In our current society, there seems to be a general consensus that activists in the past were revolutionary thinkers, courageous, and even heroes. Some examples include the abolitionists and those who helped the Jews during the holocaust.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abo...lery.shtml
Quote:[font=Helvetica, sans-serif]The Unsung Heroes of Abolition
By Adam Hochschild
Last updated 2011-02-17[/font]
In 1787, approximately three quarters of the people on Earth lived under some form of enslavement, serfdom, debt bondage or indentured servitude. This was the year the popular movement against the British slave trade suddenly ignited. There were no slaves in Britain itself, but the vast majority of its people accepted slavery in the British West Indies as perfectly normal.
It took an unusual streak of independence to challenge this assumption. Who were the abolitionists and where did they get the revolutionary idea that slavery was wrong? Prominent campaigners like William Wilberforce and Olaudah Equiano are well documented. This gallery is an introduction to some of the other people who played important roles in this pioneering movement for human rights.
from http://www.victorianweb.org/history/slavery/1.html
Quote:Abolitionist Heroes
Mid to late nineteenth century
Wood-engraving
[font=Arial, Verdana, 'Helvetica sans-serif']A framed print of this engraving hangs in the bar of the Falcon, Clapham Junction, as a reminder of those prominent members of the Clapham Sectwho campaigned successfully for the abolition of the slave trade. As well as Wilberforce and other notables, it depicts Thomas Fowler Buxton, the abolitionist whose memorial drinking fountain now stands in Victoria Tower Gardens, Westminster.
[/font]
Quote:10 Little Known Heroes of the Holocaust
When we think of Holocaust heroes, most of us think of Oskar Schindler and his famous list. Yet Schindler was just one of many men and women who took a stand against Hitler’s Final Solution. Here are ten little known heroes who risked everything they had for their fellow human beings.
from
http://www.shalomshow.com/holocaust_heroes.htm
Quote:The Holocaust was a time of overwhelming terror and enduring grief. The ultimate expression of man’s inhumanity with hardly a trace of human kindness to lighten that darkness. However there were some deeds of courage and compassion during the Holocaust that one can consider when contemplating humanity's past and hope for the future.
The following are only some of the extraordinary men and women, who, at very great personal risk have acted to save lives.
Most of their deeds were unnoticed and not acknowledged during their lifetimes but many have been honored by Israel’s Yad Vashem memorial with the title “Righteous among the Nations” or “Righteous Gentiles” recognizing those non-Jews who helped save Jews from the Holocaust.
Quote:Remembering four heroes of the Holocaust
It is my deepest hope that the book will cause many to dig into the real history of these remarkable heroes.
There are countless more examples of these activists being considered 'heroes'.
Is this a mistake on the part of society to regard them thusly? By Law of One standards, are they actually STS entities instead?
Q\uo Wrote:You journey homeward. How shall you journey?
That is the question of third density. Shall you
journey in the light, seeking ever to become more of
service, more loving, more giving, more aware of the
love within each moment? Or shall you enjoy the
dark path where the self is seen immediately as the
Creator and all other selves are seen as those who
would worship the Creator in you. Thus, the dark
path is one where each who follows it attempts to
coerce, manipulate, or otherwise use all other selves,
to tell them what to do and to make sure they are
useful to the self or moved out of the way of self.
This also is a valid path, yet it is a dark path and a
bloody path. There are those who prefer it.
We are not those. We are those of the radiant path.
Should these activists have NOT tried to help the people oppressed, beaten, and killed? NOT tried to help those who were in bondage and crying out for help...NOT tried to stop hitler's regime from slaughtering thousands of innocent people? Were they in fact STS entities for daring to challenge the oppressors? Should they have, instead, sought to appease the oppressors, so as not to violate their free will to oppress/enslave/kill other-selves?
This makes no sense.
Why do you not just stay on the threads that are current, answer the questions (instead of cherry picking the comments you wish to reply to), and confront the arguments.
You insist on "..read this thread", or "..this was already discussed ...etc."
Just give honest answers to honest questions whilst refraining from the expression of personal bias.
Are you going to delete your signature or not?
(02-16-2015, 03:35 PM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ]This makes no sense.
Why do you not just stay on the threads that are current, answer the questions (instead of cherry picking the comments you wish to reply to), and confront the arguments.
