In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

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

Hear what? I love you?

Ok, you got it!

I LOVE YOU MONKEY!!!

[3DMonkey]

The burden is not ours to bear.

If you can be happy, and I can be happy, then we will both live in a happy world.

[Monica]

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.

Oh gosh, how to explain?

If I attempt (yet again) to explain this very delicate distinction, can I ask that you please bear with me here, and refrain from any conclusions til you hear me out?

(deep breath)

OK here goes:

Focus and intent come into play here. I would never, ever, EVER tell you or anyone else what I think YOU should do, what is 'right' for you, or whether your choice is the best one for you, whether it is regarding diet, lifestyle, spirituality, or whatever. It's simply not my place to do so.

My focus is not on you.

I have no desire to change you, in any way. I love and accept you the way you are. Do I agree with the choices you make for yourself? Your choice of car, clothing, mate, activities, movies, whatever? Such a question is foreign to me. I can't even relate to the question!

A friend once told me that she disliked hairy chests on men. The comment struck me as very strange. The very idea of her liking or disliking a physical attribute of another person, was entirely foreign to my way of thinking. She was singling out a particular trait, that that particular man had absolutely no control over (short of shaving or waxing his hair off). It was as bizarre to me as saying "I dislike big noses" or "I dislike short people."

I mean, whatever gave her the right to judge someone's bodily characteristics like that?

Now before anyone accuses me of judging her for judging, I really and truly didn't judge her for it. I accepted that that was simply where she was at, for whatever reason. I just offer this as an example of how I DON'T think.

My friend thinks like that. I don't. It's just that simple. Here is how I think:

When I meet someone, I notice their overall essence. Whether they have body hair, what color their skin is, or whatever, is all just part of their overall package. And that includes their lifestyle choices, whether it's their occupation, their sexuality, their spirituality, or...even their diet.

All of those things are part of the package of that person. They don't concern me.

I honestly and truly don't even think in terms of deciding whether I 'like' or 'approve' of their choices or not, because...they are their choices. They are responsible for their choices, not me.

So for me to tell you "Your choice to eat meat is wrong for you" is simply foreign to me. It's as foreign to me as saying "I don't like the color of your hair." It's just not something I think about.

Sure, I'm human so I'm going to notice if a good-looking guy walks by. And I'm going to notice the clothing of a well-dressed woman, and I might compliment her on it and ask where she bought her outfit. But if her style is not my style, I simply don't think "I don't like her dress" because she's the one wearing it, not me!

With me so far?

Now, having said all that, I also happen to have some very strong convictions about harming others. I believe harming other-selves is contrary to the STO path. There are exceptions: self-defense, in which case it's acceptable, but only as a last resort, and mercy-killing, as in the case of euthanizing an elderly, sick dog who is in severe pain, which is an act of mercy. There might be other exceptions, but these are the obvious 2 that I can think of. (I don't consider war in the exception category.)

When I say "harming other-selves is contrary to the STO path" that includes our younger other-selves: the animals.

As I've expressed previously, there are lots of other things I also consider contrary to the STO path; things like polluting the planet, indiscriminately destroying plants, etc. For reasons I have exhaustively detailed throughout this thread for the past 3 years, I don't consider plants to be in the 'other-selves' category, with the exception of some trees, and I find it pointless to start a campaign for trees' rights, when most people can't even comprehend that cows feel pain! So any talk of "well plants want to live too!" to me is really a distraction from the real issue. I don't see that argument as having any substance, but is really just a knee-jerk, defensive reaction. For the simple reason that if the person saying that really and truly cared about saving plants, then they'd be able to understand our case about animals; and furthermore, they'd quit eating animals for the simple reason that more plants are killed when animals are eaten, than when plants are eaten directly.

So I'm really not interested in the 'plants have feelings too' argument because I find it entirely baseless, in the context of reducing meat consumption. My stance is: Let's tackle the higher 2D entities, before we start on the early 2D entities.

So, getting back to how I feel or think about your choices...I don't feel or think anything at all about your choices. I really and truly don't.

However, I do feel and think a great deal about the unnecessary suffering of animals.

Valtor indicated that he didn't agree with me, or with the scientific community who says that humans don't need meat to be healthy.

