In regards to eating meat

[βαθμιαίος]

Perpetuation of the physical species is important in Darwinian evolutionary theory, but not so much from a Law of One perspective.

Perpetuation of the species is important from a species perspective! We know from Ra that species have their own consciousnesses. For the species, the health of the species is more important than the health of any individual member.

Thank you for pointing out that what is obvious to someone who has been researching diet/nutrition for 30 years, isn't obvious to someone who hasn't done that.

You're making an inaccurate and (hopefully unintentionally) condescending assumption, one that indicates a "feeling of being correct personally."

Ra didn't imply anything. Ra's words were very clear, with no ambiguity: to the extent necessary.

I was referring to the arguments that plants aren't individuated and that 4D diet will be plant-based.

I think Ra was referring to those who try to change society to fit their preferences.

That's not what vegetarians are trying to do.

We're trying to end cruelty and champion the oppressed.

Very distinct difference.

Are you sure? You seem to have "feelings of being correct personally or of having answers which will put power in a more correct configuration." I certainly get the impression that it would be your preference that people not eat meat and that you're trying to change society to fit that preference.

That's not to say that it's a bad thing to try to change society. Ra said that people that do so can act out of the full range of polarizations, from negative to positive. It's just that it's orange- and yellow-ray work, not green ray or higher.

[Monica]

Perpetuation of the species is important from a species perspective! We know from Ra that species have their own consciousnesses. For the species, the health of the species is more important than the health of any individual member.

This doesn't fit into my understanding of the Law of One. It sounds more like a Darwinian perspective. Yes there is group consciousness, but consciousness resides in everything. Physical species are for the purpose of spiritual evolution and not an end in itself.

Survival of species takes on a different meaning when one realizes that an entity might be a bug in 1 life, a cow in the next, and a cat in the next.

Physical vehicles are built to accommodate the needs of the soul, not the other way around. The 3D vehicles on this planet were developed because there were entities who needed to incarnate here, to continue their 3D development.

Preservation of a species isn't an end in itself. Yes, we should be careful to not allow species to go extinct. But they are indeed going extinct, at the rate of 1 species every 20 minutes! That's 200 species per day going extinct, largely because of the meat industry!

So I'm not too concerned about the cow species being preserved. I'm much more concerned about the many millions of species going extinct because the lust for meat requires huge rainforests to be cut down, to make room for more cattle.

That's just obscene.

At any rate, surely you aren't suggesting that the cows on factory farms are healthy, or that living in slavery while being tortured on a daily basis, then brutally slaughtered in a state of pain and terror, is some sort of optimal goal for a species?

If so, I want no part of that.

Thank you for pointing out that what is obvious to someone who has been researching diet/nutrition for 30 years, isn't obvious to someone who hasn't done that.

You're making an inaccurate and (hopefully unintentionally) condescending assumption, one that indicates a "feeling of being correct personally."

Ouch again. Is this getting personal? You have misunderstood me. I honestly and sincerely was explaining why I had been insensitive by not realizing that you might not have the same background as I do, when you said the research on plant-based diets wasn't obvious to you.

It's a fact that those who have been studying this subject for many years are more likely to be more aware of the research. There's nothing condescending about that simple fact and I apologize if I sounded condescending. That wasn't my intention.

I was referring to the arguments that plants aren't individuated and that 4D diet will be plant-based.

Your words seemed to be referring to what Ra said about meat.

Ra said nothing about meat, except in a statement about an individual: Carla. It would be a stretch to assume that statement applied to all humans.

When asked about diet for humans in general, Ra never mentioned meat. Ra did mention animal products, which could mean eggs and dairy, which can be consumed cruelty-free. Even then, Ra made it very clear: to the extent necessary.

This, in my view, totally eradicates this entire debate. Can everyone here honestly say they consume only the animal products that are absolutely necessary?

Regarding what Ra said about 2D life being individuated or not individuated, that is information we can use to form our own understanding. My understanding is that this supports what Ra said about using animal products only to the extent necessary. If plants were just as individuated as animals, then why didn't Ra put any restrictions on our consumption of plants?

But no, Ra stated that plants were to be eaten. There's no getting around that. If we are to base our dietary decisions on what Ra said, then it's clear that Ra gave us express permission to eat plants!

Not so with animal carcasses. That is what meat is: the carcass of an entity that is quite likely individuated to some degree. By eating that body, we are responsible for its death. Did Ra condone this? No. Ra stated very clearly and unambiguously that animal products may be eaten to the extent necessary.

