Why I am not a vegan

[AngelofDeath]

Why do you think that the eating of meat needs to be defended? Please explain it from your point of view. As Monica has said, because you like the taste is a poor excuse.

I'm gonna be bold and jump on to this particular point. WHY is enjoying the taste a poor excuse? Why would it be considered purely an excuse at all?

Note: I have not and am not actually defending either side of this argument, I don't think either side 'needs defending'. I believe humans are adaptive and we are CAPABLE of many, many things. That some say one thing is absolutely better and others say another thing is better leaves me with only myself to decide. In some ways, I think I view myself as a scavenger when it comes to food, I will eat mostly anything.

This density is the density of choice. So we have to base our actions on whether they are STS or STO to evolve to the next phase. I'm speaking of the average 3rd density entity who is concerned about efficiently utilizing catalyst. So if we are concerned about evolving into the next STO phase, we have to start with those entities that are closest to us.

That doesn't really answer my question.

I didn't answer your question directly because I don't see why whether something tastes good is a very important consideration in determining whether something is ethical or not. You spoke of morbidity before, but, to me, that seems morbid.

Do you enjoy the taste of vegetables?

[Monica]

There's nothing wrong with enjoyment, as long as it isn't at someone else's expense. One person's freedom ends where another's begins.

[Monica]

Again, animal abuse and eating meat are different topics.  By all means, avoid abusing animals.  Killing an animal quickly by skillful hunting is less cruel than dying slowly of starvation or by a pack of wolves tearing it apart in the wild.  

To assume one is worse 100% of the time otherwise, is naive.

Let's apply that to humans and see how that works:

Again, abuse of children and killing them are different topics.  By all means, avoid abusing children.  Killing a child quickly by skillful shooting is less cruel than dying slowly of starvation in Africa...To assume one is worse 100% of the time otherwise, is naive.

You just said that those actions aren't consonant with the Law of One. Why not? The only reason to assume that lying or killing humans isn't consonant with the Law of One, but killing younger other-selves IS consonant with the Law of One, is societal bias.

In our current society, it is deemed unacceptable to kill humans, but acceptable to kill animals. That is societal bias, and you just illustrated it.

So, my question to you was, why are lying and killing humans not consonant with the Law of One? (other than societal bias)

Because the lessons that precipitate STO 4th density, and the lessons that precipitate 3rd density are completely different.  Different beings are reaching for different vibrations.  In any STO act, for it to *BE* an STO act, the recipient has to, if even at the soul level, see the action as, predominantly, a benefit to its evolution.

Naturally, a certain behavior towards a rock, an animal, and a human being (in terms of STO polarity) will be quite different.

Killing an animal can be STO, STS, or even neutral.  I will concede that there situations where killing a human, or lying, could be STO (to protect another).

I agree about killing in self-defense or to protect another. But you still haven't answered my question:

Why is the same action (controlling and dominating an other-self to the point of using them and killing them against their will) 'naturally different' when done to a late 2D entity vs a 3D entity?

But you just did yourself. You just said that lying or killing humans wasn't consonant with the Law of One...presumably you meant the STO path. Why not? Because those actions are inherently STS?

I guess it would depend greatly on the circumstance.  It is a question of *why* you are doing something.  There are situations where killing humans or lying could be STO, hard as that may be to believe.  I apologize If I gave you a different impression.  In the examples I gave, the context of the conversation was such that I was asking if the advice given by a STO being would incorporate more positive behaviors, or if they would they simply accept that killing and lying was my custom and incorporate such behaviors into their advice for me.  My opinion is that they would try to get me to see a broader perspective, rather than allow me to just go on in my less than effective manner, as per my hypothetical custom.

What I'm getting at here is that you seem to consider a given that xyz behavior, when done to other humans, isn't congruent with the STO path, yet then say those exact same behaviors done to our younger other-selves is 'naturally different.' Why?  

Not talking about rocks here. I'm referring to higher 2D entities, who might be human in their next life, who have faces, pain receptors, nervous systems, social structures (even best friends!), complex emotions like joy, fear, and grief, intelligence, the ability to think, reason and even strategize, the ability to communicate, and the will to live.

You assume that all people are alike, and that everybody can eat the same thing and thrive.

If you think I said that, then you haven't read very many of my posts.

I don't think you can unequivocally say that, and it is judgmental to advocate that.  It is, however, a great way to look down on people who don't live the same way you do.

If you wish to discuss the topic, then please quit with the sideways jabs and insinuations.

I don't understand your logic that you think that would somehow give license to rape women.

