(06-22-2011, 07:09 PM)Oceania Wrote: i don't care if it's a monkey trait, if you have kids you take care of them. end of story.
the precise point in this thing is, law of responsibility will act regardless of objections, emotions, attributions.
Quote:if you fly around the world feeding children but neglect your own, how in god's green earth are you a good person? universal love or not, you gotta start with the ones you are responsible for, your family. your kids. the ones assigned to you.
apparently, one of the lessons of this density, may be learning not to separate any child than your own
Quote:you're not holding back by accepting the reality of you need money to feed family, so you work for a corporation while you have to. are you saying Monica has yellow ray issues and should abandon her family to suit her ideals?
let me portray what i am seeing from my perspective :
you are getting angry with me, and providing me with a reason/justification in which you deem to hold sway over all other concerns and spiritual laws, and then you pose me a challenge question over that justification, in persona of monica.
leaving the persona of monica - who had already gone a great length in regard to law of responsibility in her life - aside, i am irrelevant to this matter.
im not the creator of law of responsibility. im not its executor. it is something that apparently runs regardless of location and situation, even in lieu of the council of nine who governs this locale.
as for your particular question, if we boil it down to basics, you are asking that if someone has to work for a corporation that tells him/her to do nonpositive things to other people, is a good person or not.
and the answer is - the person's characteristics wont matter. law of responsibility will still act, and the results of the nonpositive things that are done, will return to the entity in any way they will.
i would like to stress this, as uncomfortable as it is to say or hear :
law of responsibility doesnt seem to make exceptions for anything, even when you 'have to' do something in order to serve one or more entities, with any justification.
another entity intervening in between, may intervene and stop the resulting karma. (may be anything from someone else to society complex or else). however, this does not mean law of responsibility didnt act - just, the debt/inertia/karma was stopped by the entity intervening in between, and the originator of the act is indebted to the entity which intervened. there will probably be no feelings of 'debt' happen in between these 2 sources, but, very probably the entity indebted will feel an irresistible desire to serve the other entity in any way (proportional to the inertia stopped), and will eventually undertake such an act in any given point in continuum of its existence in this octave. and, in that, the inertia, the act that was done, will have returned to the originator, and truly stopped.
this is valid for positive and negative deeds. all acts, return to their originator eventually.
(06-22-2011, 07:14 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: I didn't dispute that. I'm saying, the entity might not be aware of what his/her responsibility is. That is part of the process. As we evolve spiritually, we increase our awareness, and that results in a corresponding increase in responsibility.
the deal is that, i think law of responsibility acts regardless of conscious or unconscious knowledge of any concept in question.
a case in point is, entities in 2nd cycle having their lives shortened en masse, despite the 150 harvestable entities who were isolated having 900 year lifespans.
so, other entities, who had in any way participated in/entangled/contributed to the system then, got their lives shortened. even tho some had 140 year lifespans.
Quote:That's what karma is all about; it's a mechanism for catalyst. However, Ra also stated that intention plays a role.
the word 'karma' i use here, is rather not relevant to planetary/experiential karma.
it is rather a spiritual principle that also acts outside this planet.
Quote:Example: The mother who is struggling to feed and clothe her children, and learns that her corporation engages in unethical behaviors. Her situation is not simple. She can't just quit her job, because then she would fail to meet her responsibilities of caring for her children.
What's complex is the process of making decisions in such cases. That is where we cannot judge, because we are not in that situation. We cannot just say, "Oh she should just quit her job" because we aren't in her shoes. We might make the same decision she did, if faced with the same situation.
actually we not only can, but also should say she quit her job. if an entity is following the positive path, there is no justification for committing negative acts. yes, a situation may be complex, yes, it may be hard to decide, yes, an entity may have to do things, yet, a negative act is a negative act. even if you forgive the doer of the deed, the deed will still reduce the doer's polarity. the decision is up to the person. she can take any route, including middle ones. but, law of responsibility will not blink.
Quote:I don't understand your response, and how it relates to my comment. Can you please clarify? (Particularly how it relates to my comment.)
to simply put; you were saying that there were now more positively oriented corporations around. i said that the established negative corporations will not let them get power, just like how established negative individuals dont let positive ones take power. negative systems work negatively.
Quote:Ra named a few STO entities who were in positions of power.
like ?