Why did Ra say animal products and not meat? Probably so we could figure it out for ourselves, as per their style of respecting free will.

But there's no figuring out Ra's words about plants.

Are you disputing that plants aren't individuated? If so, by what mechanism did they become individuated? By what logic do they incarnate into bodies that have no pain receptors, no mobility, and very very little interaction with higher entities on an individual basis? (referring to developing relationships with individual carrots, not general love for an entire garden.)

I've asked this question several times, and I'd be interested in your answer:

If grass is individuated, then how many entities are in a lawn? Does it writhe in pain when you mow your lawn? If so, isn't that a very cruel design? A wild deer has a good life until the wolf kills it. But what sort of Creator would design a planet in which the entire plant kingdom, which is being torn apart by higher beings on a daily basis, lives in constant pain?

Think about it. Is this even remotely reasonable? Every time we walk outside, we are crushing blades of grass. Every time an elephant walks on an African prairie, it is inflicting severe torment on the grass beneath its feet? Every time a chimp climbs a tree and accidentally breaks a limb, the tree is experiencing severe pain with no relief? Every time any animal, anywhere on the planet, eats a plant, the plant is experiencing terror and pain? Every time a chimp tears off a lettuce leaf, it is torturous as when a dear is mauled by a lion?

What kind of hell is that?

Further: Can anyone explain to me how many entities are in a strawberry plant? If I tear off a cutting and plant it, that 'entity' has just been torn in 2. Is it now 2 entities? What if I tear that single plant into 5 separate cuttings, to help it spread in my garden? Did I just torture it? How many entities are there now? It was a strawberry plant. I separated it into 5 cuttings which can each now turn into a separate plant. By what mechanism is what used to be just a body part of Entity A (the original plant) now a new, individuated entity (the cutting)? That would be like saying that when a human loses a leg, the leg is now a new human!

If this is how strawberry plants reproduce, then at what point does each little cutting become a self-aware entity? And, what kind of cruel design is that, in which normal reproduction inflicts extreme pain?

This doesn't fit the pattern of other lifeforms. Other entities (animals and humans) generally enjoy the mating process. Why is reproduction so painful for plants?

I don't think it's painful. Why? Because they have no pain receptors.

Why is it experiencing pain when I am obviously trying to help it spread? Why is spreading and growing, which are normal activities for a plant, subjecting the plant to extreme pain? is it reasonable or logical to assume that such a normal activity is subjecting extreme pain?

Are you suggesting that the normal, everyday events in a plant's life are akin to the torture endured by a cow on a factory farm?

I think Ra was referring to those who try to change society to fit their preferences.

That's not what vegetarians are trying to do.

We're trying to end cruelty and champion the oppressed.

Very distinct difference.

Are you sure? You seem to have "feelings of being correct personally or of having answers which will put power in a more correct configuration." I certainly get the impression that it would be your preference that people not eat meat and that you're trying to change society to fit that preference.

That's not to say that it's a bad thing to try to change society. Ra said that people that do so can act out of the full range of polarizations, from negative to positive. It's just that it's orange- and yellow-ray work, not green ray or higher.

No, you have misunderstood. The end result might be the same, but the motivation is what makes it different.

To try to change society to fit my own ideals, would be orange and yellow-ray work.

To try to awaken other-selves to the cruelty they are imposing on our younger brethren when they eat animals, for the purpose of eliminating torture and oppression, is motivated by compassion for the animals, as well as compassion for the planet that's being raped, as well as compassion for humans who are diseased largely due to their heavy meat-based diet...the motivation is compassion...thus is green ray work.

[Aaron]

I know this isn't directed at me, but...

Having compassion for an entity requires not killing it, because then there would be no entity to have compassion towards. "Compassionately killing" is like "fear based love". The love and compassion is there, but not in its full potential, being largely blocked/distorted.

Would this apply to all entities, even down to the level of microbes?

I would think so... But I don't consciously make the choice to kill microbes. I think in order for me to consciously kill a being, I have to be blocked in some way from experiencing/expressing FULL compassion towards it.

[BrownEye]

If grass is individuated, then how many entities are in a lawn? Does it writhe in pain when you mow your lawn? If so, isn't that a very cruel design? A wild deer has a good life until the wolf kills it. But what sort of Creator would design a planet in which the entire plant kingdom, which is being torn apart by higher beings on a daily basis, lives in constant pain?

As matter, there is somewhat of a being "behind" each blade of grass.

Is each blade of grass itself an individual being? no.

