(12-27-2015, 11:58 AM)Monica Wrote: That is the difference. #1 is based in love, unity and compassion. #2 is based in denial and defensiveness, and attacking the messenger.
I apologize to everyone for having expectations of responses like #1, and for being disappointed and frustrated to get mostly responses like #2.
As was already mentioned, I don't think it was ever your message that was a problem, but rather the delivery which, by my estimation of community consensus, came across as accusatory and judgmental to most people here, regardless of your intentions.
It also seems a little unfair and too black and white to pigeonhole the infinite responses of forum members into those two simple binary categories. There were many shades of gray in between the two responses you outlined here.
Being attached to an specific outcome is always disappointing because you elevate your expectations of other people to near superhuman saints, and then when they inevitably, and humanly don't live up to those exalted standards of spiritual success you have outlined for yourself, you get frustrated and conclude that this place is unspiritual and has no compassion for the animal kingdom.
Not all chemical bodies can run on the same fuel. Across the species barrier this is obvious, but there is a reason there are a thousand different human diets. It is not our place to judge the diet of another being, even if it doesn't seem to our perception to be as consonant with oneness as another's diet. Some people don't run well on gluten and soy. Some other people don't run well on an all plant diet. This is just my opinion, which is based on personal experience. Everybody will have a different perspective of course, but this is my personal truth.
I would only suggest that there are a lot of realizations people need to arrive at on their own, and trying to force the issue often simply results in resistance to the very realizations one is trying to share.