In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

What do you think about what i said here In this post?

Since you asked...

It is what we DO with compassion that created the discussion about judgement, etc.

Sometimes, the only way to help the starving dog is to talk to the dog's human, and sometimes that doesn't work, so then the question becomes:

Which is more important: Answering the call for help from the oppressed? Or not trying to change the oppressor?

How do we help the oppressed, without interfering with the rights of the oppressor to oppress?

I contend that helping the oppressed trumps respecting the 'rights' of the oppressor.

If we just try to change someone, for no good reason, that is control and that's STS.

But if our activism is fueled by compassion, and the only way to answer the call of the oppressed is to decline the service of the STS oppressor, then that is, in my view, entirely appropriate.

Furthermore, it may even be a service to the oppressor, who might not actually be STS but might just want to be shown an example of compassion. Maybe. We can't know that, so that is irrelevant to us, but it might be a bonus in some cases.

Looking at Ra's choice of what they did with compassion: Ra didnt answer the call compassionately by placing themselves between other and other's catalyst. In other words, their use of compassion wasn't to step in front of me and wave their finger at my catalyst and say 'stop it, Ra is here now and you will cease being mean to my friend'.
Ra felt compassion and went straight to the one they perceived "in need", and proceeded to explain the this is where we are and we can learn to accept our circumstances of now in order become closer to the Creator.

Compassion.

Right. But in the case of the starving dog in the neighbor's fenced-in yard, the only way to 'go straight to the one in need' is to first interact with the abuser.

That's not to say Ra would have done that. They didn't interfere with the STS entity who was plaguing Carla. But, did Don or Carla ever ask them to intervene? Not that I recall. Don just asked what they could do themselves; I don't think he ever actually asked Ra for help with the STS visitor. So we really don't know what Ra would have done, had they asked.

My guess is that they wouldn't have intervened. But that's just a guess, based on the idea that it was LL's task to learn how to deal with negative greeting. But I could be wrong. The fact is we really don't know, because it didn't happen that way. It would have been interesting to see how Ra would have responded!

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't, in the case of the starving dog. Because, we cannot apply Ra's principles of behavior to our own situation, necessarily. We have to take into consideration that we are in a different density, with different lessons.

It might be that if we were to follow Ra's example, and not bother to talk to the dog abusing neighbor, then we are neglecting our mission; it may be that that dog abuser is sending out a call for help too! It may be that he is hoping some nice friendly next-door Wanderer will knock on his door and explain compassion to him.

---

At any rate, I don't see the point of all this talk about controlling others. Having an internet discussion isn't controlling anyone. We cannot force anyone to change, even if we wanted to. So it's moot.

[Diana]

You equate compassion to activism. This makes me laugh. Activism is telling people what they shouldn't do.

It might be, in some cases. Activism can have different motivations.

For example, trying to make information available, which is what is being done here. No one has to read it, or agree with it.

I think efforts to be understood clearly are being mistaken for being controlling. How else do we communicate here, and for what reason?

Example:

Person A- Eating meat supports a cruel industry as explored in the attached video.

Person B- I eat meat and I think it's just fine to do so.

Person A- Oh, okay. Everything is beautiful.

This sort of exchange gets nowhere. In a discussion, there must necessarily be conflicting, unaligned, or varying viewpoints to even have a reason to exist.

As we've explained, in our case, our activism is motivated by compassion, not control as several meat-eaters keep insisting. (Which I find a bit offensive, by the way. I don't like being told what my motivation is. Only I know that. That's why I don't tell others what their motivation is.)

Thank you. Well said.

[Patrick]

I do not even kill flies or spiders at home, I just bring them outside. Because there is no need to kill them.

So I would say yes here.

Medical research disagrees with you. There is no proof whatsoever that meat is necessary for anyone...

I do not agree, but we did not agree on a format for such a discussion. So I will simply not discuss this subject.

"Is it compassionate to animals to let someone else kill them, and maybe even torture them, so that we can eat them?"

If those handling these animals were to ask my opinion, I would certainly tell them that I would prefer animals were treated with compassion.

Well that's very nice, if but one chooses to eat the animal anyway, knowing how it was treated, then that is sharing in the responsibility.

Just as in a court of law...someone who watches a crime while doing nothing to stop it, is still held partially responsible.

How about the responsibility/honor that I have towards my other selves living with me and around me? They eat meat, if I was to stop, this would affect them negatively and hurt them (I've already discussed this with them in the past). These are the catalysts that I am provided with and that I use.

I do not support our court of laws, nor do I support the concept of "laws" as we create them on Earth to control. Our concept of crime is extremely distorted from the concept of polarity.

Humans believe they can judge what is right and what is wrong for others. This is a very serious distortion. It's a big part of our insanity.

"that much is clear"

You can't know that.

Valtor, I can only assume by this statement that you haven't watched the slaughterhouse videos. A being struggling furiously and wailing in pain and terror, is communicating with us. It boggles my mind that anyone could watch this and conclude that we can't know whether the animal wished to die, so I will conclude you haven't watched the videos.

