I was asked to look further into this OPPT stuff and doing so made me question how it is I’m still so easily swept up by hype. In this case it was a hype that made me ride the wave of “its all good don’t worry, just be and do”.
Of course I’d love to believe that but I know that real change is never external it always starts from our hearts, and you know many of us like myself have broken hearts to be blunt.
Anyway, I just read a bit of the actual filings and well I felt the opposite of elation. Here’s just a couple of extracts I found that I find concerning and invalid (I responded to these):
“I duly verify by AFFIDAVIT OF FULL PERFORMANCE that the purpose of creator, experiencing by creation, has been duly achieved”
The Creator didn’t write this, so there is a man or woman that is standing in for the Creator.
This can only be valid if:
1. A contract between the writer (bondservant) and the Creator to represent the Creator is produced.
2. The writer (bondservant) of this UCC filing prove he/she is the Creator.
Because both these conditions aren’t met, the filing is based on a false premise. Just one false premise makes this filing no longer valid.
“As creator, experiencing by creation, I duly verify that I did lovingly, knowingly, willingly, and intentionally choose to create from self an existence of duality duly manifested as bondservant for the sole purpose to experience remembering self, knowing self, and be’ing self through duly secured and guaranteed free will choice, “this purpose of creation”, unrebutted”
The concept that we are all the Creator dispersed in either two or more separate units for the purpose of subjective experience and growth is also invalid, as:
1. We are all completely unique souls.
2. Before creation, there was a highly intelligent creator soul already in existence.
3. Real growth and experience is not gained by separating and dispersing intelligence / awareness and feeling.
The above places the bondservant (really writer coming up with this fiction) as the Creator manifested. This is invalid while the 3 points above are true.
So the premise that this is unrebutted is invalid too.