ethical question

[OzarkMark]

Hi All,

I have an ethical/free will question or two. Is it ethical to send someone love
without their knowledge and permission? Looking at it from the Law of One
perspective, wouldn't you be sending love to yourself? If you can send love
without permission, can you go into your local Walmart and send love to
everyone? Seems good to me, but I am open for other ideas.

Now, I have a more difficult question. Regarding the research done on the
effects of emotions and words on the formation of crystals in water and the idea
we can put love energy into water, then drink the water and get the benifits of
the high vibration "love water". Would it be ethical to put love into water
that someone else will drink without their knowledge? If it is ethical and
doesn't interfere with free will, I have an idea that could really help bring
the vibes up on the planet. What if each of us, in our normal daily lives, made
a point of putting love vibrations into all the water, soda, beer, milk, etc we
see in grocery stores and delivery trucks, resturants, factories, convienience
stores, etc. Everyone who shops where you have been would be getting a dose of
love and healthy vibrations everytime they took a drink. So would the family at
home. What about the swimming pools and local creeks and rivers? Put love in
every body of water you come across. I would call this "guerrilla peace-fare"!
Comments?? Love, Mark


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Steve Handy]

This falls under the law of harmlessness it is alright
to do this others have been doing this for quite
sometime so go ahead to your heart content.Regards
STeve.

--- OzarkMark <ozarkmark@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=6t7AcjeKt9Nasbw2m5tyIt1cq8N-TJSb_QJpVBQh_CFG1KReW1UoI-XX63sRzqkLPATodifzNHOdIiefchwW)> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I have an ethical/free will question or two. Is it
> ethical to send someone love without their knowledge
> and permission? Love, Mark

[Chris Hamilton]

Hi Steve, Mark,
Ra does not have a "law of harmlessness", however, Free
Will is paramount to Ra. If someone is sending love to another, that
otherself has the free will to choose whether or not he/she will accept that
love and thus, free will has been maintained. So, it is ok to send love to
someone without their permission. It has nothing to do with "others have
been doing this for quite sometime":) within Ra's explanations, but has
everything to do with whether or not free will is supported. Chris

From: "Steve Handy" <stephenhandy@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=7WDxfVe6YIihIfdYxfGHNbZOWRe2DdOl3a1AHW XfIKJmYQ7TYgoqfKfjvx5NgO6UyuBtjUjyp9yXg_6q0Rw7LD8)>
> This falls under the law of harmlessness it is alright
> to do this others have been doing this for quite
> sometime so go ahead to your heart content.Regards
> STeve.
>
> --- OzarkMark <ozarkmark@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=ADI3M-vUE-CZw2EKv1gZHgqwWJm3R7GztHtKNbyt1FDH3qTTUPtdycsl61_0 6y8eQ2sxY4kkluzKwtaeiN3l)> wrote:
> > I have an ethical/free will question or two. Is it
> > ethical to send someone love without their knowledge
> > and permission? Love, Mark

[OzarkMark]

Hi Chris and Steve, What do you think about putting love into water at the
supermarket? Does the person still have free will? I am imagining their
Higher Self could or would decide whether or not to accept the love in the
water. -Mark


> Hi Steve, Mark,
> Ra does not have a "law of harmlessness", however, Free
> Will is paramount to Ra. If someone is sending love to another, that
> otherself has the free will to choose whether or not he/she will accept
that
> love and thus, free will has been maintained. So, it is ok to send love to
> someone without their permission. It has nothing to do with "others have
> been doing this for quite sometime":) within Ra's explanations, but has
> everything to do with whether or not free will is supported. Chris
>
> From: "Steve Handy" <stephenhandy@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=sUtbil7LdYYYSNnPkDSzDgf3lcq2jVHJ8C-zOei5l_gD2ehAm4-EI6iWuX_DZTJfKMhRyjqDkYz-nl0R)>
> > This falls under the law of harmlessness it is alright
> > to do this others have been doing this for quite
> > sometime so go ahead to your heart content.Regards
> > STeve.

[Chris Hamilton]

From: "OzarkMark" <ozarkmark@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=2CmqqvLB3DDcVvsCz-q4yjxqFmQLVID8pJR15vDWu-IVwAoflOjerarKXHTD9gDiml8bPDY8pFiwJak)>
> Hi Chris and Steve, What do you think about putting love into water at
the supermarket? Does the person still have free will? I am imagining
their Higher Self could or would decide whether or not to accept the love
in the water. -Mark

Someone who would be blessing water with love, imo, would obviously have to
be STO, as STS would circumvent the love vibes. Thus, an Sto individual ,
who wants to preserve free will, would tell people what he/she was doing I
would think. If this could not be done, the love vibration is beneficial
for everyone anyway, unless you're sts :) Just like sending healing energy
as a group to the Earth etc. Anyone else want to take a stab at this? Chris

[Daniel Moeck]

Hi Chris & Mark,

>Someone who would be blessing water with love, imo, would obviously have to
>be STO, as STS would circumvent the love vibes. Thus, an Sto individual ,
>who wants to preserve free will, would tell people what he/she was doing I
>would think. If this could not be done, the love vibration is beneficial
>for everyone anyway, unless you're sts :) Just like sending healing energy
>as a group to the Earth etc. Anyone else want to take a stab at this? Chris


It seems to me that if you were truly coming from STO and not just trying
to be STO then blessing all the water in the world would be as natural a
thing to do as thinking about it. So I agree with Chris. My conclusion
would be that a wholesale blessing of water would not require anyone's
permission morally if you are TRULY coming from STO because it would be a
natural outpouring of the love that you would be exuding anyway. I don't
know if David or Ra ever said it but in "A Course In Miracles" Jesus says
there is no order of difficulty in miracles, and Jesus was a perfect
demonstration of STO. So he might very easily have blessed all the water on
the planet.

However, there don't seem to be any accounts of his wholesale blessing of
water, food or anything else. I think he did pray for all people to choose
to awaken, but I am not aware of any miracles that he did without someone
requesting it. So maybe the real question is, if Jesus, who felt the
ultimate love for all people, wasn't called to do such wholesale blessings
then why would you expect to be called to do so yourself? It could also be
the voice of your ego, which is always coming from STS, suggesting the idea
to you because it sees it as a badge of honor, a way to FEEL noble about
giving STO. Let me know what you think. Thanks.

Daniel Moeck

----------


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.726 / Virus Database: 481 - Release Date: 7/22/2004


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[GenoNess1@...]

In a message dated 7/29/2004 5:07:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ozarkmark@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=aQLpUzXsIKGudJqXPTbLkMpGCRRU72Jw-H6zEVMTHuShqs03wLoAG-BxIBlgLOh1jL_DKKRTInWcc2-KgQ) writes:
I have an ethical/free will question or two. Is it ethical to send someone
love without their knowledge and permission?


I think the law of free will affects this more on the other side of this
situation - they have the free will to reject your love or accept it. you can do
wahtever you want - so can they.


----What if each of us, in our normal daily lives, made a point of putting
love vibrations into all the water, soda, beer, milk, etc we see in grocery
stores and delivery trucks, resturants, factories, convienience stores, etc.
Everyone who shops where you have been would be getting a dose of love and
healthy
vibrations everytime they took a drink. So would the family at home. What
about the swimming pools and local creeks and rivers? Put love in every body
of water you come across. I would call this "guerrilla peace-fare"!
Comments?? Love, Mark-----



I love this idea! But you can't discount the affect that the consumers
thoughts have on the love-water you have created. they might thin 'oh this water
is
better than usual' but only if they are open to such an experience. they might
also be in a bitter mood and your love will perhaps have very little effect.
this comes back to the free will issue. although the idea of projecting loving
thoughts everywhere you go of course would increase the vibration of others
who are open to receiving a higher vibration in their daily lives! it all comes
down to free will and individuals' readiness to change and shift. Great
thoughts! Love, Kyle


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[bitsmart]

--- Chris Hamilton <chris.hamilton2@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=e0nqjv2gvnBPFEaO8ioHWQhotRYiE54rmVjysL ksuBfU4DN7MUaSU324rNVCFrOXjCNE6tPrdo5XNUXO3Fh5tMo)>
wrote:
> From: "OzarkMark" <ozarkmark@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=mnx2OWIYbYcJIzUx68KOnuBmF36DI7mN35HYBs pjpGnUhTHe5kHpU-zqcJmfkcGJhzn85csAtye_8DE)>
> > Hi Chris and Steve, What do you think about
> putting love into water at
> the supermarket? Does the person still have free
> will? I am imagining
> their Higher Self could or would decide whether or
> not to accept the love
> in the water. -Mark
>
> Someone who would be blessing water with love, imo,
> would obviously have to
> be STO, as STS would circumvent the love vibes.
> Thus, an Sto individual ,
> who wants to preserve free will, would tell people
> what he/she was doing I
> would think. If this could not be done, the love
> vibration is beneficial
> for everyone anyway, unless you're sts :) Just like
> sending healing energy
> as a group to the Earth etc. Anyone else want to
> take a stab at this? Chris


Sure, I'll take a stab at it. I think Mark is right in
saying that a person's higher self could decide
whether to accept love or not. Love can be healing,
but I believe it is so only when it is asked for. If
love is refused by STS, then no amount of love will
heal this individual; they must learn to heal
themselves by reintegrating and facing their shadow
side. They planned their incarnation like they did for
a reason (karma, etc.). I prefer to 'radiate' love
naturally, as opposed to 'broadcasting' love to
everyone and everything 24/7 whether it's wanted and
asked for or not.

But this is just me. Free will is a tricky thing for
beings who are programmed to violate it at every turn.
I've thought about it a lot and this is just what my
intuition tells me is right for me. I think this topic
is VERY interesting to discuss. I look forward to
hearing some more ideas on the subject.

Respectfully,

-Drew



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

[Kay Dayss]

I can't believe that anyone would think that sending love is unethical. This
really makes me shake my head in disbelief.

If one feels called to send love and does not, they are withholding love
which is, in my view, the unethical thing for an STO as we know that it
kills babies. Now I can see it for an STS for they might think that putting
out love to others leaves less love for their own self. So I would say that
withholding love would be fine for the STS to do, but not for the STO to do,
ethically speaking.

LET ER RIP!!! I love the idea of putting love into the water everywhere.
Cool idea, Mark!

