In regards to eating meat

[Pablísimo]

Pablisimo-
I guess you have some problem with the word extreme, past experience maybe. I have already explained how it was used. I have also said that vegetarian choice is a good choice for some people. But for not ALL the people. So being a vegetarian is not extreme. Presenting it as the only option is extreme. What is your beef (oops mushroom) with the word extreme. I used a word extreme and you want to make this discussion about extreme.

Well, maybe it is just silly semantics and perhaps I am overly concerned about a single word. I just don't think being vegetarian is extreme nor would I consider Monica an extremist as I understand those words.

While for a long time you have given extreme examples (in your own words) comparing meat eating to rape of a child, slavery, soul killer, human flesh eating. How does that sound compare to the word extreme...It is easy to jump on others about their word usage... You don't find your own examples harsh and have decided that the usage of the word extreme indicates negativity and judgmental view

Yes, I did find those examples harsh, and yes they were negative. I also apologized for using them -- now that I realize how offensive they are. Do two wrongs make a right? Another thing I tried to do was make a distinction between an extreme example and an extreme overall position.

What is your beef (oops mushroom) with the word extreme.

You know, this cracked me up. Nice turn of phrase, for the record.

---

Could I offer a suggestion? How about everyone reading this thread all spend a few minutes tonight sending LOVE and LIGHT to everyone else who's been participating on this thread, and affirm the intention to actually FEEL the other point of view....

...How about we all, right now, make a decision to forgive one another...and earnestly choose to at least understand, if not agree with, the point of view of our other-selves. It may appear to be in opposition, but remember, in unity all paradoxes are resolved.

This is an excellent suggestion. Thank you for reminding me to return to the open heart. I will do this exercise with love and sincerity. Despite how it may have come across in earlier posts, to me, this is what "respectful compassion" looks like.

Love to all

[thefool]

in unity all paradoxes are resolved.

I completely resonate with the call to bring more heart energy into this endeavor. In the heart all matters are resolved. All answers are provided. Personally in this topic I am not looking to find answers and I am comfortable with my choices. But we will get answers if we listen with open hearts without pre-judgment. It is hard to get answers if we already know the answers. It is hard to get understanding if we are more interested in teaching.

At this point in time I just want to set the record straight and hopefully move on. I will continue to provide the balance on this and any activity if deemed appropriate by me.

Monica- Please read my quote again. Here I will make is easy for you.

My objective to interject my opinions in this thread are purely to balance any extremism towards vegetarianism. So the others have all sides of the discussion and don't feel guilt and pressure of any kind to chose one over another...

You mentioned I used the word extremist ! wrong. I used the word extremism and here is the merriam-webster dictionary definition (Believe me I didn't bribe them to write this )
__________
Main Entry: ex·trem·ism
Pronunciation: \ik- ˈ strē- ˌ mi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1865

1 : the quality or state of being extreme
2 : advocacy of extreme measures or views : radicalism


Main Entry: 1 ex·treme
Pronunciation: \ik- ˈ strēm\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin extremus, superl. of exter, exterus being on the outside — more at exterior
Date: 15th century

1 a : existing in a very high degree <extreme poverty> b : going to great or exaggerated lengths : radical <went on an extreme diet > c : exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected <extreme weather conditions>
2 archaic : last
3 : situated at the farthest possible point from a center <the country's extreme north>
4 a : most advanced or thoroughgoing <the extreme political left> b : maximum
5 a : of, relating to, or being an outdoor activity or a form of a sport (as skiing) that involves an unusually high degree of physical risk <extreme mountain biking down steep slopes> b : involved in an extreme sport <an extreme snowboarder>
synonyms see excessive
_______

I will clarify for one last time (As I have already done it 5-6 times and don't feel like repeating myself). There was no intention of painting you as a violent person. I don't believe you are violent person and I don't write what I don't believe in. I have learned to keep my inside and outside consistent. So I couldn't have meant it. But I did mean extreme and extremism in its dictionary meaning as above.

As I have explained a few times before, the reason I think these thoughts about food are extreme because they don't present a "CHOICE". As per you, vegetarian diet is the only diet that is fit for the humans. OK, to be fair you mentioned that we all don't have to turn to be vegetarian tomorrow. But in your ideal world everybody would be a vegetarian, they may like it or not. That is an extreme idea to me. I see a 3D world where there is a choice. And I believe most people even complete vegetarian do believe in this choice as well. Maybe I am misinterpreting this tenet of your belief system. (Please feel free to correct me and I will be too glad to accept and feel happy. As I don't have to provide balance anymore and can spend time on other more fun things for me). So that is why this absoluteness of the idea is what I call extremism or extreme. 4D we don't know and I would not speculate.

Love to all beings including animals

[Monica]

3 : situated at the farthest possible point from a center

Where is the center?

[thefool]

3 : situated at the farthest possible point from a center

Where is the center?

Please this is not intended to hurt you or deny you in anyway. At this point I am able to find great love and compassion for you and your cause. I am able to see the suffering that the animals have to go through. I still hold the same views as before but my intentions are just to clarify the issue atleast for me and see clearly where we are all coming from. And more importantly what are our motivations?

