Quote:
Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot  I think that you should try to understand the author's broader meaning ... instead of picking out one sentence here, and one sentence there, and wondering why this seems inconsistent with that.
For example, before you start picking out one sentence from page 26 and one sentence from page 27, I suggest you just read page 25 in full, and I think it will become quite clear.
|
Firstly, I am not just picking out a sentence here and there. I am responding to what you said, quoting the relevant text.
You say "For example the difference between "what you desire" and "your desire" is too fine for me to quibble about ", but you highlighted this as the main point in your previous post.
You say, "If you cannot accept that a physical possession like a car could have a vibration".
I did not say it could not have a vibration. I asked, "What is the vibrational level of a car", or anything you may desire?
You don't seem to be grasping what I feel the ambiguities in the book are. You say I am picking out things from the book, but you, in fact, are picking out minor things from the posts I have made.
The text says much about aligning with desires (or the objects of desire).
What I am asking is :
What if the desire itself is not in vibrational alignment with source? It seems that it is, in fact, often fulfilled.
Criminals, murderers, rapists, abusers, etc, often fulfill their desires and they hurt a lot people. But, their desires are not in alignment with Source, apparently. Hicks states that the output of Source Energy would never hurt anyone and is a force for good and well being.
He says every request or desire is granted, but if the desire/request is harmful to others, or not conducive to your own growth, would it be granted from Source?