posted June 11, 2007 03:24 PM         

quote:

---

I refer to my girls as my little sages, my greatest teachers!

---

Me too Lotus! They don't let you get away with any hypocracy in the least. They catch you every time, and it makes you want so badly to become the ideal that they see in you. I found this quote today and it's true for children as well:

My goal in life is to be as good of a person my dog already thinks I am. --Author Unknown

Thanks so much to all you beautiful people for sharing loving thoughts.
Peace.
Hugs,
GG

posted June 11, 2007 03:29 PM         

Everything we do and say, they remember, hehe, better do good! But, gosh, you know, when they throw your own advice at you, hehe, it makes me cringe, like yikes, we are their role models, and we love each other unconditionally, and it's just amazing to me!

They truly have taught me so much!

posted June 11, 2007 04:05 PM         

The quote from Besant is abstract. If you read my comments further down on that page, in response to Melody's objection, I explained that it is possible to feel all three types of love for the same person, and that Besant was simplifying to get a point across. I do not pity anyone here any more than i pity myself, and probably a hell of a lot less. But, hey, I'm big on self-pity. If I pity anyone here, it is more an effect of the empathy I can feel, or imagine feeling, for the High Ones, and how they must feel for all of us.

I do think that, at an extremely high level of selflessness, a person feels the same love for all children which you feel now only for your own children. I am firm on this. It is just what I see to be true. I don't know if you read my analogy about the mother whose child is taken from her, and she has to make the decision to either try to adopt her own child, in order to get her back, or to give birth to another child. I asked what you think you would do in that mother's place. If your response is that you would try to get your first child back before having another, you have almost proven my point. What remains is to acknowledge that, for a person who is extreeeemely selfless and plugged into the Christ Consciousness (or whatever we want to call it), all children feel like they are connected to him/her, not biologically, personally, or even on a soul level, but in spirit. Lotus' response was that my analogy missed the point because a mother has a responsibility to her own children. But the point is, a person like the type I am speaking of feels that same responsibility to all children.

"and the instinct i feel for my own children and you thinking you can compare that to how you feel for millions of children in the world?"

If I actually claimed to feel that way for all the children in the world, it was a mistake in expressing myself. That is certainly not true and not what i meant to say or imply. I'm sorry for that. It does seem to be what many people think I have said, so, perhaps the error is mine for expressing my views imperfectly there. I never meant to imply that I am at the level of the spiritual people I am talking about. I too am "selfish" compared to the ideal I feel compelled to set before myself, and before the world.

I was not sure what you were saying, when i asked if you were saying that, just because a woman can have children she ought to. I did find it hard to believe that was your point, but, I could not make any other sense out of the way you worded it. Perhaps the fault is mine. My apologies if that is the case. Thank you for responding and clarifying that for me, i was wondering about it.

"you can't possibly love the millions of children in
the world without homes and 'pity me' for thinking
you cannot compare the two, and the fact that you
did leads me to believe that you are in fact, so
changed and deluded in that your opinions are the
only ones that you believe yourself to be an infallible omnipotent guru"

I adressed this misunderstanding above. And the "opinion" that i have expressed, to the best of my ability, is, as I understand it, the one shared by the likes of Jesus Christ, who said we ought to turn away from our own families for his sake and for the sake of the world. "If people come to me and are not ready to abandon their fathers, mothers, wives, children, brothers, and sisters, as well as their own lives, they cannot be my disciples." - Luke 14:26 (GWT Translation)

The price of unconditional love is the sacrifice of conditional love. I am not saying it is an easy sacrifice to make, or one that I myself am capable of making. I am still too "selfish". The "pearl of great price" is not cheap, as you can imagine. This sacrifice is paramount to crucifixion. I have been misunderstood, if anyone here really thinks that I am asking, let alone demanding, them to make this sacrifice. I am just stating what it is, and what the profound spiritual reasons are for making it. Even if we don't make it now, we will all make it someday. It is the destiny of all souls, and the reality of all the Christed ones. That is a fact. If it is arrogant of me to believe that this much is certain, I'm afraid it cannot be helped, and the charge of arrogance, however many times it is repeated, will never be sufficient to change my mind.