Love to all

[Lorna]

from a LOO perspective will there not be some benefit in regards to individualisation from these 2d souls incarnating in these animal bodies? i've been giving this topic some thought, because to me the consumption of meat is not a stand alone issue, it's directly related to farming.

in particular i've been thinking about cattle. commercial breeds are so very much the product of the farming industries - for the most part these are animals specifically designed for consumption (beef) or use (dairy), these are not natural animals, they have been moulded by human intervention and thus 2d souls incarnating into these physical shells are doing so for a reason. these aren't wild animals who have been hunted, farm animals' lives are defined by their interaction with 3d humans.

anyway, when i was thinking about farming i was thinking of the big farm / food issues that there have been in the UK over the last 20 years or so and there have been quite a few little ones but three main biggies.

salmonella in eggs that threw into the spotlight factory farming in egg production with the result that free range eggs are the norm, factory farmed eggs very much the exception

bse in cattle which raised the issue of animal feeds with big improvements in this area.

foot & mouth disease in 2001 which wiped out livestock across the big livestock farming areas of the uk and forced farm diversification into tourism, food production, craft industries etc which has resulted in a lessening of dependency on traditional farming in rural areas

so then i got to wondering whether the interaction of bacteria / viruses and 2d animals was happening for a reason - each time one of these big food scares has taken place there has been a big improvement in animal welfare. alongside this has been the boom of the organic sector in agriculture here, which must have been helped by these dis-ease outbreaks

apologies if i've gone off at a tangent, just thought i would share my ponderings

[Peregrinus]

This is a video where Michael Klaper M.D. talks about the effects on the body from eating animals and dairy. He graphically shows the effects in slides and videos as well as tells you why and whats going on with your body when your eating this sort of diet.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...7730&hl=en#

I suggest that if you enjoy eating meat to not watch this video.
I highly suggest this video to anyone suffering from heart disease, high blood pressure, a colon, or breasts (I think that about covers it).

Disclaimer: No meat eating animals were harmed during the making of this video.

No army is as powerful as an idea whose time has come. ~ Victor Hugo.

[thefool]

This is a video where Michael Klaper M.D. talks about the effects on the body from eating animals and dairy. He graphically shows the effects in slides and videos as well as tells you why and whats going on with your body when your eating this sort of diet.
No army is as powerful as an idea whose time has come. ~ Victor Hugo.

Thanks for the information. You brought some joy to my heart . The education and information is what we need to create awareness about a vegetarian diet. Which I believe simplifies life in many ways. Our job is to create awareness and then people can chose how they want to live...

[thefool]

I found something from Q'UO that might be of the interest here. It talks about vegetable, nuts, grains, secondary animal products like milk and cheese being virtuous. They seem to suggest eating meat but with caution and in minimum quantities. And no chemical additives recommended.

_____________________________________________
August 3, 1997, Q'UO

Questioner: I have a question. What are the essential
foods that are ideal for our bodies and then, in turn,
our minds and spirits, and what effect does having
artificial pesticides and other things in our foods
have on our spiritual growth and our spiritual being,
and is meat intended by the infinite Creator to be
eaten by people?

I am Q’uo, and am aware of your query, my brother.
It is intended by the infinite Creator that each entity
have—we correct this instrument—has an exercised
free will. Thus, each entity is free to do as it will. As
far as the foodstuffs which may be ingested to the
benefit of the physical vehicle, we are aware that
many within this circle of seeking are aware of those
food stuffs. To be brief, we would suggest the virtue
of the grains, the vegetables, the fruits, the, what we
shall call, secondary animal products such as your
milk, your cheese, and so forth, the preserved animal
muscle itself, to be utilized upon one’s own
discretion in the minimal quantities and of the
highest level of quality, shall we say. The use of your
chemical additives is that which is not
recommended, for the intensity of their chemical
nature often produces detrimental results upon
various portions of your physical vehicle.
_______________________________________________________

[Monica]

It is hard to get understanding if we are more interested in teaching.

I'm interested in learning. That's why I asked so many questions. (most of which, thus far, have gone unanswered.)

You mentioned I used the word extremist ! wrong. I used the word extremism

2 forms of the same word. An extremist is one who engages in extremism.

As I have explained a few times before, the reason I think these thoughts about food are extreme because they don't present a "CHOICE". As per you, vegetarian diet is the only diet that is fit for the humans.

In the same way I think a world without war is the only world fit for humans.

But, what I think is irrelevant because our 3D planet does have wars. And 3D humans kill animals. I don't need to present that side because it's already obvious that people already have that choice. I was sharing my own opinion about what I consider an ideal to aspire to, in the same way that I aspire to peace. If I say, "I envision a world without violence" is that denying people the choice to be violent? No. It's just my vision. Must I also say, "I prefer to not be violent, but you can be violent if you wish." Is that really necessary? Am I am extremist if I don't say that?

If I say, "I invision a world in which animals are no longer tortured and slaughtered" that too is my personal vision and doesn't deny anyone their choice to start wars, kill animals, or whatever else they want to do.

[thefool]

If I say, "I invision a world in which animals are no longer tortured and slaughtered" that too is my personal vision and doesn't deny anyone their choice to start wars, kill animals, or whatever else they want to do.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for explaining it so nicely... I really appreciate it. It makes my heart very light. I can not call this extremism by any means... It is a lofty vision and very worthy one... I happily take the extremism back and apologize if I hurt your feeling ...

[Monica]

Thank you, thank you, thank you for explaining it so nicely... I really appreciate it. It makes my heart very light. I can not call this extremism by any means... It is a lofty vision and very worthy one... I happily take the extremism back and apologize if I hurt your feeling

I didn't really say anything any different from what I'd already said, but ok...thanks.

[Monica]

As Smart as the Primates
Intelligence research was done with pigs in the 1990s. One of the experiments was to train the pigs to move the cursor on a video screen with their snouts. When the pigs used the cursors again, they were able to distinguish between the scribbles they already knew, and the scribbles they were seeing for the first time. The pigs learned this skill as fast as the chimpanzees.

All species of pig are smarter than dogs, and capable of abstract representation. “They can hold an icon in their mind, and remember it at a later date,” says Professor Stanley Curtis of Penn State University, who discovered that pigs dominate at video games with joy sticks. Curtis goes on to say, “Pigs are able to focus with an intensity I have never seen in a chimp.”

Smarter Than a Three-Year-Old Child
Other tests were done where the pigs were taught the meaning of simple words and phrases. Several years later, the instructions were repeated, and the pigs still remembered what to do. The same thing was done with different objects placed in front of them. They were taught to jump over, sit by, or retrieve the item. Three years later, they could distinguish between the items.