I probably reply, point-by-point, more than just about anyone here. I answer almost every point directed at me, while others ignore most of what I say...and you say I'm cherry-picking?? Whoa.
Regarding your specific question about meat-eaters being harvestable, I did answer it...by directing you to an older post which was a direct reply to another person who asked that same exact question.
It is unreasonable for you to expect me to repeat myself, only because you aren't willing to click on a link. Maybe you have unlimited time to reshash the same stuff over and over and over again, but I don't.
(02-16-2015, 03:35 PM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ]Just give honest answers to honest questions whilst refraining from the expression of personal bias.
LOL!
(02-16-2015, 03:35 PM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ]Are you going to delete your signature or not?
What? Are you trying to
coerce me? Horrors!
Actually, I was thinking of changing it to
Eating Tomatoes is STS. What do you think of that? Would that be ok?
(02-16-2015, 03:35 PM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ]This makes no sense.
Do you really think it makes no sense? It is an honest question. I'm confused by all the people who are saying that trying to champion the oppressed is more STS than actually oppressing. I'm trying to understand why they think that. This also brings into question society's views towards these activists who are commonly regarded as 'heroes.' If, by Law of One standards, they are actually more STS than the oppressors, then they aren't really heroes, right?
No. really, are you going to change your signature as a result of the discourse here?
It seems that you have just intensified your initial goals, without having really gained any more knowledge in the process.
(02-16-2015, 03:53 PM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ]No. really, are you going to change your signature as a result of the discourse here?
I am considering it. But I could really use your advice. Do you think
Eating Tomatoes is STS would be ok? Or would that offend anyone?
This is a good question. One that I struggle with almost on a daily basis.
In the 3D world, I think activism is necessary to shift things. Seth (Jane Roberts) talks about the necessity and correctness of including aggression (not violence) in how to navigate existence. He/she notes an example: Birth. An aggressive thrust is required to merge into 3D existence. It is only our judgments which make aggression "bad."
But, I feel that being "in the world, but not of it" aligns more with me. But what to do about all the cruelty, starvation, wars, raping of the planet, extinction of species and on and on?
I feel, for me, the best thing I can do is create joy in my life, which sometimes includes avoiding looking at and obsessing on these horrors of 3D. This seems flawed but it's what I do. I also keep the vision of a kinder, more evolved existence. I also (not as a goal) set an example by living a kinder existence.
For me, I feel the best I can do is to do the best I can, with everything, and every choice.
(02-16-2015, 07:40 PM)Yera Wrote: [ -> ]Is no moderator paying attention to the fact that this thread has been completely derailed and this discussion belongs in another part of the forum? Along with numerous other threads overtaken by particular individuals?
Stop stinking up every single part of the forum with this childish argument. It's like having someone take a crap on your plate while you're eating dinner.
I agree. I'm sure the mods will move the off-topic comments to the Tomatoes thread.
Yera, what do you think about the topic of this thread?
Related thread:
Bring4th Forums One > Strictly Law of One Material ![[Image: arrow_down.png]](http://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/arrow_down.png)
> Acceptance and Will
Since we've been given guidelines from Ra, how do we determine which are more important, in any given situation? Answering the call of the victims, or allowing the oppressors to express their free will?
Does the fact that oppressors, by definition, are violating the free will of their victims enter into the equation at all? Or. as some members have recently said, is respecting free will always paramount?
(02-16-2015, 07:53 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Since we've been given guidelines from Ra, how do we determine which are more important, in any given situation? Answering the call of the victims, or allowing the oppressors to express their free will?
Does the fact that oppressors, by definition, are violating the free will of their victims enter into the equation at all? Or. as some members have recently said, is respecting free will always paramount?
I think the answer to that is intuition, intuition lets you feel how you should act. If you ever come across such a situation, I'm pretty sure your presence there is enough information for you to know what to do. The knowledge is within.
I do not think opressors have the total ability to infrindge upon free will, I think that free will cannot be infrindged upon. Like when Ra doesn't answer a question, it is not because he wishes not to answer, it is because he cannot answer. He has to not heed the call which is the question to not infrindge upon the time/space entity even if it is what the space/time one wishes. If you think about it in term of the One Infinite Creator, we will all without exception become all mighty and all powerful yet when you become that, it is at a point where you know there is not a single thing to change. Some are to be saved while others are not and each experiences bring understanding to Infinity and there is no one who will not become the One. Creation is like a giant time/space clockwork which all parts are consciousness interacting with other consciousnesses it needs to interact with within space/time.
