quote from 'Fear and Trembling'

Resignation does not require faith, for what I win in resignation is my eternal consciousness, and that is a purely philosophical movement, which I venture upon when necessary, and which I can discipline myself into doing, for every time something finite out-distances me I starve myself until I make the movement; for my eternal consciousness is my love of God, and for me that is higher than anything. Resignation does not require faith, but it requires faith to get the slightest more than my eternal consciousness, for that [more] is the paradox. The movements are often confused. It is said that faith is needed in order to renounce everything; yes, even more strangely one hears people complain that they have lost faith and on consulting the scale to see where they are, we find curiously enough that they have come no further than the point where they should be making the infinite movement of resignation. Through resignation I renounce everything, this movement is one I do by myself, and when I do not do it that is because I am cowardly and weak and lack the enthusiasm and have no sense of the importance of the high dignity afforded to every human being, to be his own censor, a dignity greater by far than to be Censor General for the whole Roman Republic. This movement is one that I make by myself, so what I win is myself in my eternal consciousness, in a blessed compliance with my love for the eternal being. Through faith I don’t renounce anything, on the contrary in faith I receive everything, exactly in the way it is said that one whose faith is like a mustard seed can move mountains.49 It takes a purely human courage to renounce the whole of temporality in order to win eternity, but I do indeed win it and cannot in all eternity renounce that, for that would be a self-contradiction; but it takes a paradoxical and humble courage then to grasp the whole of temporality on the strength of the absurd, and that courage is the courage of faith.

Kierkegaard, Soren. Fear and Trembling (Classics) . Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

 

[Courageous Inmate Sort]

Thank you for replying, Pierre. Your first point, together with Approaching Infinity's comment, was pretty clear and makes sense to me. I'm still puzzling over the second one though.

I can see how self-satisfaction is an impediment but it seems that it could also arise from factors other than the external law. I can envision someone acting in love and even then having to struggle with the issue of self-satisfaction as in "feeling good for doing good". But then love is a difficult concept, for me at least.

After all, why the one who is righteous in the application of materialistic laws would even consider remote spiritual things like faith (in love)? Why would the one convinced that he is chosen and protected by the righteous god even consider love?

I've been scratching my head over these lines. Trying to make sense of it I read it as: why would the exo-skeleton user have any interest in developing an endo-skeleton? Thinking in these terms I'd concur that there would be no interest until one is no longer satisfied with the attributes of the exo-skeleton.

 

[genero81]

I've been scratching my head over these lines. Trying to make sense of it I read it as: why would the exo-skeleton user have any interest in developing an endo-skeleton? Thinking in these terms I'd concur that there would be no interest until one is no longer satisfied with the attributes of the exo-skeleton.

Why would the kid who's been riding a bike with training wheels decide to get rid of those training wheels? Because of the increased mobility and freedom of movement despite the inherent risk involved. OSIT

 

[Courageous Inmate Sort]

Why would the kid who's been riding a bike with training wheels decide to get rid of those training wheels? Because of the increased mobility and freedom of movement despite the inherent risk involved. OSIT

I was thinking more in the lines of negating or substituting the law/social norms in favor of inner/higher principles because one sees the faults in these external structures and can no longer abide by them. But I like your view as it seems more positive instead of exclusionary. In any case, I have difficulty seeing the law/training wheels as an impediment unless one is convinced there is no better option.

 

[goyacobol]

In a sense I think maybe these discussions on Christianity are very important. If we consider that "life is religion" and most of the religions (even current Christianity) have been corrupted/distorted maybe our aim needs to be higher.

Session 30 May 2009:

Q: (L) What's next?

A: How about "Paleochristianity"?

Q: (laughter) (L) Well since you brought it up... (J) You should respond with, "Now that's an interesting question!" (laughter) (L) What do you mean by Paleochristianity? (laughter) (L) Would you define Paleochristianity for us?

A: The knowledge of realms that all men comprehended before the "fall".

Q: (L) Why is it called Christianity? Isn't Christianity strictly related to Christianity as we know it?

A: Oh no! The word was co-opted and everything you know of as Christianity is distorted. For example, the earliest "Christ" was a woman.

Q: (L) Okay. Were the Bogomils and the Cathars - as I have surmised - close to understanding this original reality?

A: They had some very close approximations, but they were still influenced by many of the distorted religious ideas of the time.

Q: (L) Okay, what is the importance of Paleochristianity?

A: The only hope for the survival of your realm and species.

Q: (L) In what sense do you mean that?

