Righteousness a synonym for LOA?

[melody]

Is the word Righteousness a synonym for LOA?

In today’s newsletter Adrian wrote:

‘Today we will look at the next, the fourth Beatitude in our series
of analysis:

“Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness:
for they shall be filled".

The key to understanding this Beatitude lies in the true meaning of
the word "righteousness".

The word  "righteousness" is commonly believed to mean "good
conduct". In fact there is a much more important meaning of the word
"righteousness" - "right thinking".
…

It implies that in order to experience the reality that we desire,
we must first control our thoughts by the process of "right
thinking".

If you desire wealth then you must think only wealthy thoughts.

If you desire perfect health then you only think healthy thoughts.

If you wish to be Loved, then you must think only thoughts of Love
towards others.

This is an immutable Universal Principle that everyone must
understand and live by.

This is why, in accordance with this Beatitude, everyone should
"hunger after righteousness" or "right thinking", such people then
being "filled" with the fruits of their desires.’


I always understood the word Righteousness to also connote moral principles, and not solely attaining of total self gratification.

So moral principles are no longer required to be Righteous?

One only has to master the LOA to be Righteous? Or one has to be Righteous to succeed in LOA, yet no moral standards are required for that? So anything goes?

Who is to tell what is the “right thinking” for a person: the thoughts of destruction and annihilation might be the “right thinking” for some. And if they succeed through LOA to kill many by utilizing what they perceived as "right thinking" does that mean they are Righteous?

[zensunni7]

" God rains down on good and evil alike "

Moral principles are an individual choice in ones life and actions as well as thoughts.
Righteousness does denote morality in its accepted definition, yet morality is up to the individual to decide under free will.
LOA is a proposed law of physics within the dynamics of the Universe and ourselves, and all life by theory. It does not discriminate between right and wrong when being applied. The Beatitudes are guidelines for righteous thought I believe, or thoughts based in moral attitudes. Emmett Fox suggested that the beatitudes correctly pronounced was ' be - attitudes ' as they are mind attitudes for Being that would produce a life of peace and prosperity.

In LOA - yes, anything goes. In creations we see this in all life everywhere, from Human  to microbes, to universal life interacting. LOA suggests in its principles that
we need to keep our thoughts positive to attain a positive result, and there are those that feel a negative result is positive in their view. George Bush considers himself totally right in his actions and surrounds himself with those that ' think ' as he does. SO LOA is working for him. Jesus also used this to accomplish his mission.
The whole good/bad ideal is open to interpretation and discernment, yet higher consciousness tells us that neg / pos are only ideals as we apply our thoughts to them.
You are looking for a blanket principle to exclude use of LOA for what you believe to be unrighteous purposes and outcomes. It does not exist. Some would consider your ideal of morality to be totally erroneous in its principles.
Self gratification is also a law we all live by, yet have defined to be viewed as wrong. All peoples actions are self gratifyingly based, and those actions are birthed in thoughts that they perceive as self gratifying. They are thinking  that the actions they are thinking about will in some way satisfy in them a desire. Just as your post implies that using LOA for self gratification is somehow ' wrong ' to you. Agreement with you would bring you sense of self satisfaction in your thoughts and principles.
LOA thrusts us into a new dimension of seeing life and our actions, and strips us of the safety zones of right and wrong. Morality and sin. Sin in its original definition means erroneous thought, or error in thought.
So somewhere in all this new thought we must learn to redefine what this all means and what thoughts will produce the life we desire as individuals, abandoning the concept we can make everyone on the planet think the same and define righteousness as we do. But self gratification is a part of the creation concept and process, it is a core principle in the equation of all life. Even for an atom to serve the greater whole of our existence it must satisfy its purpose, gratifying its ideal of that purpose against all other influences.

WithIN Love
Darrell

[juliainkc]

Good Morning Everyone,

Excellent response Darrell!! I appreciate you. Adrian, I appreciate you for a wonderful newsletter this morning and as always your expanding thoughts.

I am in agreement with you both. I wish to share one thought here that supports what is being said by Adrian and Darrell.

