In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

OK... so the only person who is really wrong in this thread is me for getting sucked back into it.

Haha, well if you're wrong for doing that, then I am too!

Bring4th_Monica- Thanks for the discussion. I found some of your points very thought-provoking and others "shocking and amazing" I think we agree a lot more in practice than we do in principle. This is actually a good thing.

Agreed!

A couple quick responses:

Apparently, that is something that is important to you. Are you saying you must have a consistent principle proven to you, in order to see any benefit to not eating animals?

Animals, yes. Cows, no. We are back in sardine territory again. My problem is that the word "animals" connotates too wide a swath for my tastes. (Get it? Tastes? )

Ah, so we are in agreement about cows? Good to know.

In the context of a discussion about eating meat, whenever I use the word animals I am referring to animals commonly used for meat: cows, chickens, turkeys, pigs, deer, and fish. I'm not referring to microbes. And I'm not really giving any thought to insects, since most people in our culture don't normally eat insects. (I realize people in other cultures might, but that's just not part of the conversation I am having personally.)

If you can prove to me why I shouldn't eat a sardine, I will convert to vegetarianism and make my own YouTube video series on it. How is that for a challenge?

Well gosh, if only I could! But ethical decisions can't usually be proven. We have the laws we do because a majority (presumably) of the people in a given society agree that certain behaviors (like stealing, murdering, etc.) aren't acceptable. Can any of those prohibited human behaviors be proven to be wrong?

Requiring any sort of proof sort of goes against the approach Ra and Q'uo used when offering information to us. Ra never offered any proof that they built the pyramids or that they were from Venus. Why? Out of respect to free will.

Their approach has always been to offer information in answer to a call, and then allow us to decide whether it resonates with us or not.

The closest thing to proof that sardines shouldn't be eaten (with the obligatory disclaimer unless absolutely necessary for individual metabolism) is that they will fight for their lives when caught.

That's the best I can do. The rest is up to you!

Secondly, this is where you confuse me:

I consider imposing harm or killing another being to be violence.

No, in that case, it is an act of mercy.

So killing is violence... except when it is not. Forgiveness, compassion, and mercy are all expressions of Love.

These are ethical questions which don't have clear-cut answers.

I would say that any action that harms another being, for the purpose of personal gain, control or power, is an act of violence. This would include the obvious things like war, murder, rape, attacking or beating another person, a parent abusing his children, child molestation, etc. and would also include beings (whether animals or humans) killing other beings (usually animals) for food, since they are 'taking' by force something the other being (the animal) doesn't want to give up (its life) for personal gain (to enjoy the hamburger, or, in the case of the wolf killing the deer, simply to survive).

Animals in the wild cannot be blamed for this, because this is how they're designed and they're operating on instinct. And, they have no choice to take from other animals in order to survive. So they are blameless. But it is an act of violence nonetheless.

Harming another being (whether human, as in a murderer or rapist, or animal, as a bear attacking a human), who is attempting harm on oneself or another, is self-defense and therefore the only acceptable use of violence, in my opinion. It's acceptable because the person defending oneself or family didn't initiate the violence; the attacker did. We all have the right to defend ourselves on a personal level, in my opinion. To not defend ourselves would be, essentially, assisting the attacker in their initiation of violence.

I don't consider wars to be self-defense, in most cases, because in most cases the decision to go to war is a political one rather than self-defense, at least in modern times. But that gets into a whole 'nother topic. So when I say self-defense I am referring to the level of protecting oneself on a personal level, as well as any others one might be responsible for, or any innocent victims one is protecting (like defending a woman in a dark alley from an attacker). Self-defense wouldn't be considered violence, because the intention is to stop violence.

My husband teaches martial arts. There is a code of ethics, which includes such adages as

There is no reason to ever have to fight...but there is every reason to know how.

Better to not fight at all than to harm...better to harm than to maim...better to maim than to kill.

"Master the divine techniques of the Art of Peace and no enemy will dare to challenge you." - Ueshiba

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." - Sun Tzu

"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." - Sun Tzu


These are adages passed on from master to student, which instill a sense of honor to never do more than the minimum required to neutralize the situation. To kill an attacker who wasn't really much of a threat, would be an act of violence because it wasn't necessary to stop the aggressor. Better to just avoid the situation. But to kill an attacker who really is about to kill someone, is self-defense.

The Native Americans had to kill animals for survival. At their best, they sought the weakest in the herd, and gave thanks to the animal as they shed its blood. They did it with reverence, respect and gratitude. I wouldn't consider this violence, because it was for survival, they had no choice, and they did it in the best way they could.

That's not to say they were all perfect! Surely some of them were violent at times. I am speaking about their highest ideals that the most evolved among them aspired to.

Contrast that with killing an animal, or contributing to the death of animal, when it's not necessary. It's the not necessary part that turns an act of survival, into an act of violence.

Regarding mercy killing: Having a beloved pet euthanized because it is in severe pain, isn't violence. It's mercy. Because the person isn't killing the dog out of personal gain; he's killing the dog out of love and mercy.

That's how I see it, anyway.

I offer that you go back and look at that diagram you scrolled past. Take a look at which qualities you excel at and which you struggle with. I personally found this to be a very illuminating exercise.

OK will do!

As a departing offer... I would encourage anybody who is so easily willing to simply toss out the knowledge and wisdom offered through the L/L Research Transcripts so that they can be "right" about how others are "wrong" to reconsider their motives. If you think the material is that unreliable... why are you here in this forum discussing it?

Seriously. Consider it.

I'm confused by your words here. Who is "tossing out" the transcripts? Not me!

I was simply doing the same thing you yourself did with the Ra sessions...questioning whether there might have been some distortion or even a hidden, deeper meaning.

And actually, I never even said I disagreed with what Q'uo said about nesting. I just interpret that differently.

I have found only a handful of Q'uo sessions that I didn't resonate with. I consider most of them to be very trustworthy. But not infallible.

What I took issue with, was being told that if I interpreted Q'uo's words differently than you did, or if I thought maybe some of those words might have some distortion, than I am accusing Q'uo of lying.

If there is indeed some distortion, then it's not a matter of lying...it's a matter of distortion. Just like it wouldn't be accurate to say Ra was 'lying' in that session you were questioning.

---

Would you contend that in order to be here on this site that I be a "follower" of Ra? If that is the case, then please, Monica, or some other moderator, ask me to leave and I will do so willingly and with gratitude for my time here.

No, not at all. The Law of One isn't a religion and Ra isn't a guru. While it's reasonable to expect that our members will at least be familiar with the material we are studying, we have no criteria established for accepting it as absolute truth. Our members have varying degrees of trust in the material. Some take it as absolute while, to others, it is just one of many interesting sources of information.

In fairness to Tenet, I think he was referring to me who was 'tossing it out'. Tenet, in fairness to Diana, she is a new member who is just now reading the books. Neither she nor any or our members can be expected to accept all the material in its entirety.

Peace everyone!