I've been a vegetarian for 40 of my 52 years. My 23-yo son has never had a bite of meat in his life. I've met 2nd and 3rd generation vegans who were vibrantly healthy. I'll concede that some people might require a bit more education and may need to go about it gradually, to give their bodies time to adjust. And I definitely acknowledge that not everyone is ready to be a vegan, much less raw vegan! (Though I strongly believe it is physically doable for everyone! It's the mental component that isn't ready.) So, as Ra stated, animal products (which I interpret to be eggs and dairy) to the extent necessary for individual metabolism makes total sense to me. It needn't be all or nothing: meat-eater or vegan. There is a middle ground! It's called: humanely produced eggs and dairy! Both of which contain the same type of protein as meat. Case closed, as far as I'm concerned. Humans don't need meat. To say that they do, isn't going to make any headway with me. I'm a tough sell on that one, for good reason. My experience, my education on the subject, and the scientific community backing me up (as a bonus), + the fact that the vegetarian diet is, in my opinion, in alignment with the STO path, makes me a hard sell on the idea that anyone needs meat. I just flat out don't believe it. I believe we are evolving, and the idea that we must participate in an act of bloody violence, just to exist on this planet, just flies in the face of everything I know and believe.

These are my beliefs. They aren't up for analysis, because they're my beliefs. I'm not asking anyone to agree with them. Anyone can comment on them if they wish; it matters not to me. But for them to judge my beliefs, would be like me judging their hairy chest. It's pointless. We can discuss and exchange ideas, but my convictions are my own, just as yours are your own. We don't need approval, and nor do we need to apologize for, our convictions.

I am simply explaining why I believe the meat industry is completely unnecessary. If it's not necessary to eat animals for health, which I just explained is my belief, then it logically follows that any killing of animals for food is unnecessary.

Notice I said for food. Obviously, if a pit bull is about to attack a child, I'd kill that dog in an instant, to save the child. I wouldn't even hesitate. It's be an unpleasant thing to do, but I wouldn't feel guilt. I'd probably feel annoyance and anger at the owners of the dog who did such an irresponsible thing as letting the dog loose.

If a cow is diseased and sick, it may be an act of mercy to kill her. If a lion is chasing a human...if a snake is about to bite...you get the idea. Yes, there are times when killing an animal is necessary. Just like there are times when it's necessary to kill plants...like to survive on this planet.

The key word here is necessary.

I absolutely do not believe that it's ever necessary to have bacon for breakfast, a hamburger for lunch, and chicken for dinner. Even with the best of the "my body needs meat" arguments, I don't believe it. Asian people eat 1/4 the amount of meat as Americans and guess what? They have 1/4 the disease.

I don't expect everyone to instantly go vegetarian. But at the very least, acknowledging that it is UNnecessary and seeing it for what it really is - a familiar habit - and cutting back, would be a huge step.

So, I have explained why I think killing animals for food is unnecessary.

This is supported by Ra's statement to the extent necessary. Why do you suppose Ra said that? To me, this means that if it's truly necessary, then it's compatible with the STO path. But if it's not, then it's not.

Therefore, can you see how it logically follows, in my mind, that any unnecessary killing is incompatible with the STO path?

And, can you see how it logically follows, in my mind, that animals are being oppressed and victimized?

It then logically follows, that if these other-selves are being victimized, and are calling for help, and I am hearing their call, and I am STO-oriented, can you see why I would want to answer their call?

I see the killing of animals for food the same as I see blacks being subjected to slavery, the same as I see the Jewish holocaust...these are all examples of extreme abuse, oppression, and horror.

I see the end result of those actions in that way: unnecessary suffering to other-selves.

I don't really see the person doing it. They are pretty much invisible. I'm not motivated to change that person. I truly am not judging that person, so I have no opinion about their reasons for what they do. They probably aren't STS, but are probably doing something that they think is acceptable, for whatever reason, just as plantation owners weren't 'bad' people but simply thought it was normal to use black people as slaves. Black people weren't considered 'people' just as animals aren't today...just as unborn humans aren't either.

So I'm not even looking at the person who has the slaves, or who is eating the meat. I'm looking only at the slaves, and hear their cry...I'm looking only at the animals, and hear their cry.

Are you beginning to see now why I cannot say "Your choice to eat animals is right for you" any more than I could say "Your choice to have slaves is right for you" ?

If your 'choices' happen to conflict with my efforts to answer the call of the oppressed, that is inconsequential to me. I'm not looking at your dietary choices.

I'm looking at the animals.

See, it is a matter of focus.

I don't care about what you eat.

I care about the animals.

If what you eat, happens to conflict with my efforts to save the animals, you and I may have a bit of discord.

But it's nothing personal. It truly isn't.

I live in a society in which slavery is still legal. I must accept that.

But it's asking too much, to ask me to say "well it's ok for you to have slaves" or "I personally don't want to have slaves but I respect your choice to have slaves." I can't do that. That is simply asking too much.

My convictions have nothing to do with you. My convictions are about helping free the slaves.

Thank you for accepting the olive branch.

Thank you for reading my posts!

---

Note: Edited to fix typos.