You seem intent upon twisting my words. C'mon, you know that's NOT what I said AT ALL.

I can tell you that souls know there is a high probability something of that nature will occur in a given incarnation.  The flaw in your logic is that it doesn't make rape any more good or less negative. You still have a situation where someone is raping someone.  And it doesn't mean the victim isn't creating their own reality.  It's just a simple reality of the situation that a given victim wandered into a vibrational vicinity that was not in their best interest.  Their consciousness was tuned to fear and they attracted what they feared.  It doesn't make the rapist not a rapist, and it doesn't make the rape victim deliberately responsible, either.  

EXACTLY!!!! Finally, a glimmer of understanding!

It is exactly the same with raping and killing animals. Exactly the same.

I do find it somewhat ironic that you profess to subscribe to the create your own reality viewpoint, yet, still somehow think that animals aren't playing a role in creating their circumstances (and that human beings are solely responsible), no matter how unaware they are of their thoughts effect on their reality.

Then you have misunderstood. I never said that. Of course animals are playing a role in creating their own circumstances, just like the human rape victim.

And, just as you said "rape is still rape" and is "still negative" so too is it still negative, when done to ANY victim, whether human or animal! There is NO difference! Except that one is socially acceptable and the other isn't.

How *long* does a given animal (a human for example) have to, in virtually every culture, partake of a given food source before you accept it is natural for them to do so?  If an alien race were observing us, as anthropologists, they would automatically assume it was in our nature to thrive on animal protein.

What if the alien race likes the taste of human?

[Monica]

To Parsons:

There is a seeming contradiction in what you have emphasized. Note what Ra said here, and what I have emphasized:
...
It seems likely that the intent of the question and where the question was leading to was in regards to 3D illusion. If your implication was that there was no way of knowing what polarity an act or an entity was at all, then how could any entity be harvested according to its polarity?

I noticed that too. There are many more examples. One that comes to mind was the war general (forgot his name) whose bellicose actions were deemed STO because of his noble intentions. Ra was making that point about intention.

So, was Ra contradicting themselves? I think not. I think Ra was simply explaining that there are myriad factors contributing to the polarizing potential of any action, and thus we shouldn't just make blanket statements that xyz action is always x percentage polarizing, and as long as we're veiled, we can never assume that Joe Blow is x percentage polarized...we just can't know exactly.

But that doesn't mean that we can't apply general principles to actions, and speak of inherent polarizing potential. Ra stated that Hitler was 'basically negative' so that right there proves that it CAN be done. Ra did it!

And in fact, Ra gave us guiding principles, shown in the very names chosen to describe the 2 paths: Service to Self and Service to Others.

I'd say that's a clue!

I mean, duh, if something is serving self, at the expense of others, then it's inherently STS. Now, there may be extenuating circumstances, sure, but the key words here are generally and inherently. Those words provide a little wiggle room.

Likewise, if someone is serving others, with the motivation of compassion and truly caring about others with an open heart, rather than just for fame or glory (which would be serving self) then, duh, it's inherently STO!

True, we can't conclusively measure any action for its exact polarizing potential in numerical terms, because we are veiled. But to completely ignore the guidelines Ra gave us makes no sense at all.

True, we don't have strict rules, like religions do. Why not? Because strict rules don't take into consideration intangibles like intention and extenuating circumstances. That's why Ra gave only guidelines and principles. It's up to us to utilize those guidelines and principles.

To completely throw them out and never ever use any discernment at all, would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Lighthead]

I think that the problem lies in the perception that meat eaters have in being judged. Nobody is really judging anybody.

If anybody gets angry when somebody is eating meat, it is because a judgment is being made.  That anger is impossible without judgment.  It means you've concocted a story in your mind how that meat got on that plate, and that, is judgment, because you don't necessarily know.  I've repeatedly explained how meat eating and animal abuse are not the same.  For all you know, somebody came across a dead animal (that died of so called "natural" causes) and harvested meat from it.

I realize you haven't said it makes you angry, but it seemed like a nice opportunity to inject some perspective.

Also, just out of sheer morbid curiosity, Lighthead, are you purely vegan?

I'm not yet vegan, but I'm very close to making a full transition. I'd say I'm less than a week away. I already know where to go for fresh fruits and vegetables, and where to go for grains and meat substitutes if I want them.

[Lighthead]

I'm gonna be bold and jump on to this particular point. WHY is enjoying the taste a poor excuse? Why would it be considered purely an excuse at all?

