Dogma & Fundamentalism

[Elmer]

hey graeme,

great discussion - love your thought provoking opinions. i changed the
subject line here because i think we left the worm hole thing well behind!

i've added my thought provoking opinions below, this time actually noting them
with my name:

graeme <kimonokraken@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=fzigucy6nhakt5-xwnntatmurvs4ncckhknajozhcdtcvadyhrkuej9yt6inyk4ns bmhwfoan8vfrzbh5x0)> wrote: synthesis doesn't always
work, you know? the truth isn't
necessarily a compromise between any given group of opinions that
someone's dreamed up. sometimes people can just be plain wrong. to
put it another way, just because a group of people believe
something, that doesn't make it 'partially right'. religious
fundamentalism is entirely based on a literalist interpretation of
scripture, dismissing out of hand any evidence that disagrees with
that interpretation. in that situation, the honest pursuit of truth
doesn't exist.

elmer: i understand your point. although the characteristics you've
ascribed to religous fundamentalists can apply to scientists as well. even
today hard scientific evidence is dismissed out of hand that doesn't agree with
currently accepted dogma. i think the biggest mistake both sides make, or that
any individual can make, is to take the position that any particular view must
be wrong because i don't agree with it.

did eve automatically condemn all of mankind to a fire and brimstone hell for
eating an apple? no. do i support christian fundamentalists that might want to
teach that in schools? no. yet the same book that gives this obviously symbolic
description, also tells us that we are one with the father and co-creators with
him ("i tell ye that ye are gods"). so there is truth to be found even in the
beliefs of those who dismiss hard evidence out of hand.

graeme:
i agree that love is the most important thing, but ignorance, and
the attitudes that breed ignorance, are notorious for working
against the cause of love. this is natural, since ignorance is in
some ways the opposite of understanding.

elmer:
once again, i agree - ignorance does indeed work against the cause of
love. although i would argue that the greatest enemy of love is not ignorance,
but intollerance. i can be ignorant of the teachings of buddah, but still live
in peace with the buddhist. i can know all there is to know of teachings of
buddah, but be intollerant of their views, creating within me the illusion that
i'm "right" and they're "wrong".

i think the secret to paradise on earth is to view each individual's thoughts
and opinions as totally sacred and acceptable. we run into trouble when we see
someone else's thoughts as "wrong" and our thoughts as "right". that's when we
start arguing and trying to force our opinions on those we judge as being
"wrong".

fact is, "truth" is subjective and today's truth will be shown by history
to be yesterday's folly. so who among us is fit to really say who's "right" and
who's "wrong"? even ra said they are still seekers in the dark working to
understand the great mystery.

but of course, all that's just my opinion - i may be wrong :)

"it's all about the love"
elmer





---------------------------------
yahoo! farechase - search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

[Graeme]

hi elmer,

i'm gratified that you appreciate this thread, i do too. i've
followed suit in labelling my comments.

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=ecs3rqwnpnxbylou2g3-uc9donv9_0v79ebwmgi1w9ykmpaeutumeums00vjkwt_dwc5lh f46ltvqbed0mbq), elmer <tree5131@y...> wrote:
>
> elmer: i understand your point. although the characteristics
you've ascribed to religous fundamentalists can apply to scientists
as well.

graeme: i entirely agree.

even today hard scientific evidence is dismissed out of hand that
doesn't agree with currently accepted dogma.

graeme: again, very true. it's annoying for those of us trying to
be open and honest explorers.

> did eve automatically condemn all of mankind to a fire and
brimstone hell for eating an apple? no. do i support christian
fundamentalists that might want to teach that in schools? no. yet
the same book that gives this obviously symbolic description, also
tells us that we are one with the father and co-creators with him
("i tell ye that ye are gods"). so there is truth to be found even
in the beliefs of those who dismiss hard evidence out of hand.

graeme: however, the "co-creator" and "one with god" parts are
usually neglected by the fundamentalists in favour of the "fire and
brimstone" stuff. as a matter of fact, most christians i've met
feel very uncomfortable about the notion of them, personally, being
one with god. they leave that to jesus. i agree that the bible
itself is a mixture of good and bad. however, the nature of
conciousness is such that the unenlightened will choose the bad
parts and the enlightened will choose the good. resonance, at least
metaphorically.

