Does a serial killer deserve to be loved? Does an extreme torturer, abuser and cannibal deserve to be loved? Does the remorseless pedophile deserve to be loved? Can they be genuinely loved? Can these actions be loved?
I ask the tough questions, I know. I wonder about these things. At times, I find myself in tears for these forsaken people, for those who are nearly absolutely condemned by society. These questions have had a grave importance to me for whatever reason. I cannot handle the thought of something or someone being truly condemned even though I believe we all know that's impossible.
I want this to be discussed. I want this to be out in the open. I want to see how far the concept of love can be pushed here.
(05-28-2013, 10:08 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Does a serial killer deserve to be loved? Does an extreme torturer, abuser and cannibal deserve to be loved? Does the remorseless pedophile deserve to be loved? Can they be genuinely loved? Can these actions be loved?
I ask the tough questions, I know. I wonder about these things. At times, I find myself in tears for these forsaken people, for those who are nearly absolutely condemned by society. These questions have had a grave importance to me for whatever reason. I cannot handle the thought of something or someone being truly condemned even though I believe we all know that's impossible.
I want this to be discussed. I want this to be out in the open. I want to see how far the concept of love can be pushed here.
What do you mean by "deserve"? Do you mean some kind of merit?
(05-28-2013, 10:27 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2013, 10:08 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Does a serial killer deserve to be loved? Does an extreme torturer, abuser and cannibal deserve to be loved? Does the remorseless pedophile deserve to be loved? Can they be genuinely loved? Can these actions be loved?
I ask the tough questions, I know. I wonder about these things. At times, I find myself in tears for these forsaken people, for those who are nearly absolutely condemned by society. These questions have had a grave importance to me for whatever reason. I cannot handle the thought of something or someone being truly condemned even though I believe we all know that's impossible.
I want this to be discussed. I want this to be out in the open. I want to see how far the concept of love can be pushed here.
What do you mean by "deserve"? Do you mean some kind of merit?
Hmm, deserve isn't the proper word. To put it objectively, are their desires acceptable and cherished macrocosmically by "The Creator"? Would it be proper for an individual to love these people, their desires and their actions? Does the LOO entail this?
(05-28-2013, 10:33 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2013, 10:27 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2013, 10:08 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Does a serial killer deserve to be loved? Does an extreme torturer, abuser and cannibal deserve to be loved? Does the remorseless pedophile deserve to be loved? Can they be genuinely loved? Can these actions be loved?
I ask the tough questions, I know. I wonder about these things. At times, I find myself in tears for these forsaken people, for those who are nearly absolutely condemned by society. These questions have had a grave importance to me for whatever reason. I cannot handle the thought of something or someone being truly condemned even though I believe we all know that's impossible.
I want this to be discussed. I want this to be out in the open. I want to see how far the concept of love can be pushed here.
What do you mean by "deserve"? Do you mean some kind of merit?
Hmm, deserve isn't the proper word. To put it objectively, are their desires acceptable and cherished macrocosmically by "The Creator"? Would it be proper for an individual to love these people, their desires and their actions? Does the LOO entail this?
Ok, now what do you mean by love. If you mean acceptance, than, yes I can't see how that would never be proper because that would always afford the most possible opportunity.
(05-28-2013, 10:39 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2013, 10:33 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2013, 10:27 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2013, 10:08 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Does a serial killer deserve to be loved? Does an extreme torturer, abuser and cannibal deserve to be loved? Does the remorseless pedophile deserve to be loved? Can they be genuinely loved? Can these actions be loved?
I ask the tough questions, I know. I wonder about these things. At times, I find myself in tears for these forsaken people, for those who are nearly absolutely condemned by society. These questions have had a grave importance to me for whatever reason. I cannot handle the thought of something or someone being truly condemned even though I believe we all know that's impossible.
I want this to be discussed. I want this to be out in the open. I want to see how far the concept of love can be pushed here.
What do you mean by "deserve"? Do you mean some kind of merit?
Hmm, deserve isn't the proper word. To put it objectively, are their desires acceptable and cherished macrocosmically by "The Creator"? Would it be proper for an individual to love these people, their desires and their actions? Does the LOO entail this?
Ok, now what do you mean by love. If you mean acceptance, than, yes I can't see how that would never be proper because that would always afford the most possible opportunity.
