Love as a Weapon / Spiritual Warfare

[Tenet Nosce]

If we are to have an 'intention to control the recipient to create a specific outcome, then do we not have to control the manner in which we channel the love? If distorted thought forms filter our love in the form of service, is that not how love is 'channeled' or 'controlled' in your mind? Or does this occur some other way?

Oh, I see what you mean. Well that is a great question... I'm not sure. At the least I would say that the flow of love energy can be freely allowed or attenuated to some degree. That is one level of control.

But when we attempt to wield love as a weapon, that is another level of control. I don't think they are one and the same. Just look at interpersonal relationships... two people both love their spouses equally. So the love energy is equally attenuated. One offers that love freely to their spouse; The other seeks to use love to control their spouse.

Hence why I said entities who are highly unfamiliar or uncomfortable with energy. Being offered something once does not give much choice if rejected. Offering open love constantly gives more chances for a possible recipient. I never claimed it wasn't common place, the questions are a way of probing how you conceptualize these concepts.

But notice in the conceptualization, a distinction was made between simply sending to those who have not asked for it and organizing as a group and sending love to negative entities.

The first I would consider to be an infringement on the order of every day happenings- not too big of a deal. The second involves a different set of dynamics because it: A. Involves group mind activity, and B. Involves (ostensibly) negative entities.

I believe you are trying to appear as if you have no vested interest in stopping this practice- although you have repeatedly made your points and said this practice was disturbing.

The point of the post is to express my understanding, insofar as I am capable. The responsibility is for me to teach/learn what I know. What anybody does with that information is their own business.

If my own understanding is incorrect- that is a different issue. And we can certainly hash out the logistics here in this thread.

Pointing out other options is fine, but it indicates that you are pointing to these alternative practices as preferable because they make sense to you. What I am trying to point out is that they do not make logical sense, depending on how you define such terms of love, free will, and the transmission of energy.

The other options don't make logical sense...? Why not?

It's clear that the disagreement stems from our preconceived and tacit understandings of such concepts such as love, transmission of energy and free will.

I'm certainly open to discussing these concepts. But I don't believe any of that will change the basic notion presented here- Attempting to control others with love is folly.

Unless you want to argue that notion- unless you want to forward a view that controlling others with love is actually a good idea and actually creates the desired outcome- then discussing the foundational concepts of love, transmission of energy and free will is merely academic.

Which again, I'm willing to do. But I don't see how acquiring a more enlightened understanding of these will change the conclusion. The conclusion is self-evident. All we need do is look to our own interpersonal relationships wherein others have attempted to control us with love, or vice-versa, and notice how that worked out.

This is why I'm curious to your specific definitions of these concepts.

What do you want to know? Would you like me to give an actual definition of these concepts? I'm not sure a concise definition is even possible.

Specifically, my post was a way of showing you that what you are implying is that in order to try and control others with love, an entity must have a way of controlling love itself, channeling the various ways it is able to be manifested.

Maybe so. But how does that impact the conclusion?

There is a colloquialism- "Kill them with kindness." This is manipulative behavior. And people do it all the time. It is using love in a deceitful way.

Or here is another common practice: Using the threat of withdrawal of love in order to "train" one's children. In this paradigm, when good little boys and girls "follow the rules" they get love... when they are naughty little boys and girls and "break the rules" they don't get love.

This implies that love is a universal energy field that is channeled through an entity and manifested in particular behavior actions or thought-forms. Is this possible?- or is it that love is 'created' or 'found within' a being and that being has to eliminate all of it's distortions in able to express that love? Is it that being's responsibility? etc etc

Those are very good questions. But how would answering them alter the conclusion that seeking to control and manipulate others is generally not a great idea?

Rather- turn all of these questions on their head and consider the premise behind sending "green bombs" to negative entities. The thought process is that, because it is "love energy" that somehow all of the normal considerations about free will, control, and manipulation don't apply.

Why wouldn't they apply?

You say these concepts but it's quite clear everyone has their own notions.

Well of course they do. Probably most people (generally speaking) would disagree with me. These are the ones who think there is no problem with using love as a bargaining chip, or who regularly attempt to mold the behavior of others using love, or who try to mask their own negative emotions with love and present a false front to others.

The question I have raised here is in taking these foolish behaviors, and attempting to apply them as a group toward negative entities.

I'm simply interested in yours. I don't even particularly disagree with most of what you say, it's just that how your explaining it now is muddled with preconceptions/tacit understandings that are not made clear.

Perhaps it would be more instructive for you to offer clarity on the tacit understandings.