> elmer:
> once again, i agree - ignorance does indeed work against the
cause of love. although i would argue that the greatest enemy of
love is not ignorance, but intollerance.

graeme: thank you, that's a more refined version of what i was
trying to say. it has occurred to me in the past that understanding
is always finite, but love has no real boundaries except those we
place upon it.

> i think the secret to paradise on earth is to view each
individual's thoughts and opinions as totally sacred and acceptable.

graeme: i suppose the only problem there is that some people's
thought's and opinions lead to actions which are to the great and
unwarranted detriment of others. i feel compelled to stand against
such attitudes.

> fact is, "truth" is subjective and today's truth will be shown
by history to be yesterday's folly. so who among us is fit to
really say who's "right" and who's "wrong"?

graeme: i suppose it is more appropriate to talk about wrong
attitudes than wrong opinions. i realise there is some overlap. in
the meantime we have to do the best we can in molding our view of
the world to the world itself.

sincerely,

graeme

[M.W.]

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=xzncqsq0d3mgwjforubudiz7e6qkmxxgtw-iqqdwumcjyhvgqjpeqs4namfudq838s82cf1nf1lkmiqhabk_) , elmer <tree5131@y...> wrote:
>
> hey graeme,
>
> great discussion - love your thought provoking opinions.


bill says:

hi, guys,

your interaction did stir me up a bit.

i recently found this essay at rense most apropos.
its title is, smug man vs straw man -- the science vs
religion hoax.

www.rense.com/general68/smug.htm

it deals with the ongoing evolution/itelligent design
hassle. it puts my own take on it quite well and i
have passed it on to friends. makes sense to me.

....and just to set the record straight:


a second point concerns that used as an aside by elmer
utilizing the john 10:34 quote from jesus i.e.,that
we are all gods... from my bible study days this was
meant as a somewhat sarcastic counter to his critics
and not intended -- in the literal sense that elmer
implied -- being that jesus confirmed that we are
all indeed such.

(short exigesis: an argument from the greater to the
lesser based on the concept that rabbis being
dispensors of the word of god could be considered as
little lesser gods)


bill g

[Dave M.]

> i think the secret to paradise on earth is to view each
individual's thoughts and opinions as totally sacred and acceptable.

graeme: i suppose the only problem there is that some people's
thought's and opinions lead to actions which are to the great and
unwarranted detriment of others. i feel compelled to stand against
such attitudes.

dave: i have been experiencing some of this negative catalyst recently from
some relatives. i'm not
going to explain the entire situation (that would be time consuming), but it has
to do with my mom
passing recently, me being the executor, and my sts brother and his wife
attempting to get more than
their fair share. this sister-in-law is not well mentally and emotionally from
what i and quite a few
others observe.

she has said a number of nasty things to me and others. in fact, i have rarely
heard her speak well of
anyone. she projects almost everything within her onto others, and blames
anyone she can for the
problems in her life. the only one she does not hold accountable for her life
is herself. she is very
bitter, selfish, vengeful, superficial, and trusts no one. she labors to find
any little nit-picking
fault she can on someone (most of the time it is made up or highly exaggerated)
and then holds it as a
grudge against them 20 yrs. later.

she has sent some nasty emails to me, and of course, i will not allow her to get
away with the bs. i
handle it by telling her the truth, including transient facts, which of course
she considers
disrespecting her. she does not respect me or anyone else, yet she demands
respect - seeing the truth
as disrespect. her illusion is so great that truth has become a threat to her
self-identity.

i try not to oppose her or her ideas because that would give her illusion
validity. i would have to
agree that her illusion is real to have the need to oppose it. i would be
agreeing to obscure the truth
of oneness so she could maintain her comfort level within her illusion.

by opposing her, i would be getting my ego involved in seeing itself as separate
from her and trying to
justify its' stance against her because my ego is right and her's is wrong.
yet, how can i successfully
win a fight against an illusion? an illusion is a non-reality, and all i can do
is shed light on it.