The Principle of Cause and Effect. Effect is a reflection of what is causing the effect. It is in spending time in quiet meditation that allows one to become aware of I Am.....(fill in the blanks). As one thinketh (cause) so one is (effects or reflects what one thinks).

Spend more time in being aware of what is causing the reflective 'outer' effects by being aware of the Inner Being. Until we truly grasp the understanding of engaging our rightful Inner Source and intimately knowing and agreeing with who we truly are then we will continue to be influenced by outer events shaping our Inner State and beliefs. It takes daily, moment to moment awareness to remain in our True Power of causal (Creator) Being.

Just sharing out loud, Love to All,

Julia

[melody]

Beatitudes were meant as guidelines on how to achieve enlightenment.

If somebody uses LOA and what he considers his “right thoughts” to wipe out a population, he is not going towards enlightenment but is sinking away from it. So, it appears some guiding is required as to what will speed one up on the road to enlightenment and what would not. One can call it “moral guidelines”, but some people seem to be allergic to the word “moral”. One can call it really anything else, it does not really matter.

Beatitudes are not just general guidelines on how to prosper yourself, but on how to attain enlightenment.

Let us not forget that Jesus told his disciples to forsake all, their money, housing, and businesses, and just follow his teaching, even if that left them penniless.

[zensunni7]

Personally - I think you just enjoy a good theological argument.

Beatitudes are a way to enlightenment, and yes entire populations can be wiped out using LOA, I sight Iraq as proof.
Morality isn't what you decide it to be Melody, and I am quite sure Jesus does not want us all penniless to prove our worth. Not agreeing with your religious views does not mean I am allergic to morality, just people that think they have the answers for all of us.
Have you forsaken all your money- property and business interests for the sake of His teachings? Upholding your morality will enlighten you, but it will not enlighten those that want to kill populations for the sake of their version of morality either.
Some Muslims feel it a moral duty to kill Christians, and vice-versa. SO -who is following the beatitudes? Which is enlightened?
This topic will go around and around, yet it will end up at the start, a religious debate of interpretation, and the usual mental masturbation. Which I am sure is immoral too in the views of those seeking to enlighten the world in only their ideal of it.
If everyone was poor, the would not be anymore enlightened or Holy than if they were all wealthy, they would just be poor, unhealthy, and very unhappy, and have bad attitudes rather than the Be-attitudes.

WithIn Love
Darrell

[melody]

Hello  Zensunni7,

It is too bad you made a "moral" judgment about me.

First of all, I don't have any religious views, since I don't belong to any religion. And secondly, I am not deciding what morality should be. Since this is a religious (Religion and Tradition) section of the forum, I am only discussing the Bible. According to the Bible, the morality is implied by the 10 commandments, nothing less and nothing more. I did not make up those commandments. Our society should have been guided by them, but it was not, though many individuals privately did, and I believe this is what the Bible refers to as being Righteous.

I do hope we are discussing the Bible here and not me...!   

[juliainkc]

Hi Melody,

I understand you provide many interesting contributions, questions posts and resources. It seems in my observations especially when it comes to the topics regarding religion and related subjects that you do not seem very open to expand what you are hearing but to argue and disagree. I am not getting on you here. What is your intention when others share with you and your immediate answer is NO! What is it you are resisting here? Just asking. That shared.......

Christ embodied (in-bodied) righteousness. Again, we are speaking of his True Nature and attributes which was already shared in this forum previously as his Being Equal with God and saying himself that we are equally One with God. Enlightenment can be expressed as Being in the Mind of Christ or the Mind of God. Jesus' last name wasn't Christ. He attained Christhood and reminded us all that we are him.

If somebody uses LOA and what he considers his “right thoughts” to wipe out a population, he is not going towards enlightenment but is sinking away from it. So, it appears some guiding is required as to what will speed one up on the road to enlightenment and what would not. One can call it “moral guidelines”, but some people seem to be allergic to the word “moral”. One can call it really anything else, it does not really matter.

LOA or Cause and Effect, or Thoughts become Things. However way you wish to say or define it. The mind is a very powerful thing.

I am observing in your statement that by one using "what he considers" his 'right thoughts' to wipe out a population he is sinking away from enlightenment.

