(04-26-2011, 03:58 AM)Azrael Wrote: Yes, that can serve to be a catalyst for learning for the children.
Since we choose whom we incarnate to and are informed of particular life implications prior to incarnation, it would most likely be part of the dance.
Undoubtedly. But irrelevant to the point.
(04-26-2011, 04:01 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: It is possible that the children chose to be incarnated into a family whose mother would die this way.
Either way, the children must learn the lesson of accepting all that has happened to create who they are today. This is what all of us learn on our spiritual journey.
But irrelevant to my point, which is that a mother who stops the aggressor for the sake of her children, is serving her children (STO), and that trumps serving the aggressor.
This was in response to 3DM saying that a mother allowing someone to kill her, would be serving the killer. I contend that the mother stopping the killer, for the sake of her children, is an STO act.
All of this is purely academic, of course, since no one would meekly allow themselves to be murdered, unless it was because of some fanatical belief of some sort.
But normal, sane people won't just let themselves be killed because they 'love' the murderer. The instinct to preserve one's life is very strong - why? And the instinct to protect one's children is equally strong.
Whatever catalyst is generated for the children, or what they do when they grow up, is all irrelevant to the point, which is about the mother's motivation.
(04-26-2011, 05:11 AM)Azrael Wrote: IF a murder happens it must be accepted, it does not do well to brood or hate, however of course if a murder can be prevented it is entirely a different thing because the acceptance is in potentiation until the event.
Agreed
(04-26-2011, 05:11 AM)Azrael Wrote: Say you save a potential murder victim, you must still accept the implications of the continuance of the life. What if that person goes on to be angry and ultimately then murders someone one day?
There is no way any of us could know whether that person will one day be a Hitler or a Mother Theresa. Therefore we could not be responsible for what the person does later.
If we know the person is a serial killer, that is a different question altogether. But for a random woman in an alley about to get murdered, what she does later is irrelevant to the question, at this point.
(04-26-2011, 05:11 AM)Azrael Wrote: Personally I don't think acceptance is so much about one's preferences but rather to do with the fluidity with which one flows through life. If you are not accepting of the Now you will continue to build negative distortions with denial and guilt, or the like. Accept yourself, accept your experiences and accept the lessons you have. None of us are here to tell anyone what lessons to learn, only to share in experience.
Agreed.
(04-26-2011, 04:55 AM)Ens Entium Wrote: serving the values and intentions of an sts individual is not sto
Very astute point! We are not required to serve the values and intentions of an STS entity, in order to love and accept them.
If we do, then we are essentially choosing those values and intentions.
Thank you, Ens, for joining the conversation! You have just offered a valuable gem.
(04-26-2011, 04:55 AM)Ens Entium Wrote: Just my thoughts, they're not new on this thread, just repackaged, which is hopefully of some help.
Definitely!