some of the catalyst that stsers bring is that such negative aspects of self
come to the forefront from
the confrontation. any weaknesses that you might have regarding how you see
yourself or others: angers,
fears, lack of belief, etc. get triggered. eventually, this has the effect of
strengthening your
spiritual resolve to see and 'get' what you were missing.

sts entities, by definition, cannot know, appreciate, understand, or accept the
truth of oneness. with
this truth blocked, the only path from 3d to 4d is through nearly exclusive love
of self. their
polarity will reverse upon their realization of the truth of oneness because sts
makes no sense in an
environment of oneness. control over, and therefore limiting the free will of
another translates into
control over and limitation of one's own free will.

i do not consider my sister-in-law's thoughts and opinions as sacred as elmer
suggests. they have
nothing to do with god consciousness. they are illusions that happen to appear
real to her at this
time/space for a variety of reasons. eventually they will be uncovered and
rectified as she progresses.
for now, this is the best she can understand and thus her illusions are
acceptable for her current
state, but are not sacred and need not be encouraged.

in oneness, dave

[Graeme]

shedding light on illusions is precisely the kind of stand against
fundamentalism i approve of the most. i am certainly against
violence or coercion, except in direct and straightforward self-
defence, which is any person's right when physically threatened.

graeme

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=qz-qufwkzuhcrfzxeo7cmmttliohigssq3jd-heavahcp18wksxkqiu00dqe8ixgq8cuiamsbmuslvznioi8), "dave m." <dmeye@p...> wrote:
>
> > i think the secret to paradise on earth is to view each
> individual's thoughts and opinions as totally sacred and
acceptable.
>
> graeme: i suppose the only problem there is that some people's
> thought's and opinions lead to actions which are to the great and
> unwarranted detriment of others. i feel compelled to stand against
> such attitudes.
>
> by opposing her, i would be getting my ego involved in seeing
itself as separate from her and trying to
> justify its' stance against her because my ego is right and her's
is wrong. yet, how can i successfully
> win a fight against an illusion? an illusion is a non-reality,
and all i can do is shed light on it.

[profrustyleafiii]

dave m>>i do not consider my sister-in-law's thoughts and opinions as sacred as
elmer
suggests. they have nothing to do with god consciousness. they are illusions
that
happen to appear real to her at this time/space for a variety of reasons.
eventually they
will be uncovered and rectified as she progresses. for now, this is the best she
can
understand and thus her illusions are acceptable for her current state, but are
not sacred
and need not be encouraged. in oneness, dave

reply>>
dave have you attained god consciousness? are you above illusion? are you
currently
uncovering and rectifying mistakes yourself? can you understand your own
illusions? are
all your opinions sacred? should you be encouraged do you think?

it sounds to me like this sts character you talk of is no more sts than you are.
perhaps if
you find this person hard to deal with you could consider serving them and
observe your
own negative thoughts that emerge through that act of service. observe the
accusations,
opinions and judgements as they arise without judging the observations.

i was of the opinion that sto meant service to others. not service to only those
i consider
are sto. that sounds like the slightly abridged version. honesty might be a good
foundation to build from. opinion is not knowledge and it is certainly not
truth.

[pschutzy]

> i do not consider my sister-in-law's thoughts and opinions as
sacred as elmer suggests. they have
> nothing to do with god consciousness. they are illusions that
happen to appear real to her at this
> time/space for a variety of reasons. eventually they will be
uncovered and rectified as she progresses.
> for now, this is the best she can understand and thus her
illusions are acceptable for her current
> state, but are not sacred and need not be encouraged.
>
> in oneness, dave
>

it is so difficult to relate to those who we/i see as ill (mentally,
physically, emotionally, spiritually) very confusing and painful on
both ends.
it's like trying to get along with a caged, abused beast. to get the
beast to see past the pain and illusion, to understand, reason, and
trust is difficult, but i believe hope, patience and love works
wonders.
you have learned more about your abilities and shed some light on
your life thru this interaction with your sister-in-law. and you
have offered this insight to us, resulting in this "dysfunctional
person" bringing the opportunity for greater introspection for those
reading your comments. thank you.

you don't have to see her opinions and thoughts as sacred. but you
do honor her sacredness by honoring the sacredness in you and by
being the "gentleman" (hope that word doesn't come across badly. i
mean it as it used to be.. a man of gentle love and wisdom) that you
are. you do offer her respect by letting her explode the pressure
within her and honestly deliver the true situation back to her. this
is a beautiful example of love in action.