A tree is a good representation of an individual entity. It has quite a long time to develop a form of awareness. My own proof is when I ask the tree in my yard if it is happy or lacking in anything. It answers. It is aware of me. It projects enough that people who visit my property can sense or feel it, which then confuses them if they pinpoint it to the tree itself. The only other time I have noticed this same effect is from a specific Lemurian crystal.

In the animal world we can see a difference in awareness depending on the normal lifespan of the animal. This seems somewhat applicable to the plant world also.

---

I would think so... But I don't consciously make the choice to kill microbes. I think in order for me to consciously kill a being, I have to be blocked in some way from experiencing/expressing FULL compassion towards it.

This is the same effect as hitting animals driving in our car. As we progress in a specific direction, we tend to have a more negative effect on the environment that we take for granted will always host our experience. We take for granted more and more of this negative effect as we rely more on technology rather than the earth itself.

[Aaron]

I would be much more concerned about what kind of 3D entities those cows who were tortured, will be someday, than I would about preserving a high number of cows. Since we know that souls reincarnate, the numbers aren't important. Quality is what's important.

What if they're you? Or me? Or other human beings? That was the point I was trying to make a few pages back.

I think Ra was referring to those who try to change society to fit their preferences.

That's not what vegetarians are trying to do.

We're trying to end cruelty and champion the oppressed.

Very distinct difference.

But wouldn't the end of cruelty and the bringing up to equality of those oppressed require a change in our current society? I think it's possible for those two things to happen through numerous ways...

[3DMonkey]

I know this isn't directed at me, but...

Having compassion for an entity requires not killing it, because then there would be no entity to have compassion towards. "Compassionately killing" is like "fear based love". The love and compassion is there, but not in its full potential, being largely blocked/distorted.

Would this apply to all entities, even down to the level of microbes?

I would think so... But I don't consciously make the choice to kill microbes. I think in order for me to consciously kill a being, I have to be blocked in some way from experiencing/expressing FULL compassion towards it.

That's my thoughts too. We don't think about it, but we kill microbes when we wash our hands. We kill brain cells with alcohol, allegedly. We block out what we choose to block out.

[Monica]

But wouldn't the end of cruelty and the bringing up to equality of those oppressed require a change in our current society? I think it's possible for those two things to happen through numerous ways...

Yes. But the point I was responding to was whether we are being 'controlling' and 'trying to impose our views on others' (yellow ray) as the motivation.

Our motivation is to champion the oppressed and end the suffering. That makes it green-ray.

As a side effect of that, if society is changed, then so be it. The end result might be the same, but the motivation is different. Changing society isn't our direct motivation. Compassion is the motivation...green ray.

---

This is wild. My friend (distant relation) told me tonight that she cannot have her dads ashes because the prions survive. Crazy. CDC is wanting more samples also now.

That's creepy! What kind of abnormal, Frankenstein-like matter is the factory farming industry creating? Hark back to days of Atlantis...

---

The argument about plants being as aware of animals is moot. Each time a person eats meat from a factory farm, they are contributing to the rape of the rainforests. All those majestic trees, cut down to make room for more cows. All those rich and diverse species going extinct. All those plants and animals killed or displaced...to make room for more cows to feed the never-satisfied craving for meat.

"What we are seeing today is a total disaster," said Ahmed Djoghlaf, the secretary-general of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. "No country has met its targets to protect nature. We are losing biodiversity at an unprecedented rate. If current levels [of destruction] go on we will reach a tipping point very soon. The future of the planet now depends on governments taking action in the next few years."

Industrialisation, population growth, the spread of cities and farms and climate change are all now threatening the fundamentals of life itself...

...According to the UN Environment Programme, the Earth is in the midst of a mass extinction of life. Scientists estimate that 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours. This is nearly 1,000 times the "natural" or "background" rate and, say many biologists, is greater than anything the world has experienced since the vanishing of the dinosaurs nearly 65m years ago. Around 15% of mammal species and 11% of bird species are classified as threatened with extinction.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...c-security

[βαθμιαίος]

Yes. But the point I was responding to was whether we are being 'controlling' and 'trying to impose our views on others' (yellow ray) as the motivation.

Our motivation is to champion the oppressed and end the suffering. That makes it green-ray.

As a side effect of that, if society is changed, then so be it. The end result might be the same, but the motivation is different. Changing society isn't our direct motivation. Compassion is the motivation...green ray.

Yellow-ray work doesn't have to be controlling or mean imposing one's will on others. As Ra said, "[t]his may be seen to be of a full travel from negative to positive in orientation. Either will activate these energy ray centers."