Blessings,
Kay

[Daniel Moeck]

Hay Kay,

At 11:56 AM 7/29/2004, you wrote:

>I can't believe that anyone would think that sending love is unethical. This
>really makes me shake my head in disbelief.

I guess our subject heading does call this an "ethical question", although
I think you are the first one to mention ethics. To me the average
person's ethics would be highly suspect as being STS in the case we are
talking about. Or, that could be my conservative bent coming through which
says that the ethical thing to do is to honor each person's free will by
giving only what they ask for. Wouldn't the larger question be, "Am I truly
coming from a space of unconditional love in choosing to bless someone
else's water, or is my ego telling me that it knows what is best for that
person, or that to do so would fit the loving image I want to project"? The
ethically correct answer would seem to vary greatly depending political and
cultural persuasions.

Daniel Moeck

----------


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.726 / Virus Database: 481 - Release Date: 7/22/2004


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Gail Sherman]

I dont know if this can be done but the thought of it makes me smile...


Gail

-----Original Message-----
From: OzarkMark [mailto:ozarkmark@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=Bzsew9zLS2kjihlBDL5VtKGVkhn7xwyaGXtH7p lAK8nruh9tGMJSX1A2E9FtxErfPcP874iMMOmlveqr)]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 11:00 PM
To: asc2k
Subject: [asc2k] ethical question


Hi All

Now, I have a more difficult question. Regarding the research done on the
effects of emotions and words on the formation of crystals in water and the
idea we can put love energy into water, then drink the water and get the
benifits of the high vibration "love water". Would it be ethical to put
love into water that someone else will drink without their knowledge? If it
is ethical and doesn't interfere with free will, I have an idea that could
really help bring the vibes up on the planet. What if each of us, in our
normal daily lives, made a point of putting love vibrations into all the
water, soda, beer, milk, etc we see in grocery stores and delivery trucks,
resturants, factories, convienience stores, etc. Everyone who shops where
you have been would be getting a dose of love and healthy vibrations
everytime they took a drink. So would the family at home. What about the
swimming pools and local creeks and rivers? Put love in every body of wa
ter you come across. I would call this "guerrilla peace-fare"!
Comments?? Love, Mark

[Daniel Moeck]

Hi Mark, et al,

> What if each of us, in our
>normal daily lives, made a point of putting love vibrations into all the
>water, soda, beer, milk, etc we see in grocery stores and delivery trucks,
>resturants, factories, convienience stores, etc. Everyone who shops where
>you have been would be getting a dose of love and healthy vibrations
>everytime they took a drink. So would the family at home. What about the
>swimming pools and local creeks and rivers? Put love in every body of wa
>ter you come across. I would call this "guerrilla peace-fare"!
>Comments?? Love, Mark


I think "Service To Others" is another term for unconditional love. If not
then how do you know when your STO actions aren't just "Service To Self" in
disguise? I think "guerrilla peace-fare" is either a contradiction in terms
or pure STS, but it's not unconditional love. I would be angry if someone
put that kind of intent into my drink without asking me first because it
feels manipulative. It appears to be looking for a pay-off, like maybe
scoring spiritual points at my expense.

I feel unconditionally loved when I think of how God has allowed me to
learn from every single one of my choices and mistakes for all these many
lifetimes. That way I know exactly who I am because I made me. If God
suddenly began spiking my drinks to get me to choose differently than my
own free will would have me choose, then, well, I guess I'd be angry at God
for short-circuiting my great accomplishment.

While I don't think someone else's misguided intent to change me with this
sort of "covert love" could actually hurt me, I do think they would be
hurting themselves. But if that same person were to knock on my door with
extra food from their garden THEN I would feel genuinely loved by them and
by God. And I think they would feel equally blessed for having given from a
place of genuine love.

Am I alone on this one?

Daniel Moeck

[OzarkMark]

Hi Daniel, good points. I'm glad you mentioned the possibility of this idea
being an ego or STS thing. To tell the truth, I really didn't feel called
to do this, but I have been thinking lately of ways for me and others to put
this new scientific and spiritual info into practical use for the benefit of
the most people with the least effort. "Do less, accomplish more" is my
motto! By "coincidence", today was shopping day, so I have already been to
the West Plains Missouri Wal-Mart Supercenter and I very playfully and
joyfully put love in all the liquids! I was amazed when I realized the huge
amount of sugar water and salt water American's consume! Anyway, it felt
good to do it, and I feel good knowing that a lot of people are going to
benefit. I guess if it feels good, it is. I think this could turn into an
ego thing if you went around telling everyone how you are "blessing" all the
water, so be careful there. I would hope that my other-selves might try
this in their home towns and see how it feels. I mean, as long as you are
shopping, why not? -Love to All, Mark
>
>
> However, there don't seem to be any accounts of his wholesale blessing of
> water, food or anything else. I think he did pray for all people to choose
> to awaken, but I am not aware of any miracles that he did without someone
> requesting it. So maybe the real question is, if Jesus, who felt the
> ultimate love for all people, wasn't called to do such wholesale blessings
> then why would you expect to be called to do so yourself? It could also be
> the voice of your ego, which is always coming from STS, suggesting the
idea
> to you because it sees it as a badge of honor, a way to FEEL noble about
> giving STO. Let me know what you think. Thanks.
>
> Daniel Moeck

[Kay Dayss]

Daniel,

I see your point but I still think you need to look at the other side --
withholding love when you feel called to give it. I think it is always
ethical to give the gifts you feel called to give. It is NOT violating
another's free will to give gifts. They are always free to reject the gift.

I shake my head in disbelief that anyone would think that giving a gift to
an otherself could be violating their free will. WITHOLDING the gift is
opposition to a calling within is just as much an "I know what's best"
attitude. Gifting is a natural process in nature. Is the sky wrong to give
the gift of rain to the wet ground?

Shaking head in disbelief,
Kay


----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Moeck" <dmoeck@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=5U0peaMUpuV___qXGbDTNrPuNe8M3NdOXwDf2l kXM9jht6j8RcN5c73qmxPsyNcJZwoSvHQjOHo)>

Hay Kay,

At 11:56 AM 7/29/2004, you wrote:

>I can't believe that anyone would think that sending love is unethical.
This
>really makes me shake my head in disbelief.

I guess our subject heading does call this an "ethical question", although
I think you are the first one to mention ethics. To me the average
person's ethics would be highly suspect as being STS in the case we are
talking about. Or, that could be my conservative bent coming through which
says that the ethical thing to do is to honor each person's free will by
giving only what they ask for. Wouldn't the larger question be, "Am I truly
coming from a space of unconditional love in choosing to bless someone
else's water, or is my ego telling me that it knows what is best for that
person, or that to do so would fit the loving image I want to project"? The
ethically correct answer would seem to vary greatly depending political and
cultural persuasions.

Daniel Moeck

[Erik]

Hello group,

Jesus had all the power to heal every single entity on the planet, yet only
healed those that came to him.
Why would he not heal every single entity, if he surely had the power to do so?

Why would God, for that matter, not make our lives more harmonious?

I believe it all comes down to preserving the free-will of otherselves.(
ourselves)
If you want every entity healed , you could rip them from becoming there OWN
Highest vision of themselves.
Is that really an act of unconditional Love?

Also, i dont think the Higher-Self can make an entity drink or not drink blessed
water.
If the entity is unaware of the blessed water and also is not listening to its
little Voice, it will drink the water.
Blessing water or healing should remain free-will choices, every single time and
again.

If you really want to bless and heal otherselves, without infringing there
free-will, see them as Perfect and Whole.
Send them your unconditional Love, which as usual doesnt bother to be rejected.
:-)
Anyway, just my oppinion.

Erik.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Daniel Moeck]

Hi Mark,

At 04:07 PM 7/29/2004, you wrote:

>Hi Daniel, good points. I'm glad you mentioned the possibility of this idea
>being an ego or STS thing. To tell the truth, I really didn't feel called
>to do this, but I have been thinking lately of ways for me and others to put
>this new scientific and spiritual info into practical use for the benefit of
>the most people with the least effort. "Do less, accomplish more" is my
>motto!
> By "coincidence", today was shopping day, so I have already been to
>the West Plains Missouri Wal-Mart Supercenter and I very playfully and
>joyfully put love in all the liquids!

I have never observed acts of love to be harmonious with acts of economy
but I guess by trying it you will know for sure. How many doses could you
divide your love up into before it lost it's potency? Good thing there
isn't just a finite amount of love available to us, huh? How about getting
the door greeter's job at Walmart so you could just bless everyone directly
as they walk in?


> I was amazed when I realized the huge
>amount of sugar water and salt water American's consume! Anyway, it felt
>good to do it, and I feel good knowing that a lot of people are going to
>benefit. I guess if it feels good, it is.


I agree. There is a long lasting "feel good" that comes when your love is
genuine.

> I think this could turn into an
>ego thing if you went around telling everyone how you are "blessing" all
>the water, so be careful there.


I should clarify that I usually talk about "ego" as being the total image
we have of ourselves as separate from God. So egotistical actions are just
one manifestation of acting from one's ego. You could go quietly and humbly
about the business of blessing each item like a kosher rabbi and still be
firmly in your ego if your heart isn't filled with unconditional love. Or,
God may be calling you to bless water and you just love doing it, period.
Only you know for sure.

Take care,

Daniel Moeck

[Daniel Moeck]

Hi Kay,

At 04:19 PM 7/29/2004, you wrote:

>Daniel,
>
>I see your point but I still think you need to look at the other side --
>withholding love when you feel called to give it. I think it is always
>ethical to give the gifts you feel called to give. It is NOT violating
>another's free will to give gifts. They are always free to reject the gift.
>
>I shake my head in disbelief that anyone would think that giving a gift to
>an otherself could be violating their free will. WITHOLDING the gift is
>opposition to a calling within is just as much an "I know what's best"
>attitude. Gifting is a natural process in nature. Is the sky wrong to give
>the gift of rain to the wet ground?
>
>Shaking head in disbelief,
>Kay


The fact that you are still shaking your head in disbelief makes me think
I'm not making my point very well. Of course I agree that we should all
give from the heart when love calls us to. I just find the original premise
of doing it in a covert way highly suspect. Maybe I should avoid possibly
repeating myself by deferring to Erik who I think just answered it very
well beginning with, "Jesus had all the power to heal every single entity
on the planet, yet only healed those that came to him.
Why would he not heal every single entity, if he surely had the power to do
so?"