The studies also showed:

Pigs lead complex social lives that behaviorists once believed to be true only of primates.
Mother pigs sing to their piglets while they are nursing.
They excel at video games that would be hard for a young child, and sometimes better than the primates.
Pigs dream.
Pigs have a good sense of direction, and can find their way home from long distances.
They learn from watching one another.
Pigs outsmart each other. One will often follow another pig to food before grabbing it away from him, and the pig who was tricked will change behaviors to reduce how many times it is tricked.

See for yourself:

Animal intelligence- pigs and chickens are smart! Pigs at least as, if not more, intelligent as dogs and chimps

Do animals and humans differ much?

Research has shown that cows clearly understand cause-and-effect relationships—a sure-fire sign of advanced cognitive abilities. For example, cows can learn how to push a lever to operate a drinking fountain when they’re thirsty or to press a button with their heads to release grain when they’re hungry.5,6 Like humans and other animals, cows also quickly learn to stay away from things that cause them pain, like electric fences and unkind humans...

Stories of cows who used their navigation capabilities to find their way back home after being sold at auction are common. Some cows never forget those who have hurt them either, and they’ve been known to hold grudges against other members of their herd. Rosamund Young details a quarrel between a grandmother cow and her daughter. Grandmother cows often help their daughters with mothering duties, but a cow named Olivia wanted no part of that. She never left her calf’s side, and she ignored her mother’s offers to help groom him. Offended, her mother finally marched off to another field to graze with her friends and never “spoke” to her daughter again.11 Cows can also remember and hold grudges against people who have hurt them or their family members.12

Meet your meat!

[Monica]

I found something from Q'UO that might be of the interest here. It talks about vegetable, nuts, grains, secondary animal products like milk and cheese being virtuous. They seem to suggest eating meat but with caution and in minimum quantities. And no chemical additives recommended.

_____________________________________________
and so forth, the preserved animal
muscle itself, to be utilized upon one’s own
discretion

I disagree that this quote backs up the eating of meat at all. Neither does it back up being vegetarian.

1. We need to remember that this is a transcription. A human listened to the recording and interpreted it, and made a decision about punctuation. If you were to replace the comma after and so forth with a period, the meaning of the passage is changed considerably. Even ignoring punctuation, just look at the choice of words. Why was meat not included in the list, along with the vegetarian foods? Why were the words and so forth, which usually indicate the end of a list, inserted at the end of the vegetarian foods, rather than at the very end of the list itself? With the words and so forth preceding the words preserved animal muscle itself indicates to me that the and so forth closes the list of acceptable foods, and meat is listed after the list of acceptable foods, with a CAUTION, to be used WITH ONE'S OWN DISCRETION.

2. Why were the vegetarian foods listed without any cautions, but the meat listed with a caution? It wasn't because of the chemicals in meat, because chemicals are found in produce as well. It's clear that chemicals are to be avoided. But why didn't Q'uo include meat in the list of acceptable foods? Why was meat separated? On the other hand, why didn't Q'uo just state unequivocally that meat shouldn't be eaten at all? Because that's not Q'uo's style. Q'uo typically doesn't give us concrete rules to follow. Q'uo typically encourages us to use our own discretion.

Therefore I don't think this quote can be used to back up either side of the debate. The only thing that's clear from this quote is that there is something about the eating of meat that requires discretion. Why would that be?

[thefool]

Thank you, thank you, thank you for explaining it so nicely... I really appreciate it. It makes my heart very light. I can not call this extremism by any means... It is a lofty vision and very worthy one... I happily take the extremism back and apologize if I hurt your feeling

I didn't really say anything any different from what I'd already said, but ok...thanks.

Actually you did clarify a very important thing for me. You re-affirmed your support for the 'right to choose' for people, to choose the food they would like to consume either good or bad...

[Monica]

Actually you did clarify a very important thing for me. You re-affirmed your support for the 'right to choose' for people, to choose the food they would like to consume either good or bad...

Well, to be more accurate:

We all have the choice about what to eat, whether to harm another being, etc. Do we have the 'right' to hurt another human? I don't think I would call it a 'right' but it's just the way it is on this planet.

I subscribe to the adage, One person's rights end where another's begin.

What's being disputed is not whether humans have the capacity to choose, because we all know that we do. Rather, the question is whether animals have any inherent rights, or are they just property for us to use and abuse as we wish.

[thefool]

Actually you did clarify a very important thing for me. You re-affirmed your support for the 'right to choose' for people, to choose the food they would like to consume either good or bad...

Well, to be more accurate:

We all have the choice about what to eat, whether to harm another being, etc. Do we have the 'right' to hurt another human? I don't think I would call it a 'right' but it's just the way it is on this planet.

OK. I don't see this getting resolved

love and light

[Monica]

OK. I don't see this getting resolved

Do you consider it 'resolved' only if we agree?

(I edited my previous post at the same time you were posting, fyi.)

Since we've had miscommunication over semantics before, I'd like to ask what you mean by 'right' as opposed to 'choice.' We all have the 'choice' to harm others. Do you think we also have the 'right' to harm others?

[Sorrun]

While I was in heavy training for a certain type of energy work, my teacher explained how the energy from the food I eat will affect my energy and the channeling its self. I as a very disciplined student did what "I was told", going against my free will and went 100% vegetarian. It took some getting used to I must admit. Being single and not the best in the kitchen it was a challenge for me. I got used to it eventually and really got into it, but all the while thinking "was I talked into this?" "am I supposed to really be a vegetarian?" "is being a vegetarian allowing for a more spiritual path?" "by being a vegetarian is my energy work so much more intense?" I was a vegetarian for nine years of my life. While I was a vegetarian, others would say "Ok, so you don't eat animals, but you're wearing a leather belt, leather shoes, you are wearing wool that comes from animals, so if it is all about the energy, you need to remove those things as well". I thought about this a lot.