we all have a dark side. my question is? i try to control this
darkness of mine, and i also see myself trying to control the
darkness in others. is this necessary? control seems to continually
be my issue even if i'm doing it for "good". how do we love the
darkness? or is it that we see past the darkness and love the light
within? if darkness is a part of us and all... well, my little mind
just shut down. lol thinking has not been one of my strengths this
week.

dave, this must be a very difficult time for you and your family.
may you find peace in the creator.

blessings
patty

[Dave M.]

>dave have you attained god consciousness?

i know what it is not. i do know that god is not spiteful, vengeful, arrogant,
etc. which are the
thoughts i was referring to.

>are you above illusion?

no, but some illusions are more obvious than others.

>are you currently
uncovering and rectifying mistakes yourself?

yes.

>can you understand your own illusions?

some of them - it is a process. my illusions fall away as i understand them, so
the illusions i have
now are the one's i don't fully understand yet.

>are all your opinions sacred?

no.

>should you be encouraged do you think?

actually, i said that her illusions need not be encouraged. i did not say that
she should not be
encouraged. there is a definite difference.

>it sounds to me like this sts character you talk of is no more sts than you
are.

what makes you say that? how could you even know? it is merely a presumption
on your part.

>perhaps if you find this person hard to deal with you could consider serving
them and observe your own
>negative thoughts that emerge through that act of service.

actually, as i said in the post that you are responding to, this is exactly what
i have been doing. i
also stated that i am not the only one who has difficulty with her. i do not
use the term sts
indiscriminately.

>i was of the opinion that sto meant service to others. not service to only
those i consider are sto.

service does not mean that you have to encourage negative thoughts and behaviors
in others. how is it
that you think this would be of service to them?

>honesty might be a good foundation to build from. opinion is not knowledge and
it is certainly not
>truth.

you are the one who is doling out opinion as truth. this is clear when you give
such opinions as "this
sts character you talk of is no more sts than you are." yet, you do not know
me, so this can be nothing
but your opinion.

so it seems you are quite willing to see your opinions as truth, and to justify
this, you label truth
from others as mere opinion. obviously, you were triggered by my post because
you have issues regarding
the importance of your own opinions. to maintain the illusion that your
opinions are truth, you must
see truth as mere opinion. it's funny that i did not even use the word
"opinion" in my original post,
and yet you have used it 3 times in yours.

[Graeme]

hi, i had to comment on this, as i think it's extremely overwrought
and judgemental.

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=xceilueaj6fppieqbiy6sul--fsfukp762evqjjpegvthocuh3m8qxnzfoqr46u17-ql3nc2qgqxwj2qkq), "profrustyleafiii"
<profrustyleafiii@y...> wrote:
>
> reply>>
> dave have you attained god consciousness? are you above illusion?
are you currently
> uncovering and rectifying mistakes yourself? can you understand
your own illusions? are
> all your opinions sacred? should you be encouraged do you think?
>
> it sounds to me like this sts character you talk of is no more sts
than you are.

graeme: i feel this is an overly harsh criticism, quite cruel in
fact. neither you or i are privy to the details of this situation.

perhaps if
> you find this person hard to deal with you could consider serving
them and observe your
> own negative thoughts that emerge through that act of service.
observe the accusations,
> opinions and judgements as they arise without judging the
observations.

graeme: that's fine in theory, but in practice it's unrealistic.
we are not, nor should we be, required to deliberately open
ourselves to abuse.

> i was of the opinion that sto meant service to others. not service
to only those i consider
> are sto. that sounds like the slightly abridged version. honesty
might be a good
> foundation to build from. opinion is not knowledge and it is
certainly not truth.
>

graeme: how exactly do you feel you are serving this person by
communicating in the manner? and be honest, are you any better than
what you protest against?