Here again, this is a finite thought system trying to impose it's thinking on an Infinite Thought System. Since we are discussing the Be -Attitudes of an Enlightened Being then how does this thought measure up to what Jesus is sharing here? It isn't about making Mind of God fit into man's mind standards. I'm asking you here, do you really believe what you stated above and why? What are you basing this on?

Does this one's 'right thoughts' measure up to Mind Of God Thoughts? Mind of God which has nothing to do with this world's standards at all. It surpasses them. So, we use contrast (our experiences) in this reality (curricula) to understand this. Who we are is In the Center. Our experiences play on different sides to bring us back to Center. Our realization of Who We Are. Creators or the Cause. The cause (source) of our effects (creations).

When one acknowledges that the Mind of God (Christ) permeates them already, understanding  where THOU is, and has always been, then one begins to understand that what is being said here is above the finite laws of mankind based on the fear of separation thinking. Jesus was followed by the masses why? Because they wanted to get something from him and it wasn't to know who they were. They had a poor me, lack mentality. They weren't trusting in the Source of All their supply.

Know Source first and all these things will be added unto you. You will have all your 'needs or lacks' taken care of because you will know that you lack nothing. Why? Because we are All Divinely God Children and have all the attributes of our Father.

As to morals, when one Knows the Father of Light, morals are not even an issue.

As to forsaking all, again, Jesus said this yes, because the 'people' on this plane of existence who think they 'see', focus on competiveness, greed, power, lust, a what's in this for me mentality, and an as long as I get what I want, there's nothing left for you mentality, all equal to Fear based thinking (limited, finite)  and do not Truly see that it has nothing to do with our reason for being here at all.

Again, We are already supplied by knowing our Source of Supply and can Trust in our Source. We are daily distracted because we think the physical rules our lives. It's the other way around. Jesus spent his ministry emphasizing this over and over again. He was well  maintained in his ministry by his disciplies who supported (with their money) his ministry (doing the works of the Father). Storing up their treasures in 'Heaven' within and not being motivated by selfish unfulfilling desires.

Jesus kept repeating this because we tend to have our priorities out of order and 'God' (Source) is a God of Order or 'Good Orderly Direction."  He simply said, "The greatest commandment is this, to Love the Lord your God (your Source of Life Force) with all you heart, mind and Soul." Everything else would be taken care of once we get this one down because when we live this way we know we are the cause (source of origin) of our effects (reality).  


Again, just thinking out loud....

InJoy this day,

Julia

[melody]

Hello Julia,

As I said in my last post, we are discussing the Bible here. It is too bad you choose to discuss me instead.

To know the Source is a numerous lifespans endeavour.  This is why we reincarnate. It is impossible to know the Source, all of it, at the level we are right now. We can think we do, but I very much doubt it is really so. If we did, we'd be already with the Source, and not on this low vibrating planet.

And since we are here, why not ask ourselves a question - how come we are still here and not with the Source? What it is that we do incorrectly by being here? One needs to question to find the answers. Simply feeling good inside and telling that this means I know the Source and therefore know and understand, and understand how everything functions simply does not cut it. Maybe putting ourselves in such a cocoon of knowing it all makes us stuck here.

[juliainkc]

Hi Melody,

As I said in my last post, we are discussing the Bible here. It is too bad you choose to discuss me instead.

I apologize. When I read your opening statement to this thread it seemed to me you were discussing Adrian's newsletter and his expanding the meaning of righteousness and LOA.

While it isn't ever my intention to 'discuss' you, I was only asking you a question to understand you a little more and your response here didn't answer it. That said, while I am solely responsible for my own thoughts and how I perceive what I am 'seeing' reflected in my picture, I also realize that when one is offended that that is what matters to the 'other' whether it was my intention or not.

I wrote almost ten paragraphs here Melody, my question to you was only one paragraph of the whole post. We are all free to ask questions here as you do and so state. As in what do you mean and where are you coming from with this? That's not challenging you or anyone in my honest opinion. I asked for clarification regarding the purpose of why you were asking and not 'seeming' to want the question to be looked at from others points of view because you go back to saying what you opened the question with. That's all. No offense intended. That's asking a question my friend.

