Law of One

[Carrikature]

This is directed mainly at Eeset, since as far as I'm aware she's the only one on these forums that follows the Law of One. Others are, of course, welcome to weigh in as well.

From what I understand, the Law of One comes primarily from The Ra Material. I'm curious as to what prompted Don Elkins to begin his research into this area. I'm also interested in how you came across this and what convinced you that it was true. I don't really have any specific questions at the moment because it's the first I've heard of the concept. Just curious. :smile:

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

Interesting. Your post here is the first time I have ever encountered the name Don Elkins. Before doing this response I did some web searches and found he died in 1984 and evidently was doing some channeling for an extended period of time. I will take a look at what I can find out of curiosity but whatever it is this will be my first encounter with that material.

As to your basic question, I hesitate to begin for I am not sure what would be helpful. You ask where the law of one comes from. Wow is that a tough question. All comes from the father. To grasp what I mean look to God when he responded to Moses with "I am that I am". Please remember that I really want to answer your curiosity in a meaningful way but I have little doubt that however I respond few will have the ears to hear. You probably want to know what my understanding of the law of one is and how I arrived at that understanding. I'm not sure whether to begin with some self biography or to simply set out for you what the law of one is and try my best to explain its functioning in this materiality.

I need to take care of a few other things right now and while I am doing those I will seek counsel from Jesus on the best or at least a meaningful way to proceed. I know the information I can provide can be helpful but it can also be viewed as heretical. I have no desire to joust with anyone's faith or knowledge. I doesn't matter to me whether people want to drink or would prefer to spit.

[Carrikature]

Interesting. Your post here is the first time I have ever encountered the name Don Elkins. Before doing this response I did some web searches and found he died in 1984 and evidently was doing some channeling for an extended period of time. I will take a look at what I can find out of curiosity but whatever it is this will be my first encounter with that material.

That's amusing. I just googled "Law of One" and the first thing that popped up was The Ra Material here (http://www.lawofone.info/). The main page mentions the three main people involved, that's where I got the name of Don Elkins.

As to your basic question, I hesitate to begin for I am not sure what would be helpful. You ask where the law of one comes from. Wow is that a tough question. All comes from the father. To grasp what I mean look to God when he responded to Moses with "I am that I am". Please remember that I really want to answer your curiosity in a meaningful way but I have little doubt that however I respond few will have the ears to hear. You probably want to know what my understanding of the law of one is and how I arrived at that understanding. I'm not sure whether to begin with some self biography or to simply set out for you what the law of one is and try my best to explain its functioning in this materiality.

All of the above I guess. Perhaps a good place to start would be a bit of self-bio, at least regarding how you came across this concept in the first place. Follow that with what the law of one is, and finish with your explanation of its functioning.

I need to take care of a few other things right now and while I am doing those I will seek counsel from Jesus on the best or at least a meaningful way to proceed. I know the information I can provide can be helpful but it can also be viewed as heretical. I have no desire to joust with anyone's faith or knowledge. I doesn't matter to me whether people want to drink or would prefer to spit.

Take your time, I'm in no hurry. I won't accuse you of being heretical, I can promise you that. I can't guarantee that I'll agree with everything either, though. Mostly, I'm just curious because I'd never heard about it before a week or so ago.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

Take your time, I'm in no hurry. I won't accuse you of being heretical, I can promise you that. I can't guarantee that I'll agree with everything either, though. Mostly, I'm just curious because I'd never heard about it before a week or so ago.
Thank you. I would not expect you to agree with me. One reality inherent in humanity is that understanding is acquired through experience. Words can impart knowledge but knowledge must be tempered in a person's own experiences of one sort or another to become understanding. That leads me to the first part of what I shall convey.

In beginning, let us focus on the experiences we find testified to in the Bible which for many people are but "tall tales". Jesus put it sort of this way when attempting to communicate in words to his disciples. I'll paraphrase....You do not believe my words but surely the works that I have done are experiences that have given you some level of understanding. He was speaking, of course, to the many miracles that his disciples had directly witnessed. Today, some 1976 years later, many people skim over such things as turning water into wine and calming a storm as some sort of fairy tale. When I asked him how to proceed in responding to you on the law of one he said tell them first to meditate on my works. I'm not sure why this should be the first focus but I have done as instructed. I have no second thing to convey yet.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

That's amusing. I just googled "Law of One" and the first thing that popped up was The Ra Material here (http://www.lawofone.info/). The main page mentions the three main people involved, that's where I got the name of Don Elkins.