For some reason I went off the vegetarian ways and diet - eating like your every day typical American. I felt more physical energy, but started to gain weight and fast. A bit later I was diagnosed with diabetes. I could not believe this was "me". I did not feel I was supposed to have this. I researched it a little bit, and tried the opposite of the vegetarian diet and went on Atkins, (meat diet - extremely little sugar/carbs). On both diets I always took multi-vitamins and an herbal root as well. With no medication, my sugar levels went from 289 down to a very normal 92. It's been about a year and a half and the diabetes is in 100% remission, (like I never had it) and lost 80+ pounds and maintaining it flawlessly. The doctor is amazed. So my free will at this point in time is to stay on the Atkins diet.

Continuing with my energy work, as asked myself and tested out if being a meat eater helps or hinders my energy work. I came to the conclusion for me, in my case, it really does not matter. If you are able to do energy work, there are warm-up's one does to align and energize and also remove the negative and charge the positive, then balance it all. I still remember how the native American Indians blessed, gave thanks and channeled energy to the animal they were eating.

In my Totality training, there was something that we did for an active into inactive meditation. We would do the energy thing, then meditate on "This is not me, this is not mine, this is not myself". With this and it's total understanding, it really didn't matter what I ate and if I ate meat or not.

I am reading the Ra Material in sequence. I am almost complete with book IV. I do not remember anywhere that states you have to be a vegetarian to be harvestable, (I may be wrong and it may be in future chapters).
I respect everyone's opinion and ways on many levels, but very respectfully, I just do not feel everyone has to eliminate their free will and have to be a vegetarian for spiritual growth or to be harvestable.

[Monica]

"Eating a vegetarian diet, walking (exercising) everyday, and meditating is considered radical. Allowing someone to slice your chest open and graft your leg veins in your heart is considered normal and conservative." - Dean Ornish, author of Extreme Health: The Nutrition Connection

[Monica]

Chimps behave like humans when grieving

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/...0#36811790

[Ali Quadir]

Chimps behave like humans when grieving
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/...0#36811790

Everyone who has or has had animals should know that the mammal brain is practically identical to human brains.. They experience our range of emotions and sensations. This isn't a surprise.. What is surprising is that people often fail to realize this. They think animals have no feelings, packets of meat devoid of those qualities we call human. Those qualities aren't human, they're mammalian it doesn't matter what we call them.

Of course they should, eating animals requires a certain perceived distance between the self and the food. It's not bad for a number of reasons. Many of these reasons are false, some are correct.

Dumber specimens of human, are easily outsmarted by smarter specimens of other mammals. And most mammals have pretty much our exact emotional structure. They can feel the full range of our emotions. They just lack our cerebral capacity and opposable thumbs.

[bring4th_admin]

Dear friends,

A portion of this thread was going off topic.

That portion has been relocated to the Olio forum and retitled "Moderator Issues". http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...1#pid14141.

Please visit this newly created thread if you are interested in exploring that avenue of discussion further.

Thank you,
L/L Research

[Pablísimo]

...In that spirit here's a link from me, sent to me from a friend -- It's a message from Paul McCartney with a quote from his late wife, Linda, as the title. This video is very anti-meat industry. Note that I have stated repeatedly that I am more upset with factory farming than meat eating itself. I think some common ground for vegetarians and omnivores should be improving conditions in which animals are raised.

NOTE - THIS VIDEO IS VERY GRAPHIC, DON'T WATCH IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO SEE SLAUGHTERHOUSE ACTIVITY.

http://www.meat.org/index-1.asp?c=gwdpba0510

Obviously, the link above is biased, but it is a view I agree with. However, If you would like to post a link you feel is relevant that better illustrates your own perspective on the topic, then please do post it up so that we can all have multiple points of view to consider.

Please do participate if you have something to share. We are ALL valid expressions of the One and even when we disagree, we grow and learn together, sharing and upholding eachother on our fantastic spiral journey ever upwards.

Love to all

P.S. This exerpt was re-posted upon admin request due to having been lost inadvertently in the recent modification.

[Monica]

Sorrun: Welcome to Bring4th!

---

This video is very anti-meat industry. Note that I have stated repeatedly that I am more upset with factory farming than meat eating itself. I think some common ground for vegetarians and omnivores should be improving conditions in which animals are raised.

NOTE - THIS VIDEO IS VERY GRAPHIC, DON'T WATCH IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO SEE SLAUGHTERHOUSE ACTIVITY.

http://www.meat.org/index-1.asp?c=gwdpba0510

Obviously, the link above is biased

Thanks, Pablisimo, for getting this thread back on track!

I've seen this video and I think it's actually very balanced and objective, in contrast to some that seem to be making an already inflammatory topic even more inflammatory. This video offers information and education, and backs up its facts.

I agree that the commentary may have some elements of bias. However, the actual video footage of the slaughterhouses isn't biased, because it's factual.

It's sort of like being in a courtroom, observing a murder trial. Both attorneys offer their biased opinions, about the guilt or innocence of the defendant. But when graphic pictures of the victim are shown to the jury, that isn't bias. That's FACT.

I have a friend who took her children to a slaughterhouse, so they could decide for themselves whether to eat animals or not. I really admired her action. Her children made their decisions based on FACT, not biased commentary from Mom.

---

Everyone who has or has had animals should know that the mammal brain is practically identical to human brains.. They experience our range of emotions and sensations. This isn't a surprise.. What is surprising is that people often fail to realize this. They think animals have no feelings, packets of meat devoid of those qualities we call human. Those qualities aren't human, they're mammalian it doesn't matter what we call them.

Excellent point!

eating animals requires a certain perceived distance between the self and the food.