[BrownEye]

Yeah it's been posted.

84.2 Questioner: In the last session you mentioned the least distorted complex protein for the instrument since its body complex was capable of greatly increased distortion. Would you define the protein of which you spoke and in which direction is the increased distortion, towards health or ill-health?

Ra: I am Ra. We were, in the cautionary statement about complex protein, referring to the distortions of the animal protein which has been slaughtered and preservatives added in order to maintain the acceptability to your peoples of this non-living, physical material. It is well to attempt to find those items which are fresh and of the best quality possible in order to avoid increasing this particular entity’s distortions which may be loosely termed allergic.

We were speaking of the distortion towards disease which is potential at this space/time.

Sounds like if you have a distortion towards disease, it may not be the best idea? I notice not much instruction towards direction is given, but the warning itself is given.

[Monica]

Yeah it's been posted.

84.2 Questioner: In the last session you mentioned the least distorted complex protein for the instrument since its body complex was capable of greatly increased distortion. Would you define the protein of which you spoke and in which direction is the increased distortion, towards health or ill-health?

Ra: I am Ra. We were, in the cautionary statement about complex protein, referring to the distortions of the animal protein which has been slaughtered and preservatives added in order to maintain the acceptability to your peoples of this non-living, physical material. It is well to attempt to find those items which are fresh and of the best quality possible in order to avoid increasing this particular entity’s distortions which may be loosely termed allergic.

We were speaking of the distortion towards disease which is potential at this space/time.

Sounds like if you have a distortion towards disease, it may not be the best idea? I notice not much instruction towards direction is given, but the warning itself is given.

Yes, and notice that Ra is referring specifically to Carla in this quote. And if you look at the previous quote that Don was referring to, Ra used the term meat.

Whereas, in the session in which Ra was asked about diet in general (as opposed to being advice for Carla), Ra used the term animal products.

Obviously, the term animal products could mean meat. But it could also mean eggs and dairy. The very fact that Ra - who is always so specific - used the term meat when referring to Carla, and a different, more general term animal products when referring to general advice, is significant.

At any rate, the above quote, in which Ra specified they were referring to meat, isn't referring to the quote in session 40.

[BrownEye]

43.16 Questioner: The physical vehicle that is used in fourth-density space/time is, I am assuming, quite similar to the one that is now used in third density. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. The chemical elements used are not the same. However, the appearance is similar.


43.17 Questioner: Is it necessary to eat food in fourth density?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.


43.18 Questioner: The mechanism of, shall we say, social catalyst due to a necessity for feeding the body then is active in fourth-density. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. The fourth-density being desires to serve and the preparation of foodstuffs is extremely simple due to increased communion between entity and living foodstuff. Therefore, this is not a significant catalyst but rather a simple precondition of the space/time experience. The catalyst involved is the necessity for the ingestion of foodstuffs. This is not considered to be of importance by fourth-density entities and it, therefore, aids in the teach/learning of patience.

43.19 Questioner: Could you expand a little bit on how that aids in the teach/learning of patience?

Ra: I am Ra. To stop the functioning of service to others long enough to ingest foodstuffs is to invoke patience.


43.20 Questioner: I’m guessing that it is not necessary to ingest foodstuffs in fifth-density. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. However, the vehicle needs food which may be prepared by thought.

43.21 Questioner: What type of food would this be?

Ra: I am Ra. You would call this type of food nectar, or ambrosia, or a light broth of golden white hue.

---------------

Definition of NECTAR

a: the drink of the Greek and Roman gods
b: something delicious to drink
c: a beverage of fruit juice and pulp

2: a sweet liquid that is secreted by the nectaries of a plant and is the chief raw material of honey

-----------------
ambrosia

•Greek & Roman Mythology. The food of the gods, thought to confer immortality.
• Something with an especially delicious flavor or fragrance.

See also
Ichor, blood of the Greek gods, related to ambrosia.
Amrita, of Hindu mythology, a drink which confers immortality on the gods, and a cognate of ambrosia
Iðunn's apples in Norse mythology.
Peaches of Immortality in Chinese mythology.
Elixir of life, a potion sought by alchemy to produce immortality.

---

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

You have activist blood, you just haven't figured it out yet. Once you figure out what you need to be doing you can turn that green ray in that direction and pump it up.

[Monica]

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.

I agree, if you are referring to any specific diet. You are absolutely correct that there's no consensus on any diet, at that level of detail.

I could argue that there is consensus on certain basics, like the need for certain vitamins, minerals and protein, but I agree that there isn't consensus on the exact amounts of said nutrients.

But the fact that the human body requires certain nutrients isn't up for debate. Neither is it up for debate that every nutrient, with the possible exception of vitamin B12, known to be needed by the human body, is readily found in plant foods.