A: Unification of aim: survival and avoidance of the destruction hanging over your heads as a consequence of the machinations of psychopathy.

Q: (L) So in other words, some of the thoughts and discussions that we've had over the past week or two {about the global situation} are pretty much on the money?

A: Yes. More or less. There has also been some nudging from this side. Time is getting "short" even though there really is no time. Remember what we said about being wise as serpents and gentle as doves.

 

[Bluegazer]

It occurs to me that if it were not for such laws, the organic portals would have created a completely excessive disaster. It is obvious that any law has them without care, but being in society and characterized by their ability to mimic, laws as programs keep them in certain margins, and allows individuals with a soul to have a tool with which to defend themselves.

 

[goyacobol]

It occurs to me that if it were not for such laws, the organic portals would have created a completely excessive disaster. It is obvious that any law has them without care, but being in society and characterized by their ability to mimic, laws as programs keep them in certain margins, and allows individuals with a soul to have a tool with which to defend themselves.

OPs and souled individuals are very difficult to distinguish. Do some OPs have more awareness than others (even if just mimicking)? I think it may be possible but I can't prove it since it is even difficult to know who is an OP and who has a soul. I don't know if they always need to be in "certain margins" but if they are being a threat in some way then our awareness of the threat would probably be a good idea. But, that could apply to a souled entity meaning harm to another as well I think.

Can you spot the organic portal?...
Session 18 May 2019:

Q: Mouravieff says that the "pre-Adamic" humans do not have the higher centers, nor the possibility of developing them in this cycle - which we assume to be the Grand Cycle you have previously described, the length of which is around 300,000 years. Is this an accurate representation of "pre-Adamic" beings?

A: Yes, they are "organic" portals between levels of density.

Q: Based on what Mouravieff has said, it seems to be so that any efforts to try to raise the consciousness of such individuals is doomed to fail.

A: Pretty much. Most of them are very efficient machines. The ones that you have identified as psychopaths are "failures." The best ones cannot be discerned except by long and careful observation.

Q: (V) Have I, or anyone in this room, ever encountered any, and if so, can you give us an example for reference?

A: If you consider that the population is equally distributed, then you will understand that in an ordinary "souled" person's life, that person will encounter half as many organic portals as souled individuals. BUT, when someone is in the process of "growing" and strengthening the soul, the Control System will seek to insert even more "units" into that person's life. Now, think of all the people you have ever met and particularly those with whom you have been, or are, intimate. Which half of this number would YOU designate as being organic portals? Hard to tell, eh?

Even karmic "laws" are not always an assured protection according to the following session.

Session 30 August 2009:

Q: (Scottie) That was really bad... (Ark) Well, I'm not sure if I really understand what I want to ask. I understand that there were many factors that came together. But question is if such an end was somehow written in her karma? (Joe) Did she choose? You know, other sources always talk about people choosing to die - at some level there's a choice made. Is that the case here?

A: Too much credibility is given to the idea of "karma". Anybody can be "taken out" if their awareness is not sufficient to the situation. But as is the case, it follows the general rules of 3D reality. 4D STS can maneuver through agents mainly, environment, and that sort of thing.

Q: (L) So in other words, there are rules to the game, and her awareness just wasn't quite there yet. And there was also probably the block to her awareness due to the fact that she had not sincerely revealed things to everyone. I think that when a group of people are connected together that their mutual awareness is greater than the sum of its parts. (To Ark) Like you and I with our eyes open together and all of us here and the way we share and network. It increases the awareness, and she was still somewhat separated from that network because of this barrier that she hadn't come clean with everybody about everything. And I think it probably was working on her mind that she had information that she could have given everyone, and she probably struggled with it because everybody has a program about, "Well, I gave my word, have to keep a confidence, blah blah blah." And then she probably got to the point where she was willing to realize that she gave her word under manipulative conditions and it wasn't worth anything, and now was the time to take that final step of sincerity - in which case then she would have been completely connected into the network, and would have had the protection of networked awareness.


(Ark) So, in other words, if you decide to get faster car, you must also learn how to drive it.

(L) And also the thing about the dog being used as bait: I mean, maybe they weren't able to directly affect her mind with some of their beaming activities or their oppressive activities or the energies being transmitted, but maybe they could act on the dog so he became paralyzed on those train tracks, and she was trying to get him off, and he just simply wouldn't move, and she was completely occupied with that. (Joe) Was she in any way messed with psychologically to force dissociation or something to cause the accident, or was it just like you said?

A: Not exactly. But you can understand that she did have a great distracting mental burden. That was enough.