Good question.
In my heart of hearts I want to say no -- that generally, those who employ means of violence and coercion ultimately with the goal of serving others are not STS.
Or at least don't start as STS. Maybe these entities start off leaning more towards STO intentions -- desiring to help others -- but being immersed in dark situations, gradually become polarized on dichotomies like "human nature," "the strong and the weak" and slowly become more STS-leaning.
What I'm trying to say is, war is a great catalyst, right? Thrown into desperate times really helps you along in deciding whether to view an experience as a positive or negative. I see entities resorting to violence to help others as being unharvestable in either polarity, generally speaking.
On the other hand, I'm sure there are STS entities who would gladly take any viable opportunity to explore their powers of control over others. It "feels" like these entities would be easier to sniff out, though ... doesn't it?
Let's take Che Guevarra and Fidel Castro for example. I'd put Che -- a doctor, strong desire to help others, ultimately resorts to violence in an attempt to eradicate oppression, travels the continent to teach means of resistance and armed warfare to others -- in the unharvestable, STO-leaning category. If I had to guess, Fidel was STS from the start or quickly became more and more polarized towards STS once he helped overthrow Batista in '59; within a short period of time he was as absolute a dictator as Batista ever was, etc.
***
On "human nature," "the strong and the weak":
I feel like our answer to these dichotomies typify "the choice" we make in polarizing. When we find ourselves in situations where we feel we have an answer ... e.g. "human nature is evil," "human nature is good" ... we're in the midst of some quality catalyst!
When I lived in NYC, I was a social worker for the homeless. Obviously I started down that path with strong STO intentions. Maybe even aggressive STO intentions, like the aforementioned group of liberators and revolutionaries -- I was angry that so few were content living with so much, while so many suffered with so little. Obsessed with justice, to the point where the sword becomes a reasonable answer.
But over the years, as I went deeper into the belly of the beast of my employer, I found myself more and more in a position where I was being asked/initiated to view human nature differently; that there were those who produced and those who consumed. Those that could help themselves, and those that couldn't. The more responsibility I gained, I began to work with more influential people in the agency, and realized that they had some seriously dark ideas about the people they were there to "serve." It was like one had to have these ideas to succeed in the agency; thinking otherwise, you would quickly be torn apart by both colleagues and clients.
I could feel the darkness enveloping around me. As I gained more "power" in the agency I became more an object of hatred, a symbol of oppression, for the clients. I entertained the ideas I was being asked to adopt to make my job easier. But in the end, I felt repulsed by everything that was going on, and got the hell out of there -- both the job and the city, LOL.
So, I hope you can see the parallel I'm trying to draw...!
I am fortunate to have a job I love. I've been at it for 13 years.
(02-17-2015, 11:08 AM)outerheaven Wrote: [ -> ]Good question.
In my heart of hearts I want to say no -- that generally, those who employ means of violence and coercion ultimately with the goal of serving others are not STS.
Or at least don't start as STS. Maybe these entities start off leaning more towards STO intentions -- desiring to help others -- but being immersed in dark situations, gradually become polarized on dichotomies like "human nature," "the strong and the weak" and slowly become more STS-leaning.
What I'm trying to say is, war is a great catalyst, right? Thrown into desperate times really helps you along in deciding whether to view an experience as a positive or negative. I see entities resorting to violence to help others as being unharvestable in either polarity, generally speaking.
On the other hand, I'm sure there are STS entities who would gladly take any viable opportunity to explore their powers of control over others. It "feels" like these entities would be easier to sniff out, though ... doesn't it?
Let's take Che Guevarra and Fidel Castro for example. I'd put Che -- a doctor, strong desire to help others, ultimately resorts to violence in an attempt to eradicate oppression, travels the continent to teach means of resistance and armed warfare to others -- in the unharvestable, STO-leaning category. If I had to guess, Fidel was STS from the start or quickly became more and more polarized towards STS once he helped overthrow Batista in '59; within a short period of time he was as absolute a dictator as Batista ever was, etc.
***
On "human nature," "the strong and the weak":
I feel like our answer to these dichotomies typify "the choice" we make in polarizing. When we find ourselves in situations where we feel we have an answer ... e.g. "human nature is evil," "human nature is good" ... we're in the midst of some quality catalyst!