What is debatable is the amounts needed, and method of absorption.

I'll stop here since I know you don't want to go any further with that. I was just replying to your 'simplified' comment with my own 'simplified' comment.

And I will add just a few more simplified comments:

Regardless of whether there is consensus or not, simple observation tells us that most people aren't healthy. Just look at the epidemic rates of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.

Statistics show that vegetarians have decreased risk of all those major diseases.

This doesn't prove vegetarians are getting all the nutrients they need. It's possible that they could still lack certain nutrients. (This would depend on the individual, of course, and that is the part the experts aren't in agreement on and we should thus avoid in our discussion.)

But it does prove that, in general, they are, at the very least, healthier than meat-eaters.

In other words, even if it can't be proven they are perfectly healthy, it can easily be proven that they are, at the very least, as healthy, and in fact healthier than, meat-eaters. This isn't debatable; it's fact.

Even if you were to tell me it's not fact, because you find flaws in the statistical analyses, all you'd have to do is conduct your own poll among any random group of vegetarians, and compare that to any random group of meat-eaters. Worst case scenario is that they'd be about the same. Far more likely is that the vegetarians will overall be healthier (fewer medications etc.).

So logically, this makes the whole 'we need meat' argument moot.

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

Same here! I'm not up for that either! Let's stick to general opinions and avoid the statistical analysis of studies the 'experts' can't even agree on.

I hope I was able to clear that up.

Yes, thank you.

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

Cool! I admire that.

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

I touched on that in my last post.

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.

We did that in the beginning of this thread. After 3+ years, this thread has been through many phases.

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.

OK. I invite you to read the whole thread. There is a great deal about plants that might interest you. Some of it is very insightful!

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 don't either. And I agree, sometimes it's just semantics.

Like in this case. What I mean by killing, in this context, is forcefully taking the life of another. When done to a human, we call it murder.

When someone has their beloved pet dog euthanized to stop his suffering, we consider that an act of mercy. That's an entirely different situation.

Raising an animal for food, then killing it, is forcefully taking its life. It's not murder, because that is a term reserved for humans. So what is it? There is no word for it. The closest term would be slaughter, which implies an acceptable action, for turning animals into meat.

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

Ah. Yes, true. In my original statement, I was referring to the worlds that will be inhabited by these 2D cows, pigs and chickens, when they graduate to 3D. Beings that died in such a state of abuse, will likely inhabit a violent world with much suffering, it seems to me.

I don't want to contribute to such a possibility. I think it would behoove us to consider it, because if my speculation is correct, that's a horrible thing to be responsible for.

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.

Ah, ok! I view that quote as being metaphorical. I thought you meant literally, like it doesn't matter what we choose because it's all just a game anyway.

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.

To a degree, yes. But it seems really inefficient, to have to override the negativity, once one is aware of it.

We don't always have a choice about where to shop, bank, or work. Sometimes one might have to take on a job that isn't in alignment with one's ideals, in order to feed their family. In such cases, intent can override whatever negativity that company is associated with, to a large degree.

But if given a choice, wouldn't it make more sense to support a company that is already doing something positive?

If I try really really really hard, I might be able to move a pencil with my mind. Maybe I'll spend an hour concentrating, to get it to move half an inch. But isn't that ridiculously inefficient, when I could just pick it up with my hand?

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

Valtor, you're cool. You just apologized for something I didn't even notice at all. After all the things said on this thread, your courteousness is a breath of fresh air!

[BrownEye]

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.

Point being that an animal has an actual physical brain that is wired for pain. I find a difference there. In this case the plant picks up on your mental state and intent. Intent having a huge difference in effect on the food that goes into your mouth. (live food that is)

---

But the fact that the human body requires certain nutrients isn't up for debate. Neither is it up for debate that every nutrient, with the possible exception of vitamin B12, known to be needed by the human body, is readily found in plant foods.

B12 has been found "on" plants. The deficiency comes from sanitizing our food. It is just poop bacteria.

---

2.EAT LOTS OF FRUIT ... and salad, veggies .. including nuts seeds . no percentages given. An inclination giving that fruit will be the future of food.

Channeled message.

[3DMonkey]

issue. I don't see that argument as having any substance, but is really just a knee-jerk, defensive reaction. For the simple reason that if the person saying that really and truly cared about saving plants, then they'd be able to understand our case about animals; and furthermore, they'd quit eating animals for the simple reason that more plants are killed when animals are eaten, than when plants are eaten directly.

That was a great post. All of it was neutral and coming from a personal perspective. Except for the above sentence. I find it hurtful and judgmental. It's basically saying 'you don't really feel the way you say you feel' or 'that's just stupid'.