Note: I have not and am not actually defending either side of this argument, I don't think either side 'needs defending'. I believe humans are adaptive and we are CAPABLE of many, many things. That some say one thing is absolutely better and others say another thing is better leaves me with only myself to decide. In some ways, I think I view myself as a scavenger when it comes to food, I will eat mostly anything.

This density is the density of choice. So we have to base our actions on whether they are STS or STO to evolve to the next phase. I'm speaking of the average 3rd density entity who is concerned about efficiently utilizing catalyst. So if we are concerned about evolving into the next STO phase, we have to start with those entities that are closest to us.

That doesn't really answer my question.

I didn't answer your question directly because I don't see why whether something tastes good is a very important consideration in determining whether something is ethical or not. You spoke of morbidity before, but, to me, that seems morbid.

Do you enjoy the taste of vegetables?

I actually do enjoy the taste of vegetables. I don't like bland salads. My salads would just be cucumbers and tomatoes. But I've been mixing them (the cucumbers and tomatoes) into the main dish, cold. Vietnamese dishes are served a similar way.

[Monica]

Since you aren't just coming right out and saying it, I'm not sure if you are saying that eating meat is polarizing STS or neutral. If you are implying that eating meat is STS, then you are judging the polarity of the act of a 3D entity which Ra said is impossible.

If we were talking about raping and killing humans (other than self-defense), no one would be protesting at all. No one would be disagreeing that in general, those actions tend to be inherently STS polarizing. I've tried repeatedly to test this hypothesis. Everyone has stopped short of saying "Oh sure, it's ok to rape and murder humans! Go for it!" Neither has anyone said "Oh gosh, I couldn't possibly say that raping and killing humans is inherently STS because that is impossible." No, on the contrary, people have said things like "Well of course it's negative to rape and kill humans" and "obviously it's negative to rape and kill humans".

So the logic fails.

[Monica]

Not only that, but no one minded when I suggested that eating tomatoes was STS. No one protested. No one gave elaborate explanations as to why it's 'impossible' to categorize anything. No one accused me of judging them.

They laughed. They said it was absurd.

...

[AngelofDeath]

This density is the density of choice. So we have to base our actions on whether they are STS or STO to evolve to the next phase. I'm speaking of the average 3rd density entity who is concerned about efficiently utilizing catalyst. So if we are concerned about evolving into the next STO phase, we have to start with those entities that are closest to us.

That doesn't really answer my question.

I didn't answer your question directly because I don't see why whether something tastes good is a very important consideration in determining whether something is ethical or not. You spoke of morbidity before, but, to me, that seems morbid.

Do you enjoy the taste of vegetables?

I actually do enjoy the taste of vegetables. I don't like bland salads. My salads would just be cucumbers and tomatoes. But I've been mixing them (the cucumbers and tomatoes) into the main dish, cold. Vietnamese dishes are served a similar way.

Do you think it would be harder to go vegetarian if you didn't like the taste of vegetables?

[AngelofDeath]

To Parsons:

There is a seeming contradiction in what you have emphasized. Note what Ra said here, and what I have emphasized:
...
It seems likely that the intent of the question and where the question was leading to was in regards to 3D illusion. If your implication was that there was no way of knowing what polarity an act or an entity was at all, then how could any entity be harvested according to its polarity?

I noticed that too. There are many more examples. One that comes to mind was the war general (forgot his name) whose bellicose actions were deemed STO because of his noble intentions. Ra was making that point about intention.

So, was Ra contradicting themselves? I think not. I think Ra was simply explaining that there are myriad factors contributing to the polarizing potential of any action, and thus we shouldn't just make blanket statements that xyz action is always x percentage polarizing, and as long as we're veiled, we can never assume that Joe Blow is x percentage polarized...we just can't know exactly.

But that doesn't mean that we can't apply general principles to actions, and speak of inherent polarizing potential. Ra stated that Hitler was 'basically negative' so that right there proves that it CAN be done. Ra did it!

And in fact, Ra gave us guiding principles, shown in the very names chosen to describe the 2 paths: Service to Self and Service to Others.

I'd say that's a clue!

I mean, duh, if something is serving self, at the expense of others, then it's inherently STS. Now, there may be extenuating circumstances, sure, but the key words here are generally and inherently. Those words provide a little wiggle room.

Likewise, if someone is serving others, with the motivation of compassion and truly caring about others with an open heart, rather than just for fame or glory (which would be serving self) then, duh, it's inherently STO!

True, we can't conclusively measure any action for its exact polarizing potential in numerical terms, because we are veiled. But to completely ignore the guidelines Ra gave us makes no sense at all.