[Elmer]

got busy yesterday and kinda dropped out of this thread, but it was great to see
the continuing discussion it sparked.

i did want to add a final thought, and that is - fundamentalist crazies from
both sides aside - i truly feel there is a huge convergence happening. as
recent posts to this site prove, free thinking scientists are discovering
solutions to long standing physics problem in the zero point field, which leads
them to inevitable proof of infinite intelligence and our eternal nature.

at the same time, books like the davinci code are causing people to
re-examine their religious dogmas, and many are finding that while their
long-held beliefs are in question - the grander ultimate truths are becoming
more real.

exciting times!

"it's all about the love"
elmer



---------------------------------
yahoo! farechase - search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

[Dave M.]

petrus:
"...there's only one strategy i've known to work with dealing with them:-
retreat. get away from them
as quickly as possible."

i don't really have that luxury because i have to deal with her at least until
the estate is closed.
actually, having her as catalyst has been helpful - although demanding.

petrus:
"...the only thing engaging in conflict with them will do
is lower your own polarity."

yes, this is why i do not engage in conflict with her. i redirect her
distortions by feeding her facts
and truth which she needs to hide in order to maintain her illusion.

[Dave M.]

>we all have a dark side. my question is. i try to control this
darkness of mine, and i also see myself trying to control the
darkness in others. is this necessary? control seems to continually
be my issue even if i'm doing it for "good". how do we love the
darkness? or is it that we see past the darkness and love the light
within? if darkness is a part of us and all...

good questions, patty. i'm not sure i can answer them, but i can offer my take
on light and darkness.
darkness is the absence or restriction of light. i'm not sure that there is any
region that is
completely cut off from light.

so, dark might just be a matter of degree, or a gradation where light is no
longer evident to the
observer. if true, then darkness exists only in relation to the amount of light
that is absent in a
particular space/time.

likewise, the dark side in people can be seen as some aspect that is not fully
aware of the light or an
aspect that a person is unaware of. you cannot control this darkness because it
only exists through the
blockage of light, which is itself a form of control. in other words, you can't
unrestrict light in
something that is restricted from light by restricting it.

you can however, allow light into it by easing the restriction or blockage.
this allows love/light to
enter the areas that need it most. so rather than loving the darkness, love
those parts of self and
otherself that are restricted from the light.

most of us are taught/learn through indoctrination to restrict love/light in
ourselves and/or
otherselves. then we have to learn/teach how to unrestrict it. to allow that
which is natural, the
love/light of the one infinite creator flowing through everything always, to
flow as it should.

you can't force the light to enter, just ease the blockage you've allowed and
open to the light already
pouring in. each time you do this, a little more of the blockage will dissolve
away. you will then
experience an adjustment period where you will gain knowledge and insight into
some things that were
previously hidden.

love & light, dave

[John Lukach]

all;

i have been away for a time and playing catchup on hundereds of these posts
but this one stirred me to comment and it is one in a string i have not read so
forgive me if i miss other points in this thread.

my wife is a radical sts. i am a radical sto. i had to apply loo to this and
came up with the following:

the ultimate outcome of the sts is to discover that all is one and in serving
self they are actually serving others since ra tells us that there is no true
division between ourselves and otherselves. ra expands on this with a statement
of the % committment to sts that must be much greater than a mere 51% sto to be
effective as a route to ascension. this might explain the skew in "affront
factor" i notice when one polarity is critical of the other.

i am not a tool of my wifes use nor is she a monopolizer of my service
although most people we know at varying times would not agree with the
generosity of this assessment. in fact, what i learn from her often times
selfish behavior is that in demanding that which sustains her she also guides me
from things which detract from my abillity to be of service, not only to her,
but to others as well. there have been times when in giving my frequently
demanding speeches in an attempt to defend my decisions and educate her i feel i
do her an actual dis-service by attempting to lower her level of commitment to
sts which may or may not be the right thing to do.

at times i appreciate the extraordinary degree of catalyst in our lives
together and like to think it is of an intellegent design not to be tampered
with in a manner that would diminish it, and that this clash may possibly even
be the reason for us being together. other times i am so offended by her
speeches i do not allow certain things to pass.

she says to me at times, "i have learned so much from you" i am tempted to
ask her to write down the things she is referring to! i do not however. this
applies to me as i wonder if what i learn from her has much value at all.

today is one of those days i have no doubt that the value she brings to me is
necesary to my ascension. i feel blessed to have her and god in my life and the
takeaway for me ultimately is simply to be in awe and to be thankful and to look
ahead when habit calls me to look behind for the answers i seek.