Exactly why people don't like to see video footage of slaughterhouses. And yet, it's real.

P.S. This exerpt was re-posted upon admin request due to having been lost inadvertently in the recent modification.

And mine as well.

---

Dumber specimens of human, are easily outsmarted by smarter specimens of other mammals. And most mammals have pretty much our exact emotional structure. They can feel the full range of our emotions. They just lack our cerebral capacity and opposable thumbs.

I know you're referring to mammals such as chimps, dogs, etc. But what of dolphins and whales, who may be even more intelligent than the smartest humans?

Here's what Q'uo had to say about dolphins and whales:

Just as your species has had its evolution interrupted by genetic manipulation many thousands of your years in the past, so has the evolution of those known to you as dolphins and whales and other cetaceans such as porpoises been interrupted, not by those from elsewhere than your planet but by those on the island-continent you have called Atlantis.

The consciousness of these mammals was enhanced by the genetic manipulation which caused the so-called human and the so-called cetacean [2] to be bonded and blended and unified into that which had every appearance of being a cetacean, yet that which now possessed a spirit complex of third-density level.

Thusly, the natural process of reproduction gradually invested all of these species with third-density consciousness. Consequently, you and the whales and dolphins are indeed brothers, moving through the third-density major cycle of 76,000 or so of your years.

The necessity to engage in a dialogue between humans and dolphins, humans and whales, and humans and porpoises is attractive and compelling to many of your scientists, who grasp the unusual intelligence of these ocean-going mammals. Perhaps we may say that the best way to learn from the cetaceans of your planet is to imagine how you might experience third density if your field of endeavor were limited to those activities which could be accomplished without the use of hands with the opposable thumbs which the one known as T mentioned in his query.

(snip)

Your world is full of limits: on this side is your property, on the other, someone else’s. In your closet are your clothes, not someone else’s. You spend a good deal of your time amassing your stockpile of useful and desirable items and these, too, must be maintained. Batteries need changing, power cords must be found. The list goes on and on.

This is in stark contrast to your brothers and sisters who are able to ride freely through the ever-changing waters where food is plentiful and is found with no discernable effort, where all waters are acceptable in temperature, where there is no money to make and there are no goods to buy. There is nothing to store up against a harsh winter or old age. There is only the air to breathe, the water in which to swim, companionship and the dreams, meditations and contemplations of all the years of life.

What can you learn from the contemplation of these differences, my brother? It was the choice of those Atlanteans who volunteered for the experiments in genetics to choose these beautiful animals. The politics of their home in Atlantis seemed to them to be questionable in polarity [and so it seemed] desirable to them, therefore, to use their technology to embark upon a great adventure.

These, then, who swim the seas of your time, are the descendants of the philosophers and sages who saw a better way to move through the spiritual evolution of third density, choosing not so much service to others as a refusal to live in service to self.

Excerpted from http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is..._0120.aspx

Dolphins are routinely killed in fishing nets. Whales are still hunted in some parts of the world. Both are held captive and forced to do tricks for their sustenance, at theme parks.

[Peregrinus]

Dolphins are killed annually in many places in the world. It is absolutely heart wrenching when you realize these are our brothers and sisters...

Rated Adult - The Following Video Contains Scenes of Dolphin Killing and Mutilation - Viewer Discretion Is Advised

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4TKfIqrXYc

[Monica]

Apparently, there has been some misinterpretation of my use of an analogy, and some conclusions mistakenly drawn that I was equating the eating of animals with acts of violence towards humans.

I attempted, several times, to clarify:

...the reason I offered the example of the rapist was to illustrate a point that seems to be lost here:

Why is it acceptable and even noble to champion the human victims of oppression, but considered 'pushy' or 'self-righteous' to champion the non-human victims of oppression?

I should clarify here that I never intended to equate animals with humans. I readily admit that, if I were in a situation to save a child or a dog, I would save the child first! That is a given. There is no need to draw distinctions because the importance of the child over the dog is not being disputed.
...
Put simply, a 3D entity and a 2D entity are being oppressed. Why is it ok to oppress non-human entities?

My intention was to ask a philosophical question: At what point does an entity become an other-self deserving of respect and a life free from violence and oppression?

I had hoped, by comparing the suffering of animals to human suffering, that I might succeed in generating some compassion for our younger brethren who suffer daily and are slaughtered by the millions.

I was surprised and confused that at least a couple of members, and maybe more that I don't know about, were offended by my analogous illustration!

Despite my reassurance that I consider humans more important than animals, still they were offended.

This puzzled me. Why would anyone feel offended, much less attacked, by a philosophical question that was not directed at them personally?

Today, realization dawned! :idea:

Did some member(s) interpret the analogy to imply that those eating animals were cruel/heinous/criminal/STS like those intentionally harming other humans?

Notice the key word here: intentionally

That someone could think this is what I was implying by my use of analogy, didn't even enter my mind!! It is such a given, so obvious to me, that most meat-eaters are completely unconscious of the suffering they are unwittingly supporting, that it never even occurred to me that someone could think I held them in the same regard as a murderer, rapist or child molester.

The analogy was intended to compare the suffering of animals to the suffering of human victims, NOT to compare the intentions of those who eat animals with the intentions of those who victimize humans. :exclamation:

This is an important distinction and one that seems to have gotten missed! And I only just now realized that it got missed, so taken for granted did it seem to me.

Eating meat is culturally acceptable. It's taken for granted by the vast majority of the world's population. With the exception of hunters, farmers, ranchers, and slaughterhouse workers, most people make very little connection between an animal and the stuff they buy wrapped in plastic at the grocery store, or the stuff between the 2 slices of bread they get at McDonald's

How can anyone be blamed for doing something they've done all their lives...something so taken for granted? How could someone be considered in the same regard as a violent criminal, when all they're doing is planning a holiday feast that just happens to include a dead bird, the way Mom and Grandma did before them? Meat. It's tradition. It's got fond memories and associations. It's part of everyday life.

