Functionality of Soulmates

I have recently realized that my personal definition of "soulmate" was unfit. I have found myself drilling down to a more fundamental definition, and refocused it, to distinguish it from love.

I have redefined "soulmate" internally as a technical/functional term, as I have identified a thought node that cannot be removed: "_____ is my soulmate." This feels like a specific thought node, perhaps even a specific structure within the brain, for me, at a minimum. If love must be a choice, but the unshakeable thought of a specific partner is implanted by anyone at any point in one's existence- predestined, artificially implanted, or self-defined- then a paradox emerges. I believe that I have resolved this paradox, at least for myself.

If one considers the "soul" as something along the lines of "The piece of you that you will never be without," then "soulmate" would be another entity who you will exist with, in some capacity, eternally. This co-existence does not need to mean any particular relationship, and interaction may be next to non-existent, but both you and they know that both you and they will always persist in the same environment (multiverse, let's say). By this definition, one may find a plethora of "soulmates," as the term would apply to any aware other in your own eternal field. This could apply to any other who was also eternal in your environment- friend, neighbor, enemy, spouse, family, pet, local flock of ravens, etc.

I feel like this broad definition would make more sense if humans already had an understanding of their immortality. Imagine knowing that you had a neighbor, and always will. Tomorrow, a year from now, 1 billion years from now, TREE(G64) years from now, they would remain your neighbor. You would likely find yourself motivated to strike an accord with this neighbor, to avoid strife. I imagine that you would not feel compelled to do this, per se- except perhaps in the most extreme circumstance(s)- but certainly motivated. Likewise, if your neighbor is of the same understanding of their own eternal nature and yours, they would be motivated to strike an accord with you. Perhaps that is all it will take- the comprehension of self and other- to find peace and an agreed upon best fit solution.

I have written of The Law of Agreement, and how it applies to soulmates intrinsically, so that reality can be changed between them with little effort. I base this assumption off of Jesus words in this and similar verses:

Matthew 18:19

"Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven."

This effect of reality crafting does not diminish or disappear with this adjusted definition, but rather blooms. This would be the connective effect holding together The Bard's Clock (which I recently wrote of). While those identifying as soulmates for longer, in this temporary flash of a field that we call life on earth, would have an advantage, in that they will have choreographed more dances together, presumably anyone who understood this direct eternal connection could alter their mutual reality together, and establish these dances together.

I feel that this expanded definition also sheds light on this verse:

Matthew 19:8

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."

In the beginning, how could hearts be hard? Assuming the actual Biblical beginning, the human heart would not even exist in the same framework where Jesus spoke from (Earth), much less the conceptual (or physical) definition of the hardness of the heart that we have today. There are two sides to the coin of hardness, conceptually at a minimum: one will not abide an irreconcilably bad marriage. While entering into such an arrangement can ultimately result in sin (separation from God, as I have defined it for myself), refusing to stay in such an arrangement is an expression of one's soul- that piece of them which they will never be without. There is a hardness to the soul, I believe an even greater hardness than there is to the heart. Without some element of hardness, it might be said that one's soul does not exist, or at least possesses no meaningful tangibility to self or other. Perhaps this threshold of marriage and divorce was established as a testing ground of the human heart and, indirectly, soul. I believe that a deeper test of the soul approaches, rapidly.

Mark 12:25

"When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."

It feels like this verse can be interpreted in many ways, but one way is the removal of what humans would call "self" and "freewill," as my understanding from how angels are presented throughout the Bible is that they obey God intrinsically and without choice. I feel as though thoroughly calculating the threshold of marriage and divorce, from an overall perspective, can prevent this fate, which feels like the soul annihilation of mankind, and would certainly be the divorce of all marriages, and perhaps even the removal of desire for sex or marriage (something which I have personally been shocked to hear Christians speak surprisingly lightly of, as if they are somehow cool with being eternally neutered...). If properly arranged, the result can be fixed with certainty, such that the angels instead come away with independent souls, and even the bond one feels with one's spouse is redefined, from marriage to something else- something likely even more fundamental- but is also kept in the transition.