So your motivation may well be green ray compassion, but the work you're doing is yellow and orange in that you're trying to influence society and individuals.

[Monica]

Yellow-ray work doesn't have to be controlling or mean imposing one's will on others. As Ra said, "[t]his may be seen to be of a full travel from negative to positive in orientation. Either will activate these energy ray centers."

I was actually just about to post the same thing. I had gotten the impression from you that trying to save the animals was somehow STS/controlling. My point is that the primary motivation is green (compassion).

Even if changing society is a secondary motivation, there is nothing wrong with that. Yellow ray must be expressed also. It's not 'bad.'

So your motivation may well be green ray compassion, but the work you're doing is yellow and orange in that you're trying to influence society and individuals.

In light of how poisoned the planet is, and it's affecting all of us - human, plant and animal - I'd say society needs changing. I don't apologize for that. If there's a little yellow working together with green, then so be it.

Would you ever open your refrigerator, pull out 16 plates of pasta, toss 15 in the trash, and then eat just one plate of food? How about leveling 55 square feet of rain forest for a single meal or dumping 2,400 gallons of water down the drain? Of course you wouldn't. But if you're eating chickens, fish, turkeys, pigs, cows, milk, or eggs, that's what you're doing—wasting resources and destroying our environment.

A recent United Nations report concluded that a global shift toward a vegan diet is necessary to combat the worst effects of climate change. And the U.N. is not alone in its analysis. Researchers at the University of Chicago concluded that switching from a standard American diet to a vegan diet is more effective in the fight against climate change than switching from a standard American car to a hybrid. And a German study conducted in 2008 concluded that a meat-eater's diet is responsible for more than seven times as much greenhouse-gas emissions as a vegan's diet is. The verdict is in: If you care about the environment, one of the single most effective things that you can do to save it is to adopt a vegan diet.

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-...nment.aspx

[Diana]

I know this isn't directed at me, but...

Having compassion for an entity requires not killing it, because then there would be no entity to have compassion towards. "Compassionately killing" is like "fear based love". The love and compassion is there, but not in its full potential, being largely blocked/distorted.

Would this apply to all entities, even down to the level of microbes?

I would think so... But I don't consciously make the choice to kill microbes. I think in order for me to consciously kill a being, I have to be blocked in some way from experiencing/expressing FULL compassion towards it.

That's my thoughts too. We don't think about it, but we kill microbes when we wash our hands. We kill brain cells with alcohol, allegedly. We block out what we choose to block out.

I am repeating what I said before. I think it is salient to the statement above:

Intention is key. I have found that I hold or embody certain intentions, and then certain things seem to happen or not happen accordingly.

For instance, I live in a rural area. There is a lot of wildlife around. Rabbits especially are continually darting across the road. People hit them all the time, but every time I come close (and of course I drive slowly where I know they are--but they still dart out unexpectedly) I never hit them; they seem to magically make it across.

In this way, one does the best one can. I can't see microbes, so because my intention is to do no harm, I have faith that no harm will follow.

[Monica]

...These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests...

Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation.

To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-understand terms...if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles....

Grain, meat and even energy are roped together in a way that could have dire results...

This will be inconvenient for citizens of wealthier nations, but it could have tragic consequences for those of poorer ones, especially if higher prices for feed divert production away from food crops...

Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States.

The environmental impact of growing so much grain for animal feed is profound...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekin...ttman.html

---

A picture's worth 1000 words.

Look at this and then tell me that these concentration camps aren't affecting the world's 'happiness meter'?

How can we expect to transition to 4D while allowing such oppression to continue? ...while actually contributing to it?

And this isn't even showing the slaughter...If I show that I'll surely get blasted. But why? If it's ok to contribute to the slaughter, then why not see it?

[3DMonkey]

I know this isn't directed at me, but...

Having compassion for an entity requires not killing it, because then there would be no entity to have compassion towards. "Compassionately killing" is like "fear based love". The love and compassion is there, but not in its full potential, being largely blocked/distorted.

Would this apply to all entities, even down to the level of microbes?

I would think so... But I don't consciously make the choice to kill microbes. I think in order for me to consciously kill a being, I have to be blocked in some way from experiencing/expressing FULL compassion towards it.

That's my thoughts too. We don't think about it, but we kill microbes when we wash our hands. We kill brain cells with alcohol, allegedly. We block out what we choose to block out.

