[TagBahthuff]

if i see im going to do something which i may damage others free will with, i will not do that action. like ra says "free will does not allow," rape, murder, molestation, etc. (not that i want to do these things)

hmz, i was wondering if the bold/underlined was really something ra said... so i went to look it up and i think perhaps this part of the channeling has become a little distorted, since the original context has become somewhat lost by posting such a small part of it and because a personal interpretation (and thus "new context") was added...

it's of course ok to disagree with me on this, but for clarity, i did put a little more of the original channeling below and the url to the rest of that session:

questioner: i will make another statement. the mind/body/spirit complex may choose, because of the first distortion, the mental configuration that is sufficiently displaced from the configuration of the intelligent energy in a particular frequency or color of in-streaming energy so as to block a portion of instreaming energy in that particular frequency or color. is this correct?
ra: i am ra. yes.

questioner: can you give me an idea of the maximum percentage of this energy it is possible to block in any one color?
ra: i am ra. there may be, in an entity’s pattern of in-streaming energy, a complete blockage in any energy or color or combination of energies or colors.

questioner: ok. then i assume that the first distortion is the motivator or what allows this blockage. is this correct?
ra: i am ra. we wish no quibbling but prefer to avoid the use of terms such as the verb, to allow. free will does not allow, nor would predetermination disallow, experiential distortions. rather the law of confusion offers a free reach for the energies of each mind/body/spirit complex. the verb, to allow, would be considered pejorative in that it suggests a polarity between right and wrong or allowed and not allowed. this may seem a minuscule point. however, to our best way of thinking it bears some weight.
url: http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=54

now back to the point. i don't completely agree with you, that that part of the ra channeling is to be interpreted as such, that things like rape and others (wich we perceive as being negative) are "not allowed". in session 53 there is an interesting piece of information regarding this. it is about the "contacting" of 3d's by higher density beings, so not completely in line with the previous, but useful none the less in my opinion. mind the underlined:

questioner: [... ] can you tell me of the various techniques used by the service-to-others positively oriented confederation contacts with the people of this planet, the various forms and techniques of making contact?
ra: i am ra. we could.

questioner: would you do this please?
ra: i am ra. the most efficient mode of contact is that which you experience at this space/time. the infringement upon free will is greatly undesired. therefore, those entities which are wanderers upon your plane of illusion will be the only subjects for the thought projections which make up the so-called ‘close encounters’ and meetings between positively oriented social memory complexes and wanderers.
url: http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=53

it says that an "infringement upon free will" is "greatly undesired". it does not say "it is not allowed". i keep in mind when using this part of the ra channelings, that most of us on this forum, are trying to become positively oriented beings and are tyring to follow the logos of our creator/solar system. so, in this line of "evolution", we will most likely try to identify with the rules of engagement for "positively oriented beings". so yes, i guess it is logical than that we see infringements upon free will are "greatly undesired".

since we try to live by the law of one as well, and are trying to see other selves as our own self, it becomes logical that we might fall into judgement of other selves that choose negative paths as we see these paths as "greatly undesirable" because they infringe upon free will... it's a tricky thing that free will law (at least i think it is )... and i believe it's very easy to go from "greatly undesireble" to "not allowed" in our minds, just because "we wouldn't do it ourselves and it is very very undesirable" ! it doesn't make it right though, but i have done it too and most likely will make that mistake again in the future, but i keep on learning.

when i do go down that road again, at some point i just try to keep in mind that i believe that we (negatives and positives and inbetweensies alike) are here in 3rd density to learn the "beginnings" of free will and the law of one amongst others?

in this perspective, i remind myself that having examples around of how we (positive orientation seekers & inbetweensies) do not want to do it, is indeed very valueble to our own polarisation, meaning:
how would we be able, to place ourselves in "victims" shoes and "agressors" shoes, and "recognize" parts of our selves in those other selves, if there were no victims/agressors , because they were not "allowed" ?

side-note: i apologize for the duality and group making (negatives, positives, inbetweensies) in my post, but it was the only way (for me anyway) to try and write something that made sense after i was done writing it. in the light of "the law of one", i realize that making such distinctions as neg, pos, etc isn't completely accurate