Love is acceptance, indeed. But isn't it more? Isn't there a joy that comes with it? An appreciation? A sense of value?
(05-28-2013, 10:52 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2013, 10:39 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2013, 10:33 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2013, 10:27 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2013, 10:08 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Does a serial killer deserve to be loved? Does an extreme torturer, abuser and cannibal deserve to be loved? Does the remorseless pedophile deserve to be loved? Can they be genuinely loved? Can these actions be loved?
I ask the tough questions, I know. I wonder about these things. At times, I find myself in tears for these forsaken people, for those who are nearly absolutely condemned by society. These questions have had a grave importance to me for whatever reason. I cannot handle the thought of something or someone being truly condemned even though I believe we all know that's impossible.
I want this to be discussed. I want this to be out in the open. I want to see how far the concept of love can be pushed here.
What do you mean by "deserve"? Do you mean some kind of merit?
Hmm, deserve isn't the proper word. To put it objectively, are their desires acceptable and cherished macrocosmically by "The Creator"? Would it be proper for an individual to love these people, their desires and their actions? Does the LOO entail this?
Ok, now what do you mean by love. If you mean acceptance, than, yes I can't see how that would never be proper because that would always afford the most possible opportunity.
Love is acceptance, indeed. But isn't it more? Isn't there a joy that comes with it? An appreciation? A sense of value?
Well it's not possible to appreciate, evaluate or have joy without some acceptance.
Of course they deserve to be loved. Technically they are just as loved as anyone else, it's just their willingness to accept love that closes them off from what most would call socially acceptable catalyst and pushes them to create universally undesirable catalyst for themselves and others.
Loving the person or entity is different than loving the action.
-----
I find that my relationship to "natural evil" in terms of love, acceptance, understanding, is becoming similar to the relationship I have with 'terribly evil' people and their actions.
How do you feel about mother earth when an earthquake kills thousands?
How do you feel about the earth?
How do you feel about the earthquake?
How about a shark attack?
How do you feel about the shark?
The attack itself?
How about a 8 year old kid who gets angry and fires his father's gun at another kid?
How do you feel about the kid?
How do you feel about his action?
How about the teenager druggie who robs and kills an old lady to get money for his fix?
How do you feel about the teen druggie?
How do you feel about his action?
How do you feel about the adult gang member who has a shootout to defend his turf and accidentally kills an innocent nearby person?
How do you feel about the gang member?
How do you feel about his accidental killing?
Then ask yourself the same questions with respect to the examples you describe above. All of the above examples can be seen as different, or can be seen as similar. You can decide to focus on the separation, or the similarities and unity, as is your purview. Free will!!
(05-28-2013, 10:08 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Does a serial killer deserve to be loved? Does an extreme torturer, abuser and cannibal deserve to be loved? Does the remorseless pedophile deserve to be loved? Can they be genuinely loved? Can these actions be loved?
Everyone deserves love. Everyone is the creator. Everyone is one. You are them, they are you. At some point in "time" this is true. There is a difference between human love, and the love of the creator. Human love is conditional, the creators love is not conditional. We strive to love unconditionally, but we often fail.
In fact, I think you'll find that in virtually all cases of such heinous acts of negativity, there was an EXTREME perceived
lack of love in these persons lives. People lash out from their state of disconnection -- not from a place of
connection. After a certain level of connection or unity is achieved, it is not within the limits of possibility to offer such behavior.
Also, these actions can be appreciated as the contrast that they are. How would you truly know the desirable, without the undesirable? The contrast makes it stand out, without that polarity, there could be no understanding of the difference. The negative defines the positive. When you look at things from a more general macrocosmic perspective, all acts of disharmony are just ripples on the surface of infinity. Pockets of distortion on the surface of oneness, that will eventually settle down until all is clear and still. Everything balances out. Karma is the great equalizer (not to imply it is a punisher).
Also, we
all did things like that in the course of our evolution. We were all animals at one point. I'm sure if we saw a complete reveal of all our previous incarnations (3rd density and otherwise) we would be shocked at the things we have done to our fellow beings.
As Jesus said, "Forgive them, they know not what they do."
Another point that anagogy brushes upon:
Usually heinous and intentional acts come from two sorts of individuals:
(1) horribly imbalance, unpolarized people or
(2) true service to self people
Is it so hard to understand why a person may do something when unbalanced? Is is so hard to understand that a service to self individual does all actions out of self-love as a way to increase his power over others?