My main emphasis being shared here is that righteousness is based on the Mind of God and not man's ideas of what that may mean. Right thinking as Adrian shared which in turn is a reflection of the cause (Origin) of the effect (what one is creating).

When I share that I must stand on my head, I am saying to look at what I am 'seeing' in another way of seeing, hear in another way of hearing. From the Inside out instead of seeing the outside and trying to make it fit the inside.

We've already been sharing and discussing the remainder of what you are saying here.

It all comes down to what you believe. As to why we are here. We pre-determined to go through the curriculum to return to our Source of Love. We didn't have to do this. We choose to. Again, this is for another discussion in regards to Child of God having a dream and believing that separation from Source was even ever possible.

I bear you no harm Melody.

Sending Love your way, Be Well and InJoy this day,

Julia

[melody]

Hello Julia,

Adrian was discussing the Bible in his newsletter, so I am equally discussing the Bible.

Where am I coming from? I thought that was pretty obvious. I believe the same as to what Bible states in some other words and ways, that a basic moral fibre is indispensable for a spiritual progress, a well as having Unconditional Love on one's heart. One just cannot budge to any higher vibrations without these. Since the Bible's main purpose is to teach how to become enlightened, than its main focus is to show just how to do that and not to waist time on how to enrich ourselves, because this is not essential (and might even be a detraction) to the path of enlightenment. All the great enlightened souls have actually given up the materials possesions in orther to become enlightened.

There is no concerns in regard to riches at other planes of higher reality. Apparently, you can have anything you want instantaneously in the Astral. So if God wishes to experience himself when we are attaining items as per our imagination, he can experience plenty of it in the Astral and therefore does not need physical plain to experience himself in that way that.

[juliainkc]

Hello Melody,

It seems we are the ones who are endeavored to have this discussion. 

Shall we dance?

Where am I coming from? I thought that was pretty obvious

I am not a mind reader. I am an Energy Being and I sense things. To answer you in kind of your statement here, I say, I would agree with you Melody, by asking in kind. Isn't it obvious where I am coming from? Like begets like. How do you want to hear it? Hmm?

I shared in another post here awhile back my as in 'Julia's' view of what was shown to her regarding the 'Bible' or also known as 'The Book'.

I was very open to interpretation of this 'Book" Melody, by the age of 19. Why? Because unlike you, I was raised in a very deeply ingrained atmosphere of Southern Baptist upbringing and quite frankly I'd seen and heard and felt enough of the bullshit. Literally, a cram it down your throat mentality of 'Get Right or Get Left' morality based on a collective ancestral theology's interpretation as in left behind to burn in hell and go through the "Tribulation" also known as the events of 2012. You, I and everyone else here based on this false idea of the 'in crowd' (there's only room for a few mentality) would not make it. Trust me. It's bullshit!!

Different way of saying it but walk backwards with me here. Memory lane.... I spent 16 years and alot more hours than I can possibly remember or care to, in deep albeit laymen (cut the crap and speak in clear terms and meaning) study of the end times and the message of the Messiah also known as Jesus. I knew at a very early age that something wasn't vibing or jiving in this one also known as God expressing as Julia. Again. I can only ever speak for myself.

You did not know my grandmother. That woman could spin circles around you, me and any others in scripture. People were afraid of her prayers Melody. She was known as a 'Righteous' woman. I, from viewing by living with her and rebelling in her face (going against her ideas of moral fibres and realizing what that meant to me, my Right thinking), and walking back into by choice and out of the mire of 'religion' asked this woman a question when she was at the door of transitioning. She was 96 at the time and had over 60 years in studying and practicing what she knew. She was known as a great Saint of Christ. My question to her?

"Grandmother, what kind of 'God' calls a man (King David) a 'man after 'God's' own heart while allowing him to do all manner of things and go against everything He as in David's ('God') says he hated?"

That's the kind of questions this one asked. My questions to you are mild in comparison Melody. I truly wanted to KNOW GOD not associate myself with some 'religion' or 'creed' by knowing about that version of god.