All of the above I guess. Perhaps a good place to start would be a bit of self-bio, at least regarding how you came across this concept in the first place. Follow that with what the law of one is, and finish with your explanation of its functioning.



Take your time, I'm in no hurry. I won't accuse you of being heretical, I can promise you that. I can't guarantee that I'll agree with everything either, though. Mostly, I'm just curious because I'd never heard about it before a week or so ago.
OK Carrikature, I followed your link and discovered what I could about Don Elkins an then found an extensive series of texts purporting to be transcripts of channeling experiences taping into information from entities self describing as Ra. This was all new to me. There are 106 of these texts spanning the years 1981-1984. I have now read 31 of the 106. They are interesting.

You asked for a bit of self bio. I was raised in the Episcopal Church. That period spanned from baptism up until my eighteenth year. Throughout college and some subsequent decades I attended no specific church on a regular basis but on an infrequent basis went to services at Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopal and a number of other denominations. Most of these were in the manner of one or two visits typically at the invite of companions. During this time I read extensively on as many "religions" and spiritual disciplines as I could absorb within time constraints of other life activities. It has been my great pleasure to have traveled extensively to many foreign lands and meet many people in other cultures. I have traveled in Asia, Europe, South America, The middle east, Africa, Iceland and of course North America.

I returned to regular attendance at a Pentecostal church in 2007. I had been invited by a chance encounter with a stranger and first went to her church about a month later after receiving a direct verbal instruction to do so from Jesus. I doubt you will believe that last statement and quite frankly your perception of it is irrelevant to me.

As to my formal education, I have a masters degree (MBA). I hope that bio is both brief enough for you while at the same time extensive enough for you. I might add one additional thing. It has also been my honor and pleasure in this life to have known many very experienced everyday folks including many you would term homeless and destitute as well as some of the most powerful and elite of our globe.

My first encounter with the specific term "law of one" was in 1968 in a book about some of Edgar Cayce's life and his readings. I will assume that you know of him but possibly you do not. He died in 1945 before I was born and there are over 14,000 transcribed readings that he did primarily for assisting people with medical conditions. A small number of his readings (or seances if you prefer that term) dealt with other topics. In one of those he described the ancient and ongoing conflict in society between the "followers of the law of one" and the sons of Belial. The difference between the two philosophies is basically that of service to others versus service to self. Edgar Cayce was a deeply religious lifelong Christian. The reason he had all his readings taken down in shorthand and transcribed is simply that he had no conscious recall of what he said while in a trance and wanted to know and review what had come forth from himself while in that state.

When I first encountered the term "followers of the law of one" and its description as those people who believed our lives should be lived in service to others it immediately resonated with Matthew 20:26-28 in my perception. As I have lived my life and during it learned from the Bible, many other sources and many experiences I have grown in my understanding of those who would serve others and those who would serve themselves. We each have the free will to do as Jesus commanded and love others or to love self. Few that I have encountered are at one extreme end or the other of that spectrum but like wise few are in the middle either. My judgment is not righteous so I try my best not to condemn anyone but I can see fairly easily which orientation another person has chosen by observing their works. I also know that in my own life I have vacillated to varying degrees along that spectrum during different periods. Therefore to judge someone at any specific point of contact with their life is to me perverse.

I make no pretense of knowing all things nor even of having the wisdom of Solomon. I can not decide weighty matters of doctrines nor would it make any sense for me to tell anyone how to live and believe. In my own free will given to me by God I can simply choose how I will live. You also will do the same. I send you my love.

Blessings. :flowers:

[Carrikature]

OK Carrikature, I followed your link and discovered what I could about Don Elkins an then found an extensive series of texts purporting to be transcripts of channeling experiences taping into information from entities self describing as Ra. This was all new to me. There are 106 of these texts spanning the years 1981-1984. I have now read 31 of the 106. They are interesting.

Yes, I found them interesting also. I've only read 10 or 12 out of curiousity, but I haven't really continued with it. I find some of the questions to be a bit...leading. Elkins seems to hit on main points of question (i.e. UFOs, Sasquatch, etc) without bothering to fully explore all points of contention. I understand that he was a ufologist for many years, so I'm sure that's affected his line of questioning.

