"Healing is a mysterious process. It doesn’t follow any rules."

"I Got Out.

My husband and I left for good in 2021. It’s honestly been a rough, confusing and expensive road to recovery.

Healing is a mysterious process. It doesn’t follow any rules.

But I’m learning to forgive myself. What helps the most is to accept and feel all the feelings and remind myself that everything I learned I can use to help others."

-from the article "I Was In A Sex Cult For 10 Years — Here’s My Story", by Heidi Thompson

Heidi Thompson is a very, very wise woman. Did you see what she did there? It's very subtle, and you might not catch it if you didn't already understand the importance of the difference in words said rather than what the modern spiritual communities are used to.

She leaves the window open for personal reflection rather than using coldly-defining words or statements.

This gives respect towards the reverence of free will being the foundation of the lives we all equally are creative in, and collaborative in, or perhaps we could even say co-conspiring in.

"Healing is a mysterious process. It doesn’t follow any rules."

No, it certainly doesn't. And yet the spiritual community certainly tries to impose preconceived rules as "universals" don't they?

(...) everything I learned I can use to help others."

Key word there - "can" use.

Not "must", not even necessarily "will", but "can".

You see we're typically used to passing around statements like "Everything happens for a reason", which -if we think about it- is a cold statement and entirely subjective depending on an individual themselves in their lives creating that meaning out of the sufferings and hardships they've been through.

The future is not fully predetermined. Some parts, sure. But not all.

And even when we could by-all-means suggest that it be for the greater good of ourselves and the greater good of the individual, we cannot force that be the choice they make. That would be critically destructive to society as we no longer respect or admire or appreciate actions done by those who must do those actions and had no choice.

Honorable actions are honored because they were tough choices to make, while generally including lots of self-sacrifice.

If noble deeds were socially made to be law, or socially enforced, then we would soon fail to care much for noble deeds.

This transmutation of energy of our hardships and sufferings must be respected as belonging to the free will that it's dependent on, otherwise the value in it's appreciation becomes stagnant, and lost. Or worse...

...wicked deeds would become conceptually given excuse for, with the excuse to the wicked that what they are doing to another "is for the better good."

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and though good intentions are good - the destination is not.

So then what would be missing?

Moral Compass.

In the same way we cannot force a person to appreciate and repay back what love we've given to them - as it then would not be a gift, and wouldn't even be able to be said as a trade since a trade is something consciously communicated of and agreed upon between two or more parties, thus becomes a trick and a trap without the communication and agreed upon aspects, a trap where terms and conditions aren't revering free will's conscious consent.

Where as the conscious communities like to brush this off with undermining claims of- "Oh, you probably consented and decided you agreed upon it all beforehand, before you incarnated here.", instead, Heidi Thompson rather pays humble respect to free will's ongoing creative constant unfolding, by allowing for the reality to be witnessed as yet un-blossomed, and not necessarily even imminent to blossom.

A rose must be allowed the space to choose to blossom.

We don't have to respect the choice chosen afterwards, because -well, what does it matter then?

Our opinions of the past choices of another mean nothing except to ourselves and what we choose.

But we must respect the right it has to choose, or it might never blossom at all.

Indeed there may be comfort in our predispositions towards suggesting to others intangible universal laws that have no practical application but do relieve us of our human collaborative responsibilities, as they can embrace our discomforts when we peer across the abyss of the unknown - but can we truly say we even loved someone if we do not hurt when they go?

Can we truly say we appreciated someone's gift if we do not ourselves desire from our own free will to somehow show our appreciation back in some way even if we don't yet know how?

Can it truly be said we are creators of our lives if do not leave room for the free will to create -or even to choose not to?

People may be more comfortable excusing all happenings in the cosmos as though chosen by the will of God and yet they forget - God brought the "animals" to Adam for him to name and then waited to see what he would name them, and then brought him more to see what he would name them too.

God respected free will, God respected the ongoing process of creation, and God honored the freedom of choice to create as something not-yet prescience.

Heidi Thompson clearly understands this profound and yet basic truth.

We choose and create in the now - and there have been things that are pre-chosen, sure. But what defines what unfolds is decided as above, just as below, by the ever weighing and ever judging by weight of the value to each choice pre-chosen buy the weight of value of that we choose.

Everything is set in sand, that sand is set on stone, and that stone rests on sand that stretches for miles across the horizon, which is set on stone for miles into the Earth which is set on hot lava for many more miles to the core - where, at least in my opinion and belief- at such pressures and such density and such heat and such gravity - such compressed demand for conformity meeting unfathomable fluidity of freedom - matter is not defined by anything known, but rather, allowed to create of the unknown.

Such is God.

Such is life.

And such is love.