Why would the Creator elect to create suffering for ITself?

[unity100]

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?

intent is much more important than the form.

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?

my views are not unique. somewhere, someone, some entities, before me have thought these, and knew these. such views being expressed in words in this forum, or any other particular common area that people access to, may be low. but, that doesnt make those views 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.

that part is why i am not answering you in discussions. and the underlined part is also why i am replying to your this particular post, despite i am not engaging in discussions with you.

my opinion is, you should let go of that 'sport', that 'fun', that 'enjoyment', that 'revelation'. it makes discussing with you an unproductive, undesirable experience. it even causes you to go rather condescending, aggressive, patronizing toward personalities of your 'opponents', very frequently. you go to lengths of giving tirades that take the form of 'your arguments are untenable. your arguments are undefendable', like in a post you have made in an earlier thread, in exact words. the final point that could reach would be you adding 'you are null and void' sentence to those tirades. but thankfully, it stops before that point. that shows how badly you 'like' this 'sport'.

these acts being in the form of an excessively emphasized form of formal correspondence, various 'compliments' being dropped here and there - honest or lip service -, does not change the experience of the person on the other side of monitor. it discourages them from discussing with you.

together-thinking is not a competition. its not a 'battle of wits'. its not something that entities undo each other and something wins. everything is put into the table, and entities take whatever they want from among them. nothing has to be complete or perfect. nothing has to be discredited, 'undone', or 'bested'. there are no authorities in this. noone can claim or appeal to authority.

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.

i have said that i have left your posts unanswered, due to reasons above. i cant think that you havent been able to understand that clearly. i cant imagine how you can confuse what i said, with what you understood above. you either skimmed, and misread it, again, or you are again deliberately 'not understanding' something you dont desire to understand.

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.

there have been many occasions in which, me, leave aside my views, have been challenged to the point of impliedly calling me a self-serving entity. i havent ceased responding to anyone's post despite those circumstances. the sole reason im not discussing with you, is the bits above regarding the 'sport' of discussion, and the extent it takes you -> to unproductive and condescending depths.

i actually generally ignore even condescending or aggressive manners, as long as things are productive. but, in the engagement of this 'thrilling' 'discussion sport' you openly declare that you like so much, you are going to the lengths of selectively ignoring material that does not serve your 'team', or incessantly repeating the same thing in differently phrased and poised paragraphs.

as a result discussions go nowhere.

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."

the waters we discuss in, are not given to us in clear, defined fixed terms and concepts in Ra material. and, as i mentioned before, after a point, these are left to the adept's free will, because they dont want to interfere. (for things regarding 7d and on).

therefore, anyone's interpretation, is as valid as the others'. and, if someone comes at this point, and interprets things in such a fashion, then comes and calls everyone to 'abide by the material', that happens to be 'abiding by the book' in a religious sense. despite that what is being called for, happens to be particular interpretation of the concept by one's own, or others. this especially takes an even more serious form when someone also employs 3rd parties' or entities' interpretations to support that interpretation. as in bob geldof & david willcock and the study guide case.

that is what i call 'calling to abiding by the book', and this is what made religions to pop on the face of this planet. attributing modern 'scholarly' or 'academic' tags to this approach, will not change the mechanic.

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?

due to the above reasons regarding 'sport of discussion', i wont be replying to that above block. thankfully, probably some others will pose that question, and a discussion may unfold, albeit, unfortunately not with you.

im not interested in a 'thrilling' 'sport' of discussion. im not here for sports or enjoyment.

such a waste though, since you are an attentive person, and productive results could have ensued. however, all that attention is being wasted in the practice and enjoyment of a discussion 'sport'.

if your approach to co-thinking changes, i may consider discussing with you. however at this point, it seems quite far off.