Jump to content

novymir

Members
  • Posts

    1,732
  • Joined

  • Last visited

6 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

11,989 profile views

novymir's Achievements

913

Reputation

Single Status Update

See all updates by novymir

  1. Only those that are fearful and weak(consciously or not) look to so-called "authorities" to protect them and keep them "safe". Them that are strong and confidant have no use for external "protection", and have no use for any worldly authorities anywhere to stop anyone from "harming" them.

     

    IN Truth; I've NEVER been a "victim". And I've NEVER been a perpetrator. 

     

    I alone am responsible for my "safety" or unsafe condition or situation. And that depends entirely on my relationship with Truth. That is the only "authority" that I recognize or submit to, and I am a part of It.

     

    What is "responsibility" then? Who can take more "responsibility" than that? There is nothing outside myself that could do me harm unless I put it there or asked for it...projected it, wittingly or unwittingly...that's where it came from....me.  Ultimately I am "responsible". Then, where is THE POWER?   Out there?    "Them"? 

     

     Everything else can kiss my...

     

    I'll die before I respect or submit to liars ever again. I'm leaving anyways, and won't be back. 

    And that is a Miracle.

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. Ethel

      Ethel

      "What is "responsibility" then? Who can take more "responsibility" than that? There is nothing outside myself that could do me harm unless I put it there or asked for it...projected it, wittingly or unwittingly...that's where it came from....me."

       

      As a survivor of sexual abuse I find this distasteful. It has more than a whiff of victim-blaming. It's spiritual bypassing, I think.

    3. Certified Green of Heart

      Certified Green of Heart

      Yeah^^ Whilst its good to reach for high self responsibility, Ethel is right for what that says about Victim-hood where the self responsibility maybe greatly diminished or even impossible if being attacked by someone determined to throw down on another person.. 

      In the wider context again, of how or not a person played any "rationally reasonable" part in the responsibility of a thing, (not saying you Ethel in particular, but not ignoring any ideas of reduced responsibility either, if challenges you or anyone else faced were or are so adverse, as to make you almost defenseless in some situations, etc)

      ---but now back to the main point I agree whilst its good to take on as much responsibility (*in all areas of life*) as we can ~this responsibility thing IS taken to too much extreme sometimes ---even if the TOTAL 100%  responsibility seems like a great principle on paper....

      And  yet so many people who COULD you know PLAY THEIR PART etc (if they had greater morals themselves AND treated others likewise better) COULD all partake in greater or improved responsibility in the world, then others taking up the slack would not have such a hard time.. because of the morally lazy - BUT for the weak minded or whatever their excuses in the mass populus who just don't bother in great enough numbers of people. That too (at the opposite extreme) is not a desirable extreme to have not enough people take responsibility in the world.

    4. novymir

      novymir

      Yes, Ethel...I get it.

       

       

      But actually it's the end result, not bypassing anything.

       

    5. Show next comments  3 more
×
×
  • Create New...