In the end, the existence of people who commit heinous acts only serves to increase our capacity for love. Their catalyst does all of us a service.
(05-28-2013, 11:21 PM)xise Wrote: [ -> ]Loving the person or entity is different than loving the action.
Isn't action a form of life as well? Aren't we all one with our actions as well? Should all actions be loved?
(05-28-2013, 11:30 PM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]Also, these actions can be appreciated as the contrast that they are.
So these actions cannot be appreciated as they are? Is love conditional in this instance?
(05-28-2013, 11:46 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't action a form of life as well? Aren't we all one with our actions as well?
Actions are fully within the illusion called reality.
Entities and consciousness, are not. They exist both within and outside of time and space.
(05-28-2013, 11:55 PM)xise Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2013, 11:46 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't action a form of life as well? Aren't we all one with our actions as well?
Actions are fully within the illusion called reality.
Entities and consciousness, are not. They exist both within and outside of time and space.
So reality and actions are not one with everything? They are segratated? The results of our choices aren't meaningful?
Of course I find this to be a contradiction.
Is murder okay in the macrocosmic sense? Is rape okay in the macrocosmic sense? These are the tough questions everyone pretends doesn't exist. This is what I want to evoke on this thread. How much do we really love the universe in its entirety?
When I was first on this forum this was a huge area of debate and it sort of faded off over time, I wondered when it would pop up again.
Having asked myself these things many times I believe everything is macrocosmically "allowable", and the love from the Creator is offered equally to all.
To me, however, is raised the question, does loving and accepting something automatically mean it should be indulged in? Is that really what love and acceptance is about? Desire denotes indulgence, but love is like holding a babe, close, dear, precious.
Yes, everything is "okay", however, every action has a reaction! Can it be guaranteed that by doing such actions you will not experience equal pain? Not usually, and if you believe in any form of karma then it can easily be seen how regardless of what is "accepted" by infinity there is still the consequences of ones actions.
(05-29-2013, 12:10 AM)TheEternal Wrote: [ -> ]To me, however, is raised the question, does loving and accepting something automatically mean it should be indulged in?
As Ra mentioned, this is why wanderers will often sway from both polarities misadvertently due to this innocence.
(05-29-2013, 12:10 AM)TheEternal Wrote: [ -> ]To me, however, is raised the question, does loving and accepting something automatically mean it should be indulged in?
That's the great thing about knowing better than someone else, you get to answer this question.
(05-29-2013, 12:10 AM)TheEternal Wrote: [ -> ]When I was first on this forum this was a huge area of debate and it sort of faded off over time, I wondered when it would pop up again.
I am happy it was brought up because the whole movement towards this material would be a charade otherwise.
(05-29-2013, 12:17 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2013, 12:10 AM)TheEternal Wrote: [ -> ]When I was first on this forum this was a huge area of debate and it sort of faded off over time, I wondered when it would pop up again.
I am happy it was brought up because the whole movement towards this material would be a charade otherwise.
What are you going on about?
(05-29-2013, 12:18 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2013, 12:17 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2013, 12:10 AM)TheEternal Wrote: [ -> ]When I was first on this forum this was a huge area of debate and it sort of faded off over time, I wondered when it would pop up again.
I am happy it was brought up because the whole movement towards this material would be a charade otherwise.
What are you going on about?
The notion of people saying they follow The Law of One while not accepting and loving the murder, the hate and the perversion that comes with this universe.
(05-28-2013, 11:58 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2013, 11:55 PM)xise Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2013, 11:46 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't action a form of life as well? Aren't we all one with our actions as well?
Actions are fully within the illusion called reality.
Entities and consciousness, are not. They exist both within and outside of time and space.
So reality and actions are not one with everything? They are segratated? The results of our choices aren't meaningful?
Your actions, even if illusory, distill the and reflect essence of your being, especially if the actions affect other entities.
Is an (illusory) action of shamelessly killing a fellow teammate in a multiplayer video game meaningless? I would say no. The action itself is illusory, but it is the interaction between you and the other entity, and the radiation of your inner being through the action is what truly matter.
The results of your action or choice are only meaningful in so much as they affect the non-illusory portions of creation, that is, other selves and the self.