I am repeating what I said before. I think it is salient to the statement above:

Intention is key. I have found that I hold or embody certain intentions, and then certain things seem to happen or not happen accordingly.

For instance, I live in a rural area. There is a lot of wildlife around. Rabbits especially are continually darting across the road. People hit them all the time, but every time I come close (and of course I drive slowly where I know they are--but they still dart out unexpectedly) I never hit them; they seem to magically make it across.

In this way, one does the best one can. I can't see microbes, so because my intention is to do no harm, I have faith that no harm will follow.

A person's intentions are important to his/her path, and what he/she witnesses as a result of intention is important to him/her.

EDIT: add: they are infinite.

[βαθμιαίος]

The environmental impact of growing so much grain for animal feed is profound...

---

Look at this and then tell me that these concentration camps aren't affecting the world's 'happiness meter'?

As I mentioned to Pickle, I'm totally with you on the downsides of grain-fed meat. I'm also not defending factory farming (including crop/vegetable).

Tactically speaking, if animal-rights activists stuck to these areas they'd have brought support, I think. But it's unnecessarily divisive, in my opinion, to lump the people who seek out humanely-raised meat as part of a healthy life with those who don't care.

[Monica]

it's unnecessarily divisive, in my opinion, to lump the people who seek out humanely-raised meat as part of a healthy life with those who don't care.

In terms of environmental issues as well as recognizing their efforts to reduce cruelty, I don't lump them in together, as proven by my multiple acknowledgements directed at Austin's commendable efforts.

My responses to your comments were in the context of whether animals should be eaten at all. And that is, by the way, the main topic of this discussion.

I can't possibly know what you or anyone else chooses on a daily basis, and it isn't my place to judge that. I don't have you in any category in my mind. The only person among the meat-eaters who's in a category in my mind is Austin, because he has shared a great deal about his everyday choices. So the very idea that I'm lumping anyone in with anyone else, is taking impersonal information, and making it personal. I'm just offering information, and each person can decide for themselves what to do with it.

---

Tactically speaking, if animal-rights activists stuck to these areas they'd have brought support, I think.

The bulk of their message is about factory farms, and most people still don't care. If they changed their message from "don't eat animals at all" to "eat only 'humanely' raised animals" they would be dishonest, manipulative, and setting aside their own integrity.

From the point of view of an animal-rights activist, telling people to treat animals well before killing them, would be like telling a murderer to treat his victim well before killing her. They can't do that. In order to have integrity, they have to be honest, and hope their message reaches those who are ready to hear it.

Of course, most of the people who shop at 'humanely raised' farms like Austin's, probably got awakened by PETA.

[Tenet Nosce]

I would think so... But I don't consciously make the choice to kill microbes. I think in order for me to consciously kill a being, I have to be blocked in some way from experiencing/expressing FULL compassion towards it.

Your body makes those kinds of decisions all the time. What would you say of a body killing microbes- is that a lack of compassion?

---

That's my thoughts too. We don't think about it, but we kill microbes when we wash our hands. We kill brain cells with alcohol, allegedly. We block out what we choose to block out.

When we wash our hands, or our bodies, or our kitchens, or anything else, we know full well that we are killing microbes. Also, I don't see any advocates for "cancer cells' rights". Don't cancer cells have a right to live too?

---

This is wild. My friend (distant relation) told me tonight that she cannot have her dads ashes because the prions survive. Crazy. CDC is wanting more samples also now.

Sidebar item... but you've mentioned prions a few times. I suspect those individuals have suffered some sort of breakdown in the blood-brain barrier. Otherwise, I wouldn't expect prions to pass.

[BrownEye]

I got a kick out of this, from another forum.

I've often thought that our planet could be a big galactic experiment. That we were created through DNA manipulation of the original inhabitants (cavemen). After all, how did we go from living in caves to building pyramids?

Secondly, I have also thought this could be a penal colony, that we were sent here long ago, perhaps from different alien races. If you ponder how we behave as a species, we behave quite badly. We don't get along, we constantly bicker & create wars. And, although we seem to have out grown this stage, we sacrificed our own kind to the "Gods" and even ate our fellow man as cannibals. Maybe a few of us are paroled every 26000 years or so for good behavior.


If I were a highly advanced being visiting here from a galaxy far far away and observed the behavior of the humans inhabiting this planet, how we have treated our planet and even all the space junk garbage floating in orbit around our planet; I would say holy schnikeys batman, we need to quarantine those creatures before they really learn how to travel beyond their solar system.

---

Quarantine anybody?

