08-12-2017, 12:00 AM
Ignore my post 28 as the quotes feature didn't stick. Here it is re-written:
Pixie wrote:You come from the school of thought that decisions are best left to Spirit. Not a person. That's a troublesome position because people are capable of accessing Spirit. Spirit speaks through nature, synchronicity, and the challenges that repeat until we learn the lesson they offer for our Spirit.
WG wrote: Here it makes no sense to me that you say it is troublesome that we are capable of accessing Spirit. It makes sense to me to say that it would be troublesome if Spirit was INaccessible to us. I first thought you meant to write INcapable, but reading you further that does not make sense either
.
I don't think I get the point you are making in that paragraph. It does not make sense to me.
I was quoting you from the previous post where you said:
I do not decide to act as anything for anyone of my own rational judgment in these scenarios. I can see many a hole in people's awareness but I do not attempt to better them in some major way unless I am either in a formal setting of being their teacher and then I try to guide them to the knowledge that my teaching is related to (with maybe a bonus of the side cause that makes it more interesting for me but that still is only by exposure and allowing the person to think or feel into certain things) or if they are a good friend/person with whom I have agreements in place that we can 'teach' each other here and there. The other time is when this comes from outside of myself, as in the example I have in this thread.
I do not decide that this or that person should fall either.
and I see here what you said too:
All one does is allows oneself to be utilized. I know too little to make these decisions.
Initially, I was confused on your stance because you appeared to go back and forth about Spirit being the active role player. It appeared like you were certain Spirit should play a role, but uncertain as to the ideal expression. I see now that you were saying Spirit should play a role, but you still seem unclear as to the extent Spirit and self should play in social engagements (and that's okay too).
I have not been in a situation where spirit indicated to me that I should let someone die. Have you?
I have. I've been a St. Francis hospice volunteer for ten years. I've met many who were ready to grow beyond their physical selves. My mom got me into it when my aunt passed away from cancer--and so death has seemed like a normal part of life. For others, they play a little too near to that fire, too soon.
I agree that there are decisions and Decisions.
You imply that the aim of the person and the aim of Spirit differs. Do you think Spirit wants someone dead that could be saved? This is a bit too theoretical for me but you seem to be implying this.
Sometimes I believe this has been the case. Not the case for all scenarios, but for some, sure. There are scenarios where one death has been instrumental to achieving mass enlightenment. The simplest I can think of is Jesus dying--but if that's a bit too imaginative, then consider the child who is dealt death at an early age (whether themselves dying or loved ones dying). That early impact has lead many to lead powerful lives filled with Spiritual guidance in pursuit of justice, kindness and integrity. Death is a major player and humans have been inspired to achieve great evolutions from the impact death has on their lives.
Pixie wrote:You come from the school of thought that decisions are best left to Spirit. Not a person. That's a troublesome position because people are capable of accessing Spirit. Spirit speaks through nature, synchronicity, and the challenges that repeat until we learn the lesson they offer for our Spirit.
WG wrote: Here it makes no sense to me that you say it is troublesome that we are capable of accessing Spirit. It makes sense to me to say that it would be troublesome if Spirit was INaccessible to us. I first thought you meant to write INcapable, but reading you further that does not make sense either
.I don't think I get the point you are making in that paragraph. It does not make sense to me.
I was quoting you from the previous post where you said:
I do not decide to act as anything for anyone of my own rational judgment in these scenarios. I can see many a hole in people's awareness but I do not attempt to better them in some major way unless I am either in a formal setting of being their teacher and then I try to guide them to the knowledge that my teaching is related to (with maybe a bonus of the side cause that makes it more interesting for me but that still is only by exposure and allowing the person to think or feel into certain things) or if they are a good friend/person with whom I have agreements in place that we can 'teach' each other here and there. The other time is when this comes from outside of myself, as in the example I have in this thread.
I do not decide that this or that person should fall either.
and I see here what you said too:
All one does is allows oneself to be utilized. I know too little to make these decisions.
Initially, I was confused on your stance because you appeared to go back and forth about Spirit being the active role player. It appeared like you were certain Spirit should play a role, but uncertain as to the ideal expression. I see now that you were saying Spirit should play a role, but you still seem unclear as to the extent Spirit and self should play in social engagements (and that's okay too).
I have not been in a situation where spirit indicated to me that I should let someone die. Have you?
I have. I've been a St. Francis hospice volunteer for ten years. I've met many who were ready to grow beyond their physical selves. My mom got me into it when my aunt passed away from cancer--and so death has seemed like a normal part of life. For others, they play a little too near to that fire, too soon.
I agree that there are decisions and Decisions.
You imply that the aim of the person and the aim of Spirit differs. Do you think Spirit wants someone dead that could be saved? This is a bit too theoretical for me but you seem to be implying this.
Sometimes I believe this has been the case. Not the case for all scenarios, but for some, sure. There are scenarios where one death has been instrumental to achieving mass enlightenment. The simplest I can think of is Jesus dying--but if that's a bit too imaginative, then consider the child who is dealt death at an early age (whether themselves dying or loved ones dying). That early impact has lead many to lead powerful lives filled with Spiritual guidance in pursuit of justice, kindness and integrity. Death is a major player and humans have been inspired to achieve great evolutions from the impact death has on their lives.