In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

Take an average human and put them in almost any environment and watch with amazement as they adapt with rapidity.

Take an average human and put them in a crowd and watch with amazement as they do things they would never do alone, but go along with the herd mentality. Watch with amazement how they regress to unethical and even violent, animalistic behavior.

It can work both ways.

Right. And compassion does not result from abstaining from meat.

Actually, it might. If Pickle's observations are consistently proven to be true, compassion might indeed result from abstaining from meat.

In any case, abstaining from meat most assuredly can result from compassion.

I submit that an entity inhabiting a fully 4D body would not view it as "abstention" at all as they will quite naturally not desire it.

If there is 'nothing wrong' with eating animals, then why not keep doing it in 4D? And, why would an entity suddenly lose their desire for it? Desires can carry over across lifetimes.

But it is a lie. Spirit does not impose duties of any sort upon entities. To me, it is "shock and amazement" that another would get offended at calling a spade a spade. (Not saying you were offended. Just saying.)

I'm not even sure anymore what you're referring to that is a 'lie.' But whatever it is, it's still just your opinion based on your interpretation.

But what is a sphere? It's illusion. And what about M Theory? The work of Nassim Haramein? If there is only 1 timeline, why is Ra unable to tell us exactly what the future holds, not because of violating our free will, but because they see many possible futures in the possibility/probability vortex?

A "sphere" means an area of activity bound by a given set of parameters. I never said there is only one timeline (are you slipping into unity100-land anyway?). A "sphere" is capable of supporting infinite timelines.

I think your response is starting to get off the mark here. My comment is about the consensus view among those who are not limited by the veil.

My point is that, regardless of the structure of 4D (nested etc.) that says nothing about how an entity can traverse from 1 timeline to another.

OK. But then in all seriousness... how much do you suppose that meat-eating contributed to the development of cancer? 5%? 95%? I hope you're not saying that meat-eating "causes" cancer.

We know from Ra that unresolved anger can be the root cause of cancer. That doesn't mean there aren't other causes as well. In any case, any time there is a karmic/emotional/spiritual cause for something, there can also be physical causes, which carry out the blueprint into manifestation. In other words, they aren't the root cause, but are contributing factors on a physical level.

The amount of meat consumed has a direct correlation to cancer risk. The more meat that is eaten, the greater the risk. This, after all other factors have been accounted for.

This was proven quite irrefutably in a landmark study called The China Study, in addition to other, earlier studies.

Such as?

In addition to the obvious, well-known harmful component of saturated fat, there is an unknown component that has been shown to be cancer-causing. It hasn't been identified yet, but since it's been proven that there's a direct correlation between meat consumption and cancer, then it's concluded that there is some other component accounting for this.

I contend that they will probably never identify said component, because it's an intangible. It's a spiritual component.

Yes. And the Choice is about service to others. One can be well into the range of "service to others" and still eat meat. Even nasty mass-produced hamburger patties.

Of course. But I would surmise that one who eats nasty mass-produced hamburgers would probably have a pretty high level of compassion in other areas, to compensate.

We can choose not to use bleach wipes and antibacterial soaps... this is the point in the debate where one calls me absurd but the point is that true spiritual principles don't lead one to absurd conclusions.

But you are trying to turn a principle - compassion - into a doctrine.

The choice is a question or an opening. It says to the universe: What is compassion? Show me.

Yes. Exactly! And the Universe responds: See that starving child? Help her. See that homeless man? Help him. See those cows bellowing in fear and pain? Do something! Quit contributing to it!

Ra never specified that. It is an assumption that when Ra used the term 'other-selves' they were referring to only humans.

I'm not making that assumption. I am saying that Ra specified 51% STO which can certainly be achieved by a meat eater.

Of course it can. That wasn't the point. The point was in the definition of STO. Ra didn't specify that the STO was reserved for only humans, or that other-selves meant only humans. That is an assumption.

Well, it doesn't have to be either/or. But in a practical sense, there are only 24 hours in a day.

Right. And I'm beginning to wonder how many of those hours we're spending endlessly debating this issue, could be better spent out there helping others. :-/

I would imagine that reducing human cruelty also helps the animals!

I can't think of an example in which that would be true...except maybe abused kids no longer abuse their dogs. But I can't think of an application pertaining to meat animals.

Maybe having at least 1 lifetime as a victim/victimizer is essential too, but that doesn't mean I have to participate in it.

No, but maybe that cow did. You have to admit in the end, we just don't really know what the cow had in mind.

That's irrelevant to the point about whether I choose to participate in it.