Daniel again:
If your heart was one with God's, or Jesus', would love call you to act
covertly in a way that Jesus never would?

Daniel Moeck

[GenoNess1@...]

In a message dated 7/29/2004 6:40:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time, kay@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=TvIRGa0xi89blzsH1LoAz6aBZoPBlA0_PxCjVL j_LRUa_3K8sQDpO-G_06CDt5x7ia1vqXpI)
writes:
I mean you could argue that blessing the water goes against the water's free
will too.
Well if the water is choosing to be blessed then there is no infringement.
And despite your outright outrage and uncomfortability/disbelief in your words,
we do come together on the issue that free will cannot be infringed. Id like
to start a new thread about that, being that i think it has a lot of potential
for clarification amongst individuals, but this e-group isnt about that kind
of thing, its only about clarifying David and Ra's work, right Chris? Or would
me starting a thread that is about ya'll's (new word) opinion on free will
infringement be fair game? I mean of course people could bring Ra's teachings
into it. But Ra's word isnt the only ground for exchange and discussion here, is
it? Help me out here so I can figure out how to make it work Chris! Love, Kyle!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kay Dayss]

You know that you ARE God, right? Each of us is God having a human
experience as a localized self. In fact the computer screen that you're
looking at right now is God too. Everything is God. I have to say that I
think your note would make an excellent article for "The Onion" with the
heading, "Oh My God! I Drank Blessed Water!"

I'm sorry, I just don't get it. We are all a single being enjoying a single
moment from many different points of view. The ONE is ALL and the ALL are
ONE. What you put out is what you get back. Change is the only constant.
Everything is alive.

I can see now from your note and Daniel's note how, in a point of view, a
local self can decide even to use the concept of FREE WILL to limit itself.
I personally refuse to believe that I can possibly infringe on another human
self's free will. I can see how RA would think that it could infringe on our
free will because it is in a higher density and is not having an embodied
experience. But I do not see in ANY way how one embodied human can possibly
infringe on another embodied human's free will. I don't believe RA ever said
that it was possible, and if RA did say it was possible, I respectfully
disagree with RA.

I mean you could argue that blessing the water goes against the water's free
will too. All I can do is shake my head. "Free Will" means to me, "do what
you will".

Blessings,
Kay



----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik" <e.strasser@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=MfD_rpbZ6PQhQVzAF6gRI7oi967QLyYpBFEVYI lT9W-JpkeBSKDQC_I2RFpHFNYjCTnYPifm__d7s9w)>

Hello group,

Jesus had all the power to heal every single entity on the planet, yet only
healed those that came to him.
Why would he not heal every single entity, if he surely had the power to do
so?

Why would God, for that matter, not make our lives more harmonious?

I believe it all comes down to preserving the free-will of otherselves.(
ourselves)
If you want every entity healed , you could rip them from becoming there OWN
Highest vision of themselves.
Is that really an act of unconditional Love?

Also, i dont think the Higher-Self can make an entity drink or not drink
blessed water.
If the entity is unaware of the blessed water and also is not listening to
its little Voice, it will drink the water.
Blessing water or healing should remain free-will choices, every single time
and again.

If you really want to bless and heal otherselves, without infringing there
free-will, see them as Perfect and Whole.
Send them your unconditional Love, which as usual doesnt bother to be
rejected. :-)
Anyway, just my oppinion.

Erik.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






Yahoo! Groups Links

[OzarkMark]

Hi Daniel and All,

Wow this thread has gotten very interesting. So many good people thinking
deeply about this and coming up with two diametrically opposed points of
view that have solidly valid points. Cool!


> I have never observed acts of love to be harmonious with acts of economy
> but I guess by trying it you will know for sure.

----No, me either. Maybe now is the time to help bring in a completely new
paradigm, at least until Ascension. I'm always willing to experiment!


> How many doses could you
> divide your love up into before it lost it's potency? Good thing there
> isn't just a finite amount of love available to us, huh? How about getting
> the door greeter's job at Walmart so you could just bless everyone
directly
> as they walk in?

Daniel, I'm detecting some anger and sarcasm directed at me. Am I correct?


> I agree. There is a long lasting "feel good" that comes when your love is
> genuine.

Again, Daniel, this comes off as implying my love is not genuine. Maybe I'm
being paranoid, sometimes it's hard for me to tell what meaning someone
intended with their words.

> I should clarify that I usually talk about "ego" as being the total image
> we have of ourselves as separate from God. So egotistical actions are just
> one manifestation of acting from one's ego. You could go quietly and
humbly
> about the business of blessing each item like a kosher rabbi and still be
> firmly in your ego if your heart isn't filled with unconditional love. Or,
> God may be calling you to bless water and you just love doing it, period.
> Only you know for sure.

I agree completely with everything you said. I'll use my emotions as a
guide...I feel good, I'm on the right track, I feel bad, time to examine my
thinking. My one "guerilla peace-fare" action so far felt good and still
does. The peace-fare thing was said as a light-hearted attempt at humor.
If you think that was bad, check this out. I was contemplating what to call
this new "gang" and I thought about some radical peace activists call
themselves the Monkey Wrench Gang because they throw wrenches into the
machinary of "the system". Well, since our new gang will throw love into
the system, I'm thinking it should be called "The Monkey Love Gang"! Has a
certain ring to it, yes? If you want to join the gang, just close your
eyes, take a deep breath, and repeat your new Mantra three times...monkey
love...monkey love...monkey love. If anyone reading this isn't at least
smiling right now, you need to lighten up! ; )

Before this debate about water goes any further, I have a solution (no pun
intended, for you scientific other-selves). After much contemplation, I
realized that ALL the water on this planet "belongs" to Gaia...it's her
life-blood. I can just sit here in my house, get into a meditative state,
and send Gaia and her blood all my love, all the love I can muster. We can
all do that, right now. Every day. That said, I will probably put love in
all the stuff in the store just for good measure. As long as I'm there and
it feels good and I know that I am serving "Others". Hey, how can we be
service to others when we are all One and there are no others? I'm lovin'
it! and lovin' you (me) -Mark

[OzarkMark]

Hi Drew, nice to meet you.

> Sure, I'll take a stab at it. I think Mark is right in
> saying that a person's higher self could decide
> whether to accept love or not. Love can be healing,
> but I believe it is so only when it is asked for. If
> love is refused by STS, then no amount of love will
> heal this individual; they must learn to heal
> themselves by reintegrating and facing their shadow
> side. They planned their incarnation like they did for
> a reason (karma, etc.).

This makes good sense to me. Each person always has a choice to accept or
deny anything in his/her life.

> I prefer to 'radiate' love
> naturally, as opposed to 'broadcasting' love to
> everyone and everything 24/7 whether it's wanted and
> asked for or not.

Yes, this is obviously the best. I feel like you can radiate love, but can
also focus it for "broadcasting" for specific intents. Sorta like you are
always a shining beacon, but you also have a laser in your pocket for those
"special" jobs.

>
> But this is just me. Free will is a tricky thing for
> beings who are programmed to violate it at every turn.

That's for sure! That's why I asked the question in the first place...to
help me (and Others) get some clarity. And for me to look at my own
programming and introjects.

> I've thought about it a lot and this is just what my
> intuition tells me is right for me. I think this topic
> is VERY interesting to discuss. I look forward to
> hearing some more ideas on the subject.

Be carefull what you wish for! Just kidding. Thanks for writing, Drew.

Love to All, Mark

>
> Respectfully,
>
> -Drew

[OzarkMark]

Hi Kay! Thanks for jumping in.


> I can't believe that anyone would think that sending love is unethical.
This
> really makes me shake my head in disbelief.

I guess when I asked the question, I was thinking of some particularly dark
souls I have come across while working with abused and neglected kids for 10
years. SOME people do NOT want your love or anybody elses. To send them
love might cause them pain. Should I do it?? Do I have the right to throw
"blessed water" on a "possessed" person? These ethical questions get very
tricky!

> If one feels called to send love and does not, they are withholding love
> which is, in my view, the unethical thing for an STO as we know that it
> kills babies. Now I can see it for an STS for they might think that
putting
> out love to others leaves less love for their own self. So I would say
that
> withholding love would be fine for the STS to do, but not for the STO to
do,
> ethically speaking.

This makes good sense to me. The funny thing is, both sides of this make
sense.

> LET ER RIP!!! I love the idea of putting love into the water everywhere.
> Cool idea, Mark!

Thank you Kay. Always nice to get positive feedback...now, let's get busy!

> Blessings,
> Kay

Blessings to you, too Kay! -Mark

[OzarkMark]

Hi Kyle, good to hear you!

> I think the law of free will affects this more on the other side of this
> situation - they have the free will to reject your love or accept it. you
can do
> wahtever you want - so can they.

I agree with this for sure. But, what if they are not conscious of the fact
that you put love energy in their water? Did we just take away their
choice?

> I love this idea! But you can't discount the affect that the consumers
> thoughts have on the love-water you have created. they might thin 'oh this
water is
> better than usual' but only if they are open to such an experience. they
might
> also be in a bitter mood and your love will perhaps have very little
effect.
> this comes back to the free will issue. although the idea of projecting
loving
> thoughts everywhere you go of course would increase the vibration of
others
> who are open to receiving a higher vibration in their daily lives! it all
comes
> down to free will and individuals' readiness to change and shift. Great
> thoughts!

I guess I feel that if only one person felt love or energy and more joy in
their life because of my "blessing" the water at the supermarket, that's
better than zero. If hundreds felt better, that would be awesome to me. I
don't see a downside, except for that pesky ethical issue.

> Love, Kyle

Love to you Kyle! -Mark

[OzarkMark]

Hi again Daniel, good thread!

> I think "Service To Others" is another term for unconditional love.

Yes, I can agree to that.

>If not
> then how do you know when your STO actions aren't just "Service To Self"
in
> disguise? I think "guerrilla peace-fare" is either a contradiction in
terms
> or pure STS, but it's not unconditional love.

Could it be unconditional love? Is that a possibility?

> I would be angry if someone
> put that kind of intent into my drink without asking me first because it
> feels manipulative.

Yes, I would feel angry too. This is an excellent point!

> It appears to be looking for a pay-off, like maybe
> scoring spiritual points at my expense.

It may appear that way, but that doesn't mean it IS that way. It is
certainly not my intention.

