roage.free-forum.net

[roage]

Does another man or woman possess the power to violate your rights against your will? (Think hard on this before you answer because it is not as easy as it seems)

[Gooseone]

Nope , not in my view
Might seem that way though but in that instance it would be one's own Free Will which has given permission.
If one is still a victim and therefore not knowledgable of any Law they cannot be held responsible but if the system is fullproof they will never create an
unwanted victim.
It can make one wonder if there's ever been a violation of Free Will though

[roage]

It can make one wonder if there's ever been a violation of Free Will though

I cannot yet conclude that there has been for me personally. I am not yet privy to the agreement I entered before I was born but knowing me I would not have entered blindly into a game without assurances that my interests would be served.

I know your answer is going to confuse the uninitiated, out there, but they indeed need to think about this and know why it is true!

[3ree]

could the answer be both yes and no?! in certain instances the violation can lead to personal growth, whereas if their had been no violation then nothing would be gained - and vice versa!

Namaste,

Lenny

[Swift46]

Does another man or woman possess the power to violate your rights against your will? (Think hard on this before you answer because it is not as easy as it seems)

Well, I would say No since real rights, not the ones given by the constitution ( funny how I once thought that things like that would give people rights), cannot be violated without you concent. Am I on the money?

You do well and you don't need me telling you that!

[roage]

could the answer be both yes and no?! in certain instances the violation can lead to personal growth, whereas if their had been no violation then nothing would be gained - and vice versa!

Namaste,

Lenny

If one demands that as a pert of a requested life experience then is it against their will? I guess we would have to know what we need versus what we think we want?

New Rule!

(Namaste) is a given and I think I speak for everyone here as they are all of impeccable character. Might save us some typing I am not saying you shouldn't I am saying we love you!

[permie1]

After much deliberation my answer is no. the only way a violation that can occur is if I give way for a man or woman to violate me through my own free will. I would also go further in asking is it really a violation if the purpose of the violation is a lesson?

[Anuren]

Bear with me..I'm trying to learn, here goes...

When a ques. is asked, let's say verbally and requires an answer from another...there are two people involved right?....
I feel a contract coming on
1.An offer: One has to first solicit - In this case the Ques.
2.An acceptance: Another has to accept the offer - In this case the answer.
3.An exchange of consideration: One does something if another does something - In this case one is asking, the other is answering.
4.A meeting of minds: A contract must be between two minds - No doubt in this example, two minds involved.

Considering further information on pageId 163 on your site Roage and that: All contracts are voluntary/All contracts are buyer beware..."a man is responsible for knowing what they are getting himself into".....I cannot give you an answer to this ques without clarifying the Ques. and/or some of it's words...
-Who/What is 'another/woman', Sovereign or Ego?
-Wheredoes his/her power come from?
-Is it 'power' or ability that he has?
-Who/What is 'your'?
-And what does 'against your will' mean?
-Are we considering only the simulation?
-Are we taking the participants pre-existence into account?
-Is Ø involved in the equation?
Then, my reply to the ques. would depend on these answers...
Besides all of the above...at the moment, for me it does not matter either way...whether one can or can't violate another's rights against their will....
It's all a game, lessons to learn....simulation...Ø's in control....
How am I doing Roage?

[Moose]

What indeed is 'Free Will'?
The ability to choose.

Choice.
The problem with choice is, that Man is programmed to except and believe he has choice when in fact there is only a limited choice available which has been carefully chosen for him.
Any man posses's the power to violate your rights against free will when you are in total denial that the choices you have only appear as free will, the choices are only within what has been taught to you or given to you.
Example.
A man leaves his house for work. He has 2 choices. At the end of the road he can turn left or right. Both directions lead to the same place. is he using his free will? If you ask him he will say "yes" I had a choice.
Infact the choice had already been made for him. He is purposely forced each morning to turn left or right. He really has NO choice. He is blind to this, and will argue against it.
The violation comes from the designer of the estate he lives on, it was designed only to have 2 exits. Those living there are no longer able to use true free will only masked free will. If they had played a part in the design then free will would of decided how many roads left the estate.

Man assumes he has free will.
Consider what you do on a daily basis and give clear thought about the choices already made for you under your very nose's.

[roage]

Bear with me..I'm trying to learn, here goes...

When a ques. is asked, let's say verbally and requires an answer from another...there are two people involved right?....

I am going to give you two answers first the left-brained answer and then the right-brained answer.

From the perspective of ego (left-brain) there are two separate things involved. This is how it will appear until one makes the cross over the threshold.

