(02-17-2015, 02:39 PM)Jim Kent + Wrote: I'm trying not to get drawn into this drama, but I would say this:

Doesn't the Confederation's philosophy espouse the viewpoint that an STO entity would never tell another-self what not to do?

This situation therefore seems somewhat ironic to me!

Or is it just me? 

(02-17-2015, 02:39 PM)Jim Kent + Wrote: I'm trying not to get drawn into this drama, but I would say this:

Doesn't the Confederation's philosophy espouse the viewpoint that an STO entity would never tell another-self what not to do?

This situation therefore seems somewhat ironic to me!

Or is it just me? 

(02-17-2015, 02:53 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote:

(02-17-2015, 02:39 PM)Jim Kent + Wrote: I'm trying not to get drawn into this drama, but I would say this:

Doesn't the Confederation's philosophy espouse the viewpoint that an STO entity would never tell another-self what not to do?

This situation therefore seems somewhat ironic to me!

Or is it just me? 

I like your website and book Jim. I agree with you.

(02-17-2015, 02:38 PM)Diana Wrote:

(02-17-2015, 02:36 PM)Minyatur Wrote: Why do everyone think there is a problem with this thread? Instead of rejecting something, one should seek the meaning of why it is there. This thread is a 3D density argumentation or discussion, isn't that the purpose of being here and having the veil?

I'm gonna start a thread where the only two words accepted are Light and Love, everyone is gonna love it but it won't have much purpose. The title will be : "Light light light love light love love".

I won't love it. What fun is that?

(02-17-2015, 02:27 PM)Monica Wrote: Ashim, do you want to start a thread about signatures? We could analyze everyone's signatures.

(02-17-2015, 03:19 PM)Ashim Wrote: Interestingly I just took a look at Jim Kent's book.

Here (I hope with his permission) is the opening sentence:

"It is certainly not my intention to tell anybody what to believe, in my opinion, there are far too many people and organisations doing that already."

(02-17-2015, 03:13 PM)Ashim Wrote:

(02-17-2015, 02:27 PM)Monica Wrote: Ashim, do you want to start a thread about signatures? We could analyze everyone's signatures.

No, detailed analysis is not required when the point being made is obvious.
As I said these were the first signatures I came across.
I was simply stating that I see yours as dogmatic in comparison.

I could show these quotes to my teenage daughter who is not familiar with the Ra Material, aliens etc and I'm pretty sure that she would spot the 'odd one out'.

I also noticed your use of capital letters. This is the equivalent of shouting.

It may be better to try to understand first before trying to be understood.

(02-17-2015, 03:24 PM)Monica Wrote:

(02-17-2015, 03:13 PM)Ashim Wrote:

(02-17-2015, 02:27 PM)Monica Wrote: Ashim, do you want to start a thread about signatures? We could analyze everyone's signatures.

No, detailed analysis is not required when the point being made is obvious.
As I said these were the first signatures I came across.
I was simply stating that I see yours as dogmatic in comparison.

I could show these quotes to my teenage daughter who is not familiar with the Ra Material, aliens etc and I'm pretty sure that she would spot the 'odd one out'.

I also noticed your use of capital letters. This is the equivalent of shouting.

It may be better to try to understand first before trying to be understood.

Well, you're still talking about my sig...so maybe the posts about signatures could be made into their own thread.

Caps can also be used for emphasis.

(02-17-2015, 03:46 PM)Ashim Wrote: I'm talking about your signature because I feel that veiled dogmatic statements are EXACTLY how religion takes hold.

(02-17-2015, 03:46 PM)Ashim Wrote: What I'm saying is that someone may believe something you write on face value, often due also to the emotional charge the words carry.
Religion requires one to believe something one is told without personal experience.

(02-17-2015, 03:46 PM)Ashim Wrote: Caps used for emphasis.

(02-16-2015, 11:09 AM)Monica Wrote: Furthermore, they're choosing to focus on what Ra said about Carla's particular dietary choices, given her particular situation, while ignoring what Ra said about the ideal diet for humans in general, which was plant foods and 'animal products only to the extent necessary for individual metabolism.'

40.14 Wrote:Questioner: In dietary matters, what would be the foods that one would include and what would be the foods that one would exclude in a general way for the most or the greatest care of one’s bodily complex?

Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, we underline and emphasize that this information is not to be understood literally but as a link or psychological nudge for the body and the mind and spirit. Thus it is the care and respect for the self that is the true thing of importance. In this light we may iterate the basic information given for this instrument’s diet. The vegetables, the fruits, the grains, and to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, the animal products. These are those substances showing respect for the self. In addition, though this has not been mentioned, for this instrument is not in need of purification, those entities in need of purging the self of a poison thought-form or emotion complex do well to take care in following a program of careful fasting until the destructive thought-form has been purged analogously with the by-products of ridding the physical vehicle of excess material. Again you see the value not to the body complex but used as a link for the mind and spirit. Thus self reveals self to self.

(02-17-2015, 04:05 PM)Monica Wrote:

(02-17-2015, 03:46 PM)Ashim Wrote: I'm talking about your signature because I feel that veiled dogmatic statements are EXACTLY how religion takes hold.

Ok, fair enough. Any statement can be taken literally and become part of a dogma. One of the examples you gave - Embrace your darkness could - be construed as Evil is ok...embrace your urges to go on a murderous rampage in the mind of one so inclined.

Quote:12.25 Questioner: What I’m saying is would I be polarizing more toward self-service or toward service for others when I did this act of locking up the thought-form or construct?

Ra: I am Ra. You may consider that question for yourself. We interpret the Law of One, but not to the extent of advice.

Quote:Ok, fair enough. Any statement can be taken literally and become part of a dogma. One of the examples you gave - Embrace your darkness could - be construed as Evil is ok...embrace your urges to go on a murderous rampage in the mind of one so inclined.