The answer is that they're not being blamed. At least not by me!

How could I compare normal people doing normal, routine things to sick people doing sick, violent things?

I don't and I didn't.

Normal people eating meat isn't heinous. Because it's unconscious.

If they give it any thought at all, they have a vague, reassuring balm they put on any pangs of guilt: Animals are raised and slaughtered humanely...We were meant to eat animals so that's just the way it is.

This, of course, simply isn't true. Most farm animals aren't raised or slaughtered humanely. It's simply not possible, because of the volume. Why? Because cows, pigs and chickens are slaughtered in succession. Each animal hears the cries and smells the blood of the animal who got slaughtered before him. This puts them in a state of anxiety and terror, and floods their body with fear hormones (which, incidentally, end up in that steak).

This is in sharp contrast to the deer in the forest who didn't see the bullet coming, and was dead before he knew what hit him, or the cow on the small family farm, whose life is taken with compassion and appreciation by the farmer.

So yes, it is possible to reduce the suffering by supporting small, local farmers and hunters. But any meat purchased at a fast food restaurant or at your supermarket wasn't slaughtered humanely. It's just not possible to slaughter humanely with mass market meat production. (Assuming, of course, that there is such as thing as humane slaughter at all. Or is it an oxymoron?)

But most people don't know this. So they continue to think that "milk comes from contented cows," because that's what it says in the milk commercial. They have no concept of the pain a dairy cow endures, because they've never been made aware of it.

How, then, could I or any of the other vegetarians possibly lump most of the world's population in with child molesters, murderers and rapists?

Child molesting, murdering and raping are all conscious acts. They are acts of control, domination and violence. The perpetrators are either polarizing to STS, or really messed up emotionally and mentally, to be able to initiate such despicable acts.

How could I possibly compare these monsters to my neighbor next door, or my best friend, or my dear friends on this forum, who have been buying meat wrapped in plastic all their lives and never given it any thought?

I didn't compare them.

Some member(s) mistakenly thought I did, but I didn't.

It never entered my mind that someone would think I was saying that a person who eats meat is the same as a rapist or child molester! That is just so outrageous, that it didn't even occur to me to clarify the point further. It was a given to me, that I wasn't comparing the people; I was comparing the bloodshed.

The bloodshed is the same. People bleed. Animals bleed. People feel pain. Animals feel pain. People feel fear. Animals feel fear. People have a survival instinct. Animals have a survival instinct. People try to escape when someone is chasing them. So do animals.

The movement is the same. Some people championed the rights of human slaves. Now, some people are championing the rights of animals.

The process of education is the same. Less than 2 centuries ago, slavery was acceptable. Now, the slaughter of animals is acceptable. Will the slaughter of animals still be acceptable a century from now? That remains to be seen. If not, then it will be because of the people who are speaking out now against animal slaughter, just as slavery is no longer acceptable due to the efforts of those who spoke out against it, when it was fashionable.

These analogies are legitimate, imo. They are not intended to offend anyone! They are intended to illustrate a philosophical question:

At what point does an entity become an other-self deserving of respect and a life free from violence and oppression?

However, what is NOT legitimate is to equate the people eating animals, that they bought wrapped in plastic from their supermarket, or stuffed between a bun at the local burger place, with murderers, rapists, and child molesters.

That is NOT a legitimate comparison!!!

And it was never intended to be. They're not the same. Not even remotely!

What makes them different?

Simple. Intention.

When people shop for groceries and pass by the meat aisle, they're not gleefully thinking about the shedding of that cow's blood. They're not replaying the slaughter of that chicken, and delighting in its pain!!!

They are nothing like the sick, perverted child molester!

No, they are just thinking about what they're going to cook for dinner tonight...or maybe about how hungry they are. Or they might not even be thinking about food at all, despite being surrounded by it. They might just be shopping out of routine, while talking to a friend on their cell phone.

Meat. It's not an act of violence to them. It's just part of everyday life.

So, to anyone who got offended because you thought I was comparing you to a child rapist, please, please, can we please clear this up?

NO, I did NOT think you were a sick, twisted pervert like the child rapist!

NO, I never meant to imply that at all.

In fact, I am incredulous that anyone could have thought that I thought that!!! That would make most of my friends, loved ones, co-workers, neighbors, business associates, and nearly everyone else I know, reprehensible people. Wow, that would be rough, just living in a world populated by the equivalent of child molesters! How could I look them in the eye day to day?

Again, NO, the people eating animals for lunch aren't in the same category as child molesters. I don't know how much clearer to make it, so I hope this clears up this misconception finally!

So, if that's not what I meant, then what did I mean? Why did I paint such a graphic illustration?

Because I wanted to probe more deeply the concepts given to us by the Law of One.

We are told that 2D entities will be human one day. They are our younger brethren. We are also told that, in 4D, we will consume a nectar.

I am curious: How do entities get from point B (2D) to point C (3D)? And, how do entities get from point C (3D) to point D (4D)?

Do we all go poof one day and no longer desire animal flesh?

Or...is it a process?

I've now come full circle, to my original question. I will restate it here, one last time, and then I'm going to take a break from this discussion, lest I be misunderstood yet again. I promise I will never, ever again use the child rapist analogy to make my point about eating animals. (That horse is long ago beaten and dead, to use an obviously tasteless pun.)

But my original question still, at this point, remains unanswered:

At what point does an entity become an other-self deserving of respect?

Is it when it becomes human? If the answer is yes, when it becomes human, then at what point in the human's life? At conception? At birth? Or somewhere in between? What about dolphins? They aren't human, yet Q'uo tells us they were a race more advanced than humans. Dolphins are routinely killed by fishermen. Who decided that an entity becomes an other-self only when it's human? How do we know that? What if we're wrong? What if an almost-3D entity is an other-self? What if advanced aliens thought of us the way we think of animals? (This last question has been probed by many sci-fi flicks.)