"it is not the person who makes a guru, it is the people."

I agree. But first he claims divine inspiration and they reject and crucify him. Every single one of them. Again, I'm not talking about myself. I'm not even talking about incarnated avataras. I'm talking about a Voice within all of us.

"i don't know when you made this turn, but i liked
talking with you more before."

I think this is probably a snowballing of the misunderstanding I spoke of?
Or do you still feel this way?

I hope we are copacetic now. I like you, Pix.

posted June 11, 2007 04:13 PM         

What I was trying to say, is by carrying that child for 9 months, it is your responsiblity, to care for that child, or make sure the child is taken care of. By God allowing us to create this miracle, the child has thus become our responsibility,
so yes, you go after that child that was taken away, by mistake, it is your responsiblity, you brought that child into the World, by the grace of God!

what is it exactly, you are trying to say?

posted June 11, 2007 04:20 PM         

If you are also arguing that we are not responsible for other children, because we have not birthed them, you will have to make that clear. I would disagree with that.

"We come into the world laden with the weight of an infinite necessity."

- Albert Camus

That infinite necessity is our responsibility to all sentient life under God. Everything we do affects one another. Who can argue that this does not constitute responsibility?

Love to you,
HSC

posted June 11, 2007 04:25 PM         

Our first responsility is to God, then ourSelves, but once you have children,
your children come before yourSelf.

then you have your parents, and family
and then the rest of the world!

I think many of us, volunteer our time,
or make donations, to help the rest.

so, plain and simply, we do take care of
each Other. ...

posted June 11, 2007 04:38 PM         

I think the difference in today's posts by you compared to others you'd written on this thread, is that they have a humility and calmness, whereas before you were seeming to devalue any other opinion. Quite a difference...you were so frantically getting your point across, it was clumsy.
It wasn't a conversation, it was a decree.

I get what you are saying about achieving a level of higher love..and I did see that in some of your posts, not that I agreed with everything you wrote...
This world can use it. It's something to work toward, and with that goal in mind, maybe things will change, little by little.. but everything in moderation, and all levels respected. You can't force a sword of love in someone's side. (Especially not a mother's.) Love or not, it's intended to provoke or insense.

posted June 11, 2007 04:49 PM         

Not any child! Not anybody!

posted June 11, 2007 04:50 PM         

quote:

---

I think I see what you are saying, lotus, and I agree with you. This is partly why I think it is better not to have children. Why take on more responsibility, when we cannot fulfill the one that is already set before us?

---

Well forgive me for not sounding Aquarian but you make it seem as if it is us who gave birth to the millions of orphans in the world and left them alone. I come from a culture that emphasizes the community over the individual so I kind of understand what you are getting at but not to that extreme. In other words, while I do believe we should do what we can to help these orphans you cannot expect everyone to unconditionally love and take on a parental responsibility for every orphaned child and that is not biologically theirs as if it were their own biological child. It is highly unrealistic because not every human is that Aquarian as Pixe already stated, it just wouldn't work. Now that doesn't mean that people do not love these orphans in an impersonal way as to do something to contribute to the betterment of their stituation. And of course, I'm not saying that it is wrong to adopt: I actually applaud those who have the hearts big enough to do such a thing. It is a beautiful thing.