Quote:Is it the words that carry the emotional charge, or does the emotional charge come from within the person?

Quote:Case in point: People say they have a problem with my sig because it's 'dogmatic' and 'telling them what to do' yet you can see from my Eating Tomatoes is STS thread, the exact same sig, but just with the word tomatoes instead of meat, carries no emotional charge whatsoever.

Why do you suppose that is? Why is no one concerned about abstaining from tomatoes being made into a religious dogma?

(02-17-2015, 04:09 PM)Parsons Wrote:

(02-16-2015, 11:09 AM)Monica Wrote: Furthermore, they're choosing to focus on what Ra said about Carla's particular dietary choices, given her particular situation, while ignoring what Ra said about the ideal diet for humans in general, which was plant foods and 'animal products only to the extent necessary for individual metabolism.'

Wow... You made me do a double take on this concept. In my memory, Ra was referring to Carla's diet, not everyone's.

Ra Wrote:In this light we may iterate the basic information given for this instrument’s diet.

(02-17-2015, 04:09 PM)Parsons Wrote: Firstly, Ra says not to take the information literally, which you are clearly doing.

(02-17-2015, 04:09 PM)Parsons Wrote: Secondly, Don may have intended to ask about everyone in general, but Ra inarguably answered about Carla "this instrument".

(02-17-2015, 04:09 PM)Parsons Wrote: You are creating your own dogma then attempting to control this community through moral guilt (you said it was "wrong" to eat meat). JUST LIKE RELIGIONS DO.

(02-17-2015, 04:28 PM)Ashim Wrote: Embrace means to accept, derived from the Latin 'acquiēscere' (to find rest in).
The statement encourages one to integrate the dark aspects of ones beingness in order to become 'whole'.
It is by no stretch of the imagination a call to negative action as you suggest.

(02-17-2015, 04:28 PM)Ashim Wrote: The emotional charge comes from the meme or collective thought form.

(02-17-2015, 04:28 PM)Ashim Wrote: Religion has forbidden meat eating for millenia already. There is considerable spiritual mass involved.

(02-17-2015, 01:35 PM)Monica Wrote:

(02-17-2015, 01:04 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: and have the reactions they do to your positions,

I know exactly why they react as they do to my positions, and that is completely irrelevant to the topic of this discussion.

(02-17-2015, 06:55 PM)Shawnna Wrote: Are you saying you know exactly how I think and feel? 

(02-17-2015, 07:42 PM)Monica Wrote:

(02-17-2015, 06:55 PM)Shawnna Wrote: Are you saying you know exactly how I think and feel? 

I was referring to the numerous people who, over the years, have told me that they didn't like my position on meat because they like to eat meat, and that me pointing out how much the animals suffer triggers guilt in them.

These same people said that eating plants is exactly the same as eating animals, yet saying that eating tomatoes is STS doesn't trigger any guilt.

I don't recall ever having a conversation with you, so no, I don't know anything about what you think or feel. This topic predates my interactions with you.

(02-17-2015, 09:28 PM)Diana Wrote: Those of Ra are probably shaking their (made of light) heads right now over everyone using their quotes as justification for pointing the finger at other-selves.

Personally, I don't care what Ra says or doesn't say about eating meat. I have made up my own mind, for my own reasons, and no one, no group, or no thing could change my mind. It's not that I'm rigid or dogmatic. I have simply evolved away from it (being my own personal evolution) just as a child evolves away from playing with toys (I know . . . adults play with toys too but I had to try and come up with something innocuous, or risk getting blasted by someone who thinks I'm equating eating meat with pouting or throwing tantrums ).

(02-17-2015, 10:19 PM)Monica Wrote: This is precisely why it's such a good example of dogma. I have heard many Christians say "It's ok to eat animals because the bible says so." and they think this absolves them of any responsibility for it. 

This is but one of many examples of a Ra quote being used to make a decision, that otherwise might not seem acceptable.

Left to our own common sense, most humans would agree that cows have a lot more in common with humans than they do carrots. But because Ra said both cows and carrots are 2D (never mind that 2D is a veeeeerrrrrrrry long density), a common response here has been "it's ok to kill animals because they're 2D, just like carrots." Never mind that cows have pain receptors and nervous systems while carrots don't. No common sense required, because Ra said xyz.

(02-17-2015, 10:31 PM)Shemaya Wrote: Monica, what we feed our body is not based on common sense.  I don't think people use Ra to make a decision about what they eat.  It is mostly due to our socialization process, culture,  social class , and our geography. 

I think most people base their decision on budget.

If you could get some activists to  fight to take away all the subsidies and corporate welfare that make meat cheap, the higher price would move people along faster to eliminating meat from their diets.

(02-17-2015, 09:05 PM)Monica Wrote: My goal isn't to convince people of anything. I am simply doing what everyone else here is doing: expressing my own views.

I can understand how my last few post appear 'strident and abrasive' but in all fairness, you chose to quote my response to what I perceived as unfairness and even hostility.

Quote:Monica

I am human. After dozens of outright attacks directed at me personally because of my views, which included being called all sorts of nasty names, hey, maybe I feel a little frustrated when it keeps happening.

I was moderator here for 3 years. Had I been an abrasive person, they wouldn't have let be a moderator, and chief mod at that.

The conflicts started when I expressed my views about meat. I am entitled to my views.  

Quote:Monica

I invite you to read these:

http://bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=239&pid=12751#pid12751

http://bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=239&pid=12831#pid12831

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=239&pid=61727#pid61727

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=239&pid=83073#pid83073

http://bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=239&pid=61413#pid61413

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=239&pid=84061#pid84061

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=239&pid=62295#pid62295