I watched the slaughterhouse videos a couple years ago while doing my research on nutrition. Not pretty!

This brings us back to treatment of animals. You believe eating meat signifies our intent to support bad treatment. I do not believe the same.

IMHO you would get better results by fighting for animal being treated with compassion than fighting to stop people from eating meat.

Then let people make up their own conclusions about meat eating. Only the self can do this work.

If you now argue the point that they do wish to die on a soul level, then try applying that to humans and see how it works. If a human needs the catalyst of being murdered, then fine, but it's not the job of the STO entity to oblige that. That's an STS function.

And if so, it would also apply to plants.

We've already covered that, ad nauseum.

Maybe, but you do not understand my point of view on the subject. Plants wanting to die or not is very relevant to me!

Do you realize that plants have a mind with emotions ? The mind does not require a physical brain. They are mind/body complexes, just like animals.

The way these animals are treated.

Is not killing someone poor treatment?

That's an interesting question.

We could discuss it more.

Exactly the one we live in.

Are you sure? What if they're populating a world much darker than the one we live in? Do we really want the responsibility of that?

And, even if it is just like the one we're in, why would anyone wish that upon fledgling 3D entities? Don't we want to do our part to create something better for them? This has been a most traumatic 3D sojourn. It's unusual. Most planets don't have the amount of bloodshed our planet has endured.

I want no part of perpetuating that.

I was implying that this is happening right here and now in our current collective illusion.

I believe we do not have the same understanding of the purpose of our 3d illusion here on Earth. It's a game that humans take very seriously.

Then those treating animals this way, if aware, are maybe the STS entities you're talking about.

Either that, or they're just really blocked up or ignorant.

But eating meat produced in such way - and this includes ANY visit to virtually any restaurant - is sharing in the responsibility in that STS action.

I would include "blocked up or ignorant" in the unaware group.

I do not agree on your second statement.

Actually, our task is to respond to catalyst.

I disagree...

Noted.

I'm not skipping the heart chakra. It's balanced.

I don't believe any of us can truly know for sure the degree of our balancing, until we walk the Steps of Light.

I agree. I'm just sharing my current understanding of who I am.

I'm not here to polarize, I am here to balance too much wisdom with compassion.

Well if that's the case, then an opportunity to embrace greater compassion is right under your nose.

I believe the sum total of this choice (stop eating meat) would actually result in a net loss of compassion. As hard as this may be to believe from your perspective. You cannot know my situation.

---
I'll reply to the rest in a latter post.

[3DMonkey]

What do you think about what i said here In this post?

Since you asked...

It is what we DO with compassion that created the discussion about judgement, etc.

Sometimes, the only way to help the starving dog is to talk to the dog's human, and sometimes that doesn't work, so then the question becomes:

Which is more important: Answering the call for help from the oppressed? Or not trying to change the oppressor?

How do we help the oppressed, without interfering with the rights of the oppressor to oppress?

I contend that helping the oppressed trumps respecting the 'rights' of the oppressor.

If we just try to change someone, for no good reason, that is control and that's STS.

But if our activism is fueled by compassion, and the only way to answer the call of the oppressed is to decline the service of the STS oppressor, then that is, in my view, entirely appropriate.

Furthermore, it may even be a service to the oppressor, who might not actually be STS but might just want to be shown an example of compassion. Maybe. We can't know that, so that is irrelevant to us, but it might be a bonus in some cases.

Looking at Ra's choice of what they did with compassion: Ra didnt answer the call compassionately by placing themselves between other and other's catalyst. In other words, their use of compassion wasn't to step in front of me and wave their finger at my catalyst and say 'stop it, Ra is here now and you will cease being mean to my friend'.
Ra felt compassion and went straight to the one they perceived "in need", and proceeded to explain the this is where we are and we can learn to accept our circumstances of now in order become closer to the Creator.

Compassion.

Right. But in the case of the starving dog in the neighbor's fenced-in yard, the only way to 'go straight to the one in need' is to first interact with the abuser.

That's not to say Ra would have done that. They didn't interfere with the STS entity who was plaguing Carla. But, did Don or Carla ever ask them to intervene? Not that I recall. Don just asked what they could do themselves; I don't think he ever actually asked Ra for help with the STS visitor. So we really don't know what Ra would have done, had they asked.

My guess is that they wouldn't have intervened. But that's just a guess, based on the idea that it was LL's task to learn how to deal with negative greeting. But I could be wrong. The fact is we really don't know, because it didn't happen that way. It would have been interesting to see how Ra would have responded!

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't, in the case of the starving dog. Because, we cannot apply Ra's principles of behavior to our own situation, necessarily. We have to take into consideration that we are in a different density, with different lessons.

It might be that if we were to follow Ra's example, and not bother to talk to the dog abusing neighbor, then we are neglecting our mission; it may be that that dog abuser is sending out a call for help too! It may be that he is hoping some nice friendly next-door Wanderer will knock on his door and explain compassion to him.

---

At any rate, I don't see the point of all this talk about controlling others. Having an internet discussion isn't controlling anyone. We cannot force anyone to change, even if we wanted to. So it's moot.