You asked for a bit of self bio. I was raised in the Episcopal Church. That period spanned from baptism up until my eighteenth year. Throughout college and some subsequent decades I attended no specific church on a regular basis but on an infrequent basis went to services at Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopal and a number of other denominations. Most of these were in the manner of one or two visits typically at the invite of companions. During this time I read extensively on as many "religions" and spiritual disciplines as I could absorb within time constraints of other life activities. It has been my great pleasure to have traveled extensively to many foreign lands and meet many people in other cultures. I have traveled in Asia, Europe, South America, The middle east, Africa, Iceland and of course North America.

Neat. I hope to someday be that widely travelled. As far as churches and study of religions go, what led you to study other religions? Did you approach them as containing truth, or just as a way to further your understanding of what other people think? My upbringing is such that exploration of other religions would be frowned upon.

I returned to regular attendance at a Pentecostal church in 2007. I had been invited by a chance encounter with a stranger and first went to her church about a month later after receiving a direct verbal instruction to do so from Jesus. I doubt you will believe that last statement and quite frankly your perception of it is irrelevant to me.

I do, actually. My wife has told me that she saw him when she was a kid. I don't know all the aspects to it, but I would never doubt her on this.

As to my formal education, I have a masters degree (MBA). I hope that bio is both brief enough for you while at the same time extensive enough for you. I might add one additional thing. It has also been my honor and pleasure in this life to have known many very experienced everyday folks including many you would term homeless and destitute as well as some of the most powerful and elite of our globe.

Yep, thanks.

My first encounter with the specific term "law of one" was in 1968 in a book about some of Edgar Cayce's life and his readings. I will assume that you know of him but possibly you do not. He died in 1945 before I was born and there are over 14,000 transcribed readings that he did primarily for assisting people with medical conditions. A small number of his readings (or seances if you prefer that term) dealt with other topics. In one of those he described the ancient and ongoing conflict in society between the "followers of the law of one" and the sons of Belial. The difference between the two philosophies is basically that of service to others versus service to self. Edgar Cayce was a deeply religious lifelong Christian. The reason he had all his readings taken down in shorthand and transcribed is simply that he had no conscious recall of what he said while in a trance and wanted to know and review what had come forth from himself while in that state.

I think I'd heard the name before, but I don't know much about him. I've googled him and learned some, but I'm sure it's not all that much. It's a weird concept to me, as noted earlier, to be deeply religious and yet involved in psychic readings. I've always been taught that they are quite opposite paths. I do agree with the concept of service of others vs service of self. In the end, most actions (if not all) fall under one of those two motives.

When I first encountered the term "followers of the law of one" and its description as those people who believed our lives should be lived in service to others it immediately resonated with Matthew 20:26-28 in my perception. As I have lived my life and during it learned from the Bible, many other sources and many experiences I have grown in my understanding of those who would serve others and those who would serve themselves. We each have the free will to do as Jesus commanded and love others or to love self. Few that I have encountered are at one extreme end or the other of that spectrum but like wise few are in the middle either. My judgment is not righteous so I try my best not to condemn anyone but I can see fairly easily which orientation another person has chosen by observing their works. I also know that in my own life I have vacillated to varying degrees along that spectrum during different periods. Therefore to judge someone at any specific point of contact with their life is to me perverse.

I make no pretense of knowing all things nor even of having the wisdom of Solomon. I can not decide weighty matters of doctrines nor would it make any sense for me to tell anyone how to live and believe. In my own free will given to me by God I can simply choose how I will live. You also will do the same. I send you my love.

Blessings. :flowers:

Maybe you're getting to this, but how does service to others relate to the law of one?

[barnasha]

This is directed mainly at Eeset, since as far as I'm aware she's the only one on these forums that follows the Law of One. Others are, of course, welcome to weigh in as well.

From what I understand, the Law of One comes primarily from The Ra Material. I'm curious as to what prompted Don Elkins to begin his research into this area. I'm also interested in how you came across this and what convinced you that it was true. I don't really have any specific questions at the moment because it's the first I've heard of the concept. Just curious. :smile:

could you explain in your own words what is the law of one? i'm guessing it's a religious organization....