That being said, the interesting question is how much pure actions are per se a part of the unity. On that matter, my current thoughts are this: Is there even such a thing as a pure action? The word action seems to presuppose an entity/consciousness to put that action in motion. However, assuming pure action exists, let's continue. I can see all consciousness, and thereby energy, as unified, as unity. I have trouble seeing unity in pure action, except by which action is caused by unified entities. In that way actions are unified by the entities they commit them, but the entities are the nexus that tie to the illusory actions to the unity.
So in a sense, I see actions as more a part of the framework of the interaction of space and time and entities, and as I said, space and time are illusions, but are a part of Creation, but the true unity exists within and outside of space and time. The framework of actions, space and time, is not a necessary component of this consciousness unity, it is merely a chosen framework to examine the existence of consciousnesses.
Quote:Is murder okay in the macrocosmic sense? Is rape okay in the macrocosmic sense? These are the tough questions everyone pretends doesn't exist. This is what I want to evoke on this thread. How much do we really love the universe in its entirety?
These things are only exist in my opinion in so much because they further learning. The learning of the imbalanced murder/rapist in becoming more balanced. The learning of the service to self individual in becoming more powerful. The learning of the service to others individual in finding in its heart the ability love, understand, forgive, and accept the individuals who commit these acts.
EDIT: See one of my posts on page 4. I now believe this position is wrong! " You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation."
So is an unbalanced state something to be loved and cherished? Does an unbalanced state only exist to serve a balanced state? Is that what you believe?
(05-29-2013, 12:20 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2013, 12:18 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2013, 12:17 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2013, 12:10 AM)TheEternal Wrote: [ -> ]When I was first on this forum this was a huge area of debate and it sort of faded off over time, I wondered when it would pop up again.
I am happy it was brought up because the whole movement towards this material would be a charade otherwise.
What are you going on about?
The notion of people saying they follow The Law of One while not accepting and loving the murder, the hate and the perversion that comes with this universe.
Btw, love the topic. It really gets you thinking!
Do I believe the process of evolution through the densities* involving loving all consciousness, in their entirety? Yes.
Do I believe the process of evolution through the densities involve loving all actions, in their entirety? At this point not.
Do I believe I can find love in the moment, regardless of the action? Yes, via the entities involved in the action, or in portions of the consequences of the action.
Do I find portions of the actions of murder, rape, etc, loveable? Yes in the very limited sense in that they aid further learning. But I do not love the acts in their entirety. I do not love the usual infringement on free will, the terror they cause in seemingly innocent victims.
* I used the term "process of evolution through the densities" but one can replace it with something such as "becoming closer to the Creator" etc.
(05-29-2013, 12:28 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]So is an unbalanced state something to be loved and cherished? Does an unbalanced state only exist to serve a balanced state? Is that what you believe?
I would definitely say, youth (whether spiritual or actual), in all of its mistakes, and learning, and the innocence, is beautiful and lovable in its own way.
The unbalanced state doesn't serve the balanced state, it is the precursor of the balanced state.
Here Ra talks about loving the service to self entity while rejecting their proposed course of action for you. The course of action in this case being serving the sts entity by offering your life.
I think this brings out a similar distinction between loving and accepting the entity, but rejecting particular actions. There is another quote that talks about all action as forms of service. So in a certain sense, at least pre-6th density, if this quote is accurate, there is a sense of it not being necessary or even desirable to love and accept all courses of action.
So, in a sense, I think this quotation may answer some questions. But it doesn't directly answer your question whether all action itself is part of the unity to be loved post 6th density. Prior to 6th density, it's clear that it is not useful if one is to evolve.
Quote:67.11 Questioner: Then how could we solve this paradox?
Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that you have no ability not to serve the Creator since all is the Creator. In your individual growth patterns appear the basic third-density choice. Further, there are overlaid memories of the positive polarizations of your home density. Thus your particular orientation is strongly polarized towards service to others and has attained wisdom as well as compassion.
You do not have merely two opposite requests for service. You will find an infinite array of contradictory requests for information or lack of information from this source if you listen carefully to those whose voices you may hear. This is all one voice to which you resonate upon a certain frequency. This frequency determines your choice of service to the One Creator. As it happens this group’s vibratory patterns and those of Ra are compatible and enable us to speak through this instrument with your support. This is a function of free will.