> I feel unconditionally loved when I think of how God has allowed me to
> learn from every single one of my choices and mistakes for all these many
> lifetimes. That way I know exactly who I am because I made me. If God
> suddenly began spiking my drinks to get me to choose differently than my
> own free will would have me choose, then, well, I guess I'd be angry at
God
> for short-circuiting my great accomplishment.

Amen, brother. Excellent points. But wait, I just had a thought. As we
approach Ascension, the solar system is going through a higher vibrational
area of the galaxy, right? Didn't "God" set up this amazingly complex, yet
simple system of cycles in the universe so different systems in the galaxy
would go through these changes on a regular basis? Is God taking away my
free will when he insists on putting me through this big change without
asking me? What if I want to try reaching enlightenment without the
assistance of a high energy field? Is God short-circuiting my potential
accomplishment? I just heard someone out there say "but you're not God".
I'm not? Is it called "The Law of One and God"? There is no separation!

> While I don't think someone else's misguided intent to change me with this
> sort of "covert love" could actually hurt me, I do think they would be
> hurting themselves. But if that same person were to knock on my door with
> extra food from their garden THEN I would feel genuinely loved by them and
> by God. And I think they would feel equally blessed for having given from
a
> place of genuine love.

I get the feeling that you don't think I'm coming from a place of "genuine
love". Don't assume!

> Am I alone on this one?

No, I hear you and agree with you. But at the same time, I will follow my
intuition next time I'm at the store.

Take care, Mark

[OzarkMark]

Hi Eric, thanks for jumping in.

> Hello group,
>
> Jesus had all the power to heal every single entity on the planet, yet
only healed those that came to him.
> Why would he not heal every single entity, if he surely had the power to
do so?
>
> Why would God, for that matter, not make our lives more harmonious?

Good questions Eric.

> I believe it all comes down to preserving the free-will of otherselves.(
ourselves)
> If you want every entity healed , you could rip them from becoming there
OWN Highest vision of themselves.
> Is that really an act of unconditional Love?

No, ripping is never unconditional Love!

> Also, i dont think the Higher-Self can make an entity drink or not drink
blessed water.

I didn't say "make". My thought was that a person's Higher Self would know
if the water had higher love vibes in it and could choose to reject the
love, but still drink the water. Heck if I KNOW anything!

> If the entity is unaware of the blessed water and also is not listening to
its little Voice, it will drink the water.
> Blessing water or healing should remain free-will choices, every single
time and again.

I agree. But...

What if an angry, unhappy person went to the store and bought some love
water without knowing it had been "tampered" with. The ego of this person
would reject any attempt to give him love on the conscious level, and he has
a lifelong habit of chasing away anyone who might try to give him some love.
The Higher Self sees an opportunity here to get some love vibes into this
poor guy, and guides him to buy love water and drink it every day. The guy
grows and changes. Not because of HIS ego choice, but because a higher
power had compassion for him and made a different choice. Who's free will
do we need to protect and defend? The small self or the big Self?

> If you really want to bless and heal otherselves, without infringing there
free-will, see them as Perfect and Whole.
> Send them your unconditional Love, which as usual doesnt bother to be
rejected. :-)
> Anyway, just my oppinion.

Beautiful! Take care, Mark

[OzarkMark]

Hi again Kay, just a few quick notes before bed...

> I have to say that I
> think your note would make an excellent article for "The Onion" with the
> heading, "Oh My God! I Drank Blessed Water!"

Jeez, I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything hot when I read that! Hot spray
out the nose can't be good! ; )


> I'm sorry, I just don't get it. We are all a single being enjoying a
single
> moment from many different points of view. The ONE is ALL and the ALL are
> ONE. What you put out is what you get back. Change is the only constant.
> Everything is alive.

Yep!

> I can see now from your note and Daniel's note how, in a point of view, a
> local self can decide even to use the concept of FREE WILL to limit
itself.

Oh, I've used my free will many times to limit myself! Not the smartest
thing to do, but we do it.

> I personally refuse to believe that I can possibly infringe on another
human
> self's free will. I can see how RA would think that it could infringe on
our
> free will because it is in a higher density and is not having an embodied
> experience. But I do not see in ANY way how one embodied human can
possibly
> infringe on another embodied human's free will. I don't believe RA ever
said
> that it was possible, and if RA did say it was possible, I respectfully
> disagree with RA.

Kay, this is a point of some confusion on my part. If All is One, and I am
One, and you are One, all the same...how can "I" infringe on "You"? It's
ALL I! I infringe on my own free will? My head is spinning. I like
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's advice and I have followed it for years. Ready?
"Fulfill your desires". Ra says something to the effect of we are here to
experience the satisfaction of our desires. (Can't think of where I read
that). So, if you feel like putting love in water, do it. If you feel like
walking by the water without a thought, do that. It's all good! Maybe all
the Higher Selves of the people in West Plains planned for them to drink
love water on 7/28/04 long before they were born and my "blessing" the water
is a perfect match for all of their desires and plans to be fullfilled?
Maybe all possibilities exist in a multidimentional universe? Maybe
everything we do is perfect, whether it looks like it or not to our egos or
to others who have no clue what is really going on inside our minds? Ah,
food for thought.

> I mean you could argue that blessing the water goes against the water's
free
> will too.

Oh no, another can of worms! Good night everybody! -Mark

[Daniel Moeck]

Hi Kay,

At 07:36 PM 7/29/2004, you wrote:

>You know that you ARE God, right? Each of us is God having a human
>experience as a localized self. Everything is God.

I know that I am God inhabiting a localized self (ego-self) which has a
free will that it obviously doesn't know how to use properly.


>I'm sorry, I just don't get it. We are all a single being enjoying a single
>moment from many different points of view. The ONE is ALL and the ALL are
>ONE. What you put out is what you get back.
>I personally refuse to believe that I can possibly infringe on another human
>self's free will. But I do not see in ANY way how one embodied human can
>possibly
>infringe on another embodied human's free will.
>
> All I can do is shake my head. "Free Will" means to me, "do what
>you will".
>
>Blessings,
>Kay

It's hard to tell if you are confusing the free will of the human-self with
free will of the God-self, or if you are speaking ideologically for the
God-self only. In light of your statement: "Free Will" means to me, "do
what you will"

Daniel Moeck

----------

[rus tle]

--- OzarkMark <ozarkmark@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=vQNpEH-asflXLk_L6KKu3Aac6UZ-GyKupMycdCp2w-CNIYCYmcSCDCmPblv4i6rc9GPHu-_cJuMva2Webrxk)> wrote:

Hi All,

I have an ethical/free will question or two. Is it
ethical to send someone love without their knowledge
and permission? Looking at it from the Law of One
perspective, wouldn't you be sending love to yourself?
If you can send love without permission, can you go
into your local Walmart and send love to everyone?
Seems good to me, but I am open for other ideas.

*******Great question!

Is it ethical to be angry with someone without their
knowledge or permission?

If you can send love without permission then yes
presumably you can go into the local Walmart and send
love to everyone? Why would you need permission to do
so and whose permission are you looking for? What is
your intent behind your actions?

What thoughts are driving you to that action and what
motives are propelling you? Would it be because of
curiosity, would it be because if you didn't you might
be thouight of as STS for "withholding love"??? What
causes you to feel the need to perform the
action?********

Now, I have a more difficult question. Regarding the
research done on the effects of emotions and words on
the formation of crystals in water and the idea we can
put love energy into water, then drink the water and
get the benifits of the high vibration "love water".
Would it be ethical to put love into water that
someone else will drink without their knowledge? If
it is ethical and doesn't interfere with free will, I
have an idea that could really help bring the vibes up
on the planet. What if each of us, in our normal
daily lives, made a point of putting love vibrations
into all the water, soda, beer, milk, etc we see in
grocery stores and delivery trucks, resturants,
factories, convienience stores, etc. Everyone who
shops where you have been would be getting a dose of
love and healthy vibrations everytime they took a
drink. So would the family at home. What about the
swimming pools and local creeks and rivers? Put love
in every body of water you come across. I would call
this "guerrilla peace-fare"!
Comments?? Love, Mark

*******
Another question somewhat re-framed? Again the intent
may need to be questioned?

Take for example Charities that send out aid to Third
World countries in an assumed unconditional scenario.
A village whose closest access to mains water is 40
miles away, and closest water supply is the river 2
miles away.

Aid comes from the West through their intent to help.
They build a watering hole for the village, a well
that provides fresh clean drinking water.

The villagers are very grateful to the Westerners for
such thoughful actions - they have helped them out
considerably, now they don't have to walk as far to
get their water.

Over time the other small villages within a 10/20/30
mile radius hear about this new fantastic well that
has been installed in the village. They think that it
might be a good idea to go and live in the village
closer to this instant water supply.

Within a couple of years the georgraphy of villages
has changed. There is now one big village and lots of
half villages sprawled out in the forty mile radius.
It is not long before the water basin drys up from
over usage as the well was only planned to be used for
one village and its population.

Disease begins to show its ugly head as the
overcrowding demands it.

Do we blame the local villagers, the rules and
regulations of migratory peoples, the people who
installed the well? Everyone had the best of
intentions and yet the village was ruined.

Everyone has somthing to learn in this story.

The local villagers learn that if they are to receive
such a gift of power then they should also accept the
responsibility that comes with it. (Possibly a law of
catalyst?)

The migratory people from neighbouring villagers who
leave their functional villages for their desires of a
better life learn to appreciate what they had before
they left. (Possibly to do with the law that any more
than need is greed.)

And those whose aid came from the West learnt even
though their intentions were very high there were
still things they could not predict if they
intervened. Were these people ready to recive such a
gift? Had they given them this gift without thinking
about their free-will? For truly if they wanted a well
then wouldn't spirit itself have shown them how to
build one?

Now this may appear to be a cut and dried story with
little flambouyance about it but I think it holds the
basic metaphor of what we are talking about.

Every action no matter how small leaves its mark, and
having the free-will to choose is something of
double-edged sword.

I remember Ra speaks about how they found it
relatively easy to go through to 4d because they were
matyrs when it came to unconditional love however that
made it more diffucult for them to learn the 5d
lesson. I suppose they found it hard to see how being
so unconditional could hold them back from whatever it
was they were learning next???





__________________________________________________ _________ALL-NEW Yahoo!
Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

[Beverly Thompson]

Dear asc2k friends:

Kyle wrote: I mean of course people could bring Ra's teachings
into it. But Ra's word isnt the only ground for exchange and discussion here, is
it? Help me out here so I can figure out how to make it work Chris! Love, Kyle!

