Fukusjima

[Monica]

apparently, one of the lessons of this density, may be learning not to separate any child than your own

If that were true, then this planet has failed miserably!

I think there is a reason that we've evolved in families, tribes, etc. It's a step in the process. Many 3D entities cannot even love or forgive their own wives/husbands/children/parents! To love/forgive others who aren't family, is too advanced for them. They have to start with family. Once they are able to love/forgive family, then maybe they can work towards loving/forgiving close friends. Then, continuing to progress outwards, they can eventually love/forgive those of other 'tribes.'

Ra didn't specify that the 51% had to extend to non-family members. That might even be the reason there is some wiggle-room there. The 51% minimum is likely expressed with primarily family and friends. Those who love strangers, and engage in altruistic acts, have gone beyond the 51%.

For those who reach only the minimum 51%, they will likely learn to love others beyond their friends and families, in 4D.

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.

Agreed. However, here is a point I think you're missing:

What might appear as 'justification' might actually be responsibility in another area of life.

You just used the word 'serve.' If one is serving, then one is acting in an STO capacity. This person has a responsibility to serve, to choose STO actions. Thus, that too is a responsibility. Therefore, if that person, say, quit her job, which resulted in neglecting her children, then she has just traded one responsibility for another.

the deal is that, i think law of responsibility acts regardless of conscious or unconscious knowledge of any concept in question.

Are you saying that an entity who is aware has an equal amount of responsibility as one who is not aware?

I recall Ra addressing this point. If I remember correctly, Ra stated something about responsibility increasing as awareness increased. And I know Edgar Cayce stated that, for what it's worth. With ability comes responsibility.

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.

But neglecting her children is also a negative act. How is this reconciled?

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.

Thanks for the clarification.

In the normal corporate world, that is generally true. Which is precisely my point: These new companies have created a new business model which doesn't fall into the old corporate structure. They've changed the game. What you call a mechanic; a new mechanic has been created.

like ?

FDR, Lincoln. We just discussed this on another thread. There were others but I think these were the only ones in politics.

None in the corporate world were mentioned. But then, the modern multi-national corporation is a relatively new phenomenon, and Ra wouldn't have commented on that.