[Tenet Nosce]

Well if we are going to submit outside content, I offer this live from my Facebook page! (I am not in this conversation)

I may never cook bacon on the stovetop again! It is so easy IN the oven. 400 degrees on a cookie sheet for 15-16 minutes and you just put it on paper towels and drain it off. Flat, no mess, no stirring over hot grease! Love it!
Like · · Share · 3 hours ago ·
16 people like this.

A cookie sheet with sides that is!!! A flat one would make an unholy mess!
3 hours ago · Like

Sounds great! I've never tried that!
3 hours ago · Like

- me either, but I make stuffing with croissants, bacon, onions, brandied fruit, rosemary, etc...and I always try to do the bacon ahead to save time. It is really easy this way!
3 hours ago · Like · 1

that's so funny I just did it in the oven for the first time this morning...
2 hours ago · Like

Where do you position the cookie sheet?
2 hours ago · Like

Dear, I so appreciate you for all that you are doing, so I feel bad to put anything here at all to spoil the thanksgiving mood - writing from far away Holland. Would you please encourage people to check where their bacon is coming from if they are not vegetarians? All over the USA, UK and Europe animals reared for slaughter are still treated so badly. I just feel I want to speak up for them in this public place, for those who end up on the plate at thanksgiving: http://news.change.org/stories/undercove...comes-from
2 hours ago · Like · 1

Hi, I use a jelly roll sheet pan because the sides won't let the grease drip and I put it just under halfway down the oven.
about an hour ago · Like · 1

Thank you My friend who talks to pets is also an animal advocate and I have a practice to pray over every piece of meat I eat and ask that the spirit who gave this be blessed now and forever more. thank you for hte link as well.
about an hour ago · Like · 2

my older sister sprinkels a little brown sugar over the bacon before baking it- Deee-licious! (just made my mouth water thinking about it )
29 minutes ago · Like

[BrownEye]

Mmm bacon...

[Tenet Nosce]

I have no idea. I too have wondered what all the fuss is about blood. You know, all that bloodline stuff. But that's a whole 'nother topic.

And we do know something about the consciousness of microbes. Ra stated that STS entities can use microbes to do their bidding. This would indicate that the microbes don't have much consciousness of their own, but will do whatever their controllers tell them to do.

Actually if I remember correctly, didn't Ra say the same about bugs? STS nasties being attracted to someone's home because of dirt and critters?

Wait. Maybe the spilling of blood outside the body releases some type of energy which could be used by STS? Something which wouldn't ordinarily be available?

---

Mmm bacon...

**Japanese accent** My gastric juices will devour you prion peons! Ha! Ha! Haa!

[Monica]

Wait. Maybe the spilling of blood outside the body releases some type of energy which could be used by STS? Something which wouldn't ordinarily be available?

Interesting idea. It would explain all the fascination with blood by STS entities. Think about all the thing having to do with blood that they like: black magicians sacrificing animals for rituals, primitive people sacrificing animals and even people, vampire lore, women being considered 'unclean' when they're bleeding, talk of blood in primitive religions ("Jesus shed his blood so we could be saved" which I've never understood...why would shedding of blood save anyone? Born-again Christians are really big on this 'blood of Jesus thing.) and of course the bloodshed of war. Then there's all the talk of royal blood, family blood, reptilian bloodlines, etc. And obviously what about all the blood that is shed every day in the meat industry? If your theory is correct, what is that doing to our planet?

This might suggest that it's something more than the act of violence itself (which of course is already a negative act) but something inherently to do with the blood itself.

[Diana]

When we wash our hands, or our bodies, or our kitchens, or anything else, we know full well that we are killing microbes. Also, I don't see any advocates for "cancer cells' rights". Don't cancer cells have a right to live too?

Cancer cells grow as a result of a body being out of balance. They are always in the body, and proliferate when the body is out of balance. This can be compared to humans throwing the ecosystem out of balance, and we have a diseased planet.

Please see my post #1425 regarding the killing of microbes, where I point out that INTENTION matters. Also, as species living in a world with much larger organisms, microbes have evolved along different lines than animals or plants because of their size. It would not seem logical that a microbe would be individuated, as so many are killed constantly just by normal and natural means.

[Monica]

as species living in a world with much larger organisms, microbes have evolved along different lines than animals or plants because of their size. It would not seem logical that a microbe would be individuated, as so many are killed constantly just by normal and natural means.

Yes. There is research proving that microbes have a group consciousness.