These are just further delineations of the same question: At what point does an entity become an other-self?

I don't think this question is any deeper than any other of the MANY profoundly deep questions that have been asked and discussed on B4. If I can't ask this question at B4, where can I ask it? This question affects MILLIONS of lives each and every day. MILLIONS of beings are suffering, each and every day. This bothers me. It bothers others, like Pablisimo. If we are being ridiculous to be bothered by it, then we'd like to know that now, so we can shed this ridiculous burden we've been carrying on our hearts all this time. It is a profoundly SPIRITUAL issue. If we're right, and those millions of beings' suffering DOES matter, then this issue concerns us all. It concerns the planet. It concerns the Harvest.

This question has relevance, according to the Law of One. It's a valid question to ask.

I apologize, once again, for inadvertently offending anyone. That was never my intention. I hope I am correct in my realization as to why my analogies were interpreted as offensive. And I hope that anyone who was offended by my analogies will choose to forgive me, and try to understand what I was trying to convey (instead of taking it personally when it was never directed at them personally).

To be clear: I don't think you're a bad person if you eat animals. I do, however, invite you to get educated on the subject. Look the cows and chickens in the eye. These beings are of the same essential divinity that we are composed of. Have the courage to watch the videos posted here on this thread. Get beyond hurt feelings and get acquainted with the realities of the slaughterhouse, so that you can no longer act unconsciously with your food choices, and begin to act consciously.

I have no agenda here. I learned 29 years ago that I cannot turn meat-eaters into vegetarians. If I had that agenda, I'd be spending my time painting billboards with animal rights groups instead of posting long, philosophical discourses. Trying to spread the word about the vegetarian cause on a spiritual forum is inefficient. There are better ways to do that if that's what I wanted to do. But we have a community here. We each have something valuable to offer. And this is a thread about meat eating.

So I offer my thoughts. I offer my apologies. And now I will retreat, until someone takes me up on my offer to probe these as-yet-unanswered, difficult questions, at which time I will eagerly participate.

blessings to all

And God bless all our furry, feathered and finned younger selves.

[thefool]

Monica- Thanks for clarifying your stance about the language. Those words are healing. I hope what I say here comes out correctly as my intentions are not to hurt but heal only...

You may be surprised to know that I am a vegetarian (OK, may be not a 100% and purist in that sense but a close 95%). My entire family is vegetarian, they are pure 100% text book vegetarian (well some of them eat eggs occasionally). We don't cook meat at home. We never have, even at my parent's home. And I grew up respecting life in all forms. I remember my father telling me a story about how we should not disturb the plants in the evening as they are sleeping. So we never plucked anything from our garden in the evening or we tried to avoid it. The stories about the tribal people bowing to the trees and plants before they harness them have made deep impression on me. I grew up respecting animals and even insects the same way. Even now if a see an occasional spider in the house, I try to rescue it on a piece of paper and drop it in the garden outside. Of course we have to use weed killer and even bug sprays to maintain a modern day living. But we don't do it in a nonchalant way.

Hope fully this helps you understand where I am coming from. Respect for all life forms including animals. And I completely understand your point about animals being more human like, I guess that is because we use this 2D shell of a body that came from their group.

I got engaged in this conversation when I noticed the hyper tone and some graphic language. That alarmed me as I sensed it might be creating guilt in some people's mind. It is easy to feel guilty and our lives are full of guilt. We don't need another reason to feel guilty or even look down upon from someone else. I can now understand that was not your intention but it was my perception. Personally I did not feel guilty as I know my heart and it has respect and love for all beings humans, animals and plants alike. They all have that spark of one infinite creator.

I also noticed to my chagrin that our engagement was very debate like which I was trying to avoid. Debate is not my style. I take a topic in and explore my heart and express whatever comes out. I am not into rebuttals or counter points. I also want to experience other person's expression from the heart not a mental back and forth. But that is just me and it does not have to be that way. Just helps you to understand where I am coming from. Personally I could care less what people eat. I think and believe that a predominantly vegetarian diet is healthy and healing. But I would never want to force it upon others. Let it be a choice. I am totally supportive of education of benefits of vegetarian diet that does not create a sense of guilt in people's mind.

The other day during my meditation, I realize that all strength comes from the heart, that was a new revelation to me. I think this whole process of discussing, disagreeing, falling apart and now coming together has its own rhythm and its own beauty. I cherish all of us here and what we are becoming together. We are not perfect and get drawn into drama and I am as guilty of that as anybody else. But we all strive to be our higher self and be as much loving as we can be, however imperfect we are. we come back and try to fix it. I have seen this in you Monica to come back and extend your arms and be open and loving with humility and integrity...

I sincerely think that all of us have taken this opportunity/catalyst and used it not as a roadblock but as a stepping stone to soar higher in understanding and love... And I thank all of you for that

[Monica]

I will respond since this was addressed to me directly.

I am totally supportive of education of benefits of vegetarian diet that does not create a sense of guilt in people's mind.

The benefits to one's health is only one component of the vegetarian issue. The suffering of the animals is another component. Both are part of the equation.

If authentic, graphic videos of slaughterhouse cruelty evoke feelings of guilt, why would you want to suppress those feelings? Are they not valid? Could it be that they are an appropriate response?

If you are not interested in raising awareness about the cruelty to animals, that's fine. If I AM interested in raising awareness, that's fine too. We needn't conflict. It is not my intention to cause others to feel guilt. But neither am I responsible for protecting them from guilt, should it arise as a natural consequence of becoming aware of animal cruelty. Those who feel guided to expose the cruelty should not be blamed if said exposure triggers guilt in some. If there is guilt, then that guilt was exposed by the cruelty itself, not by the person who exposed the cruelty.

thefool, thank you for explaining your perceptions. It is appreciated! I hope we can all get past misinterpretations and remember to find the love in the present moment...and in the other-self.