[Monica]

B12 has been found "on" plants. The deficiency comes from sanitizing our food. It is just poop bacteria.

Yes, true! It's also found in some bluegreen algaes.

Realistically, though, most average people won't get it, so a supplement is suggested for them, just in case. Easily done and not a reason to not be vegan (if the person otherwise wants to be vegan but is concerned about B12).

B12 isn't an issue at all if people eat eggs and/or dairy. At least not more of an issue than for meat-eaters. Even those who eat meat might be deficient in B12, because of poor assimilation due to various factors.

---

That was a great post. All of it was neutral and coming from a personal perspective. Except for the above sentence. I find it hurtful and judgmental. It's basically saying 'you don't really feel the way you say you feel' or 'that's just stupid'.

Thank you for your feedback, Monkey.

[3DMonkey]

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

You have activist blood, you just haven't figured it out yet. Once you figure out what you need to be doing you can turn that green ray in that direction and pump it up.

I hope you aren't the example. All you do is instigate and fuel fires.

---

That was a great post. All of it was neutral and coming from a personal perspective. Except for the above sentence. I find it hurtful and judgmental. It's basically saying 'you don't really feel the way you say you feel' or 'that's just stupid'.

Thank you for your feedback, Monkey.

you are welcome.

Let me show you a different perspective. It isn't mine, but it might be useful.

'the idea of not eating meat has no substance. It is a knee jerk reaction to Being sad about their family lamb being slaughtered as a child. They don't really care about animals, they are just to weakened by personal trauma'

[Monica]

you are welcome.

Let me show you a different perspective. It isn't mine, but it might be useful.

'the idea of not eating meat has no substance. It is a knee jerk reaction to Being sad about their family lamb being slaughtered as a child. They don't really care about animals, they are just to weakened by personal trauma'

Point taken. Thank you, Monkey.

[Oldern]

It is 2012, so no secrets, no deceptions.

This thread has been like a magnet for me, for several different reasons. It is personal, but maybe someone will benefit from this. The past decade has taught me a lot, but my main "en route" was the same: I go in, analyze situations, assume a role that I think is right for the moment, and then express it. Job done, move forward, etc.

Of course, there is something horribly wrong with me. I was not myself in those arguments. I just assumed the "winning roles" for the sake of winning. Now, I have believed that I have mostly accepted that part and it is not in control, but even in this thread, I wanted to be "right". That is why I needed to be in here.

It is interesting how this year -2012- really is a totally different vibrational enviroment than before. The allergies that kept coming in the past week, the arguments in here - they were connected. It all came to an energy point when Pickle started attacking my position as someone who just meditates. I have found that deeply condescent, disturbing, non-respectful, and most of all, it was a judging position with the assumption of "his position" being the ultimate. And that is when it hit me (or several hours later): I wanted to experience that! I needed that brick wall. Why? Because I had issues whether what I am doing is the way of doing it or not?

I have no issues with activism. Someone needs to express it. If Monica, Diana, Pickle and thousand others do it, fine. I have an issue with people partially understanding teachings and leaving something from the old school of thought behind (mostly fear-based reactions and thoughts), but that is MY issue, not theirs. They can live, they can be positive, they can be loving, in their own way. But that does not mean one of us has to be right or wrong. We are all right. Even if someone thinks that others are not right in his/her world. Well, that is it then.

Also, I just LOVE the way how my higher selves points my mistakes out for me. I usually come back to my previous viewpoints years later and find myself being "dead wrong". So wrong it is not even funny. What does that tell me regarding the present? Well: that everything changes, including viewpoints. Therefore no one should assume that they are right, because there are infinite possible viewpoints that can make that right wrong. What is important is to be content, happy, balanced. Even if it is "wrong", not "right".

Good luck to each of you, with this topic, with this issue, and with coping with what is the reflection of our inner core being. Good luck, and love to you all : )

[Patrick]

...A friend once told me that she disliked hairy chests on men. The comment struck me as very strange. The very idea of her liking or disliking a physical attribute of another person, was entirely foreign to my way of thinking. She was singling out a particular trait, that that particular man had absolutely no control over (short of shaving or waxing his hair off). It was as bizarre to me as saying "I dislike big noses" or "I dislike short people."...

That made me laugh! Just a fun tid bit here. I do have to shave my chest and back in order to please my girlfriend.

The way I see it. In this incarnation, I surrounded myself with people that would challenge me, bring me the catalysts that I came here to experience on the path of acceptance. For this, I need mirrors to show me where I need to work on my self. Like I said before, I make a poor mirror for my other selves.

---

...Valtor indicated that he didn't agree with me, or with the scientific community who says that humans don't need meat to be healthy...