to any out there who struggle with the sto vs. sts mindset i offer this
anecdote as a reminder that loo is just that; one.

john

petrus <petrus4@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=3uavzevig51krsrv0bdduhyep15jkkxjefcmjw qleo41jjeclxzyi_cil7849qxi4ihefobaxj_33rso9q)> wrote:
> by opposing her, i would be getting my ego involved in seeing itself as
separate from her and trying to
> justify its' stance against her because my ego is right and her's is
wrong. yet, how can i successfully
> win a fight against an illusion? an illusion is a non-reality, and all i
can do is shed light on it.

hi dave,
thankfully i haven't had to deal personally with too many individuals who
were truly sts, but with the few i have, there's only one strategy i've
known to work with dealing with them:- retreat. get away from them as
quickly as possible. a truly sts person has no interest or, as you say,
ability to change, and the only thing engaging in conflict with them will do
is lower your own polarity. i have come to believe that the primary means
that those who are sto polarised have of dealing with the sts polarity is
simply by focussing on building our own ideal scenario...if we simply work
on manifesting our vision of how we want the world to be, the sts polarity
will find that there is no place for it by default,

[Monica Leal]

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=npy49a0awj-cgk9xvpleurpdczf9pb2rubqebuecj5pp5f5hbgrtonwvythxw vf4yfez_wns9ggf_bwtovwi), john lukach <johnlukach@y...> wrote:

> my wife is a radical sts. i am a radical sto...what i learn from
her often times selfish behavior is that in demanding that which
sustains her she also guides me from things which detract from my
abillity to be of service, not only to her, but to others as well.
...in giving my frequently demanding speeches in an attempt to defend
my decisions and educate her i feel i do her an actual dis-service by
attempting to lower her level of commitment to sts which may or may
not be the right thing to do. >

wow, intense! interesting point you have brought up - one that i have
contemplated myself as well.

i have had experiences with people that i'd assumed to be obviously
sts, and the appropriate thing to do was, as petrus said, exit the
situation! on the other hand, more than once have i encountered people
whom i'd thought were quite obviously sts and they ended up surprising
me, by softening, thanking me, and actually ending up making a
conscious choice to sto! in other words, transformation!

it can work in reverse too! i've met seemingly 'spiritual' people who
showed their ture motivation after a time - and it was self-serving
without even a glimmer of love to be found. again i found myself
surprised!

i now wonder whether it is even appropriate to try to guess someone's
polarity. sometimes an sto entity just appears sts because they are
really emotionally messed up. but the outward hatred and bitterness
are just part of their defense mechanism, and once those are healed,
the sto nature shines forth.

i don't know what the truth is in your wife's case. i can only share
my own experiences. my experience has been that sometimes we think we
know, but we don't. regardless of his/her polarity, the challenge is
still the same: to love without allowing them to hurt us. in this way,
it becomes irrelevant what their polarity is; as you do your part by
learning your own lessons and showing them love (while not allowing
them to abuse you!), they can choose to gain whatever value is
appropriate to them from the relationship.

[profrustyleafiii]

perhaps if
> you find this person hard to deal with you could consider serving
them and observe your
> own negative thoughts that emerge through that act of service.
observe the accusations,
> opinions and judgements as they arise without judging the
observations.

graeme: that's fine in theory, but in practice it's unrealistic.
we are not, nor should we be, required to deliberately open
ourselves to abuse.

***are you necessarily opening yourself to abuse? ask yourself what it is that
you are so
afraid of?
being necessitates practice and doing. it is in the practice that we engage the
fire of
transformation.
if you are happy to remain inert and theorize then that is fine. what is it that
is hidden
behind the term
'abuse' that holds you back from being of service to all?***


> i was of the opinion that sto meant service to others. not service
to only those i consider
> are sto. that sounds like the slightly abridged version. honesty
might be a good
> foundation to build from. opinion is not knowledge and it is
certainly not truth.
>

graeme: how exactly do you feel you are serving this person by
communicating in the manner? and be honest, are you any better than
what you protest against?