Bev: I remember Ra referring to the work of the adept in a couple of places in
Book II that somewhat relate to this discussion. The discussion in Lesson #49
deals with two types of meditation. It's the second type that's mentioned that
I'm quoting here.

"The type of meditation which may be called visualization has as its goal not
that which is contained in the meditation itself. Visualization is the tool of
the adept. Those who learn to hold visual images in mind are developing an
inner concentrative power that can transcend boredom and discomfort. When this
ability has become crystallized in an edept the adept may then do polarizing in
consciousness without external action which can affect the planetary
consciousness. This is the reason for the existence of the so-called White
Magician. Only those wishing to pursue the conscious raising of planetary
vibration will find visualization to be a particulary satisfying type of
meditation."

This subject is expanded further in the next session, #50.

QUESTIONER: Thank you. How does the ability to hold visual images in mind
allow the adept to do polarization in consciousness without external action?

RA: I am Ra. This is not a simple query, for the adept is one which will go
beyond the green-ray which signals entry into harvestability. The adept will
not simply be tapping into intelligent energy as a means of readiness for
harvest but tappint into both intelligent energy and intelligent infinity for
the purpose of transmuting planetary harvestability and consciousness.
The means of this working lie within. The key is first, silence, and
secondly, singleness of thought. Thusly a visualization which can be held stady
to the inward eye for several of your minutes, as you measure time, will signal
the adept's increase in singleness of thought. This singleness of thought then
can be used by the positive adept to work in group ritual visualizations for the
raising of positive energy, by negative adepts for the increase in personal
power.

There is no discussion about "ethics" here, rather a method to effect specific
results that can be used by either the positive or negative adept. It seems to
me the greatest contribution anyone can make to raising planetary consciousness
is to meet regularly with a group of like-minded folks and focus/visualize as a
group love and light to all creation.

Healing Love,
Bev

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Erik]

Key wrote:
>>>I know that you ARE God, right? Each of us is God having a human
experience as a localized self. In fact the computer screen that you're
looking at right now is God too. Everything is God. I have to say that I
think your note would make an excellent article for "The Onion" with the
heading, "Oh My God! I Drank Blessed Water!"

Erik: I indeed know that I AM God or.. The Infinite Creator.
But there is a major difference in Knowing that I AM and experiencing it.
The experience of being God is a whole other story than knowing it, we all can
attest to that.
To experience being God, One has to behave as God and God is the Highest Vision
of all that-is.
So we remain entities or children untill we behave as God does. As per what Ra
said: " We are still Ra and so our path is forward"
Ra also knows that it is, hence that everything is, The Infinite Creator ( God).
Yet they call themselves ( itself) Ra and not Infinite Creator/God.

The Creation is an illusional state in which the Infinite Creator plays hide and
seek with Itself, to gain Empherical Experience of what it knows IT IS.
And so although in its purest essence we ARE God, we can create states in which
we are NOT GOD and thus experience what we are NOT.
This i asume is what the Holy Trinity is about: I KNOW what/who I AM ( but
what/who AM I? )-- I CREATE what/who I AM NOT-- I EXPERIENCE what I AM ( I now
understand what/who I AM).
( and than this Glory is seen as not the Highest State and so the Infinite
Creator creates more and more to experience even Higher Glory, ect)

So, i believe that you and I as entities are God in illusion. The word entity
says enough in itself, we are NOT at the moment God's Highest Vision/experience
of ITSelf.
We are, at the moment, the Highest Vision of ourselves as an entity. And we
create every moment a new or higher vision.
And if your Highest Vision of yourself is to bless water in supermarkets than I
AM in joy, loving it, accepting it, blessing it and thanking you for it.



>>>I'm sorry, I just don't get it. We are all a single being enjoying a single
moment from many different points of view. The ONE is ALL and the ALL are
ONE. What you put out is what you get back. Change is the only constant.
Everything is alive.

Erik: If you do not "get it" you choose to be what you are not. If you "get it"
you would not be here telling me otherwise, yes?

>>>I can see now from your note and Daniel's note how, in a point of view, a
local self can decide even to use the concept of FREE WILL to limit itself.
I personally refuse to believe that I can possibly infringe on another human
self's free will.

Erik: Isnt to refuse something an act of separation? Doesnt God accept all
that-is?
I am not here to tell you what you should or should not do. I am here to share
my own highest vision of myself.
My vision does see possibilities, and infinite amount, to infringe the free-will
of otherselves.
Lets take a fictional example here: You put a human being to sleep, from which
you want it to awaken itself. Than you put such an amount of intelligent
Infinity into its drinking water it awakens not by itself but by your
interfering. Why Create a sleeper in the first place, if your intention is to
awaken it yourself?


>>>I can see how RA would think that it could infringe on our
free will because it is in a higher density and is not having an embodied
experience. But I do not see in ANY way how one embodied human can possibly
infringe on another embodied human's free will. I don't believe RA ever said
that it was possible, and if RA did say it was possible, I respectfully
disagree with RA.

I mean you could argue that blessing the water goes against the water's free
will too. All I can do is shake my head. "Free Will" means to me, "do what
you will".

Erik: Thats a tough one Key, great argument. Let me try:
Nature, of which water is a part is perfect. It is us humans that can re-create
this perfect nature into something less. Like a rotten river in India, which
spews great disease!
Lets stay with this river that is in dismay because of our ignorance, that is to
say those that created the current state of this river.
Doesnt the river show to its human- self that it is THEY that created its
dismay? At least.. thats the mirror the river reflects.
Now.. lets suppose the humans who re-created this river from a perfect (
healthy) state into an not so perfect ( unhealthy) state are ignorant to the
lesson the rivers shows to them, what will happen? They get sick and some will
die. It is there karmic lesson to learn what has been put into motion.
Now a Saint, like Jesus comes to the "rescue" and blesses ( which simple means
to acknowledge its perfect state) and thus instantly heals this sick river.
Would those that created the sick river learn anything from this action, other
than that they would make it sick again?

Now let suppose those who re-created the river from its perfect state into a not
so perfect state would "Get It" and bless the river themselves, make it perfect
again, understanding the karmic lesson.
Would that not be the solution?

If you are to bless waterbottles, which would bless and heal otherselves, what
lessons might these otherselves not be able to learn anymore?
And would it not be possible, because they have not yet learned the reason of
there karmic state, that this so-called blessed state you gave them eventualy (
just like if Jesus would have blessed that river) eventualy would turn into what
they where before you blessed there water?

The ascension from this density into the next however, does not require this
Wisdom, for a native to bless the entire world is seen as an act of the open
heart.
But i sense that this forum is where alot of wanderers are debating issues that
go beyont.

I agree that free-will gives us the opportunities to Create what we want/desire.
But there are also Laws put into motion that makes us experience what we
Created/desired.


Love & Light,
Erik.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[bitsmart]

--- OzarkMark <ozarkmark@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=p_V_amRTZyd1an5P1p_z0s5qNOpOsqfwue0MuD 5-bTVqfSEDepnaQ_hOO61WuJQIpoIqQ150PCXDwUOT_n02)> wrote:
> As we
> approach Ascension, the solar system is going
> through a higher vibrational
> area of the galaxy, right? Didn't "God" set up this
> amazingly complex, yet
> simple system of cycles in the universe so different
> systems in the galaxy
> would go through these changes on a regular basis?
> Is God taking away my
> free will when he insists on putting me through this
> big change without
> asking me? What if I want to try reaching
> enlightenment without the
> assistance of a high energy field? Is God
> short-circuiting my potential
> accomplishment? I just heard someone out there say
> "but you're not God".
> I'm not? Is it called "The Law of One and God"?
> There is no separation!

I believe that if I am here on Earth right now, then
it's because my higher self chose this, fully aware of
the consequences. Just as God does not interfere with
the free will of my higher self when my ego says "God,
take me away from this place of suffering!", I do my
best not interfere with the free will of others'
higher selves regardless of what their ego selves are
doing and saying. I can see a fantastic design in my
life, with synchronicity, logical progression of
lessons learned, and intuitive guidance. Who am I to
interfere with something like this? Everyone else has
a design like my own, but theirs is 'prescribed' by
themself, for themself, for their own reasons which we
cannot see. In a free will universe, free will is the
rule, the law, the mechanism that allows this great
drama of duality to unfold. STO choose to serve
others, STS choose to serve themselves. Everything
begins and ends with choice. For me, it all comes down
to intent.

What is the intent behind an action? Is it truly to
serve others? If so, is it needed, wanted, asked for?
If not, then why not let the Universe take care of it
in its own time? This place is infinite and eternal,
things will sort themselves out eventually. In the
meantime, I can polarize myself towards STO by simply
thinking, feeling, and being all the principles and
values STO stands for. No need to 'score STO points,'
as I'm sure polarization is yet another thing that's
programmed into my incarnation. Graceful acceptance,
non-interference, and service to others when my
intuition tells me it is not violating free will, this
is how I choose to live my life. Again, this is just
my thoughts on the matter. It's still really
interesting to hear different viewpoints on this
subject, let's keep it up!

Respectfully,

-Drew



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

[bitsmart]

--- OzarkMark <ozarkmark@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=zzkr4S6GAhMJrEcHkjOYtJ64SvoL-Am7_KxpkBSSlAd3CNT_qqvCg31Hee8pFJLr8R0O8ES5EYTIpWQ pfQXA)> wrote:
> What if an angry, unhappy person went to the store
> and bought some love
> water without knowing it had been "tampered" with.
> The ego of this person
> would reject any attempt to give him love on the
> conscious level, and he has
> a lifelong habit of chasing away anyone who might
> try to give him some love.
> The Higher Self sees an opportunity here to get some
> love vibes into this
> poor guy, and guides him to buy love water and drink
> it every day. The guy
> grows and changes. Not because of HIS ego choice,
> but because a higher
> power had compassion for him and made a different
> choice.

What if the higher self of said person chose certain
circumstances which made this person angry and
unhappy, for the purpose of learning lessons and
working out some karma from a past life? What if this
person, on some level, chose to suffer? Suffering
brings learning and spiritual growth.

> Who's free will
> do we need to protect and defend? The small self or
> the big Self?


