More Positive but Less Harvestable

[seejay21]

What i'm saying in my example is Ra never states that Hitler was STS. Yet we here everyday give people this "label".

then what you are saying is, excuse me, but incorrect. you again made a grand statement, this time saying that Ra 'never' mentioned that adolf hitler was sts.

http://lawofone.info/results.php?categor...&sc=1&ss=1

Actually, in my statements I said it is the closest Ra comes to calling someone either sts or sto outright, but don't be confused, he does not call out Hitler as being STS. He said Hitler is following a "pattern", but this may, or may not have anything to do with what leads him to this pattern. Who he is . Perhaps his daddy was mean to him as a child, and created a monster. If Hitler, by some miracle, is able to forgive his father, and himself, to know, to accept, to forgive, to balance, and to open the self in love, EVEN IN THE LAST SECOND OF THE LAST HOUR, he'd be free to move onto 4d postive harvest, NO PROBLEM. If Ra stated that Hitler was STS, he wouldn't have this opportunity. He can STILL be harvested 4d positive.

You know what? You are still 4d positive harvestable too! We all have our karma to work off, right? hating hitler will be negative karma to work off. (Thanks Hitler for messing with all our heads.) Look at the other-self. See the Creator.

seejay, really.

either you havent read the material in full, or..... i dont know what to say at this point.

ill cease discussing with you, since apparently you either havent read what you are talking about so surely, or, forgot. there is no point in discussing this with you at this point, since you apparently dont remember a lot of things. else, this will deteriorate into the format in which you will make grand statements, and i will have to find and show you q/as, which is unfruitful.

out of respect, i will finish replying this post, and i may reply to you in case you wish to bring whatever particular personal situation is causing you to not only react to this in this manner, but also make grand statements to the contrary to what we already read in the material. however, i wont reply to you in regard to material if you discuss as such, since you dont remember a lot of things.

I remember, but you are right in that I've forgotten most things. There is much more to the LOO than the questions asked too.

I don't understand that you don't understand my understanding? See the Creator? Have you heard any fishsticks jokes? Do you like fishsticks? JK Seems like that is the kind of disconnect you and I are having on this point.

first, the above sentence doesnt make sense. 'measured against yourself' -> what ? even the existence of a creation in which more than 1 entity is present is possible with the presence of more than one entity interacting with each other.

you are being measured against a light source, to discern whether you are emitting 51%, or holding 95%.

and for that, you are polarizing against others, which are in different orientations towards you. if you insist on ignoring the nature of what catalyst you are receiving in the form of other people's attitudes, it wont polarize you - it will just make the catalyst keep coming, and repeating until you consciously or subconsciously are aware, and decide to do something with it.

Yes. I'll say it again. "Measure against yoursef". It is part of the process. You're conclusion of the "process" might not be what you think it could be, or even relaveant to the question. You might even call it a joke, but it doesn't mean that it isn't part of the process.

By dicerning what others orientation is, you in a small way are asking yourself this question. The thought is actually much deeper. judging others is an infantile method.
.............

please read the quotes that you are going to present in support of your perspective before posting. you arent even aware that the very thing you are posting, is contradicting your argument.

In my Ra quote, you underlined "to know" you should have also underlined "love". In other words "to know" is "to know love" not to know if "so and so" was sts or sto.

I understand completely what I'm posting, and it is relaveant to this topic.