That's not really what I meant. Quite understandable since I refused to explain my self on this subject. What I meant is that we do need animals somewhere in the food equation. There is no need to eat the meat of dead animals.

But by your logic, eating eggs and/or milk products still contributes to maltreatment of animals. I see no difference to eating the meat. Animals are still maltreated and I still do not agree with equating meat eating to supporting this maltreatment.

[norral]

flexibility i would say. none of us have a monopoly on what is right or wrong. trust your heart to lead u correctly. it never fails.

[Patrick]

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

You have activist blood, you just haven't figured it out yet. Once you figure out what you need to be doing you can turn that green ray in that direction and pump it up.

It's possible. Is it possible to be an activist without showing others where you disagree with them ?

That's a serious question I have for everyone. I am currently contemplating this subject.

Maybe a better way of phrasing this question would be: How to be an activist without showing others where you disagree with them ?

[Patrick]

Valtor, you're cool. You just apologized for something I didn't even notice at all. After all the things said on this thread, your courteousness is a breath of fresh air!

Thank you my friend. I extend to you the same compliments.

[3DMonkey]

Just because of this thread and for no other reason, I'm going to buy 20 pounds of meat for a barbecue this weekend.

[Diana]

It's possible. Is it possible to be an activist without showing others where you disagree with them ?

That's a serious question I have for everyone. I am currently contemplating this subject.

Maybe a better way of phrasing this question would be: How to be an activist without showing others where you disagree with them ?

I don't really like the word, activist, as the connotation is "pushy."

But that's just semantics.

One can promote a less cruel world, be an activist, by simply providing information. Also, when asked, one can say what one's viewpoints are on the subject, because the invitation to do so has been extended. Neither of these things need to infringe upon free will, or involve judgments.

Most people that know me know I am vegetarian, not because I tell everyone, but because they find me out (restaurants, eating at their homes). If they ask me why, I tell them, starting with simple answers. I never judge what they do. I take their cue as to how much to say. And even then, I make sure to be clear that I am not telling them what THEY should do, rather, I am telling them why I do what I do.

This thread is different. WE are here to discuss. The thread was opened for the topic. The people here are interested in higher consciousness and not just the physical. It is a place for one to express one's viewpoints. And yet . . . even so, we are still running into all kinds of misunderstandings and catalyst. This is good, but difficult. As has been said here many times in this thread, the subject is very volatile.

---

Just because of this thread and for no other reason, I'm going to buy 20 pounds of meat for a barbecue this weekend.

Monkey, this comment is unkind, on more than one level.

[BrownEye]

It's possible. Is it possible to be an activist without showing others where you disagree with them ?

That's a serious question I have for everyone. I am currently contemplating this subject.

Maybe a better way of phrasing this question would be: How to be an activist without showing others where you disagree with them ?

Why does it matter if they see a disagreement? That is part of the growth. Growth takes place because of the disagreement. The analogy of getting booted out of Eden.

On an individual basis the activation comes from following the will through the green vortex.

On a group basis it is the combining of this same will in unity.

---

I hope you aren't the example. All you do is instigate and fuel fires.

It is a forging process. Sorry if you can't handle the heat.

---

There is no need to eat the meat of dead animals.

But by your logic, eating eggs and/or milk products still contributes to maltreatment of animals.

I do not see anything wrong with milk and eggs in a natural setting. Free range is more "free"? Cows love to be milked. But looking at a factory setting, I would think you could ask a few different women how a breast pump feels. This happens to be connected with the pus factor.

---

Just because of this thread and for no other reason, I'm going to buy 20 pounds of meat for a barbecue this weekend.

Monkey, this comment is unkind, on more than one level.

I was this way as a teenager LoL. What was really bad is that when I did stuff like this I was aware of the mad cow issue. I just didn't care because I only thought of my self and my immediate wants. Later that type of thinking changed because I wanted to be precautionary to ensure that I was always here to take care of my family. Now everything takes into account my safety for them. I am even a stickler on wearing a seat belt, which I used to hate doing.

---

I was not myself in those arguments.

Hey Oldern buddy, no worries LoL! Just getting out of bed and bumping a toe can make someone a different person for a whole day LoL!

[Steppingfeet]

Just because of this thread and for no other reason, I'm going to buy 20 pounds of meat for a barbecue this weekend.

3DMonkey, this is one of the most ridiculous, rude, spiteful things I've ever seen on the Bring4th Forums.

Granted this thread is *full* of two-way, mutual misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and inability to see eye-to-eye. Granted both "sides" have said things that have appeared antagonistic to the other. I have winced watching many people, vegetarians and meat-eaters alike, say things in ways which I know would not be received well by the other side.