I believe all selves of an entity deserve an equal
amount of consideration for the preservation of free
will, but the higher self of a person is intangible,
invisible to us. We can only reason that their higher
self, who programmed their incarnation, knows exactly
what it's doing (it is 5th density, after all.)
Perhaps it chose an STS incarnation for a good reason.
And if there's an interaction between you and said
individual of an unpleasant nature, maybe both of your
higher selves agreed to have this 'transaction' take
place so that you both could learn from it.

Anyway, these are the sorts of things I consider when
trying to preserve free will.

Respectfully,

Drew



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

[Lesley Schultz]

Dear Drew, Mark, et al, L/L & Peace to All:

--- bitsmart <endescent@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=vQT5UXgzAkvCwzWwLR-x58SFCLl38yXsmDspPXbT1dySNLhE6qls_8OzJUsIvO4o5fRfw rTmH6hw)> wrote:
<<<snip>>>> I believe all selves of an entity deserve
an equal amount of consideration for the preservation
of free will, but the higher self of a person is
intangible, invisible to us. We can only reason that
their higher self, who programmed their incarnation,
knows exactly what it's doing (it is 5th density,
after all.)

LS: The way I figure it, if one sent love/light into
waterbottles in a supermarket, hoping to elevate the
vibrations of anyone who wound up consuming them,
there is no infringement because we are all surrounded
by L/L all the time. Some we accept, some we reject,
as a reflection of our free will judgement at the
time. A person who is funadmentally STO may reject
love as being not helpful for growth or understanding,
and this is not considered to be a violation of the
free will on the part of the person who offers it.
The love being offered may be STS in nature; higher
densities don't recognize a difference but we perceive
it where we are. Is that bad? No; it's just where we
are right now. It's also true that love being offered
by an STO entity to another STO entity may be rejected
as unhelpful. Does this mean the love is negative in
nature? No. It just means that it is not being
offered in a form and at a time where it can be easily
recognized and accepted. The same can be true of an
STO entity that offers love to an STS entity. The
probability is high that the love will not be accepted
by the STS entity, as it doesn't have characteristics
that are useful to to STS. Does this mean that the
STO entity has infringed on the rights of the STS
entity? No. The STS entity was free decline the
love, just as the STO entity was free to offer it.

There is no infringement. There is honor/duty and
authority/responsibility- the duality in unity that
we're all seeking to understand better.

Just MHO, of course.

Blessings,
~lesley


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[bitsmart]

--- rus tle <profrustyleafiii@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=8a6G3lMYpkosuHpvagmF36ob05GR2sLgmq_-2fQjWmvJ8cOyg9efs20T5VMFA1FeCttZIlvG_EMQ_PHzkd21Ja N1X8Uok-o)> wrote:
> Every action no matter how small leaves its mark,
> and
> having the free-will to choose is something of
> double-edged sword.
>
> I remember Ra speaks about how they found it
> relatively easy to go through to 4d because they
> were
> matyrs when it came to unconditional love however
> that
> made it more diffucult for them to learn the 5d
> lesson. I suppose they found it hard to see how
> being
> so unconditional could hold them back from whatever
> it
> was they were learning next???

Great story rustle,

IMHO it's an excellent example of how free will can be
so tricky, and how one seemingly innocuous action can
change everything. In non-linear equations, the
slightest change in a variable can affect the whole
equation.

Back in Feb., I went to a concert with my friend who
had turned me on to this artist we were going to see.
After the concert, which was truly a visceral life
experience, I asked how he found out about this
artist. He said he heard a remix by another artist
whom he liked, so I asked him who turned him on to
THAT artist (I like to follow things to their source).
So he says, "you did." I realized that my turning
someone onto some music I really like indirectly
caused myself and all my friends to get into this
other, new, really great music and go to this concert
and have this incredible, fantastic memory of a
magical time I will never forget.

This was an important lesson for me in choosing
carefully, knowing that I can't predict the outcome of
my choices. If there's one thing I've learned in all
my (23) years on this planet, it's that nothing ever
goes like I think it will; life is full of surprises.

Great discussion! =D

Respectfully,

-Drew



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

[David Wilcock]

Kay writes:
I mean you could argue that blessing the water goes against the water's
free
will too.

Well if the water is choosing to be blessed then there is no
infringement.
And despite your outright outrage and uncomfortability/disbelief in your
words, we do come together on the issue that free will cannot be
infringed. Id like to start a new thread about that, being that i think
it has a lot of potential for clarification amongst individuals, but
this e-group isnt about that kind of thing, its only about clarifying
David and Ra's work, right Chris?

DW: This list is about clarifying David and Ra's work vis-ÃÂà ƒÂ‚ƒÃƒÂ‚à ƒÂ‚ÂÂÂÂ*-vis the Law
of One. Since free will is the "first distortion" of the Law of One, as
per the LoO series, this is an extremely relevant topic.

Peace be with you -

- David

[Daniel Moeck]

Hi Mark,

At 07:34 PM 7/29/2004, you wrote:

>Hi Daniel and All,
>
> > How many doses could you
> > divide your love up into before it lost it's potency? Good thing there
> > isn't just a finite amount of love available to us, huh? How about getting
> > the door greeter's job at Walmart so you could just bless everyone
>directly
> > as they walk in?
>
>Daniel, I'm detecting some anger and sarcasm directed at me. Am I correct?


No, Mark. Not at all. I think what you are detecting is my discomfort with
the fact that the points I wanted to make would seem to assume that I know
your own true intent. Obviously I don't. As much as we may be united by the
Law of One I cannot, and would not, presume to speak for you.

I'll try making them again, but know that they only reflect my own
perceptions and preferences.
My first point was that love spreads by multiplication rather than
division. My second point was that, in my mind, being a door greeter would
offer a much greater opportunity to experience the joy of spreading love
than just blessing bottles of water. But that's just my preference and
obviously not yours.



> > I agree. There is a long lasting "feel good" that comes when your love is
> > genuine.
>
>Again, Daniel, this comes off as implying my love is not genuine. Maybe I'm
>being paranoid, sometimes it's hard for me to tell what meaning someone
>intended with their words.


I'm sorry if my writing style leaves the impression that I am hiding some
kind of contempt. I am not. I still wonder what the fascination with
spreading covert love is actually about when it is so easy to just to
spread love face to face. But I do not question that your feelings are
genuine. That's why I made that statement.

Take care,

Daniel Moeck

----------

[Daniel Moeck]

Hi again Mark,

At 08:28 PM 7/29/2004, you wrote:

>Hi again Daniel, good thread!
>
> > I think "Service To Others" is another term for unconditional love.
>
>Yes, I can agree to that.
>
> >If not
> > then how do you know when your STO actions aren't just "Service To Self"
>in
> > disguise? I think "guerrilla peace-fare" is either a contradiction in
>terms
> > or pure STS, but it's not unconditional love.
>
>Could it be unconditional love? Is that a possibility?


O.k. you got me there. The term "guerrilla peace-fare" doesn't make sense
to me personally but since it is your term it can mean whatever you say it
means.




> > While I don't think someone else's misguided intent to change me with this
> > sort of "covert love" could actually hurt me, I do think they would be
> > hurting themselves. But if that same person were to knock on my door with
> > extra food from their garden THEN I would feel genuinely loved by them and
> > by God. And I think they would feel equally blessed for having given from
>a
> > place of genuine love.
>
>I get the feeling that you don't think I'm coming from a place of "genuine
>love". Don't assume!


I don't think I did. Did you assume that I was talking about you? We all
express opinions based on our own fallible human perceptions. Sometimes
when perceive the opinions of others as attacks we are seeing the
reflection of our an attack on ourselves.

I wish you only the very best of everything, Mark.

Daniel Moeck

----------


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.726 / Virus Database: 481 - Release Date: 7/22/2004


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[srachele2004]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=kOSIbtWm_i76Sj0oRcQFZPE2G0-EzF4wqE_zGrZJAG51pSLVCShcjq5EqOzOWEacAM9Gm6SHdqDkq DQ), GenoNess1@a... wrote:

> I have an ethical/free will question or two. Is it ethical to send
someone love without their knowledge and permission?
>
>...they have the free will to reject your love or accept it.

Sal here:
This discussion of free will and love is great, but one thing I think
we are missing is the following: We ARE love. That is our natural
state. When we are in our natural state and being WHO ARE ARE, we are
constantly sending out love in the most appropriate way possible.
Spirit within us knows EXACTLY how to maximize our love. Our love will
radiate in the best possible way once our egos are reduced to humble
servants. Of course, free will says that another soul can choose to
accept or reject that love, but as Jesus said, "cast not your pearls
before swine," which means do not be concerned with those who are
unable or unwilling to receive your gifts. Since love cannot harm,
let's just keep on loving and maybe one day it will get through even
the hardest shell.

--Sal

[marty sorenson]

RE: Blessing water with love.
First post alert! I am brand new here and haven?t fully read everything I?m
supposed to but I?ll get there. I can?t keep my mouth shut on this topic. What
an outstanding, thought provoking question.



This is the way that I perceive the transmission of love. If you are looking for
an efficient way to propagate love energy it would seem to me to be more
efficient to love ?yourself?, fully. It may sound lame but let me go further.
Presuming that your Higher-self already knows love, and IS love, then by
connecting to our higher-self we would ?permit love. It?s already there. And by
connecting to our higher selves we are connecting to everyone else. (law of
one?).



I think that attempting to transmit love energy ?solely? from the physical
perspective might be going in reverse and not nearly as efficient as through
thought, prayer and higher consciousness.



Picture this: If I were an aware, multi-dimensional being, filled with loving
energy, I would not hide that love and I would exude the brilliance of love.
This brilliant love energy would not be pointed like a gun. It would just be
there. Picture it as light. As I look out around me I would see relative
darkness with smatterings of light here and there. It has been getting brighter
lately but it is still rather dim. There goes some passing beings that are
sparkling at me. There goes another group that is dark and muddy. They don?t
see me. One of them looks up briefly but he turns away and carries on with the
rest of his group of gray beings.



The physical part of me wants to send love to other physical beings. I'm trying
to get through to him that I am much more able to do the job but he keeps trying
to do it on his own. He knows I'm here and he's reaching me more often but he
still doesn't fully see what I'm capable of yet.



Beings are free to come to me and I will gladly share my light with them. And I
too will be drawn to other loving beings. Free-will is there and is not being
violated. It?s not really a rule to live by is it? Free will is more a reality.
You simply can?t violate it. IMHO



What a great forum.



Marty S.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[GenoNess1@...]