And even if that was a realistic solution, I don't think that if everyone stopped creating children and started adopting the orphans here that it would solve the problem. Because I believe that in order to solve any problem, one must get to the root of it and find the cause....same goes for the orphan problem. I believe that you are missing VERY IMPORTANT piece of the entire puzzle. Because you seem to believe that the problem is people giving birth to their own children and neglecting the orphans of the world,over-population, and what have you. But how did the orphans get here? And why are the orphans even orphans in the first place? I think everyone feels that that is what you are completely missing. The root of the orphan issue is usually mass poverty in places such as Romania and Russia, and a combination of both Poverty and the AIDS epidemic wiping out an enitre generation of parents in places like Africa and some parts of Asia. Now I may be wrong, but I think the very Aquarian thing to do would be to try and solve those problems and when that happens it would be like a positive domino effect: many other things will improve including the reduction of the orphan population in the future. Because if you don't fix the root causes of this orphan situation, then more and more orphans will show up every generation even if EVERYONE were to adopt.

posted June 11, 2007 04:58 PM         

That was awesome!

About time someone said something I can completely agree with...

posted June 11, 2007 05:08 PM         

I can empathise with both the Scorpio and Aquarian energies being expressed.

But here's a Piscean spin.

My children already are your children, and perhaps your parents. Just not right now.

We are more closely linked than we remember or yet know.

Another perspective is that the intense bond between a mother and its child could not be a better Earthly expression of the love of God.

Both are valid and not mutually exclusive I would say as well.

HSC - I was concerned that you were being self-righteous at one point, but now I am more concerned that you seem to be bringing chastisation on yourself almost deliberately.

I hope you start giving yourself a break and build the bonds that truly nurture you as we have seen before.

It feels like self-punishment and its not nice to see you like that.

The fact you can produce humility at all in the midst of all that should be the core of strength you hold onto right now.

Good luck.

posted June 11, 2007 05:09 PM         

there are so many different angles to look at things!

posted June 11, 2007 05:12 PM         

the basic principle, is we are all children of God, we are our Soul, so we are all family, and we should all care for one another.

that would be,

Heaven on Earth

posted June 11, 2007 05:16 PM         

NICE!!!

Another perspective is that the intense bond between a mother and its child could not be a better Earthly expression of the love of God.

posted June 11, 2007 05:19 PM         

Over population and orphans are two separate problems.

posted June 11, 2007 05:52 PM         

quote:

---

Actually Dulce, hi by the way guys, I think that is HSC's point in a way.

---

If that was the case, then I would agree with him but I've been under the impression throughout this entire thread that he thought the orphans came as a result of over-population and that the only way to solve that problem was to stop giving birth and just adopt.

quote:

---

But here's a Piscean spin.

My children already are your children, and perhaps your parents. Just not right now.

We are more closely linked than we remember or yet know.

Another perspective is that the intense bond between a mother and its child could not be a better Earthly expression of the love of God.

Both are valid and not mutually exclusive I would say as well.

---

I like that spin, too. Well Said! We should all be concerned about one another's well being as a community but we shouldn't forget the most important bonds in the process.

posted June 11, 2007 05:59 PM         

quote:

---

Just to add,
The solution to over population is NOT to stop giving birth and start adopting. At least not in India. And it is one of the most populated countries of the world. In India, one sees upto 7-8 children in a family, especially if you go to rural areas, but these children are NOT orphans. Nor are their parents always amenable to giving them up for adoption, even though they may have limited resources. Do you even know what are the reasons why there is over population in a country like India? It is because parents want a son, and for that they are ready to have as many children as it takes. Or because they are too poor and uneducated to know about birth control. Sad but true.

---

posted June 11, 2007 07:18 PM         

Nicely said, Swerve

posted June 11, 2007 07:57 PM         

Solane thanks for the picture!

Overpopulation. In an ideal world people would only produce enough to replace the dying population or even less to reduce the population. But the technical aspects of that are daunting as would be the social aspects. And when laws enter the right to bear children it can be good or create schisms and dystopic societies. Who gets a breeder permit? Who does not? Do we sterilize the poor? Do we sterilize after a couple has had one or two children? How about genetics? Only perfect physical specimens allowed? How about other forms of forced birth control? How does one enforce such laws or rules planetwide?
It is quite a quandary.
As for orphans. If I were rich and money was no issue, I would adopt a bunch of kids and not care one whit what race. Or start a big loving group home. But alas I am not rich.....yet!