A0095: Do the five biological laws of nature developed by Hamer have weak points?

share this post

We start with the fact that the laws of nature are not laws of nature in the sense of general laws, but that they are based on the understanding of a few people who, at their time, tried to explain certain patterns of behaviour that they observed in people. Therefore, these laws are not perfect and contain some errors, which we will explain below. We start with the law of equality. Everything in the universe is reflected in a different representation. Therefore everyone knows Yin and Yang. This equality runs through all levels of existence and thus mirrors all experiential representations. Furthermore, there is the law of perfection. This so-called law shows itself in forms that are stored in human consciousness. Whenever a person attains a certain degree of maturity, he perfects his aura. His knowledge of certain things will increase exponentially. This perfection reflects the law of equality in its original form. We also feel that whenever persons want to apply the above laws, they fall into the fallacy that everything is fixed as it has been written down. But this is not the case and you should beware of taking these so-called laws as fact, because everything, as in life, is subject to change and adjustment, so it is also with these so-called laws. Beware of them and take the knowledge of them as a guide, but they are not the laws as you probably think. Use them, but be aware, they are not always valid. Now we come to the so-called law of exclusion. Here the previous laws are completely disregarded and everything that does not fit into these so-called laws has been placed here. This law is in itself neither wrong nor right, but is subject to dynamic change, which is not reflected in the demands of the laws described. This so-called law should be divided and its contents should be moved to new or old so-called laws, because many things simply do not make sense to an ignorant person. Let us take the parable of potentials. This is absolutely wrong in itself and does not belong in any of the categories at all, or instability. Furthermore, the pole of equality, which is at rest in itself. None of this makes sense and should be taken out of there. We go to the law of instability and say to all present, forget everything that is written there, none of it is true. The law of harmony that follows is also very flawed in itself. Harmony in itself harbours many peculiarities, the information about laws being a peculiarity anyway. Let us take the parable of a couple. Would not a couple quarrel incessantly if there were not a certain amount of harmony? But this harmony depends on how the couple understands each other. This again depends on the equality of the couple. If the couple is equal, it is also almost guaranteed that harmony can occur. Here, however, the law is not clear and describes this circumstance in several respects like an out-of-tune harmonica. We also mean to say: Harmony is the ingredient in the universe that makes it what it is. A balanced universe is always striving for more and an unbalanced universe is stagnant, therefore harmony, being the only one, is also to be regarded as a constant of nature and therefore as a law of nature. You have many clever minds among you present. Is it not a task for one person to reform these so-called laws of nature?

share this post
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
Cookie Consent Banner by Real Cookie Banner