In a message dated 7/30/2004 6:28:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ozarkmark@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=VI7zk0rkgPCq4ErIe7TE466CMZWyFHVwiPUWgh nlX6q8Aaxb_gmhu1tpYSDFCsrFcIwqNU5hr-Dg3Gua) writes:
I agree with this for sure. But, what if they are not conscious of the fact
that you put love energy in their water? Did we just take away their
choice?


Well Mark, i believe that if they are not conscious of it on ANY level, then
they are not receiving it. every moment of awareness IS the existence of
choice. Simply put if they ar not conscious of the energy, then the energy
can't
affect them. seeing as how they are you, sending love to themselves, and you
are them, receiving your love, the duality present in this 'ethical question'
and the dispute over 'free will' is a matter of illusion. Hope that makes sense.
Love, me!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[GenoNess1@...]

In a message dated 7/30/2004 8:15:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
e.strasser@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=wynsPC4xOVxQ4R-75jYb-iBWihYhNHqNrGA8foYpcOi9DLy8LdUfgPZcIKdLHM-o8RQJ7b603gV_SRDF8Crt) writes:
If you are to bless waterbottles, which would bless and heal otherselves,
what lessons might these otherselves not be able to learn anymore?
And would it not be possible, because they have not yet learned the reason of
there karmic state, that this so-called blessed state you gave them eventualy
( just like if Jesus would have blessed that river) eventualy would turn into
what they where before you blessed there water?




I like your reasoning Erik (and i love your whole posting) and I have a
comment on this concept. Isnt the blessing of the water just a lesson for the
blesser? Like if you were to acknowledge that the river is already perfect, then
you wouldn't want it to change at all. Anything else would be simply for your
satisfaction. Its a very thin line! Love, Kyle!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Daniel Moeck]

Hi Marty,


>Beings are free to come to me and I will gladly share my light with
>them. And I too will be drawn to other loving beings. Free-will is there
>and is not being violated. It's not really a rule to live by is it? Free
>will is more a reality. You simply can't violate it. IMHO
>
>
>
>What a great forum.
>
>
>
>Marty S.




From one newbie to another I just wanted to say, " what a great post!" I'm
glad you spoke out.

Daniel Moeck

----------


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.726 / Virus Database: 481 - Release Date: 7/22/2004


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kay Dayss]

Thank you, Erik. I can see your point of view now. Thanks so much for taking
the time to explain it to me.

My point of view is more focused on letting go so that the Universe can
orchestrate, and the way that I've found that works best is to do that which
I feel called to do. I personally don't feel called to bless water bottles,
so I don't do it. But I support others who DO feel so called to follow their
calling. Part of my calling is to encourage and support other selves in
following their calling during this great transformational shift to 4th
density.

I leave the question of should I or should I not do X or Y or Z up to the
Universe by following my calling. This belief structure simplifies my life
and helps me to let go of the things I need to let go of even when my local
self (ego) wants to hold onto it.

Does Ra believe in karma and forgiveness? I don't remember reading about
that in the books, but it has been a few years. I know that Seth doesn't buy
into karma and forgiveness because they are a form of one-up-man-ship or
separation.

Anyway, interesting, and thank you. It is fun to talk to people who believe
as I do that everything is made of God-stuff. Everything is alive.
Everything is me. Everything is you. We are the ONE who lives and moves and
breathes in all things.

Just one more question. The Ra group didn't talk about space ships coming to
the rescue did it? Isn't that just what David added? Frankly, part of my
being thinks the idea of spaceships coming is very funny, and another part
thinks that it is a very clever way for all the ETs out there to help us
out. And another part is a little nervous about it because there was that
group that committed suicide so that their spirit could board some ET ship
hidden in a comet's tail. So as I'm new, can you all point me to the
material that talks about the ETs coming during the final stages of the
transition to 4th density earth? I'd like to make sure that I understand it.

In the state of love,
Kay

----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik" <e.strasser@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=A-dXU6zyBmm1nOHiRU8mmcsppiPcSDZBPAoQeu0GUJOs2fVBX49n 2iA-unWksBufDqZbvbhIz3wSCP1nbcHU)>


<snip>

Erik: I indeed know that I AM God or.. The Infinite Creator.
But there is a major difference in Knowing that I AM and experiencing it.
The experience of being God is a whole other story than knowing it, we all
can attest to that.
To experience being God, One has to behave as God and God is the Highest
Vision of all that-is.
So we remain entities or children untill we behave as God does. As per what
Ra said: " We are still Ra and so our path is forward"
Ra also knows that it is, hence that everything is, The Infinite Creator (
God). Yet they call themselves ( itself) Ra and not Infinite Creator/God.

<snip>

[Kay Dayss]

I don't and didn't feel any "outright outrage" or any other kind of outrage.
That statement made me lol. 8-) Why would you think that "shaking my head
in disbelief" would mean I was outraged?

Curious,
Kay


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Wilcock" <djw333@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=ISp3H6cxpZUC4sanYZuWfuCDJV88PBpRF4xnaR n786jpCt4HcBbWoo26FyuIj6FC4GpCH7zABRrqiy5L)>


<snip>

And despite your outright outrage and uncomfortability/disbelief in your
words, we do come together on the issue that free will cannot be
infringed.

<snip>

[Kay Dayss]

Hi Daniel,

This is a tangled web.

We use similar but different terms. When I translate, my words would be
"local self" and "Universe". Hmmmm. I am talking about the free will of
local self as represented in human form on planet Earth in 2004. I do not
believe that it is possible for one human local self to infringe on the free
will of another human local self. However, this is difficult to talk about
without also including a discussion of choice. Also, I can see that there
are many different definitions of "infringe" here.

This is interesting to me because if the Universe gives me as "local Kay" a
calling that I can't seem to ignore, then the Universe has, in a way,
infringed on my free will. However, I don't see it that way. I mean the part
of me that knows we are all ONE doesn't feel infringed upon even though I
sometimes feel like I don't what to do what my calling is compelling me to
do.

This is complex.

When I read the Ra books, I always thought that the Ra's "I can't answer
that because it would infringe on your free will" meant the answer was
something completely outside my understanding and everyone on the planet's
understanding such that if brought into my understanding it would introduce
a foreign concept into the "Earth consciousness group" and completely change
the Universe's intention for us. So when I read the Ra material, I WAS
thinking about the first distortion being about the Universe's (or the
infinite creator's) will being infringed by giving humankind info that it
had not chosen to see naturally.

For me, I always thought of free-will infringement as a VERY serious thing
that could only be accomplished by a non-human interfering with humans. This
was the way I could wrap my mind around the concept of free will
infringement.

Another way of looking at this: I can be in a strong STS mode and do my
absolute best to manipulate another local self into doing my bidding, and
still I do not believe that my STS self is infringing on the free will of my
"victim" no matter how covert or violent the attempt is. I just don't
believe it is possible. I held this belief as self-evident, so that is why
it so surprised me when folks here thought it was possible for an STO to
infringe on another self's free will by simply putting love in a bottle.
(... hahaha That just cracked me up "love in a bottle").

To me, a true infringement on free will causes the "matrix" that most local
selves believe to be "reality" to wobble or fade or get snowy or some other
really freaky thing. That's how I interpreted Ra's talk about free will.
That was why I thought Ra called it a "distortion" -- because if that
distortion was violated or infringed on, it would skew our "reality" so
badly that it would be obvious to all that what we thought was "reality" was
really just hogwash. Doubt would be removed, so free will would be
infringed.

I'm not good at explaining this, but I hope that some of this is
understandable so that you can see my point of view about the infringement
of free will that Ra was talking about.

Blessings,
Kay

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Moeck" <dmoeck@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=qZnVF_2YxkbD1-knIOSJ7sdpkY3SXj293saK8eKgCNKfgefmyGEB75TGOBCB9vbu 4CWQU7HJILAx)>


<snip>

It's hard to tell if you are confusing the free will of the human-self with
free will of the God-self, or if you are speaking ideologically for the
God-self only. In light of your statement: "Free Will" means to me, "do
what you will"

[Tofu Dragon]

Hiya Group!!!

I've been lurking for quite a while and catching up on
list mail when I can. I noticed SOO many posts on
this topic and had to see what all the hullabaloo was
about. And even though this poor horse has been
beaten to death I still will have to add my two cents
in...

I don't think freely offering love to anyone or
everyone in any way violates free will. Whether it's
sent thru the "air" (or however it gets there) or in
the "water" or any other means. If it is given freely
with no expectation of return. It is my understanding
that any entity that this love energy is being "sent"
to has the free will option to accept or not. That
there is some kind of a "receptor" on their end that
has to be "open" to receive the incoming love energy.

My other half who is not a LoO junkie came up with a
great analogy for this. Consider a radio station
broadcasting out a signal. Any listener has the
option to "tune" into that signal and thus "receive"
the transmission. The same is true with love energy
being sent out. It can be received if we "tune" into
it. I think the real challenge here is opening our
receptors and tuning in and receiving that love
energy.

Think about this statement that we've all seen many
times! "You are loved MORE than you can imagine!"
How many entities are sending love to all of us? If
we can all open our receptors and allow this love
energy to "enter" the planet by accepting it, wouldn't
that help to raise the vibration of the planet? If we
don't "tune" in, it seems to me that it is still
floating around out there unused...

That's my thoughts on the topic... Thanks for the
good thread! Love and Light to all!
- Lovie =)




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

[Beverly Thompson]

Dear asc2k friends:

In an earlier post I wrote, "There is no discussion about "ethics" here, rather
a method to effect specific results that can be used by either the positive or
negative adept."

As I was researching this topic further in Book III, I found this discussion in
Lesson #73, page 173...

QUESTIONER: What was the orientation with respect to this type of communication
for the one known as Jesus of Nazereth?
RA: I am Ra. You may have read some of this entity's workings. It offered
itself as teacher to those mind/body/spirit complexes which gathered to hear and
even then spole as through a veil so as to leave room for those not wishing to
hear. When this entity was asked to heal, it oft times did son, always ending
the workings with two admonitions: firstly, that the entity healed had been
healed by its faith, that is, its ability to allow and accept changes through
the violet-ray into the gateway of intelligent energy; secondly, saying always,
"Tell no one". These are the workings which attempt the maximal quality of free
will while maintaining fidelity to the positive purity of the working.