When I lived in NYC, I was a social worker for the homeless. Obviously I started down that path with strong STO intentions. Maybe even aggressive STO intentions, like the aforementioned group of liberators and revolutionaries -- I was angry that so few were content living with so much, while so many suffered with so little. Obsessed with justice, to the point where the sword becomes a reasonable answer.
But over the years, as I went deeper into the belly of the beast of my employer, I found myself more and more in a position where I was being asked/initiated to view human nature differently; that there were those who produced and those who consumed. Those that could help themselves, and those that couldn't. The more responsibility I gained, I began to work with more influential people in the agency, and realized that they had some seriously dark ideas about the people they were there to "serve." It was like one had to have these ideas to succeed in the agency; thinking otherwise, you would quickly be torn apart by both colleagues and clients.
I could feel the darkness enveloping around me. As I gained more "power" in the agency I became more an object of hatred, a symbol of oppression, for the clients. I entertained the ideas I was being asked to adopt to make my job easier. But in the end, I felt repulsed by everything that was going on, and got the hell out of there -- both the job and the city, LOL.
So, I hope you can see the parallel I'm trying to draw...!
Thank you for sharing! I agree completely with everything you said, particularly the part about violence. Many activists start out with good intentions but when they resort to violence to achieve their goals, they don't realize that they have become the very thing they originally sought to fight. A good example is pro-'life' activists who blow up abortion clinics.
But I was actually referring to activists who
peacefully try to champion the oppressed, such as the people who sheltered Jews during the holocaust, or those who helped black 'slaves' escape. They did so peacefully.
The question is: Are they actually doing something STS, because they are infringing on the 'free will' of the oppressor? In other words, which is the higher priority: Answering the call of the oppressed (peacefully work to free the 'slaves') or respecting the free will of the oppressor (let him keep the slaves/kill the Jews) ?
(02-17-2015, 01:48 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]But I was actually referring to activists who peacefully try to champion the oppressed, such as the people who sheltered Jews during the holocaust, or those who helped black 'slaves' escape. They did so peacefully.
The question is: Are they actually doing something STS, because they are infringing on the 'free will' of the oppressor? In other words, which is the higher priority: Answering the call of the oppressed (peacefully work to free the 'slaves') or respecting the free will of the oppressor (let him keep the slaves/kill the Jews) ?
Oh! My mistake. Well, in that case, I'd answer "no!"
I couldn't find the quote in LOO that came to mind -- but when Don was asking Ra about the nature of their 5D negative attack, Don asked something along the lines if granting the entity's desire for them to quit channeling Ra would actually be a STO action. Ra replied -- and this is the quote I'd really like to find -- that getting the information from Ra and out to others would serve
more entities, and thus was a "higher" polarized STO choice.
Hopefully I didn't butcher it too bad.
So the way I see it -- help a few negative entities with their murderous rampage -- or spread love/light to as many as you feasibly can help, all the while being a beacon of hope and love for others that may be inspired by your actions and rise to the occasion themselves. I would have to guess that the latter is more of a service than the former.
(02-17-2015, 03:13 PM)outerheaven Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2015, 01:48 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]But I was actually referring to activists who peacefully try to champion the oppressed, such as the people who sheltered Jews during the holocaust, or those who helped black 'slaves' escape. They did so peacefully.
The question is: Are they actually doing something STS, because they are infringing on the 'free will' of the oppressor? In other words, which is the higher priority: Answering the call of the oppressed (peacefully work to free the 'slaves') or respecting the free will of the oppressor (let him keep the slaves/kill the Jews) ?
Oh! My mistake. Well, in that case, I'd answer "no!"
I couldn't find the quote in LOO that came to mind -- but when Don was asking Ra about the nature of their 5D negative attack, Don asked something along the lines if granting the entity's desire for them to quit channeling Ra would actually be a STO action. Ra replied -- and this is the quote I'd really like to find -- that getting the information from Ra and out to others would serve more entities, and thus was a "higher" polarized STO choice.
Hopefully I didn't butcher it too bad.
So the way I see it -- help a few negative entities with their murderous rampage -- or spread love/light to as many as you feasibly can help, all the while being a beacon of hope and love for others that may be inspired by your actions and rise to the occasion themselves. I would have to guess that the latter is more of a service than the former.