I'm not trying to claim I am being controlled. My perspectives offered about the subject are in reference to general applications. For instance,

"If we just try to change someone, for no good reason, that is control and that's STS." <<== I disagree. I think it is important to understand that it is STS no matter what our subjective reasoning is. This is literally subjective knowing.

"Furthermore, it may even be a service to the oppressor, who might not actually be STS but might just want to be shown an example of compassion. " <<== I find this to be a true example of compassion. If we are serving the oppressor. If we are extending compassion toward the oppressor, then they will witness an act of compassion. IMO, the only way to get to that level is to accept them and what they choose, and this is the polarizing effect they will bring green ray vibrations to the moment.

[Diana]

In order for you to work with us, though, you may have to be willing to accept the reality that some people continue to eat meat.

Absolutely! I have discussed this exact point extensively on this thread, but I realize now that you have missed a great deal of what I've said.

To briefly recap: If we didn't accept that other people ate meat, we wouldn't be able to exist in society. Why? Because most of our friends, co-workers, and, in most cases, loved ones eat meat. We face people eating meat every single day of our lives: every time we go to a restaurant, family gathering, grocery story, or even drive down the street and see the cars lines up at Whopper Burger.

So we have had to accept that people eat meat, even people we care deeply about. We simply wouldn't be able to coexist, much less still love those people, if we didn't accept that they eat meat!

So yes, of course can and do accept that most of the participants on this thread eat meat! And we have expressed countless times that we don't judge you for it, and still love you anyway!

That doesn't change the fact that we disagree philosophically, and will continue to disagree philosophically.

I will now bounce the question back to you: Can you (not just you personally, but anyone/everyone on this thread who might be interested in working with us to find common ground) accept us, and our views? Can you accept us without us having to give up our convictions?

For the purpose of working together, we would all need to put aside our differences, for the common goal of reducing animal suffering. In order to separate our mutual goal from the philosophical discussion, which might still be of interest to some people, I suggest that we start a new thread specifically for that purpose, in which no debating is allowed, in the same way I started the thread about vegetarian recipes.

Thank you for responding to my call for help!! I would so very much love love LOVE to work together on common ground!

I second all that Monica said above.

Thank you Monica, and βαθμιαίος for your willingness to collaborate.

[3DMonkey]

Activism is making a PUNISHABLE law that says the dog owner can never put his dog in a kennel.

See the fundamental difference?

Fundamental. Hmm. You are equating punishment with what, confinement? Do I find the irony?

right. It's the idea that it's okay to be the enemy if one thinks they have good reason. Well, it's all the same. You can be in it or you can be of it. It's your choice.

[Patrick]

But, acceptance is the key to compassion.

Acceptance is the key to much more than just compassion.

Compassion per se is not the goal. Polarization is not the goal either. Unconditional love of All That Is is the goal.

So the first key is acceptance, yes, but it doesn't stop there. We must also get to the compassion part, in order to polarize STO.

It doesn't stop there indeed. Right after Acceptance, the next step is become the Creator. In order to be the Creator, you unconditionally love All That Is.

"Acceptance is the key to positively polarized use of catalyst. " -Ra

That's what I just said. Positively polarized = compassionate.

That's not how I see it.

Positively polarized = accepts All That Is. In other words loves unconditionally.

Acceptance is the key to polarizing STO.

Yes, but it's the key because it allows compassion to occur.

That's not why I believe it's the key.

Compassion results from polarizing STO.

I disagree. Compassion is what polarizes. One cannot polarize STO without compassion.

Not in my understanding.

Compassion is an indication that the green ray is activating. That doesn't happen by acceptance alone. And certainly not by indifference, which is often confused with acceptance.

I would tend to agree with this.

[Monica]

I'm not trying to claim I am being controlled. My perspectives offered about the subject are in reference to general applications.

Thank you.

"If we just try to change someone, for no good reason, that is control and that's STS." <<== I disagree. I think it is important to understand that it is STS no matter what our subjective reasoning is. This is literally subjective knowing.

I actually agree with you on this. (:exclamation: happy dance! ) ANY action that is motivated by control, is an STS action.

The distinction is that, on the surface, 2 actions may appear the same, but may have different motivations.

"Furthermore, it may even be a service to the oppressor, who might not actually be STS but might just want to be shown an example of compassion. " <<== I find this to be a true example of compassion. If we are serving the oppressor. If we are extending compassion toward the oppressor, then they will witness an act of compassion.

Yipppppeeee! We're on a roll, Monkey! Yes! That's it exactly!

IMO, the only way to get to that level is to accept them and what they choose, and this is the polarizing effect they will bring green ray vibrations to the moment.

The challenge, then, becomes how to simultaneously have compassion for both the oppressed and the oppressor, while answering the call of the oppressed, when sometimes the only way to answer that call is to decline the offer of service by the oppressor, which may entail stopping them from doing whatever they are doing.

---

I do not agree, but we did not agree on a format for such a discussion.

I didn't realize you were suggesting a 'logic' format for discussing the official stance of the medical community. I thought you wanted to delve into logic regarding the discussion in general.

