Strange reply to question about infamous Susan Smith murders...

[BlueKiwi]

The C's have also mentioned that the information can be affected depending on prejudices

A: You would not have been able to receive. When you ask a question with strong prejudice, we cannot violate your will to believe.

 

[Quadriad]

The C's have also mentioned that the information can be affected depending on prejudices

So, basically, unless you are sort of infinitely red pilled to begin with, and always spiritually wide open to all sorts of inhumane attrocity that the reality of our 3d STS existence might throw at us (and, who the heck really fulfills both those requirements), maybe still consider not even trying to channel no matter how talented and good intentioned you are, because... to quote a Sorkin classic ... Lt. Kaffee: "I WANT THE TRUTH!" Col. Jessep: "You can't handle the truth!"

 

[Jones]

@Quadriad, that reasoning can be applied to a whole lot of different but related things. For example, spiritism, using mind altering substances etc.

 

[Quadriad]

@Quadriad, that reasoning can be applied to a whole lot of different but related things. For example, spiritism, using mind altering substances etc.

Getting married? (Okay, some won't find that funny at all)

 

[T.C.]

So, basically, unless you are sort of infinitely red pilled to begin with, and always spiritually wide open to all sorts of inhumane attrocity that the reality of our 3d STS existence might throw at us (and, who the heck really fulfills both those requirements), maybe still consider not even trying to channel no matter how talented and good intentioned you are, because... to quote a Sorkin classic ... Lt. Kaffee: "I WANT THE TRUTH!" Col. Jessep: "You can't handle the truth!"

Yes. Exactly.

Channeling has got nothing to do with “talent” or “good intentions”, unless you’re just doing it for a thrill.

But all of this is explained in excruciating detail in Laura’s The Wave.

 

[Nienna]

An accurate reply would lend credence to the authenticity of the channel, while one that misses lessens the belief....which one is more beneficial?

The Cs have had something to say about people wanting proof of what they are saying is accurate:

Q: (L) Mike Lindeman has proposed that we submit the channeling to 'rigorous testing.'

A: Mike Lindemann does not channel, now does he? What sort of rigorous testing does he propose?

Q: (L) He didn't say. I guess they want short-term predictions and all sorts of little tests...

A: Precisely, now what does this tell you?

Q: It tells us that he wants proof.

A: Third density "proof" does not apply, as we have explained again and again. Now, listen very carefully: if proof of that type were possible, what do you suppose would happen to free will, and thusly to learning, Karmic Directive Level One?

Q: (L) Well, I guess that if there is proof, you are believing in the proof and not the spirit of the thing. You are placing your reliance upon a material thing. You have lost your free will. Someone has violated your free will by the act of PROVING something to you.

A: If anyone CHOOSES to believe, that is their prerogative!

Q: (PZ) {unintelligible but sarcastic sounding remark}

A: You did not completely understand the previous response, Pat. And what would constitute proof?

Q: (L) Predictions that came true, answers that were verifiable about a number of things.

A: Those would still be dismissed by a great many as mere coincidences. We have already given predictions, will continue to do so, but, remember, "time" does not exist. This is a 3rd density illusion. We don not play in that sandbox and cannot and never will. The primary reason for our communication is to help you to learn by teaching yourselves to learn, thereby strengthening your soul energy, and assisting your advancement.

Q: (L) Are you saying that your primary reason is just to teach us? This small group?

A: Because you asked for help.

 

[FM258]

The C's have also mentioned that the information can be affected depending on prejudices

Yes, thank you....perfect....and Laura has confirmed this...and makes perfect sense. My mind is now at ease, before it was conflicted. I am still very new to this and learning will continue at a snails pace.

 

[FM258]

The Cs have had something to say about people wanting proof of what they are saying is accurate:

I don't think its unreasonable for people wanting to know the authenticity based on factual and accurate responses.

If you ask me questions, and I give you inaccurate answers, you will most likely not believe what I have to say very soon. Nothing unnatural about it.

If the only replies you get from me cant be confirmed, do you just trust everything I say is true?

Hope I am not coming across as argumentative, that is not my intention.

 

[BlueKiwi]

I don't think its unreasonable for people wanting to know the authenticity based on factual and accurate responses.

If you ask me questions, and I give you inaccurate answers, you will most likely not believe what I have to say very soon. Nothing unnatural about it.