When a test tube of bacteria becomes immune to an antibiotic in a lab in Japan, for example, simultaneously the same type of bacteria spontaneously becomes immune to the antibiotic across the world in a lab in the US. This has been proven time and again. Bacteria communicate with one another. They seem to have a large body covering the entire planet and behave as a whole, not as individuals.

I contend that the same is true of many plants. It just hasn't been proven as it has with bacteria.

[3DMonkey]

IMO

Viewing any Other as an individuated entity is an arbitrary act of a 3D consciousness.

There is no agreed upon proofing system necessary to apply the 'magic' of this 3D action.

3D gives it and takes it away at will.

When one 3D gives individuated qualities to an entity subject, it does not require another 3D entity to give the same individuated qualities to the subject.

Evolution involves universal recognition across the Third Density plane that all 3D are individuated and recognized as such across the entire plane.

Anything that places a barrier within this plane, i.e. disrupting a person's right to individuating, inhibits societal memory complex evolution.

Therefore, in my opinion, interaction with the second density is of little value compared to evolving our Third Density society.

[BrownEye]

Therefore, in my opinion, interaction with the second density is of little value compared to evolving our Third Density society.

Imagine that the dog you had given much love to, made the jump to 3D. As the first timer human, saves the life of your grandchild. All while you were still alive to see it play out.

Little value may be personal perspective.

[zenmaster]

I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but with the 2D entity, there is literally "no one home" - there is no subjective experience when there is no reflective subject. The subject and object are one in the same - the pattern that the 2D mind holds is oriented towards fulfilling a program of growth and reproduction. I think a lot of these anthropomorphic attributions with regards to how such plants and animals process sensation are grossly misplaced. I guess it is unfathomable that life could exist which is not self-aware, but all of 2D falls into this category.

Also, killing off the higher, more socially capable, 2D life forms such as apes (due to deforestation and mining) or dolphins (fishing/pollution) and increasing the pet experience instead is likely the cause of a lot of newcomer 3D confusion here.

[3DMonkey]

Therefore, in my opinion, interaction with the second density is of little value compared to evolving our Third Density society.

Imagine that the dog you had given much love to, made the jump to 3D. As the first timer human, saves the life of your grandchild. All while you were still alive to see it play out.

Little value may be personal perspective.

Yes it is.

I was comparing it to an evolution standpoint.

[Tenet Nosce]

Cancer cells grow as a result of a body being out of balance. They are always in the body, and proliferate when the body is out of balance. This can be compared to humans throwing the ecosystem out of balance, and we have a diseased planet.

Right. But then the value of physical life is relative to how well it relates to the overall ecosystem. So the argument that "All life is precious" therefore "Harm no living thing" gets tossed out the window when some other living thing is causing harm to our physical bodies, or the overall ecosystem.

This isn't an argument for eating cows. I am just saying that there are some ideas that seem to come along with vegetarianism that I don't agree with. Not because they offend me, or I simply don't want to accept them. But because they are actually wrong in the sense that they are not consistent with what is true about the world.

I referred to this example before: I lived through a beetle outbreak where it seemed the beetles were poised to take over the whole area. I didn't see anybody too concerned about killing those beetles. I didn't see any beetles rights activists, and so on.

This sort of thing makes me wonder when PETA folks get all uppity about killing animals. Wait. You mean just the furry, cute ones? What's that? Oh killing insects is fine? But aren't they animals too? What about a sardine? Oh you don't really care about that? So...

I find that when most people speak of "killing animals" they are actually speaking of mammals. I see people who call themselves "vegetarian"... but they eat fish? These people apparently don't know the definition of the word "animal", or worse, don't care.

It is a selective application of principles. I believe that it is a sign of a faulty principle if all manner of exceptions need to be made it order to sustain it. Better to look for a new principle that creates the effect one desires, without having to be hypocritical.

Please see my post #1425 regarding the killing of microbes, where I point out that INTENTION matters.

Also, as species living in a world with much larger organisms, microbes have evolved along different lines than animals or plants because of their size. It would not seem logical that a microbe would be individuated, as so many are killed constantly just by normal and natural means.

Saw it. If intention matters, then it matters in all cases across the board. So you have allowed for those who believe that praying over or giving thanks for their meat to use their INTENTION to clear out any negative effects. I happen to agree with this.

Also, as species living in a world with much larger organisms, microbes have evolved along different lines than animals or plants because of their size.

Size has little bearing on the relative value of an entity.

It would not seem logical that a microbe would be individuated, as so many are killed constantly just by normal and natural means.

