Ok - here is what that article says about child abuse:
Quote:
These questions seem to weaken the plausibility of the Law of Attraction. Sometimes people answer them by going pretty far out. For example, it’s been said by LoAers that a young child experiences abuse because s/he intended it or earned it during a past life. Well, sure… we can explain just about anything if we bring past lives into the equation, but IMO that’s a cop-out. On the other hand, objective reality without the Law of Attraction doesn’t provide satisfactory answers either — supposedly some kids are just born unlucky. That’s a cop-out too.
I’ve never been satisfied by others’ answers to these questions, and they’re pretty important questions if the Law of Attraction is to be believed. Some books hint at the solution but never really nail it. That nail, however, can be found in the concept of subjective reality.
.....
If a child is abused, does that mean the child intended it in some way?
No. It means YOU intended it. You intend child abuse to manifest simply by thinking about it. The more you think about child abuse (or any other subject), the more you’ll see it expand in your reality. Whatever you think about expands, and not just in the narrow space of your avatar but in all of physical reality.
|
I still don't get Steve's post. I just don't understand why I (or part of my consciousness) would intend such a thing.
Refering to the posts, I find the 'it takes two to tango comment' from Dharma offensive in the extreme, mainly because it is used in the context of justifying affairs between
consenting adults, rather than a child who in all probability doesn't even know what sex is. I think the problem is that we naturally extrapolate responsibility to apportioning blame (not saying this is right, just what happens). And I think it is the implication that the fault is entirely on the child for 'attracting' it is offensive and unhelpful and clearly causes some problems when trying to explain the LoA.
Lets just say that the child did have a negative vibration due to negative emotions, fear, shame, guilt, sadness etc that 'attracted' the perpetrator. It was still the perpertrator that decided to take that step and physically abuse the child. The perpetrator had a choice: To act, or not to act. To screw someone elses life up or to take respoinsibility for his own mental, emotional, spiritual state that 'attracted' him to the victim. I'm sure that the majority of people if they spent time with a vulnerable, troubled child would seek to be kind and thoughtful rather than abusive. Surely this underlines that it is the responsibility of the perpetrator, not the child.
It may even have been that the child was vibrating at such a pure vibration of love and innocence that this twisted the perpetrators mind that they wanted to own it/ possess it / destroy it. The child sure would be operating at a lower emotional level after this happened.
I don't think the existance of abuse negates the LoA, but I need to think about it more to understand it.