Another thought just occurred to me,
You see, the main issue with this is that we're arguing over a detail that can be interpreted in many different ways. Can they be STO? and where's the evidence for yes or no. All based on the possibility that preventing nuclear war may or may not be STO. I think we can argue this point for years from several different angles.
But the knowledge that seems to be missing in their message, that I would think they would be aware of, is the fact that life is lessons and there's a cyclical experiential school that souls must go through individually and collectively. When one takes that factor into consideration, it's a lot easier to understand the experience of life on earth as part of such a lesson plan if you will.
Perhaps, it's not the world that needs to be changed, or their potential overlords, perhaps this reality will always be what it is, think of it as an intensive 300k year course on "Life on a 3D STS planet". The students might move on, once they learn how to do so, but the course will remain for those who choose to take it.
Impeding, or trying to convince someone, that being in the course is wrong or that it was a mistake, is counter productive to the student, wouldn't you say? although that in itself might be part of the course itself, but I digress. I think it's as counter productive as a 4th grade student trying to convince the 3rd grade student that he and his friends disagree with he way the school administration is handling his 3rd grade classes.
He may be successful at convincing the 3rd grade student of a new way of handling the classes on 3rd grade and kick the teachers out, but the 3rd grade student will miss his 3rd grade classes and not learn. Or be given brand new teachers that will make the displease 4th grader happy.
The reason I call them activists is because that's the tone I get from them, like activists that disagree with how some people consume animals because it displeases them, so they go and protests and try to educate children into becoming vegetarian. The motive is what defines the orientation of their seemingly compassionate actions. They're doing it for themselves, using words like liberation and compassion, they're actually attempting to change reality to reflect their wishes instead of seeing reality as it is.
Going back to this group, and assuming that they are sincere in the narrative they're presenting, the knowledge, or lack there of, visible in their motive, indicates to me that they are acting on their own behalf because it displeases them. That to me settles the question of the STO or STS nature of the communication.
The communication may be completely real, and the entities may be just as real, but they seem to be here to serve themselves.
I hope the above made sense.
You see, the main issue with this is that we're arguing over a detail that can be interpreted in many different ways. Can they be STO? and where's the evidence for yes or no. All based on the possibility that preventing nuclear war may or may not be STO. I think we can argue this point for years from several different angles.
But the knowledge that seems to be missing in their message, that I would think they would be aware of, is the fact that life is lessons and there's a cyclical experiential school that souls must go through individually and collectively. When one takes that factor into consideration, it's a lot easier to understand the experience of life on earth as part of such a lesson plan if you will.
Perhaps, it's not the world that needs to be changed, or their potential overlords, perhaps this reality will always be what it is, think of it as an intensive 300k year course on "Life on a 3D STS planet". The students might move on, once they learn how to do so, but the course will remain for those who choose to take it.
Impeding, or trying to convince someone, that being in the course is wrong or that it was a mistake, is counter productive to the student, wouldn't you say? although that in itself might be part of the course itself, but I digress. I think it's as counter productive as a 4th grade student trying to convince the 3rd grade student that he and his friends disagree with he way the school administration is handling his 3rd grade classes.
He may be successful at convincing the 3rd grade student of a new way of handling the classes on 3rd grade and kick the teachers out, but the 3rd grade student will miss his 3rd grade classes and not learn. Or be given brand new teachers that will make the displease 4th grader happy.
The reason I call them activists is because that's the tone I get from them, like activists that disagree with how some people consume animals because it displeases them, so they go and protests and try to educate children into becoming vegetarian. The motive is what defines the orientation of their seemingly compassionate actions. They're doing it for themselves, using words like liberation and compassion, they're actually attempting to change reality to reflect their wishes instead of seeing reality as it is.
Going back to this group, and assuming that they are sincere in the narrative they're presenting, the knowledge, or lack there of, visible in their motive, indicates to me that they are acting on their own behalf because it displeases them. That to me settles the question of the STO or STS nature of the communication.
The communication may be completely real, and the entities may be just as real, but they seem to be here to serve themselves.
I hope the above made sense.
