PDA

View Full Version : General comments


Chris Hamilton
07-30-2004, 06:21 PM
This thread on ethical situations is quite good and I want to compliment
everyone who has stayed on topic. I wanted to quote a definition of ethics from
the Encarta Ecyclopedia online that may help us see what we are actually trying
to discuss here and stay within guidelines (Ra Material statements). Here is the
definition of Ethics:

"Ethics (Greek ethika, from ethos, "character," "custom"), principles or
standards of human conduct, sometimes called morals (Latin mores, "customs"),
and, by extension, the study of such principles, sometimes called moral
philosophy. This article is concerned with ethics chiefly in the latter sense
and is confined to that of Western civilization, although every culture has
developed an ethic of its own. Ethics, as a branch of philosophy, is considered
a normative science, because it is concerned with norms of human conduct...."

If we look at this, we can find that morals are sets of beliefs we have adopted
for ourselves as a basis of conduct regarding others, and we use an average to
determine a barometer for our own personal morals. It is thru this system that
we develop our ethics.This is a totally human trait, not a Ra-concern at all. Ra
sees us all as One-the only way Ra can tell us apart is by our individual
vibration. So, to ask whether something is ethical or not is just a human
concern, probably seemingly trivial by Ra-standards. Ra did not particularly
address ethics in the books, supposedly because Ra saw a bigger picture than we
are able. After all, we as humans can be pretty myopic:) Anyways, the thread
here has really been exploring the idea of free will and love, which is always
an in-topic for Ra:)

If any of you are participating in the discussions and haven't at least read
David's outline of the Ra books at his ascension site, I urge you to do so, as
this is one of our purposes here: studying The Ra Material. If you have already
read the outline, all of the Ra books are online at llresearch.org , so there is
no excuse not to read them. Most of our discussions center around the books and
if you don't read them, you will be like a person trying to teach artificial
resuscitation without the Red Cross class:) You may do ok, but you might not
bring somebody back:) Thanks to all of you have stayed true to the Ra Material
(you know who you are:). Chris

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

Daniel Moeck
07-31-2004, 12:43 PM
Chris and group,

>... Ra did not particularly address ethics in the books, supposedly
>because Ra saw a bigger picture than we are able. After all, we as humans
>can be pretty myopic:) Anyways, the thread here has really been exploring
>the idea of free will and love, which is always an in-topic for Ra:)
>
>If any of you are participating in the discussions and haven't at least
>read David's outline of the Ra books at his ascension site, I urge you to
>do so, as this is one of our purposes here: studying The Ra Material. If
>you have already read the outline, all of the Ra books are online at
>llresearch.org , so there is no excuse not to read them. Most of our
>discussions center around the books and if you don't read them, you will
>be like a person trying to teach artificial resuscitation without the Red
>Cross class:) You may do ok, but you might not bring somebody back:)
>Thanks to all of you have stayed true to the Ra Material (you know who you
>are:). Chris


I wanted to thank Chris for making this point again that to participate in
the discussions members should have read at least David's outline of the Ra
Material. I've been slogging slowly but diligently through all of
recommended reading but hadn't finished the outline yet. In the past I have
been a student of the A.R.E. materials, studied under a teacher who was
once asked by A.R.E. to fill Cayce's shoes, read several Cayce books, had
my own Seth group, read most of David's writings as of 4 years ago, and
read the first Ra book 10 years ago. And together with all of my other
studies, like ACIM, I have been feeling pretty comfortable with who I am
and where I'm going. I somehow reasoned that it would be O.K. for me to
start posting comments even though I hadn't finished the outline yet. Now I
want to apologize to the group, and especially to Mark and Kay, for having
done so.

Because, there I was trying to tell Mark that his ego might have it's own
agenda behind telling him that he was being called to spike bottled water
with love. Yet what I was doing was no better. I think now that my ego had
me convinced that it was STO to be sharing my opinions with the group when
it was really STS. My opinions are just my personal ethics. I was clearly
outside the guidelines of the group to be speaking them before I had
finished the reading, and I think it must have been my ego that convinced
me to bend the rules. So, maybe I just gave a perfect illustration of how
ego can play on one's reasoning to get them to act in STS while thinking
they are in STO. I was acting like the person in Chris's example who was
trying to "teach artificial resuscitation without the Red Cross class".

Thank you Kay for the long response. I can't answer it just yet. I'm going
to try to keep quiet now until I have finished my homework.

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]

OzarkMark
08-02-2004, 04:41 PM
Hi Daniel and group,

Daniel and I have worked out some minor misunderstandings off-list in an
inspiring and beautiful exchange of apologies, gratitude, respect and love!
We passed a packet of love back and forth until it got so big it pushed me
back in my chair and I had to shed some tears of happiness. Another
Blessing!! Thank you Daniel for being my teacher, my mirror, my friend, my
brother! -Mark

> Now I
> want to apologize to the group, and especially to Mark and Kay, for having
> done so.
>
> Because, there I was trying to tell Mark that his ego might have it's own
> agenda behind telling him that he was being called to spike bottled water
> with love. Yet what I was doing was no better. I think now that my ego had
> me convinced that it was STO to be sharing my opinions with the group when
> it was really STS. My opinions are just my personal ethics. I was clearly
> outside the guidelines of the group to be speaking them before I had
> finished the reading, and I think it must have been my ego that convinced
> me to bend the rules. So, maybe I just gave a perfect illustration of how
> ego can play on one's reasoning to get them to act in STS while thinking
> they are in STO. I was acting like the person in Chris's example who was
> trying to "teach artificial resuscitation without the Red Cross class".
>
> Thank you Kay for the long response. I can't answer it just yet. I'm going
> to try to keep quiet now until I have finished my homework.
>
> 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]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>