10-19-2010, 01:08 AM
(10-18-2010, 11:52 PM)unity100 Wrote: there is no change in my behavior, or my speech. things, that i see as would be exceedingly evident to any serious seeker, and happen to be evident conclusions, i use sweeping statements. things, that i am pondering yet, i use the 'possibility' wordage. there has been no change in my behavior in that regard. not to mention that i have never felt the need to defend MYSELF so vehemently. we are discussing here, not attacking each others' personalities. the subtle usage of words in your post further reinforces my impression that you see discussions as battles, fencing, sport. it feels as if you are thinking the perceived 'change in tone' you think to be is due to some kind of 'pressure' applied to the other person due to which s/he felt the need to 'defend' himself/herself. not to mention that despite your posts were left unreplied, you attribute contradictions to the other person still. being unwilling to consider other possibilities than the preferred belief one has in mind, and selectively ignore/reinterpret concepts to fit one's own belief, does not make what the other person say a 'contradiction'.
we cannot resume an 'academic' exchange with you. i have been waiting for your response to recent posts, in order to see whether you may be letting go of battle-like approach to discussions, and your extreme sensitivity on 'one single god' concept. i see that neither have even softened up. at this state, there is no means that we can have a productive discussion with you.
pursuit of the spirit is not scholarly. it is not academic either. neither faculties of mind have any need for such earthly concoctions. neither am i interested in proof/disproof of a one all-powerful god. therefore, at this final juncture, i am choosing to skip corresponding with you. i wish you a good day.
Unity,
I really truly meant a compliment to you. If it is kicked to the curb as has been my praises in other posts it is yours to do. I've attempted humor, praise, and teasing, even addressed you as my friend in closing, while always sticking to an academic attempt to uncover and learn more. You've rejected all of them. Your very serious to be sure....and I'm sure that's good for you. Can I invite you to have some more fun though? I shall reword my entire post for you in one sentence? Lets try it this way:
Unity, I very much liked the verbiage of your most recent post.
It seemed to me that you've been challenged quite a bit as of late by an increasing number of participants. I assumed this might have been a reason for what I perceived to be the difference in your approach. I beg your indulgence and excuse myself. My bad. It may be a good thing as you bring a bit of edge and controversy to the table. It is not for me to judge. Surely you must be cognizant of the fact that your views are unique?
As to my sport, I've already fully admitted in your last statement with respect to the same that for me the forum is an opportunity to be challenged, as much as to challenge, all towards the effort of sharpening our understanding. I've asked if this isn't the reason we're here? I've been clear. Yes, its fun. Yes, I revel in it. Yes, I enjoy it. Yes, I like it. Yes, its as much sport as it is serious.
As for posts you suggest several times here that you've put to me that were left unanswered? My great apologies if I've ever left even one unanswered. It seems like it has been me that has repeatedly openly invited you to answer? Ive read many times that you refuse to post to me (other than these personal posts it seems). Please re-direct me to any unanswered post and I would be more than happy to respond.
As for my sensitivity to "The One Infinite Creator" term and concept. I assure you, I question IT's sensitivity regularly (c'mon, that's a good joke). I've already addressed that I take as little credit for the view as I do for having coined the term. It is chalked full in the LOO. I do however support it...and IT... so that the record is clear.
I openly stated I am willing. I've openly stated I mean you no harm nor any injury. Many times in fact. But if your views are as unique as yours are, or seem to be, then be as open to them being as questioned and as challenged and allow the injury to drop. I've repeated this as well. I've utilized the Ra Material entirely versus my personal opinion in every single response without exception. I would be remiss if I did not respond by suggesting that I found it extremely curious, if not as interesting, that you accused me of "sticking to the book" as a response in another post? Let me be as clear in closing that I am indeed here for the LOO exclusively versus expressing my own opinions on esoterica. I confess that you will as a result perhaps continue to find me difficult to your posts for this given my penchant for "sticking to the book."
I leave my question open as to your last post as regards the concept of Multiple One Infinite Co-Creators? It is as interesting a concept and as unique as have been many of your others, for which I would ask the same, "sticking to the book of course," where in the LOO might you have arrived at this? Given this is a forum to further our understanding of the LOO, can you, would you, provide evidence of a single quote we might review?
Peace my friend, and feel free to redirect me to those unanswered posts I apologize for not answering. I'm sure I would be more than happy to.
Love and Light...
~ Q ~