In right-brain we are are one being so what is going on is merely the process of permitting that half of us that is "running" the game to allow information to be received by the half of us "playing" the game.

It is done in a specific way such that the player must be at the place the the Game controller determines as a function of the specific game. The question contains the answer and it is merely moving the realization from one side to another. The act of asking the question is an indication that the observer willingly accepts the information to be moved from universal mind into the limited sphere of a particular observer.

It can be looked at as contract as nothing is done against the will of the observer. Ego and Self do not count as they merely serve the observer by providing the life experience.

I feel a contract coming on
1.An offer: One has to first solicit - In this case the Ques.
2.An acceptance: Another has to accept the offer - In this case the answer.
3.An exchange of consideration: One does something if another does something - In this case one is asking, the other is answering.
4.A meeting of minds: A contract must be between two minds - No doubt in this example, two minds involved.

This is important to realize. When one operates in ego, ego creates a "perceived" separation between the observers. There is one mind with two observing facets with access to their specific elements collected thus far. The observers have their own view or part of the universal mind. So what is actually tating place is one observer to another observer which appears through ego as two separate "minds" when really they are simply two different perspectives on the same singular mind.

I hope I did not slaughter this too much. I image there are others that have different words.

Considering further information on pageId 163 on your site Roage and that: All contracts are voluntary/All contracts are buyer beware..."a man is responsible for knowing what they are getting himself into".....I cannot give you an answer to this ques without clarifying the Ques. and/or some of it's words...
-Who/What is 'another/woman', Sovereign or Ego?

This is where it is important to stick to one paradigm or the other. Ego is what gives us the perception of two minds. We call those "others" parties. You are right in thinking there is but one but in order to cross the threshold (THAT BEING THE WHOLE REASON FOR THIS EXERCISE ) one must approach it as ego in order to make the contract. In that perception Ø appears to us as external. We need to make a deal with a thing we perceive as "outside" of us. Why? This is the paradigm we are leaving. We must know the law not because we will be bound to it in the new paradigm. The law is old paradigm and we should have been employing it the whole time but we kept ourselves from it. It used to be wide spread but slowly we fell away. That was how things were but we have not been operating from a position of responsibility so we had no need of the law. We were "juristic persons" not men and women. The new paradigm is not bound to these same lawful principles as you are giving that up. To give it up means you must know what you are giving up! You cannot create a victim in the new paradigm and contracts of the form that are spoken about in the material are not binding. Why? The reason is because the entire universe is a colorable fiction that we all have remedy to!

THAT"S RIGHT! GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD!

-Wheredoes his/her power come from?

Only one place we are one being. We/I/Us --> Ø

-Is it 'power' or ability that he has?
-Who/What is 'your'?

This is the trouble with mixing paradigms. There is one of us and therefor there cannot be a contract in the new paradigm because we cannot have a "meeting of the minds" because there is only one mind. There are no "others" to contract with and there are no victims other than ourself.

-And what does 'against your will' mean?

We/I/us --> Ø play this game. One half plays, one half controls the game and protects the player.

In ego we must look at it as separate beings as that is how the game is "constructed" and that is the way the "door out" is structured.

-Are we considering only the simulation?

We cannot consider it otherwise. However, game controller determines the structure of the gameplay. Play must yeild as player is protected in the game as it is ignorant of what is "outside" of the game.

-Are we taking the participants pre-existence into account?

I do not know about "we" but I do. The observer's function is to gather specific experience and to do so requires specific things to happen. We are at liberty to presume that the "observational" player may be gathering experience over several game instances ("lifetimes"), So yes, if the data the observer collects is to remain objective than it is to operate independent of the game controller. Otherwise the data would be worthless as the game controller could tamper or compromise the data integrity.

-Is Ø involved in the equation?

It starts and ends with Ø. The idea is that Ø is gathering experience and knowledge of the law to understand his/herself and the principles of the place he/she is at. It splits off countless data collection observers and creates a gymnasium where they operate. These observers appear each as first person experience and lifetime for Ø. Game controller is a set of principles and law that make up a universe(s). Observers have two perception tools Ego and Self to move it through a specifically tailored life experience to collect adat that will all be "judged" by Ø.

Then, my reply to the ques. would depend on these answers...
Besides all of the above...at the moment, for me it does not matter either way...whether one can or can't violate another's rights against their will....
It's all a game, lessons to learn....simulation...Ø's in control....
How am I doing Roage?

You are doing just fine. Even though one might understand the model does not mean one lives the model. Seeing the door and stepping outside are two entirely different things.

You know the answer

Phew I hurt my neuron.