Now that we've cleared the air, maybe we can all loosen up and rock out a bit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5mHwwiWCKo

And a live version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5mHwwiWC...re=related

And, he's still writing songs about apes 25 years later:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu-JCL7cJGM

And, a vintage song that gets to the root of the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaWECj4wtcM

This artist is a vegetarian and humanitarian, who happens to be my #1 favorite artist of all time, not because of his humanitarian work, which I admire immensely, but because of his music. These songs are relevant to the discussion.

[unity100]

the logic of not eating meat in regard to wisdom standards is simple. lets approach it from wisdom angle first. i will talk towards generic first person. i dont remember who the original poster was :

you are killing a being, therefore, removing an energy generating focus, from the planetary sphere when you kill an animal to eat its meat. basically, you are stealing a manifesting 2d entity's vehicle. the 2d entity is no longer on this planet afterwards, and cannot generate energy. the planet is one 2d entity weaker. this affects all the densities in the planet, because, logically, total 2d manifestation on this planet represents the manifesting 2d chakra of the planet. 3d, 4d, 5d, and on all build up on that.

2d energy also creates light. even if it is in orange ray, it is still light. when you kill that entity to eat its body, that light does not manifest in physical plane anymore. basically, you are removing a light focus from the planet.

it doesnt matter with what intentions you remove the entity to eat its body, it doesnt matter how 'fairly' you treat it, before stealing its body, it doesnt matter how many people you feed with it - still a 2d light source gets removed from the planet. this, may be forgiven by you, maybe by the entity ( in a grander sense ), or may be forgiven by higher principles and overseers and its immediate karma is stopped. but, light, wisdom acts in precise manner - there was still a light source removed from the planet, and it will have its consequences, directly or indirectly.

now let us look at this issue from love angle :

2d entity is still an entity. it doesnt matter whether it still belongs to a certain animal group consciousness on the planet, and still acting closer to creator than an entity itself. it is still an 2d entity, which is going to become an 3d entity just like any other 7 billion and more entities on this planet. basically, it IS someone in future, and you are killing, stealing its body and eating it in, its past. it is a negative act. self serving. imagine same thing happening to you. it actually can, it is not rare that many people fall back to orange consciousness now and then (especially when we take into account that Ra says many entities fall to orange, 2d, to seek themselves again when they face with the horrors of this world), due to any reason. would you like to be killed so that some other entity eat your body ? would you like if it happened to your loved ones ?

now let us look at it from the greatest angle :

anything that exists is infinite intelligence. aka creator. aka intelligent infinity. any manifesting or unmanifested focus that generates any kind of activity, is, a co-creator. doesnt matter whether 2d or 7d, all entities have same blueprint of 7 chakras, and mind/body/spirits or mind/body/spirit complexes. everything that exists, is 'creator', if you would like to term it like that. destroying any discrete entity, is destroying a co creator.

there is infinity to discover. the more the focus generating entities, ie co creators about, at any given point, the more the rate of discovery and the subsequent total collective joy of all existence. destroying any focus generating entity slows down this discovery rate, and reduces our total joy. its a crime against ourselves.

..............

the ideal, seems to be mutually beneficial relationships. let us take an example from this planet.

take a fruit tree, and take the hominoid bipedal monkey that is our bodies.

you tend the tree, tend its needs. it grows fruit. you eat the outer layer of the fruit, and you plant the fruit. then, you tend the fledgling new tree too. the tree reproduces not only in a surefire way, but both the tree and its offspring is tended well, and kept happy. you eat fruit, and now, there are even more trees and more fruit to eat. your offspring is also guaranteed.

this is a good example of a mutually beneficial symbiont relationship. it brings abundance, it pumps up energies, and it generates love among participants. infinite variations of this is possible of course, like the algae that produces food through photosynthesis, feeding the jellyfish that carries it around near the surface close to sun, so it can do photosynthesis. this is a particular species in a secluded lake in se asia.

if you ask me, this whole charade that is up here and in many other places, was actually intended to teach and perpetuate this kind of system. and, the planets gone haywire, like this, are those in which what not to do is taught to entities that have been rather slow in getting the proper lessons.

.............

of course, there are considerations like meat incurring spiritual weight and heavying down the vibrations of an entity that eats it (both physically, and due to the above factors i mentioned), toxins and whatnot.

but, the above are more important than these.

[Bring4th_Steve]

Unity, I really enjoyed your description of why eating 2D entities could detract light upon the planet and is basically self-serving. However, I keep resorting to the understanding that entities generally "pre-determine" the role of their incarnation, which would include playing victim to the Chicken McNugget machine, if the 2D entity were unlucky enough to be a chicken.

Have you not considered that many lower density entities require physical experiences, which may include giving up oneself for the benefit of another? Would a 3D entity not have then reached an agreement with the 2D chicken to eat it, so that the 2D chicken could experience catalyst the way it needed to for spiritual advancement from the circumstances of its incarnation? That is absolutely STO, in my opinion. It is a sacred pre-birth agreement between two forms of energy, specifically designed to serve each other with the unique experiences needed for each entity's spiritual path and wisdom.

Furthermore, once an entity leaves the planet by whatever means, I do not believe the 2D light is extinguished, as you put it. The light body of that 2D entity enters time/space and may certainly decide to come back to space/time to gain further wisdom by playing out the role of another 2D creature. It's also possible that in many cases, 2D entities have incarnated with the intention of offering itself as food as a final lesson/experience before graduating to 3D.

I do understand why you would argue your points, and I thank you for your post, but I feel you are not giving enough credit to the concepts of "catalyst" and "pre-incarnational" considerations.

Steve