***my original response to dave was to highlight the danger in getting so caught
up in
labels. sts and
sto are labels and as such are not the actual thing itself. by identifying with
the label we
get so caught up
in it that we forget about what lies behind the term itself. simply by stating
that i am sts
or i am sto does
not make it so. opinion is not truth. the truth must be simple enough to sit
behind
everything!

does truth only serve sto people?***

[profrustyleafiii]

dave m wrote:

you are the one who is doling out opinion as truth. this is clear when you
give such
opinions as "this sts character you talk of is no more sts than you are." yet,
you do not
know me, so this can be nothing but your opinion.


***this is an opinion. the truth cannot be captured in words. yes, what i speak
of is
opinion also.***


dave m wrote:

so it seems you are quite willing to see your opinions as truth, and to justify
this, you label
truth from others as mere opinion. obviously, you were triggered by my post
because you
have issues regarding the importance of your own opinions. to maintain the
illusion that
your opinions are truth, you must see truth as mere opinion. it's funny that i
did not even
use the word "opinion" in my original post, and yet you have used it 3 times in
yours.



***when i see my opinions as being more important that the truth then i am truly
indulging in myself. the work is ongoing. in observing my opinions as they arise
without
judgment i can begin to detach from them and in so doing see that i am full of
opinion. if i
am to see the truth i know that first i must understand that there is a lot in
the way and
most of it is what i perceive as me!
it may be that i tried to take the opinion out of your eye without first
banishing the them
from my own. this could account for hardness of the post. i am working on that.

belong well.***

[jeffreykiksit]

silence is not golden,
it is stolen.....
from the gods.



--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=ooo0ntjbvt_sfjp8vzy8yxgik0zruiakyuik-eouk53rnfntdldcib_s1s7l27coyvjtoeyvvzc-sn1tta3e), "profrustyleafiii" <profrustyleafiii@y...> wrote:
>
> dave m wrote:
>
> you are the one who is doling out opinion as truth. this is clear when you
give such
> opinions as "this sts character you talk of is no more sts than you are."
yet, you do not
> know me, so this can be nothing but your opinion.
>
>
> ***this is an opinion. the truth cannot be captured in words. yes, what i
speak of is
>

[Petrus]

> something, that doesn't make it 'partially right'. religious
> fundamentalism is entirely based on a literalist interpretation of

religious fundamentalism is primarily motivated by emotion, namely
fear...the fear of destruction if a person does not think, feel, say, or do
the "right" things. this is in turn based on an entire boatload of (from my
perspective anyway) faulty premises and other distortions, not least of
which involve what timothy leary refers to as the "subject-object perceptual
model" for god, or the idea that god is some type of singular entity which
exists externally to ourselves. this is a perspective whichy i myself
struggled with for a number of years, however it was one that was largely
imposed upon me by sts individuals that i unfortunately had indirect contact
with. it was, i can see now, a necessary point in my evolutionary
journey...monotheism can for a time be an effective means i think of
advancing spiritually. everything ultimately exists for our benefit...ra
says that, and i tend to believe that jesus does too, in a way.

[Petrus]

> by opposing her, i would be getting my ego involved in seeing itself as
separate from her and trying to
> justify its' stance against her because my ego is right and her's is
wrong. yet, how can i successfully
> win a fight against an illusion? an illusion is a non-reality, and all i
can do is shed light on it.

hi dave,
thankfully i haven't had to deal personally with too many individuals who
were truly sts, but with the few i have, there's only one strategy i've
known to work with dealing with them:- retreat. get away from them as
quickly as possible. a truly sts person has no interest or, as you say,
ability to change, and the only thing engaging in conflict with them will do
is lower your own polarity. i have come to believe that the primary means
that those who are sto polarised have of dealing with the sts polarity is
simply by focussing on building our own ideal scenario...if we simply work
on manifesting our vision of how we want the world to be, the sts polarity
will find that there is no place for it by default, and will disappear
naturally.

realise that she will in all likelihood eventually change, since the sts
path is the path of that which is contrary to the existence of life
itself...and thus, if she wishes to survive herself, change is inevitable.
whether she does or not, however, in the short term you cannot help her.
the best you can do is to quarantine yourself and those others in your
circle who are willing, from her darkness.