Are you saying you disagree with the medical community, who clearly states that a vegetarian, and even vegan, diet is adequate and can even reduce the risk of disease?

It's ok if you disagree with the medical community. I disagree with them on other issues. I just happen to agree on this one.

But I think it's important to be clear that you are disagreeing with the medical community, not just me.

So I will simply not discuss this subject.

That's your choice! I just wanted to point out just who or what it is you are disagreeing with.

How about the responsibility/honor that I have towards my other selves living with me and around me? They eat meat, if I was to stop, this would affect them negatively and hurt them (I've already discussed this with them in the past). These are the catalysts that I am provided with and that I use.

We all have families. I cannot fathom how your personal choice to quit eating meat could possibly hurt another person.

It might cause a bit of inconvenience, but harm?

That is your business, of course. I'm just saying I can't fathom how that could be. If you were, say, allergic to wheat, would that hurt your family?

Humans believe they can judge what is right and what is wrong for others. This is a very serious distortion. It's a big part of our insanity.

Laws can certainly become corrupted. But at their best, laws are supposed to protect everyone. The best laws subscribe to the adage "One person freedom ends where another's begins."

The sticking point here is whether animals have any rights to begin with, just as there is the same sticking point in the abortion issue.

This brings us back to treatment of animals. You believe eating meat signifies our intent to support bad treatment. I do not believe the same.

IMHO you would get better results by fighting for animal being treated with compassion than fighting to stop people from eating meat.

I already agreed to work together on our common ground. But for purposes of this discussion, which is philosophical, I don't see how killing an entity could be 'not bad treatment.'

The only way to not consider it bad treatment is if the entity is considered to have no value as an entity.

Then let people make up their own conclusions about meat eating. Only the self can do this work.

"Let?"

I cannot "let" or prevent anyone from making their own conclusions. I'm not going to quit expressing my own opinion, just because others disagree with it.

And again, what's with this "you aren't letting me eat meat" thing again? How is me expressing my own opinion stopping you from eating meat in any way?

We keep coming back to this. The vegetarians aren't being accepted. We are being accused of trying to control others, despite the fact that it's quite impossible. And we are essentially being asked to give up our convictions.

Maybe, but you do not understand my point of view on the subject. Plants wanting to die or not is very relevant to me!

Do you realize that plants have a mind with emotions ? The mind does not require a physical brain. They are mind/body complexes, just like animals.

No, they're not just like animals. There is a world of difference, but I'm not going back down that road again. Please read the thread if you wish to know my opinion on that.

The point about comparing plants to animals always goes back to this:

Even IF plants feel pain too, that isn't a justification for eating animals, because more plants are killed, to feed the animals. Fewer plants would be killed by eating the plants directly. And all the other reasons I already outlined, but just this reason alone is enough to negate that whole argument.

Is not killing someone poor treatment?

That's an interesting question.

We could discuss it more.

Valtor, are you really seriously suggesting that we discuss whether killing someone is poor treatment?

What has happened here? Have Law of One principles been so misunderstood, or so corrupted, not sure which, that we must now debate whether killing humans is ok?

(shakes head incredulously)

I was implying that this is happening right here and now in our current collective illusion.

I don't think so. I don't think young 3D souls are being allowed to incarnate here at this nexus, so close to harvest. It makes more sense to me that they'd be taken to another planet, so they can begin their 3D cycle.

I believe we do not have the same understanding of the purpose of our 3d illusion here on Earth. It's a game that humans take very seriously.

If you see it as just a game, then you're right: we don't have the same understanding at all. Our very foundation is so different, that understanding might be very difficult.

Then those treating animals this way, if aware, are maybe the STS entities you're talking about.

Either that, or they're just really blocked up or ignorant.

But eating meat produced in such way - and this includes ANY visit to virtually any restaurant - is sharing in the responsibility in that STS action.

I would include "blocked up or ignorant" in the unaware group.

I do not agree on your second statement.

So, are you saying you don't agree that our purchases support industry? If we knowingly buy a product produced by slave labor, we aren't contributing to slave labor?

If I am understanding you correctly, then yes, our paradigms are worlds apart. I believe in taking responsibility for our choices.

I believe the sum total of this choice (stop eating meat) would actually result in a net loss of compassion. As hard as this may be to believe from your perspective. You cannot know my situation.

I don't need to know your situation, because I'm not judging your choices. So there is no need to even explain anything to me about your choices. They are your own responsibility, not mine. I am only commenting to your own comments, which you offered voluntarily. I have never asked you anything about your personal situation, except in response to that which you offered yourself.

[3DMonkey]

I'm not trying to claim I am being controlled. My perspectives offered about the subject are in reference to general applications.

Thank you.

"If we just try to change someone, for no good reason, that is control and that's STS." <<== I disagree. I think it is important to understand that it is STS no matter what our subjective reasoning is. This is literally subjective knowing.

I actually agree with you on this. (:exclamation: happy dance! ) ANY action that is motivated by control, is an STS action.

The distinction is that, on the surface, 2 actions may appear the same, but may have different motivations.