[Carrikature]

It's not an organization as far as I know. It's a concept. My understanding is limited, but essentially it states that all things are of the Creator and the Creator is in all things. From what I understand, the use of this knowledge breaks down into two categories: service to others and service to self. While service to others is considered more desirable, a greater understanding shows them to be one and the same. Since all things are one, service to others is also service to self and vice versa. That being said, I get the impression that service to others is better as it leads to faster progression of all, which in turn means faster progression of self. I'm fairly new to the concept myself, so I may have missed something. Hope that helps.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

Yes, I found them interesting also. I've only read 10 or 12 out of curiousity, but I haven't really continued with it. I find some of the questions to be a bit...leading. Elkins seems to hit on main points of question (i.e. UFOs, Sasquatch, etc) without bothering to fully explore all points of contention. I understand that he was a ufologist for many years, so I'm sure that's affected his line of questioning.

I agree with you in this perspective. Some would even say Elkins was so consumed with UFO's as to be a "nut case"


Neat. I hope to someday be that widely travelled. As far as churches and study of religions go, what led you to study other religions? Did you approach them as containing truth, or just as a way to further your understanding of what other people think? My upbringing is such that exploration of other religions would be frowned upon.

My approach to knowledge has always been to simply attempt to grasp whatever concepts are contained within whatever source is available. I suppose your concept o what other people think might be one way of describing that but I tend to depersonalize information and inspect the contents of whatever the message is. I can tell you that my "upbringing" has always been of inconsequential impact on what I think and do. My mother is fond of saying that I am the only person she has ever encountered who only did what others wanted of me if it was something I had decided was harmonious with my own understandings. Maybe that is a gentle way of saying I am blockheaded. I prefer to understand that this life is my own and I serve others not for what they want but as I find it in harmony with God.


I think I'd heard the name before, but I don't know much about him. I've googled him and learned some, but I'm sure it's not all that much. It's a weird concept to me, as noted earlier, to be deeply religious and yet involved in psychic readings. I've always been taught that they are quite opposite paths. I do agree with the concept of service of others vs service of self. In the end, most actions (if not all) fall under one of those two motives.

perhaps it would help if you were to accept the tremendous psychic ability of Jesus.


Maybe you're getting to this, but how does service to others relate to the law of one?
[/quote]
All is one. Others are free will entities operating within the will of the Father that created all that there is. Please remember that those things you have found on the internet from various sources are interesting to me but unrelated or not the source of my understandings. I accepted Jesus long ago and have a very personal relationship with him. In many ways I am ignorant. When I read of various interpretations of words contained in the Bible I trust the good intentions of those interpreters but look to Jesus himself and the holy spirit for my own understanding. As Jesus once asked "how is it that you know scripture but do not understand it"? He has always told me that those who serve others (love and accept them as part of God) are doing the will of the Father. Strangely those who serve self are neither less deserving nor unworthy of my love. Remember that all is one. As Jesus pointed out what gain is there in loving those like yourself? Even tax collectors and sinners do that. Let me tell you a simple example of how this operates for me. I embrace and love all whose understanding of various creeds are at variance with my own. That includes atheists. I know of no one whose understanding is identical with another. I also know/understand/accept that the Father has not willed that any should perish. I place my trust in God not my own perceptions of the understanding of others. Therefore I try my best to follow the commandment Jesus reiterated when he told us to love others. He did not place qualifiers at the end of that command. Your question can perhaps be best answered by the reply Moses received. I am that I am. The law of one. Do you see that the sacrifice on the cross was done serving others in Love?
Blessings. :flowers:

[Carrikature]

My approach to knowledge has always been to simply attempt to grasp whatever concepts are contained within whatever source is available. I suppose your concept o what other people think might be one way of describing that but I tend to depersonalize information and inspect the contents of whatever the message is. I can tell you that my "upbringing" has always been of inconsequential impact on what I think and do. My mother is fond of saying that I am the only person she has ever encountered who only did what others wanted of me if it was something I had decided was harmonious with my own understandings. Maybe that is a gentle way of saying I am blockheaded. I prefer to understand that this life is my own and I serve others not for what they want but as I find it in harmony with God.

That makes sense.


perhaps it would help if you were to accept the tremendous psychic ability of Jesus.

Now that's an interesting concept. I don't think I've ever heard it put quite like that. I'm going to have to mull that over and get back to you.