Personally I think the central question in this thread is, "How can we learn to relate to one another when our views, which have practical real-world consequences, run so differently?"

"Which is better, to eat or not eat meat?" is a secondary question, in my opinion.

Regardless, the discord goes on. This thread has been a hornet's nest of mild tension. However that tension has always been kept within reasonable bounds, and each party, no matter how frustrated and "butthurt", still attempts at the end of the day to be somewhat fair and balanced -- a difficult act given how strong and deep the convictions go on this thread.

Your post however represents a deliberately inflammatory and antagonistic remark. I cannot put myself into your shoes and find *any* other motivation than desire to hurt.

Do this again, Monkey, and you're out.

Gary

PS: 1) I would have preferred to send this via PM but that route has failed miserably with you before. 2) Neither Monica nor any other seeker with vegetarian convictions alerted me to your post. I came across it on my own and reacted on my own.

[BrownEye]

Your post however represents a deliberately inflammatory and antagonistic remark. I cannot put myself into your shoes and find *any* other motivation than desire to hurt.

Well we are adapting somewhat. For me it is not just changing my angle of perception, it is changing my "time" of perception. I always have to go backwards to a younger period to understand some of his perspective.

While this is spiteful to some, it is really mainly spiteful to himself. There is a plea veiled in his words that appear now and then. Until he recognizes what he has attracted to himself he will not have access to the door that allows a helping hand to reach out to him.

[Patrick]

We are all pretty young if you take into account that we should live 900 years.

---

It's possible. Is it possible to be an activist without showing others where you disagree with them ?

That's a serious question I have for everyone. I am currently contemplating this subject.

Maybe a better way of phrasing this question would be: How to be an activist without showing others where you disagree with them ?

I don't really like the word, activist, as the connotation is "pushy."

But that's just semantics.

One can promote a less cruel world, be an activist, by simply providing information. Also, when asked, one can say what one's viewpoints are on the subject, because the invitation to do so has been extended. Neither of these things need to infringe upon free will, or involve judgments.

Most people that know me know I am vegetarian, not because I tell everyone, but because they find me out (restaurants, eating at their homes). If they ask me why, I tell them, starting with simple answers. I never judge what they do. I take their cue as to how much to say. And even then, I make sure to be clear that I am not telling them what THEY should do, rather, I am telling them why I do what I do.

This thread is different. WE are here to discuss. The thread was opened for the topic. The people here are interested in higher consciousness and not just the physical. It is a place for one to express one's viewpoints. And yet . . . even so, we are still running into all kinds of misunderstandings and catalyst. This is good, but difficult. As has been said here many times in this thread, the subject is very volatile.

I too felt it was somewhat "pushy", by nature. Enough that I would not even support activism for things that I do support.

Now I am contemplating ways that activism could be done without setbacks on the path of acceptance. Maybe activism is a strong word here, but still. The thing is, the boundaries on the path of acceptance that I have put on myself are very narrow (or very wide depending on how you look at it).

Simply sharing my opinions in most cases oversteps these bounds. Even when asked for it. This never prevented me from commenting, but I do feel some sadness for doing it.

The process I am going through right now, with the help of my guides, higher-self and all of you fellow other selves, is to re-evaluate those boundaries.

I believe they were clearly letting me know that I needed work in that area. I also believe I was led to this thread for this very purpose.

[BrownEye]

We are all pretty young if you take into account that we should live 900 years.

Coincidentally the work in the thread is attempting to dissolve some of the holding pattern of slavery.

The acceptance of that propagation seems to be the acceptance of a shortened lifespan. I suppose you could look at acceptance as the choice of what you create.

I tend to like this life and this planet, and desire to make the choice to extend my experience here. This implies that I do not accept the choices that have the effect of shortening the lifespan.

[BrownEye]

This is what I said I would post, for laughs. Instant karma LoL!

I have found raccoons to be very cool, and almost always attacked by dogs. So I see a dog attacking a raccoon and a kid perceiving it in a somewhat opposite way when the raccoon defends itself.

An Elm Creek teenager was off by a foot when he shot a raccoon Monday night and needed to take a trip to the emergency room.

According to the Buffalo County Sheriff’s Office, Devin Stall, 18, of Elm Creek heard a raccoon attacking his dog at 11:52 p.m. and shot the animal with a Browning .22 rifle.

The raccoon was only wounded with the first shot, so Stall put his foot on the animal to hold it down, shot again and accidentally shot himself in his right foot.

Stall was taken to Good Samaritan Hospital in Kearney where he was treated and released.

[Diana]

This is what I said I would post, for laughs. Instant karma LoL!