Agreed! The reason I started this thread was that, apparently, there are differences of opinion about which is the higher priority, among some of our members. As shown in the
Acceptance and Will thread, and the
Law of One Religion? thread, among others, apparently some seem to be saying that honoring the free will of the oppressor is more important than answering the call of the oppressed.
Historically, however, society has taken the stance that those who answered the call of the oppressed are now considered heroes. It's generally considered a noble, honorable, benevolent thing to do (provided it's done peacefully of course). History smiles fondly on those who freed the blacks, the Jews, etc.
So I am puzzled at some of the responses I have seen here, and thought it might be a good topic for discussion.
Even Ra had some challenges navigating this delicate balance, so it's no wonder that it might be challenging for us.
Since Ra did provide many guidelines, I'm wondering what other members' views are. Thank you for sharing yours!
This is indeed a very interesting and quite complex subject.
North Korea springs to mind.
This is a society where people at the lower end of the spectrum are treated like animals.
The prisons look horrific, many of the stories we hear are desperate beyond belief.
Why do developed countries not just send in the troops and liberate these people?
Could it however be that this environment is actually exactly the right 'classroom' for these human beings to develop and grow?
How does a young soul learn to value 'life' or 'freedom'?
I'll leave it to the forum to ponder.
This is the story of Shin Dong-hyuk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_Dong-hyuk
(02-17-2015, 04:03 PM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ]This is indeed a very interesting and quite complex subject.
North Korea springs to mind.
This is a society where people at the lower end of the spectrum are treated like animals.
The prisons look horrific, many of the stories we hear are desperate beyond belief.
Why do developed countries not just send in the troops and liberate these people?
Could it however be that this environment is actually exactly the right 'classroom' for these human beings to develop and grow?
How does a young soul learn to value 'life' or 'freedom'?
I'll leave it to the forum to ponder.
This is the story of Shin Dong-hyuk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_Dong-hyuk
Good point. We know that, ultimately, this classroom has its purpose. But isn't part of our curriculum learning to respond to catalyst?
There are really 2 issues here:
Liberating the oppressed, and actually
being an oppressor.
We don't all have an opportunity to liberate those oppressed people in North Korea. But what about those who do have an opportunity? And, what about the people living in North Korea who are actually doing the oppressing?
(02-17-2015, 04:11 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2015, 04:03 PM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ]This is indeed a very interesting and quite complex subject.
North Korea springs to mind.
This is a society where people at the lower end of the spectrum are treated like animals.
The prisons look horrific, many of the stories we hear are desperate beyond belief.
Why do developed countries not just send in the troops and liberate these people?
Could it however be that this environment is actually exactly the right 'classroom' for these human beings to develop and grow?
How does a young soul learn to value 'life' or 'freedom'?
I'll leave it to the forum to ponder.
This is the story of Shin Dong-hyuk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_Dong-hyuk
Good point. We know that, ultimately, this classroom has its purpose. But isn't part of our curriculum learning to respond to catalyst?
There are really 2 issues here: Liberating the oppressed, and actually being an oppressor.
We don't all have an opportunity to liberate those oppressed people in North Korea. But what about those who do have an opportunity? And, what about the people living in North Korea who are actually doing the oppressing?
Ra has a slightly different take on what you say:
Ra: I am Ra. The catalyst, and all catalyst, is designed to offer experience. This experience in your density may be loved and accepted or it may be controlled. These are the two paths. When neither path is chosen the catalyst fails in its design and the entity proceeds until catalyst strikes it which causes it to form a bias towards acceptance and love or separation and control. There is no lack of space/time in which this catalyst may work.
(02-17-2015, 04:44 PM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ]Ra has a slightly different take on what you say:
Ra: I am Ra. The catalyst, and all catalyst, is designed to offer experience. This experience in your density may be loved and accepted or it may be controlled. These are the two paths. When neither path is chosen the catalyst fails in its design and the entity proceeds until catalyst strikes it which causes it to form a bias towards acceptance and love or separation and control. There is no lack of space/time in which this catalyst may work.
I wouldn't say different. I don't disagree with anything Ra said. The Ra Material is the only source I've ever read that I agree with, virtually 100%.
But, I try to take it as a whole. Some quotes might seem to disagree with others, but when taken as a whole, I don't see any disagreement.