All is one. Others are free will entities operating within the will of the Father that created all that there is. Please remember that those things you have found on the internet from various sources are interesting to me but unrelated or not the source of my understandings. I accepted Jesus long ago and have a very personal relationship with him. In many ways I am ignorant. When I read of various interpretations of words contained in the Bible I trust the good intentions of those interpreters but look to Jesus himself and the holy spirit for my own understanding. As Jesus once asked "how is it that you know scripture but do not understand it"? He has always told me that those who serve others (love and accept them as part of God) are doing the will of the Father. Strangely those who serve self are neither less deserving nor unworthy of my love. Remember that all is one. As Jesus pointed out what gain is there in loving those like yourself? Even tax collectors and sinners do that. Let me tell you a simple example of how this operates for me. I embrace and love all whose understanding of various creeds are at variance with my own. That includes atheists. I know of no one whose understanding is identical with another. I also know/understand/accept that the Father has not willed that any should perish. I place my trust in God not my own perceptions of the understanding of others. Therefore I try my best to follow the commandment Jesus reiterated when he told us to love others. He did not place qualifiers at the end of that command. Your question can perhaps be best answered by the reply Moses received. I am that I am. The law of one. Do you see that the sacrifice on the cross was done serving others in Love?
Blessings. :flowers:

I agree with all of this. I do have one question, though. At some point, don't you still have to have a saved or not saved process? I understand that disbelief doesn't exclude someone from your love and service. Perhaps that's a separate issue?

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

I agree with all of this. I do have one question, though. At some point, don't you still have to have a saved or not saved process? I understand that disbelief doesn't exclude someone from your love and service. Perhaps that's a separate issue?
Well, simple answer is yes. From there I have found a slippery slope of doctrine attempting to elucidate exactly what that means. Jesus died that all might be saved. Now is that time specific? Does it apply 1976 years before today long before I was incarnated into this experience or is it an ongoing process? If it is ongoing when does it end? The understandings of vastly more intelligent people than I have addressed this and much more in countless texts that are separate from the Bible. From my perspective God is not comprehensible to my tiny human brain. Nothing I think or do or say will alter God's judgment nor provide me with any better understanding. I am neither less nor more than any other. Therefore of my free will I choose to spend more of my time focusing on serving others and less on issues such as your question. Please understand that I imply no criticism of those who choose to focus tremendous effort in ways I do not. Also I it important to point out that I frequently fail to do what Jesus commanded. I'm sure you appreciate the many ways in which I can fail. Seeking to do the will of the Father is my desire. Accomplishing it is something else entirely. I remain in awe of grace.
Blessings. :flowers:

[Carrikature]

Cool. Thanks Eeset. I think that's all the questions I have for now, but I may bug you with more sometime later.

[barnasha]

It's not an organization as far as I know. It's a concept. My understanding is limited, but essentially it states that all things are of the Creator and the Creator is in all things. From what I understand, the use of this knowledge breaks down into two categories: service to others and service to self. While service to others is considered more desirable, a greater understanding shows them to be one and the same. Since all things are one, service to others is also service to self and vice versa. That being said, I get the impression that service to others is better as it leads to faster progression of all, which in turn means faster progression of self. I'm fairly new to the concept myself, so I may have missed something. Hope that helps.

All things being of 'the creator' is nothing new - not to say that this 'law' isn't valuable, just that it's another name for something which already has many names, and that this is an important thing to realize.

[Carrikature]

...just that it's another name for something which already has many names...

Such as?

[barnasha]

The very notion of "a creator", to start with....

[Carrikature]

Can you be clearer? I have no idea what you're talking about or trying to imply.

[barnasha]

If there is a creator of all (such as is found in Abrahamic monotheism), the created is all of the creator. right?

[Carrikature]

Not necessarily.

[Carrikature]

To be honest, barnasha, I've no idea what you're trying to get at. My answer was short and vague, but I don't know how else to respond to your posts.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

To be honest, barnasha, I've no idea what you're trying to get at. My answer was short and vague, but I don't know how else to respond to your posts. I think barnasha is saying in a way that the limits of human mental capabilities can be fathomed from meditating on the concept of "from nothing, all". Personally I have found it invaluable to accept my own limitations in cerebral capability. I have noticed in my lifetime that people who struggle with accepting others seem also to struggle with themselves. It's like they have a mental frustration because they can't comprehend the incomprehensible. Often then the way out of that box appears to be to latch onto a specific construct of philosophy or doctrine and love it as the only truth which allows rejection of anything or anyone who doesn't pay homage to the same "package".