"Furthermore, it may even be a service to the oppressor, who might not actually be STS but might just want to be shown an example of compassion. " <<== I find this to be a true example of compassion. If we are serving the oppressor. If we are extending compassion toward the oppressor, then they will witness an act of compassion.

Yipppppeeee! We're on a roll, Monkey! Yes! That's it exactly!

IMO, the only way to get to that level is to accept them and what they choose, and this is the polarizing effect they will bring green ray vibrations to the moment.

The challenge, then, becomes how to simultaneously have compassion for both the oppressed and the oppressor, while answering the call of the oppressed, when sometimes the only way to answer that call is to decline the offer of service by the oppressor, which may entail stopping them from doing whatever they are doing.

Well, at the least, our hearts are in the right place. It's just that we place different actions into that place.

We both want compassion in this world. In regards to eating meat, my compassion is not compromised when I eat it.

[Monica]

Well, at the least, our hearts are in the right place. It's just that we place different actions into that place.

We both want compassion in this world.

Wonderful!

[3DMonkey]

we want compassion!!!!!

Well, at the least, our hearts are in the right place. It's just that we place different actions into that place.

We both want compassion in this world.

Wonderful!

We

[Diana]

Acceptance is the key to much more than just compassion.

Compassion per se is not the goal. Polarization is not the goal either. Unconditional love of All That Is is the goal.

This is a worthy goal.

And yet, much of the recent posting has left me with a feeling of stagnation.

We on this planet right now, as humans, in 3D, are not 6th density entities in this reality. I have never, ever, known any human who is that advanced or even remotely close. Some here may have come from such a dimension, and yet the fact of just being here creates the veil.

We have chosen to be humans this time around, here, and we are subject to enormous influences of negativity, heaviness, blasted with invasive media, dealing with wars, starvation, cruelty everywhere (and of course, there is also much good, joy, and beauty here).

So, to act as though we are here as advanced beings just loving everything, while partaking of practices that are unnecessarily cruel, such as supporting the meat industry, does not make sense to me. It is paradoxical.

Where is the responsibility? Where is the accountability?

If wanderers came here to help, why would they knowingly partake in any cruelty? They may accept that others do it, but why would they do it?

Saying it is because of unconditionally loving everything seems like an excuse to indulge in anything, which, for some, may be fine, and I accept them for their choices.

I just cannot understand why anyone claiming to be a wanderer would do this.

None of the above means that I think I am "right"; I am just trying to comprehend a larger picture.

[3DMonkey]

Acceptance is the key to much more than just compassion.

Compassion per se is not the goal. Polarization is not the goal either. Unconditional love of All That Is is the goal.

This is a worthy goal.

And yet, much of the recent posting has left me with a feeling of stagnation.

We on this planet right now, as humans, in 3D, are not 6th density entities in this reality. I have never, ever, known any human who is that advanced or even remotely close. Some here may have come from such a dimension, and yet the fact of just being here creates the veil.

We have chosen to be humans this time around, here, and we are subject to enormous influences of negativity, heaviness, blasted with invasive media, dealing with wars, starvation, cruelty everywhere (and of course, there is also much good, joy, and beauty here).

So, to act as though we are here as advanced beings just loving everything, while partaking of practices that are unnecessarily cruel, such as supporting the meat industry, does not make sense to me. It is paradoxical.

Where is the responsibility? Where is the accountability?

If wanderers came here to help, why would they knowingly partake in any cruelty? They may accept that others do it, but why would they do it?

Saying it is because of unconditionally loving everything seems like an excuse to indulge in anything, which, for some, may be fine, and I accept them for their choices.

I just cannot understand why anyone claiming to be a wanderer would do this.

None of the above means that I think I am "right"; I am just trying to comprehend a larger picture.

Why spend life fighting?

[Monica]

we want compassion!!!!!

Well, at the least, our hearts are in the right place. It's just that we place different actions into that place.

We both want compassion in this world.

Wonderful!

We

[Diana]

Why spend life fighting?

I am trying to wrap my brain around this question. I can't think why you asked it in response to my post.

[BrownEye]

This thread has brought me the most laughs i think.

Tonight I will paste a news article my wife sent me. Instant karma connected to an animal.

[Patrick]

In order for you to work with us, though, you may have to be willing to accept the reality that some people continue to eat meat.

Absolutely! I have discussed this exact point extensively on this thread, but I realize now that you have missed a great deal of what I've said.

To briefly recap: If we didn't accept that other people ate meat, we wouldn't be able to exist in society. Why? Because most of our friends, co-workers, and, in most cases, loved ones eat meat. We face people eating meat every single day of our lives: every time we go to a restaurant, family gathering, grocery story, or even drive down the street and see the cars lines up at Whopper Burger.

So we have had to accept that people eat meat, even people we care deeply about. We simply wouldn't be able to coexist, much less still love those people, if we didn't accept that they eat meat!

So yes, of course can and do accept that most of the participants on this thread eat meat! And we have expressed countless times that we don't judge you for it, and still love you anyway!

That doesn't change the fact that we disagree philosophically, and will continue to disagree philosophically.