I don't think anybody is claiming that microbes have individuated. But then again, neither have cows. If an animal soul's INTENTION was to individuate, I would imagine it would incarnate as a housepet, or a dolphin, or something like that.

---

If your theory is correct, what is that doing to our planet?

I dunno. I am inclined to believe the planet will be just fine in any case. BUT. What if all the bloodshed had something to do with the ability of a neg to break quarantine and/or stay in operation once here?

This might suggest that it's something more than the act of violence itself (which of course is already a negative act) but something inherently to do with the blood itself.

I think so. It would make sense from a control/manipulation standpoint. Whenever I see "two sides" that just can't seem to come to a consensus, investigation tends to yield that there is a "third side" benefiting from the conflict.

I have found from experience that the structure of the manipulation can be discerned by paying special attention to what neither side is talking about.

[Diana]

This sort of thing makes me wonder when PETA folks get all uppity about killing animals. Wait. You mean just the furry, cute ones? What's that? Oh killing insects is fine? But aren't they animals too? What about a sardine? Oh you don't really care about that? So...

I'm pretty sure that PETA is not about that--only caring about the cute and furry. PETA has "chosen their battle" so to speak. PETA is helping animals being tested on especially, which does not occur so much with insects.

As for me, I respect all life. I kill nothing, not even cockroaches. I carried a scorpion outside (in a jar) that had bitten me in bed. Every opportunity I get I try and save a life (someone "just because" killing a spider for instance; I don't lecture the person, I just carry it outside).

About the microbes: what I meant about the size was, how would microbes get around the fact that because of their microscopic size they get smushed easily, hence, the effects of such a happening would be accepted as it is inevitable. Not so with larger beings.

[Tenet Nosce]

I'm pretty sure that PETA is not about that--only caring about the cute and furry. PETA has "chosen their battle" so to speak. PETA is helping animals being tested on especially, which does not occur so much with insects.

What about the masses of insects which are murdered every year by farmers growing crops to feed humans?

As for me, I respect all life. I kill nothing, not even cockroaches. I carried a scorpion outside (in a jar) that had bitten me in bed. Every opportunity I get I try and save a life (someone "just because" killing a spider for instance; I don't lecture the person, I just carry it outside).

But you are OK if somebody else killed an insect in order to grow your vegetables?

Do you wash your hair? Because there are all sorts of tiny bugs that like to live in human hair. What about if a housepet got fleas? Would you just let them be?

About the microbes: what I meant about the size was, how would microbes get around the fact that because of their microscopic size they get smushed easily, hence, the effects of such a happening would be accepted as it is inevitable. Not so with larger beings.

Fine. But then you are not making an assessment based upon "what is alive". You are making an assessment based upon "what is large".

[Diana]

Cancer cells grow as a result of a body being out of balance. They are always in the body, and proliferate when the body is out of balance. This can be compared to humans throwing the ecosystem out of balance, and we have a diseased planet.

Right. But then the value of physical life is relative to how well it relates to the overall ecosystem. So the argument that "All life is precious" therefore "Harm no living thing" gets tossed out the window when some other living thing is causing harm to our physical bodies, or the overall ecosystem.

The cancer cells are not "aware." Humans are. We make the choice to harm. Cancer cells don't make a choice to harm; they are in survival mode only; they have a mandate to survive and proliferate according to the environmental conditions.

---

What about the masses of insects which are murdered every year by farmers growing crops to feed humans?

I am totally against that. For many reasons. I buy organic. Now if you are going to split hairs, there is harm in any commercial operation, even organic. I am in the process of creating a greenhouse on my property so that I can provide my own food.

Become aware; use the information to discern; make decisions in harmony with your path, and the environment you have chosen to exist in.

---

Do you wash your hair? Because there are all sorts of tiny bugs that like to live in human hair. What about if a housepet got fleas? Would you just let them be?

About the microbes: what I meant about the size was, how would microbes get around the fact that because of their microscopic size they get smushed easily, hence, the effects of such a happening would be accepted as it is inevitable. Not so with larger beings.

Fine. But then you are not making an assessment based upon "what is alive". You are making an assessment based upon "what is large".

Are you kidding me?

I answered most of this with my statements about intention. However, I use shampoos, soaps, and for that matter, all household cleaners that are earth-friendly, and I have been doing that since they first came out (and were cost-prohibitive). In this way I do the best I can.

I am very healthy, so I don't have a lot of the microbes, parasites, or "bugs" that unhealthy people have. Have you ever read that because of healthy soil, organic vegetables don't get the "pests" that unhealthy one do?