I have now read 75 of the 106 sessions documented as the "Ra" materials at....... http://wiki.lawofone.info/index.php/Main_Page . I can't or don't relate to much that is there. It seems like a pseudo scientist's attempt to unite quantum mechanics with God and a lot of it is just plain boring in my opinion. I also took a look at what I could find on David Wilcock since you had inquired on that also. My take on Wilcock is intelligent charlatan engaging in self promotion. I may be incorrect in that assessment but it is just the "feel" I get. He has a great amount of "self" on display and perhaps that is what rings disingenuous to me.

One thing I left out of my bio is that since birth I have seen aura's when looking at people. It is an interesting phenomena that is not always present or doesn't always register when I am in visual contact with others. I am at a loss to communicate exactly what triggers it or even what it means. If I am looking at someone and focused on what they are speaking the auras are not typically apparent. If, on the other hand, I am sort of unfocused on words and more into both the "presence" of the person as well as the harmonic content of the setting then I see the aura not only on that person but on everyone in the room. The auras as best I can describe them are like a surrounding halo effect of varying colors and constantly fluctuating shapes and intensities. I don't fully trust my interpretations of them but have come to understand certain characteristics as reliable indicators of such things as bodily health and vitality as well as what i would call harmony or congruence of self perception and mental peace. I also believe that everyone has the capability of seeing these effects but our embroilment in this realm of materiality diminishes it somehow particularly as we age from childhood. It is like an unused muscle that atrophies. I remember being shocked as a child when I would comment about someone's aura only to have the other person I was speaking to look at me in puzzlement. Lately I have been reflecting on Biblical passages where Jesus said let those with eyes see. I suspect he has a brilliant aura but few can perceive it. Perhaps those who didn't hesitate to drop everything in their lives and follow him possessed well developed senses in this regard.s

[barnasha]

To be honest, barnasha, I've no idea what you're trying to get at. My answer was short and vague, but I don't know how else to respond to your posts.

You were correct, but it doesn't take away from the point to which you were responding (all cases need not be true, only some)

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

OK Carricature, I have now read all 106 sessions on that site you identified. They contain quite a lot of interesting materials. The trance based readings stopped in 1984. The threesome who performed and recorded them evidently ceased doing them when one of it's members became mentally ill and subsequently died in 1984.

I have no personal experience entering into a trance in the presence of other people and responding to questions in that condition. I do believe it can be done but I am very leery of the accuracy of any information resulting from such channeling. The "instrument" or person in such a state is a conduit for information coming from some external source or else is delusional. In either case caution is certainly warranted. It does not necessarily follow that such information is either fraudulent or worthless.

Now to your original curiosity. That material does contain some valid insights in my opinion. It also contains much discussion of how God has provided our universe and authored its laws. Some of it is impossible for me to comprehend. I recommend it as a good read but only for those with a close enough relationship with Jesus that they have no possibility of corruption in faith. In other words it contains ideas and concepts that can be deleterious to the weak. I personally found nothing threatening in it. A complete read is necessary however to fit the pieces together. The bottom line in all of it is or can be summed up in the final words of the Lord's prayer.
....For yours is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory forever. Amen.

[Godservant]

WITHIN the Law of One...

...is the Game of Two.

Following that..

..the principle of All.

...And finally, the father Of none.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

WITHIN the Law of One...

...is the Game of Two.

Following that..

..the principle of All.

...And finally, the father Of none.
I suspect your logic fell off a cliff. I suggest you use a different map or at least a competent guide. There is much veiled from you if you do not seek the Father. :shrug: :flowers:

[Carrikature]

Now to your original curiosity. That material does contain some valid insights in my opinion. It also contains much discussion of how God has provided our universe and authored its laws. Some of it is impossible for me to comprehend. I recommend it as a good read but only for those with a close enough relationship with Jesus that they have no possibility of corruption in faith. In other words it contains ideas and concepts that can be deleterious to the weak. I personally found nothing threatening in it. A complete read is necessary however to fit the pieces together. The bottom line in all of it is or can be summed up in the final words of the Lord's prayer.

I found it to be fairly interesting for the most part. There are a couple portions that make it pretty clear that either "Ra" is correct, or Christians as a whole are correct, but not both. For the most part, it was something new I'd not heard of and I was curious how applicable it was to your faith.

I got the impression from something you said somewhere that your brother also followed the Law of One. Is that correct?



Perhaps I'm misusing the concept of Law of One. I originally took it to be more of a doctrine/creed but it doesn't seem that you follow it in that manner.