(04-25-2011, 10:42 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: They are not more powerful than love.
It's not a simple matter of love vs evil, as the religions would have us believe. It's about which entity has stronger polarity.
(04-25-2011, 10:42 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: You are wrong about this,
We are all expressing our opinions.
(04-25-2011, 10:42 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: One inkling of a STS thought such as overpowering their efforts sucks the love right out of you.
If that's true, then we're in a worse mess than I thought! If even an inkling of a thought could undo all the progress we've made...
(04-25-2011, 10:42 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: There are also so many other facets at play between m/b/s and also in time/space and Higher Selves, that what one is capable of and another isn't is indeterminable. You must love that person from the get go. Trust in love, not in winning an STS battle.
Here is the missing piece. I invite you to consider this:
You can love the aggressor while simultaneously neutralizing his aggression.
Not with more aggression, though self-defense may be necessary in some cases. With love, the situation may indeed be transformed. Or maybe not. The entity might be so solid in his STS polarity that it isn't sufficient to transform him into switching polarities.
And guess what...to overpower him with love might actually be interfering with his free will!
(Yes. Chew on that, haha!)
(04-25-2011, 10:42 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: It is a "thought war", and the moment love leaves your thought.... serving self enters the void.
It's not so black-and-white. If it were, then there wouldn't be these gradations of polarity. We're all mixed polarity, right now. None among us is 100%.
(04-25-2011, 10:42 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: In the larger scheme of things, it would be ideal to accept and love anything a 3D STS oriented person throws your way. Yes it would, and your Higher Self would be better for it.
That's not what Ra did, and they explained their reasons.
(04-25-2011, 10:42 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: If you wanna know what I'd do.... I'd probably go 'STS all up on that mfer', but I'm not going to say I did it for love. No, that would be delusional.
Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why must it be either "accept all and sacrifice self" OR "go STS on him"?
There IS another way!
(04-26-2011, 12:04 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: okay, well now we are rescuing the "victim" which paints a picture of gathering in my arms and running away. This is not stopping the aggressor. This in engaging with the "victim" and this is doing what this other has requested. This is a good thing.
?? That was the assumption all along! Why else would one stop an aggressor, if not to rescue the victim? That was the whole point!
(04-26-2011, 12:04 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: What if the "victim" shouts, "kill this guy before he kills me"?
That's easy. You do the minimum to rescue the victim. You don't kill someone just because another person wants you to. THAT would surely be STS!