QUESTIONER: An observation of the working itself by another entity would seem
to me to partially abridge free will in that a seemingly magical occurence had
taken place as the result of the working of an adept. This could be extended to
any phenomenon which is other than normal or acceptable. Could you speak on
this paradox that is immediately the problem of anyone doing healing?
RA: I am Ra. We are humble messengers of the Law of One. To us there are no
paradoxes. The workings which seem magical and, therefore, seem to infringe
upon free will do not, in themselves, do so, for the distortions of perception
are as many as the witnesses and each witness sees what it desires to see.
Infringement upon free will occurs in this circumstance only if the entity doing
the working ascribes the authorship of this event to its self or its own skills.
He who states that no working comes from it but only through it is not
infringing upon free will.

Bev: I also want to quote a line from Ra in Lesson # 71, "The heart of white
magic is the experience of the joy of union with the Creator. This joy will of
necessity radiate throughout the life experience of the positive adept." To me,
this is the key in whether or not there is an infringement on free will. When
we merge with and act as a channel for Creator there is no infringment, but when
we use our egos and say, "I did it!" then that's where we cross the line. If we
were to pursue the path of the adept and become White Magicians, there are no
limits to the changes in planetary consciousness we could, as co-creators with
the one Creator, bring about.

Healing Love,
Bev

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[OzarkMark]

Hi Brother Daniel!

> >Daniel, I'm detecting some anger and sarcasm directed at me. Am I
correct?
>
>
> No, Mark. Not at all.

Thanks for clearing this up for me Daniel. I asked for clarification
because I have a long history of projecting my shadow into others, jumping
to conclusions and assuming the worst. I apologize if I offended or caused
you any distress. Please don't take anything I say personally! This has
been a great thread, and my latest reply to you was rejected for getting off
topic, so I am fading away on this one....Love you all! -Mark

[OzarkMark]

Hi Drew, I like the way you think! I'm going to fade out on this subject
with the following from Carla's "Wanderers Handbook":

(p106) Carla: "The last requirement for harvest or graduation is,
surprisingly perhaps, knowing that one does not know anything."

(p107) Ra: I am Ra. It is absolutely necessary that an entity consciously
realize it does not understand in order for it to be harvestable."

These quotes give me great hope and inspiration, 'cause I KNOW I DON'T KNOW
ANYTHING! Yipppeee! Love, Mark

[OzarkMark]

Hi Marty! I'm glad you jumped in on this subject. I'm a newbie too, so
don't feel alone!

>If you are looking for an efficient way to propagate love energy it would
seem to me to be more efficient to love "yourself", >fully.

Yes, I agree!

>I think that attempting to transmit love energy "solely" from the physical
perspective might be going in reverse and not nearly >as efficient as
through thought, prayer and higher consciousness.

I agree that transmitting love "solely" from the physical isn't the most
efficient way of sending love, but it's still good and okay to do. I don't
think I'll ever walk down the beverage aisle again without automatically
charging up the water as I stroll by. But, at the same time, I meditate
daily, send love and gratitude everywhere, serve others etc. too. Am I
trying to be a hero or score brownie points with the Universe? Nah. Just
looking to be of service to Others/Myself.

Keep posting newbies! Love to All, Mark

[bjorn_nitmou]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=3aSicNCDhPPmVY0sIvli_-JJu2kdA-ufUViqdrN_NoEbMQp6oe6RJlmcDFAvSzBMdHPWnMiwbDSY14Hm pV4ykw), Daniel Moeck <dmoeck@e...> wrote:
My second point was that, in my mind, being a door greeter would
> offer a much greater opportunity to experience the joy of spreading
love
> than just blessing bottles of water. But that's just my preference
and
> obviously not yours.
__________________________
I cant think of any way to quantify the amount of water a specific
entity can bless. Everyone is different. I might suggest you
experiment with blessing your own water first (remember you should be
drinking like 8 glasses a day or whatever.) And then try to
determine how effective this process is for you. If you could just
lay in bed and bless the Osions that would be great, but I guess we
assume our results would be limited. But I wouldnt want to
discourage anyones effort, as it is unhealthy to dwell on limitations.

[bjorn_nitmou]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=a4-2UJIwOrF5cBDT0SSxb7ZiFS1UknITd0AEZi1VLj4Tgwhf8Pefc 6apOiHsvhfAXzuwWsOhYiU9nJL1OQ), Lesley Schultz <msthoth@y...> wrote:
> LS: The way I figure it, if one sent love/light into
> waterbottles in a supermarket, hoping to elevate the
> vibrations of anyone who wound up consuming them,
> there is no infringement because we are all surrounded
> by L/L all the time. Some we accept, some we reject,
> as a reflection of our free will judgement at the
> time.
_________________
I agree with Lesley. Often on this list it has been discussed as to
how to deal with a negetive greeting. As I understand it you make it
known that the service or catylist is not needed or requested and you
send them love light. So maybe the reciprocal of that is that
blessing water is a positive greeting, and if an entity truely does
not request or need that service, then it can be rejected, and
correct me if I am wrong, but maybe that entity will also attempt to
surround you with darkness? Either that or a engetive entity could
just choose to accept the water as a catylist. Nonetheless it seems
as though there is no ethical issue with blessing water.

A little off topic but: Do STO entities have ethical issues?
Seriously, they must have a goal and a way to go about achieving it
right? So therefore, do they have an equivelent to ethics, or a
creddo as to how they are to acheive "manyness" or whatever it is
that they do?

[Yamku]

Hello Everyone, I have been a "lurker" for several weeks now, reading the
material and following the threads, especially the ones on free will and
blessing
water with love. Thank you all for such commitment to exploring truth as it
shows up in your lives...your minds and hearts. I hesitate to respond with my
own ideas on these very compelling topics because I have not read as widely,
yet, into David's work. I'm working on that and hope to be able to contribute
soon. In the interim, with gratitude, I lurk and read with relish all of the
posts. I am learning and growing, and at 55 years old with several degrees,
and over thirty years as a mental health professional, "I know that I don't
know anything."

Thanks again. I will continue to bless water, plants, people, and situations
with love. Love can do no wrong.

Love and Light,
Valerie


In a message dated 8/1/2004 5:22:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ozarkmark@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=rTjiCQCJdne4l-cnTLHFdkWjs0zFVH2a3GQ9RV-yXZpWhHHXr0f0I7KrqwgJvarCd-BUj_wRGUZGqfgz9g) writes:

> Hi Drew, I like the way you think! I'm going to fade out on this subject
> with the following from Carla's "Wanderers Handbook":
>
> (p106) Carla: "The last requirement for harvest or graduation is,
> surprisingly perhaps, knowing that one does not know anything."
>
> (p107) Ra: I am Ra. It is absolutely necessary that an entity consciously
> realize it does not understand in order for it to be harvestable."
>
> These quotes give me great hope and inspiration, 'cause I KNOW I DON'T KNOW
> ANYTHING! Yipppeee! Love, Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[GenoNess1@...]

In a message dated 7/31/2004 5:44:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, kay@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=Ij87gpYPNu-s6qZDt8vYDnNjL0VyLmybkhOdLkaALdXwrisxnGMBxjWOOu_B6 RhWGVMTWeSxzV4)
writes:
I don't and didn't feel any "outright outrage" or any other kind of outrage.
That statement made me lol. 8-) Why would you think that "shaking my head
in disbelief" would mean I was outraged?

Curious,
Kay


I guess it was mostly because I felt the energy in your words, and responded
to that. and the fact that you only responded to this egoic-focused section of
my reply kind of backs up my intuition. its not a big deal, i admit the words
i used were a little high profile. discomfort was the main idea. Love, Kyle!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Daniel Moeck]

Hello Brother Mark and Group,

At 04:58 PM 7/31/2004, you wrote:

>Hi Brother Daniel!
>
> > >Daniel, I'm detecting some anger and sarcasm directed at me. Am I
>correct?
> >
> >
> > No, Mark. Not at all.
>
>Thanks for clearing this up for me Daniel. I asked for clarification
>because I have a long history of projecting my shadow into others, jumping
>to conclusions and assuming the worst. I apologize if I offended or caused
>you any distress. Please don't take anything I say personally! This has
>been a great thread, and my latest reply to you was rejected for getting off
>topic, so I am fading away on this one....Love you all! -Mark


I just want to make a brief report to the group about what I gained from
this discussion on blessing water. Mark and I have had some great private
correspondence now regarding this where we both did some apologizing and
forgiving. It makes transgressions seem so insignificant when both parties
prefer to stay in the consciousness of love.

In debating Mark's idea I actually cast a critical judgement (there's that
rascally ego again) on it when all that was called for was discussion of
what LoO would say about it. I learned that by criticizing Mark's idea that
in a round-about way I was criticizing his intent as well, even though I
truly thought his intent was very admirable. Being just another fallible
human ego myself, I have no business leveling that kind of criticism on
someone else. The appropriate action for me would have been to tell him I
admire his intent and leave it at that. He would then know he had my
support in trying the idea and finding out for himself how well it works. I
know that's the kind of support I would prefer.

Daniel Moeck

----------


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.726 / Virus Database: 481 - Release Date: 7/22/2004


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[srachele2004]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=nipi-NfyKfnoRUm1eDxQOBE8-DpwUjcpGypTqFpnAMg1yWa0Z_v7eqAEwcothAkazxaWxKJXwKs cLOlCzkk), "OzarkMark" <ozarkmark@t...> wrote:

> (p107) Ra: I am Ra. It is absolutely necessary that an entity
consciously realize it does not understand in order for it to be
harvestable."

Sal here:
I think what Ra is saying here is that the experience of ascension is
so profound and complete that we cannot carry any baggage with us --
all our past knowledge is coveted by the ego and becomes baggage, and
we must come to ascension with open minds and hearts and empty hands.

[OzarkMark]

Welcome Valerie! Please jump in if you feel the urgings of the Spirit! I
look forward to hearing from your perspective. Keep blessing everything!!
Love, Mark


> Hello Everyone, I have been a "lurker" for several weeks now, reading the
> material and following the threads, especially the ones on free will and
blessing
> water with love. Thank you all for such commitment to exploring truth as
it
> shows up in your lives...your minds and hearts. I hesitate to respond
with my
> own ideas on these very compelling topics because I have not read as
widely,
> yet, into David's work. I'm working on that and hope to be able to
contribute
> soon. In the interim, with gratitude, I lurk and read with relish all of
the
> posts. Love can do no wrong.
>
> Love and Light,
> Valerie
>
>
>