A portion, seemingly of the Creator, rejoices at your choice to question us regarding the evolution of spirit. A seemingly separate portion would wish for multitudinous answers to a great range of queries of a specific nature. Another seemingly separate group of your peoples would wish this correspondence through this instrument to cease, feeling it to be of a negative nature. Upon the many other planes of existence there are those whose every fiber rejoices at your service and those such as the entity of whom you have been speaking which wish only to terminate the life upon the third-density plane of this instrument. All are the Creator. There is one vast panoply of biases and distortions, colors and hues, in an unending pattern. In the case of those with whom you, as entities and as a group, are not in resonance, you wish them love, light, peace, joy, and bid them well. No more than this can you do for your portion of the Creator is as it is and your experience and offering of experience, to be valuable, needs be more and more a perfect representation of who you truly are. Could you, then, serve a negative entity by offering the instrument’s life? It is unlikely that you would find this a true service. Thus you may see in many cases the loving balance being achieved, the love being offered, light being sent, and the service of the service-to-self oriented entity gratefully acknowledged while being rejected as not being useful in your journey at this time. Thus you serve One Creator without paradox.
(05-28-2013, 11:46 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]So these actions cannot be appreciated as they are? Is love conditional in this instance?
But "as they are" is an illusion. As a 3rd density entity, you can't really know things "as they are", so any love you offer is conditional upon how you, personally, see the world. All you have is your interpretation of these events, which is limited. Practicing "unconditional love" in this circumstance, is about you, personally, not "leaving the vibration of love", which is what most people do whenever they see something undesirable. Its only natural. However, nothing in the universe is "purely undesirable". Everything has wanted and unwanted characteristics. Has a positive and negative. They way you refrain from deviating from love is to find those wanted characteristics and appreciate those. When you aren't lowering your vibrations, any actions you offer will be from a more connected place. It will be inspired action, and inspired thought, and inspired perspective. When you leave that place of love, and you feel bad, its because the way you are looking at things, is NOT in agreement with how source sees things. And it has the whole picture.
Do you see how "as it is" is all about perspective? And what holds the most encompassing perspective? Tap into that, let it guide your perspective, and you will see things much much differently.
(05-28-2013, 11:46 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Is murder okay in the macrocosmic sense? Is rape okay in the macrocosmic sense? These are the tough questions everyone pretends doesn't exist. This is what I want to evoke on this thread. How much do we really love the universe in its entirety?
There is no negativity that cannot be undone. There is no wound that cannot be healed. The universe is a giant equation of plus and minus on an ever balancing scale.
(05-28-2013, 11:46 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]The notion of people saying they follow The Law of One while not accepting and loving the murder, the hate and the perversion that comes with this universe.
It is only that from our limited human perspective. From a higher perspective, its just ripples on a pond. Perspective is everything. All will be reconciled in the end.
(05-29-2013, 12:58 AM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]There is no negativity that cannot be undone. There is no wound that cannot be healed. The universe is a giant equation of plus and minus on an ever balancing scale.
Does it exist to be undone? Does a wound exist to be healed?
I like to think that wounds are pleasurable and the negativity is savored. The Creator does not yearn to dissolve these things, does he?
Also, it seems you are misunderstanding my perspective. I think we are in a agreement, anagogy.
The fact is I love war, I love murder as much as I love peace and love friendship. I will admit that right now.
My point here is duality doesn't exist and it doesn't exist to be resolved either. It is already resolved.
Isn't a wound not a wound unless it is in opposition to wholeness? The wound exists not simply to be healed, imo, but so that future/past wounds may be perceived. Healing happens when the wound is released and is no longer held on to as a source of innate identity. A wound is, really, something which has been disconnected from wholeness.
If a wound festers, it can result in death.
Sure, everyone is free to suffer if they so choose, or work to see others suffer, and perhaps on some level the Creator does enjoy the experience because of the raw fact that it is an experience, but isn't the whole purpose of third density to choose a polarity to engage in?
However, who am I to speak for the One Infinite Creator?
That, I believe, is the most fatal fallacy of all, for I am but one of its infinite voices.
(05-29-2013, 01:05 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Does it exist to be undone? Does a wound exist to be healed?
I like think that woulds are pleasurable and the negativity is savored. The Creator does not yearn to dissolve these things, does he?