I will now bounce the question back to you: Can you (not just you personally, but anyone/everyone on this thread who might be interested in working with us to find common ground) accept us, and our views? Can you accept us without us having to give up our convictions?

For the purpose of working together, we would all need to put aside our differences, for the common goal of reducing animal suffering. In order to separate our mutual goal from the philosophical discussion, which might still be of interest to some people, I suggest that we start a new thread specifically for that purpose, in which no debating is allowed, in the same way I started the thread about vegetarian recipes.

Thank you for responding to my call for help!! I would so very much love love LOVE to work together on common ground!

I second all that Monica said above.

Thank you Monica, and βαθμιαίος for your willingness to collaborate.

Something just happened to me.

I was contemplating the subject of activism when I received a couple Ear Tones. I was getting Left Ear Tones when thinking about activism being control and I got a Right Ear Tone when thinking: "Can activism be truly positive ?"

I am quite surprised by this. This is my guides (and/or higher-self) sharing with me their opinion. I believe Left means "no" and Right means "yes".

They do not break free will, because these are only confirmations of what I'm already suspecting when it happens.

So I will retract what I have said on activism and what I may have implied about activists. I will inform myself better on the subject of activism in general and how it can successfully be applied in a positive way.

I will also take this opportunity to remind you all that I do love you no matter what!

[Monica]

I was contemplating the subject of activism when I received a couple Ear Tones. I was getting Left Ear Tones when thinking about activism being control and I got a Right Ear Tone when thinking: "Can activism be truly positive ?"

I am quite surprised by this. This is my guides (and/or higher-self) sharing with me their opinion. I believe Left means "no" and Right means "yes".

They do not break free will, because these are only confirmations of what I'm already suspecting when it happens.

So I will retract what I have said on activism and what I may have implied about activists. I will inform myself better on the subject of activism in general and how it can successfully be applied in a positive way.

I will also take this opportunity to remind you all that I do love you not matter what!

That is most awesomely cool! Wow, we really are on a roll today!

[3DMonkey]

Why spend life fighting?

I am trying to wrap my brain around this question. I can't think why you asked it in response to my post.

Is knowing why a prerequisite? I don't remember why, but I can come up with five different reasons.

---

One reason is that it could've been an expression of agreement. ... No, maybe not that one...

I dunno. I just think there is a lot of wasted energy "fighting" for something.

---

(and Pickle laughs again. Funny man with an odd sense of humor )

[Diana]

Why spend life fighting?

I am trying to wrap my brain around this question. I can't think why you asked it in response to my post.

Is knowing why a prerequisite? I don't remember why, but I can come up with five different reasons.

---

One reason is that it could've been an expression of agreement. ... No, maybe not that one...

I dunno. I just think there is a lot of wasted energy "fighting" for something.

---

(and Pickle laughs again. Funny man with an odd sense of humor )

Okay. Just know that I am not fighting for anything. More like hoping; hope being one of my human failings. Otherwise, I am just here to discuss, learn, and grow.

[3DMonkey]

I was contemplating the subject of activism when I received a couple Ear Tones. I was getting Left Ear Tones when thinking about activism being control and I got a Right Ear Tone when thinking: "Can activism be truly positive ?"

I am quite surprised by this. This is my guides (and/or higher-self) sharing with me their opinion. I believe Left means "no" and Right means "yes".

They do not break free will, because these are only confirmations of what I'm already suspecting when it happens.

So I will retract what I have said on activism and what I may have implied about activists. I will inform myself better on the subject of activism in general and how it can successfully be applied in a positive way.

I will also take this opportunity to remind you all that I do love you not matter what!

That is most awesomely cool! Wow, we really are on a roll today!

With love, I say it'd be great to hear you reciprocate.

[Monica]

With love, I say it'd be great to hear you reciprocate.

huh?

[Patrick]

I do not agree, but we did not agree on a format for such a discussion.

I didn't realize you were suggesting a 'logic' format for discussing the official stance of the medical community. I thought you wanted to delve into logic regarding the discussion in general.

Are you saying you disagree with the medical community, who clearly states that a vegetarian, and even vegan, diet is adequate and can even reduce the risk of disease?

It's ok if you disagree with the medical community. I disagree with them on other issues. I just happen to agree on this one.

But I think it's important to be clear that you are disagreeing with the medical community, not just me.

A 'logic' format would have been useful for our discussion in general, but yes I will not discuss the scientific aspect without such a format.

I will instead simplify my opinion on this to the extreme.

I am saying that the scientific community does not agree with itself on that subject. In fact it does not agree with itself on any subject as far as I am aware of. So the consensus you appeal to does not exist.

We would have to actually debate 'logically' the whole thing ourselves here if you wanted to know with what I agree and with what I do not. For this, we would have to enunciate our premises and agree to them before even making arguments.

I don't know for you, but I'm not really interested in this. I've done it before and nothing good ever resulted.

So I will simply not discuss this subject.

That's your choice! I just wanted to point out just who or what it is you are disagreeing with.

I hope I was able to clear that up.