I have found raccoons to be very cool, and almost always attacked by dogs. So I see a dog attacking a raccoon and a kid perceiving it in a somewhat opposite way when the raccoon defends itself.

An Elm Creek teenager was off by a foot when he shot a raccoon Monday night and needed to take a trip to the emergency room.

According to the Buffalo County Sheriff’s Office, Devin Stall, 18, of Elm Creek heard a raccoon attacking his dog at 11:52 p.m. and shot the animal with a Browning .22 rifle.

The raccoon was only wounded with the first shot, so Stall put his foot on the animal to hold it down, shot again and accidentally shot himself in his right foot.

Stall was taken to Good Samaritan Hospital in Kearney where he was treated and released.

As sad as this is, I had to laugh. I hope this person isn't so ignorant that the irony flies right over his head.

Doing something like that is simply beyond my imagination.

I raised 2 baby raccoons when the mother was hit by a car (we fed them with baby bottles). They were the sweetest little creatures, and would nuzzle up under my hair at my neck. Their paw pads were as soft as silk. As they grew, they spent more time in the trees, and eventually just did not come back for food. Sometimes I could see them hanging out in the trees.

[βαθμιαίος]

Oh gosh, how to explain?

Thank you for the explanation.

I don't know if you are interested in my convictions on the matter, but just in case...

I believe meat is healthy in moderation. I believe in raising animals humanely, and I believe that humanely-raised animals have good lives (no torture). I believe that keeping a garden, chickens (for eggs and meat), and cattle (for milk and meat) is a good and compassionate thing to do for my family, my animals, and myself.

[Monica]

That made me laugh! Just a fun tid bit here. I do have to shave my chest and back in order to please my girlfriend.

Oh wow! How funny that I would use that example then! Oh, and guess what: I am very short!

The way I see it. In this incarnation, I surrounded myself with people that would challenge me, bring me the catalysts that I came here to experience on the path of acceptance. For this, I need mirrors to show me where I need to work on my self.

We all mirror to one another! Seeing these interactions as an opportunity to look at self, is a great outlook to have, in my opinion!

Like I said before, I make a poor mirror for my other selves.

Oh I don't agree with that! You're a fine mirror! And an inspiration on how to disagree respectfully and courteously!

That's not really what I meant.

I'm sorry to misrepresent you! I did misunderstand.

Quite understandable since I refused to explain my self on this subject. What I meant is that we do need animals somewhere in the food equation. There is no need to eat the meat of dead animals.

Oh wow!! In that case, then I agree!

But by your logic, eating eggs and/or milk products still contributes to maltreatment of animals.

Oh, something got missed somewhere. It depends on where the eggs and dairy come from. Commercially produced eggs and dairy are just awful; the animals are treated horribly. And the chickens and cows are injected with hormones and antibiotics, so the drug residue is in the eggs and milk.

BUT, many organic groceries (like Whole Foods Market) and farmer's markets now offer 'free range' eggs and cheese, meaning the chickens get to run around freely and forage, and the cows get to graze. Eggs and dairy produced thusly are cruelty-free and I have no issues whatsoever with them, from an ethical perspective. In fact, I consider free range eggs to be a beautiful gift from the hen, since she lays eggs anyway and there is no cruelty to her. Eggs are a fantastic source of protein - every bit as good as meat but without the cruelty!

Even mainstream grocery stores now carry eggs labeled as 'free range' but unfortunately there is very little regulation on the labeling, and Austin just informed us that they might not actually be what they claim to be. So I would ask a lot of questions and determine the source of what I'm buying.

I get our eggs from a local farmer's market and they are wonderful! In fact you can really tell the difference - the yolks are darker, more orange than yellow. Much richer in nutrients than the depleted eggs produced from sickly, drugged, tortured hens!

I envision a return to family farms, in which a cow or goat is kept for milk, and treated well, and chickens are kept for eggs, but not for meat. Such humanely produced eggs and dairy are available in most communities these days, so there's no reason to give up eggs and dairy, provided they're humanely produced, if one feels their body needs animals products.

Some vegans would disagree with me. And I realize that Austin expressed concerns about the long-term sustainability of that. But we're a long ways away from not using animals at all, so I'm confident that solutions can be found, as people change.

[Monica]

It's possible. Is it possible to be an activist without showing others where you disagree with them ?

The only way I can think of is to be an armchair activist - send money to some activist organization and let them do the dirty work for us!

That's a serious question I have for everyone. I am currently contemplating this subject.

Maybe a better way of phrasing this question would be: How to be an activist without showing others where you disagree with them ?

If you figure out a way, please do let us know!

[Oldern]

Armchair XY is kind of a degrading term, isnt it? :D
Sending money to charity organizations can never be a bad idea, imho.