Yeah, we can pack it into a 'cool' or lukewarm way of saying it but know this if you are as open to interpretation as you say you are. You are who You think You are and believe (give your thoughts to) what you are be come (ing).

I was shocked when I heard the way she transitioned.

This 'Saint of God' screamed in agony the whole 'time' in her passing through the door. Why? Because she was seeing 'hell'? Not what I am vibrating here. She got it!! She spent her whole life without allowing herself to live. She was a robot. Yea. I said that.

I who had rebelled against her how? By doing everything she said was evil. Why? She created the Why. I had to find out. And in the end. She had nothing but wonderful things to say about me. I was no where near her 'false standards' of what she believed was 'godly.

So, You want to believe it's impossible? Then it is. I do not believe that. In fact, I know without a doubt it is Possible. I Am.......Fill in the blanks Melody. That's the reason why we are here...

Oh, perhaps you will find a way to dispute this. I know not nor do I care. I do not wish to place such a burden upon another. We are responsible for our own heaven or hell.
All is Well either way. I allow you to believe in whatever floats your boat. To each their own and that includes one's own interpretation of what one seemingly is meaning whether, bible, any spiritual practice or following or person or anything one may be experiencing in one's effect of experiencing now.....

In Truth,

Julia

[Adrian]

Hello Melody,

Hello Julia,

As I said in my last post, we are discussing the Bible here. It is too bad you choose to discuss me instead.

To know the Source is a numerous lifespans endeavour.  This is why we reincarnate. It is impossible to know the Source, all of it, at the level we are right now. We can think we do, but I very much doubt it is really so. If we did, we'd be already with the Source, and not on this low vibrating planet.

And since we are here, why not ask ourselves a question - how come we are still here and not with the Source? What it is that we do incorrectly by being here? One needs to question to find the answers. Simply feeling good inside and telling that this means I know the Source and therefore know and understand, and understand how everything functions simply does not cut it. Maybe putting ourselves in such a cocoon of knowing it all makes us stuck here.

First of all, reading the responses to this topic from Darrell, Julia and others, I do not see any attempt to question your beliefs in any way, but rather objective responses to your own questions, obserbvations and positions which I am sure we all respect.

To know Source in absolute terms, to achieve Unity with Source extends far beyond lifetimes. Our cycle of incarnations, even when complete represents only the neginning of the journey - the point at which the journey really begins.

The physical Universe can be likened to kindergarten as a preparation to elementary school. Without the basic grounding and equilibrium, humans cannot progress to a greater and more responsible status as creators within the greater Universe. To achieve this equlibrium usually requires many incarnations encompassing a wide range of situations as both male and female across many different timelines.

That said we can always realise and express God, Source within, because we are God with all the powers of God. But realising and enjoying the powers of God does not necessarily mean that those powers will be used wisely - it is all part of the learning experience. God never judges how God's powers are used by God's children, just as we never judge the freedom we give to our own children.

Kind regards,

Adrian.

[melody]

Hello everybody,

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts.

I would consider Jesus and his disciples (except Judas) as righteous. Yet they were not rigid and full of pride of being “right”.

Julia, your grand ma sounds like the rigid type. That’s not the type of rightiousness Bible talks about.

Was Christ judgmental? Yes and no. He did not judge the adulteress, but told her to go and sin no more. By saying to her not to sin anymore, he was telling her how to be righteous. However, he was outright judgmental when he overturned the money changers’ tables in a synagogue and lectured them at the same time, telling them in no uncertain terms that what they were doing was not right.

There is always a lot to think about when the Bible is concerned…

[Ew1g]

Hello Adrian,

...Unity with Source...

But this is actually means being death in every possible sense. Am I right? I am afraid such perspective...

[Adrian]

Hello Ew1g,

Hello Adrian,

...Unity with Source...

But this is actually means being death in every possible sense. Am I right? I am afraid such perspective...

No - quite the contrary. It means a loss of individuality but not of consciousness. Consciousness is fully retained and all becomes known with full omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence - a state of eternal bliss.

Unity is optional anyway. We are striving for the potential for Unity - it is not automatic.

Kind regards,

Adrian.