The creator is exploring itself in separation. This necessitates duality. Opposites attract. It's their nature.
Negative and positive are certainly relative to one another. All I know is that the distortions are eventually undistorted. Everything balances out eventually.
(05-29-2013, 01:05 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Also, it seems you are misunderstanding my perspective. I think we are in a agreement, anagogy.
The fact is I love war, I love murder as much as I love peace and love friendship. I will admit that right now.
I never said you didn't love those things. And I'm not sure what I misunderstood about your perspective. As an aside, I, personally, do not love those things (murder and war). But I know that they are perfectly harmonious with other parts of the creator, just not this part that I represent. I don't concern myself with them. I just concern myself with those things that are harmonious with me, and it keeps me pretty "loving".
(05-29-2013, 01:05 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]My point here is duality doesn't exist and it doesn't exist to be resolved either. It is already resolved.
It is resolved at higher densities, but it is not resolved for us, the occupants of this lower density. If it was resolved for us, we would not be occupants of this lower density.
I believe the word love is inadequate to describe the complexities required for this discussion. In this instance I would replace the word "love" with "compassion".
Does a serial killer deserve compassion? Yes
Does an extreme torturer, abuser and cannibal deserve compassion? Yes.
Does the remorseless pedophile deserve compassion? Yes
Can they be genuinely given compassion? Yes
Can these actions be given compassion? Why would you have to?
Buddhism teaches us how to give compassion to all, even those who do us wrong.
(05-29-2013, 01:17 AM)TheEternal Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't a wound not a wound unless it is in opposition to wholeness? The wound exists not simply to be healed, imo, but so that future/past wounds may be perceived. Healing happens when the wound is released and is no longer held on to as a source of innate identity. A wound is, really, something which has been disconnected from wholeness.
If a wound festers, it can result in death.
Sure, everyone is free to suffer if they so choose, or work to see others suffer, and perhaps on some level the Creator does enjoy the experience because of the raw fact that it is an experience, but isn't the whole purpose of third density to choose a polarity to engage in?
However, who am I to speak for the One Infinite Creator?
That, I believe, is the most fatal fallacy of all, for I am but one of its infinite voices.
I would like to think a wound is an infinitely valuable creation as all things are and doesn't just exist to serve a higher function.
(05-29-2013, 01:24 AM)Guardian Wrote: [ -> ]Can these actions be given compassion? Why would you have to?
Are not all things life? Are not all things of the one original thought with infinite worth?
(05-29-2013, 01:22 AM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2013, 01:05 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Does it exist to be undone? Does a wound exist to be healed?
I like think that woulds are pleasurable and the negativity is savored. The Creator does not yearn to dissolve these things, does he?
The creator is exploring itself in separation. This necessitates duality. Opposites attract. It's their nature.
Negative and positive are certainly relative to one another. All I know is that the distortions are eventually undistorted. Everything balances out eventually.
All that I argue is that if all things are in unity inherently and that even seperation itself as a concept is within this unity, the duality doesn't truly exist. I argue that duality is an illusion. The concept of distortion is just as illusive as the concept of illusion itself.
I don't see anything striving for balance. I don't see anything balancing. I don't see a "highest good" or even a seperate Creator. I see everything as the Creator. I see everything as already balanced and infinitely perfect.
Also, I will say that in no way do I enjoy the raw concept of murder and killing, it is not pleasant and, in my opinion, is not meant to be. That is the point of killing someone or something, to exert your absolute power upon its existence, to take life and death in to your hands and make you feel powerful. No matter how seemingly big or small the life is, it makes one feel powerful, and therefore safe and secure.
However, what I do understand is the thrill, the adrenaline, like a drug, and the vampiric absorption of another's life force. Truly killing a being is an act of great significance, as there is a lot of energy in a life, but to murder is to forfeit one's own life. When you kill another you kill part of yourself until all you are is the desire for death, for power.
We have to kill to survive, to eat, although that is also disputed, but murder is killing which is done for anything other than survival.
Can I ask you, Adonai One, have you ever killed anyone/anything or been to war?
(05-29-2013, 01:22 AM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]It is resolved at higher densities, but it is not resolved for us, the occupants of this lower density. If it was resolved for us, we would not be occupants of this lower density.
This is still an illusion. And the duality is still an illusion.