StephaneR said:
The Law of Honesty: Recognizing, accepting and expressing our authentic interior reality lies at the heart of honesty. Only when we are honest with ourselves can we speak or act honestly with anyone else. In the sense of integrity, honesty entails acting in line with higher laws despite negative impulses to the contrary. We don't need to be punished for breaking spiritual law or higher laws. The act itself is the punishment and sets into motion subtle forces whose natural consequences we cannot escape any more than we are able to escape the force of gravity. When we let fear stop us from expressing our true feelings and needs, we are being dishonest with ourselves and it costs us a sense of energy and spirit.
The one place new-age sometimes includes bits of truth is in their "theory" and some general principles (although that too is mixed with many distortions and lies). They talk about being honest, waking up, having good will towards all, learning the truth, being critical of mainstream news and so on. All great in theory. But it is in practice that they fail miserably to uphold any of their theoretical precepts. They talk the talk (sometimes) but almost never walk the walk, despite claiming that they are doing exactly that.
You can talk about studying honesty but why not try applying it to yourself and to others? What is honest about blindly accepting some new-age claim of being some "star seed" with some mission and then in a smug and elusive manner insinuating that questioning you means the questioner is ignorant and close-minded? What is honest about using loaded back-handed insults using tiny fonts?
Every reply you made for for some reason reads like a rude back-handed insult, avoiding the questions while simultaneously and quite smugly trying to "educate" the questioner about how superior you are and how blind they are, just for questioning you. It's a pretty unoriginal way to try to shift focus instead of just answering some simple questions. That's just what I saw in what you wrote, I may be off, but I don't think it would be by much. A lot of problems with new age are addressed in the Wave and I hope you enjoy reading it.
One thing I personally observed is that STS have a tendency to point fingers at others and attack. When on the other hand STO ask more questions than anything else without making everything personal and without making a big fuss about not getting an immediate answer. Did I get that wrong? It is possible.
Yes, you got it wrong. Not only that, but this is just another in the long line of disingenuous and back-handed accusations in your responses in this thread - this time accusing those who critically questioned you and pointed out your programs as "attacking" you and implying that they are STS for doing so. Critical questioning and analysis has nothing to do with "attacking" even if your predator subjectively interprets it as such. Reading the Wave should go a long way to help you understand the critical difference, and that critical analysis is very much an "STO" thing to do.
Also, there is a difference between not giving an immediate answer and using sly, evasive, and underhanded methods to twist what has been said and incorrectly accuse the questioner of being ignorant and attempt to shift focus back onto the questioner instead.