How about the responsibility/honor that I have towards my other selves living with me and around me? They eat meat, if I was to stop, this would affect them negatively and hurt them (I've already discussed this with them in the past). These are the catalysts that I am provided with and that I use.

We all have families. I cannot fathom how your personal choice to quit eating meat could possibly hurt another person.

It might cause a bit of inconvenience, but harm?

That is your business, of course. I'm just saying I can't fathom how that could be. If you were, say, allergic to wheat, would that hurt your family?

It would, but I would not be the cause in that case.

Bare with me please, because I am slowly coming to an epiphany. I will start discussing it in a latter post.

Humans believe they can judge what is right and what is wrong for others. This is a very serious distortion. It's a big part of our insanity.

Laws can certainly become corrupted. But at their best, laws are supposed to protect everyone. The best laws subscribe to the adage "One person freedom ends where another's begins."

The sticking point here is whether animals have any rights to begin with, just as there is the same sticking point in the abortion issue.

I am currently re-evaluating my views on this, like I am for activism.

This brings us back to treatment of animals. You believe eating meat signifies our intent to support bad treatment. I do not believe the same.

IMHO you would get better results by fighting for animal being treated with compassion than fighting to stop people from eating meat.

I already agreed to work together on our common ground. But for purposes of this discussion, which is philosophical, I don't see how killing an entity could be 'not bad treatment.'

The only way to not consider it bad treatment is if the entity is considered to have no value as an entity.

I think we will have to discuss euthanasia to make inroads on this one.

Then let people make up their own conclusions about meat eating. Only the self can do this work.

"Let?"

I cannot "let" or prevent anyone from making their own conclusions. I'm not going to quit expressing my own opinion, just because others disagree with it.

And again, what's with this "you aren't letting me eat meat" thing again? How is me expressing my own opinion stopping you from eating meat in any way?

We keep coming back to this. The vegetarians aren't being accepted. We are being accused of trying to control others, despite the fact that it's quite impossible. And we are essentially being asked to give up our convictions.

There is a misunderstanding here. Maybe it came from English not being my first language. What I meant was that equating meat eating with supporting factory farming is not letting people reach such a conclusion by themselves. I'm not saying that I agree with such a conclusion, but it would certainly help your cause if people started equating meat eating with maltreatment of animals for themselves. I am simply saying that IMHO concentrating your arguments on the treatment of animals without implying that meat eater are supporting it, would give much more of the results you are after, with much less efforts on the part of the activists.

Maybe, but you do not understand my point of view on the subject. Plants wanting to die or not is very relevant to me!

Do you realize that plants have a mind with emotions ? The mind does not require a physical brain. They are mind/body complexes, just like animals.

No, they're not just like animals. There is a world of difference, but I'm not going back down that road again. Please read the thread if you wish to know my opinion on that.

The point about comparing plants to animals always goes back to this:

Even IF plants feel pain too, that isn't a justification for eating animals, because more plants are killed, to feed the animals. Fewer plants would be killed by eating the plants directly. And all the other reasons I already outlined, but just this reason alone is enough to negate that whole argument.

I'm not really talking about pain here. Just the wanting to die or not. I understand your point of view. I agree to let it go.

Is not killing someone poor treatment?

That's an interesting question.

We could discuss it more.

Valtor, are you really seriously suggesting that we discuss whether killing someone is poor treatment?

What has happened here? Have Law of One principles been so misunderstood, or so corrupted, not sure which, that we must now debate whether killing humans is ok?

(shakes head incredulously)

I won't bring plants again. But I think discussing euthanasia would make inroads here too. It all comes down to intent.

Is killing someone even treating someone in any way ? Maybe you are asking if killing someone is right or wrong?

I'm probably just stuck on semantics here Monica. Because I'm felling sorrow right now. Which means our misunderstandings are hurting us both. I don't like that.

I was implying that this is happening right here and now in our current collective illusion.

I don't think so. I don't think young 3D souls are being allowed to incarnate here at this nexus, so close to harvest. It makes more sense to me that they'd be taken to another planet, so they can begin their 3D cycle.

I meant the 2d part of our 3d illusion. The 2d mind/body complexes getting catalysts from us.

I believe we do not have the same understanding of the purpose of our 3d illusion here on Earth. It's a game that humans take very seriously.

If you see it as just a game, then you're right: we don't have the same understanding at all. Our very foundation is so different, that understanding might be very difficult.

We are ONE you and I, Monica. Yes really!

This is what I mean: "You cannot remember your hand, their hands, perhaps even the rules of this game. This game can only be won by those who lose their cards in the melting influence of love; can only be won by those who lay their pleasures, their limitations, their all upon the table face up and say inwardly: “All, all of you players, each other-self, whatever your hand, I love you.” This is the game: to know, to accept, to forgive, to balance, and to open the self in love. This cannot be done without the forgetting, for it would carry no weight in the life of the mind/body/spirit beingness totality."

THIS is what I am trying to express with every one of my posts.

Then those treating animals this way, if aware, are maybe the STS entities you're talking about.

Either that, or they're just really blocked up or ignorant.