If the only replies you get from me cant be confirmed, do you just trust everything I say is true?

Hope I am not coming across as argumentative, that is not my intention.

I think somethimes the C's have to shape their answers in such a way as to not violate the free will of anyone, or
give information which would be dangerous to anyone (at that time)

Sometimes the level of detail they give is vague enough to not endanger anyone, but an awnswer nonetheless, or it's a hint that we need to use our minds to learn the information ourselves, otherwise we wouldn't learn anything.

 

[T.C.]

Hope I am not coming across as argumentative, that is not my intention.

No, you’re not coming across as argumentative. The point you’re making is easy enough to understand, and it is an important one too, in my opinion.

If the C’s give blatantly inaccurate information about one thing, then how can I trust what they say about something else?

If we take your example, where you ask why I should trust you if you tell me lies, then the answer is that I probably shouldn’t.

But we’re not talking about a conversation with you. We’re talking about an experiment in superluminal communication with 6th density service to others thought centres.

Can you see how different the two types of interactions are? How we need to approach a conversation with people differently to how we approach communication with the C’s?

Imagine it’s a thousand years ago and Laura is a budding astronomer. She has a hypothesis, that something moving in the sky at night is different to what we normally think of as a star. She imagines a method of finding this out and, after studying the science of optics for many years, decides that she needs to build a special kind of apparatus that will use lenses and mirrors in a tube, to magnify and focus the light coming from this object.

She makes her first prototype of this tube, this telescope. She polishes and shapes the lenses and mirrors herself, fits them into the tube and points it at the object. She sees the planet Jupiter, but the planet looks strange. It’s not a perfectly round ball with clear and differentiated patterns on its surface. It’s actually more like a fuzzy blob, and it appears to have rings and lots of black spots all over it.

Well, it turns out that as she was building the telescope, she touched the lense and got a thumb print on it. Also, there were microscopic grains of glass left on the surface. So the instrument gave an inaccurate image of the planet.

Do the shortcomings or flaws in her method of building this first, prototype telescope lead us to believe that the planet Jupiter doesn’t exist (a lie), or has rings (another lie), or is actually a fuzzy blob (another lie), or is covered in black spots (another lie)? Should we conclude that telescopes don’t work or that you can just never trust them because the information you received from it was not very accurate, and just give up?

Or should we actually see the experiment as successful in that it did verify that something objective exists in the area of the sky where Laura pointed the telescope, and rather than quit the experiment, further refine the method and the construction of the apparatus to try to see this object more clearly?

If you think the telescope analogy is too far removed from the Cassiopaean Experiment, consider what Gurdjieff said in Life is Real when he vowed not to use his powers of suggestion and hypnosis for selfish reasons any more. He gave two exceptions to this vow.

1) The attempt to cure cancer through the power of suggestion.

And:

2) Increasing the visibility of distant cosmic centres many thousands of times via the use of a medium.

Think about it, and then look again at your point about lies and inaccurate information gathered during a conversation, vs. information gathered during a scientific experiment.

See the difference?

 

[Jones]

I don't think its unreasonable for people wanting to know the authenticity based on factual and accurate responses.

If you ask me questions, and I give you inaccurate answers, you will most likely not believe what I have to say very soon. Nothing unnatural about it.

If the only replies you get from me cant be confirmed, do you just trust everything I say is true?

Hope I am not coming across as argumentative, that is not my intention.

Maybe this example will help. If a 5 year old asks a question about a complex concept, even though you might want to answer truthfully, you may also know that the 5 year old doesn't have either the cognitive abilities to understand or fully grasp the concept nor the emotional ability to cope with the reality of the answer right now so it might be counterproductive to their development to give them too much information too soon. So you might give a simple answer that doesn't address the complexity of the issue, but maybe satisfies their curiosity for now and the question can be answered differently if that same child raises it again when they are older and better able to cope. In this instance, you haven't been totally honest with the 5 year old because you have withheld some information so you answer isn't totally accurate, but you also haven't harmed them.

For all we know, in comparison to the C's maybe we are just like curious 5 year olds.

 

[Wandering Star]

For all we know, in comparison to the C's maybe we are just like curious 5 year olds.

No, you are babies and only the most advanced of you.

The rest of us have just been born.

 

[Joe]

For all we know, in comparison to the C's maybe we are just like curious 5 year olds.

That's pretty much the way they're related to us from the get-go. Often opening with "hello children".