But eating meat produced in such way - and this includes ANY visit to virtually any restaurant - is sharing in the responsibility in that STS action.

I would include "blocked up or ignorant" in the unaware group.

I do not agree on your second statement.

So, are you saying you don't agree that our purchases support industry? If we knowingly buy a product produced by slave labor, we aren't contributing to slave labor?

That's what I'm saying yes. Your intent when you buy it is what counts. Incidentally, I also do not believe that we can vote with our wallets.

If I am understanding you correctly, then yes, our paradigms are worlds apart. I believe in taking responsibility for our choices.

I too believe in taking responsibility for my choices. If I'm wrong and there is such a thing as objective rightness and wrongness, then I guess I'll be very surprised when I wake up in time/space of a new 3d cycle somewhere else.

I believe the sum total of this choice (stop eating meat) would actually result in a net loss of compassion. As hard as this may be to believe from your perspective. You cannot know my situation.

I don't need to know your situation, because I'm not judging your choices. So there is no need to even explain anything to me about your choices. They are your own responsibility, not mine. I am only commenting to your own comments, which you offered voluntarily. I have never asked you anything about your personal situation, except in response to that which you offered yourself.

This last sentence of mine "You cannot know my situation" was out of line. I offer you my apology.

[BrownEye]

With love, I say it'd be great to hear you reciprocate.

huh?

He's confused with the reach around.

[3DMonkey]

With love, I say it'd be great to hear you reciprocate.

huh?

It would just be great to hear. Ignore me. I speak logically.

[βαθμιαίος]

Wow, busy thread. I had to go four pages back to find this post.

It still seems to me that animal rights activists, humane farmers, and compassionate consumers could work together to improve the lot of animals.

I agree! I would love to see that happen!

I will now bounce the question back to you: Can you (not just you personally, but anyone/everyone on this thread who might be interested in working with us to find common ground) accept us, and our views? Can you accept us without us having to give up our convictions?

It's never bothered me that you or anyone else would choose to be vegan or vegetarian. The trouble has come, I think, from the perception that you and others disapprove of my dietary choices. So if your convictions are that being vegan or vegetarian is the right thing for you, yes, absolutely I can and do accept that. If your convictions are that being vegan or vegetarian would be the right thing for me, then no, I don't think I can accept that.

For the purpose of working together, we would all need to put aside our differences, for the common goal of reducing animal suffering. In order to separate our mutual goal from the philosophical discussion, which might still be of interest to some people, I suggest that we start a new thread specifically for that purpose, in which no debating is allowed, in the same way I started the thread about vegetarian recipes.

Sounds like a good idea.

Thank you for responding to my call for help!! I would so very much love love LOVE to work together on common ground!

Thank you for accepting the olive branch.

---

With love, I say it'd be great to hear you reciprocate.

huh?

I think he's referring to this line from Valtor's post: "I will also take this opportunity to remind you all that I do love you not matter what! "

[Patrick]

I love you Monkey !!!

[3DMonkey]

I love you Monkey !!!

That's terrific. ...












... Oh! Love you too.

[Patrick]

Acceptance is the key to much more than just compassion.

Compassion per se is not the goal. Polarization is not the goal either. Unconditional love of All That Is is the goal.

This is a worthy goal.

And yet, much of the recent posting has left me with a feeling of stagnation.

We on this planet right now, as humans, in 3D, are not 6th density entities in this reality. I have never, ever, known any human who is that advanced or even remotely close. Some here may have come from such a dimension, and yet the fact of just being here creates the veil.

We have chosen to be humans this time around, here, and we are subject to enormous influences of negativity, heaviness, blasted with invasive media, dealing with wars, starvation, cruelty everywhere (and of course, there is also much good, joy, and beauty here).

So, to act as though we are here as advanced beings just loving everything, while partaking of practices that are unnecessarily cruel, such as supporting the meat industry, does not make sense to me. It is paradoxical.

Where is the responsibility? Where is the accountability?

If wanderers came here to help, why would they knowingly partake in any cruelty? They may accept that others do it, but why would they do it?

Saying it is because of unconditionally loving everything seems like an excuse to indulge in anything, which, for some, may be fine, and I accept them for their choices.

I just cannot understand why anyone claiming to be a wanderer would do this.

None of the above means that I think I am "right"; I am just trying to comprehend a larger picture.

Just so as you know. I am currently re-evaluating some of what I am going to say just now. So that may change in the future.

The negativity you talk about is not within my sphere of influence. I do not watch the news. It would only make me worry about things which I can't do anything about. This worrying would lower the vibration of the planet for no reason at all.

I can only change my Self in order to help ALL.

I do what I can within my sphere of influence. The choices that I make are contextual and with intent that are related only to what is within this sphere of influence.

I cannot take all the issues of the world on my shoulders. And even if I could, doing so would not be wise, very compassionate yes, but not wise at all.

We may not be able to live like 6d in 3d, but we can mix wisdom with compassion and compassion with wisdom (compassionate-wisdom) to balance the Self and our choices.

[3DMonkey]

The burden is not ours to bear.