True, we don't have strict rules, like religions do. Why not? Because strict rules don't take into consideration intangibles like intention and extenuating circumstances. That's why Ra gave only guidelines and principles. It's up to us to utilize those guidelines and principles.

To completely throw them out and never ever use any discernment at all, would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The words "inherently" and "generally" are entirely your own. Ra never says anything of the sort about actions and their relationships to the paths. These are entirely your own conclusions. (Specifically I found Ra only uses the word 'inherent' a handful of times and none of them related to this.)

[Lighthead]

I didn't answer your question directly because I don't see why whether something tastes good is a very important consideration in determining whether something is ethical or not. You spoke of morbidity before, but, to me, that seems morbid.

Do you enjoy the taste of vegetables?

I actually do enjoy the taste of vegetables. I don't like bland salads. My salads would just be cucumbers and tomatoes. But I've been mixing them (the cucumbers and tomatoes) into the main dish, cold. Vietnamese dishes are served a similar way.

Do you think it would be harder to go vegetarian if you didn't like the taste of vegetables?

I'd say it's harder, but not impossible. I find it funny that, when it comes to your magical routine, you seem to be a very disciplined person. But, on the other hand, you're bemoaning the idea of how hard it is for a meat-eater to give up meat? What irony!

[Diana]

If anybody gets angry when somebody is eating meat, it is because a judgment is being made. 

This is incorrect. No one here, as far back as I have been here (since 2010 I think), has ever gotten angry that someone is eating meat. This is a misperception. Being misunderstood sometimes causes frustrations. And, being accused of being superior, controlling, zealots, extremists and the like may cause some anger on the side of those proposing a plant-based diet. 

On the other hand, anger seems to crop up at times when the implications of eating meat are challenged. Defensiveness kicks in. 

This is not to imply that there aren't very valid ideas to discuss all the way around the subject. That is why we are here. That is why we are discussing it. 

I live my life around people who eat meat. There is nowhere I can go where it isn't happening. Do I get angry at them? No.

[Spaced]

If anybody gets angry when somebody is eating meat, it is because a judgment is being made. 

This is incorrect. No one here, as far back as I have been here (since 2010 I think), has ever gotten angry that someone is eating meat. This is a misperception. Being misunderstood sometimes causes frustrations. And, being accused of being superior, controlling, zealots, extremists and the like may cause some anger on the side of those proposing a plant-based diet. 

On the other hand, anger seems to crop up at times when the implications of eating meat are challenged. Defensiveness kicks in. 

This is not to imply that there aren't very valid ideas to discuss all the way around the subject. That is why we are here. That is why we are discussing it. 

I live my life around people who eat meat. There is nowhere I can go where it isn't happening. Do I get angry at them? No.

Monica literally calls meat eaters rapists and murderers.

[Diana]

I think there's something in the fact that this whole argument fundamentally is an "us vs them" kind of phenomena and that is strange to me.

Why is this strange? 

This phenomenon derives in large part, I think via my observations, from the defensiveness of those meat-eaters who take offense at the idea being challenged in general. It is a similar situation when I tell anyone (only because I am directly asked as I have learned to avoid the subject) that I don't watch TV and never have since childhood. Anyone I say this to becomes defensive immediately. 

[Lighthead]

To Parsons:

There is a seeming contradiction in what you have emphasized. Note what Ra said here, and what I have emphasized:
...
It seems likely that the intent of the question and where the question was leading to was in regards to 3D illusion. If your implication was that there was no way of knowing what polarity an act or an entity was at all, then how could any entity be harvested according to its polarity?

I noticed that too. There are many more examples. One that comes to mind was the war general (forgot his name) whose bellicose actions were deemed STO because of his noble intentions. Ra was making that point about intention.

So, was Ra contradicting themselves? I think not. I think Ra was simply explaining that there are myriad factors contributing to the polarizing potential of any action, and thus we shouldn't just make blanket statements that xyz action is always x percentage polarizing, and as long as we're veiled, we can never assume that Joe Blow is x percentage polarized...we just can't know exactly.

But that doesn't mean that we can't apply general principles to actions, and speak of inherent polarizing potential. Ra stated that Hitler was 'basically negative' so that right there proves that it CAN be done. Ra did it!

And in fact, Ra gave us guiding principles, shown in the very names chosen to describe the 2 paths: Service to Self and Service to Others.

I'd say that's a clue!

I mean, duh, if something is serving self, at the expense of others, then it's inherently STS. Now, there may be extenuating circumstances, sure, but the key words here are generally and inherently. Those words provide a little wiggle room.

Likewise, if someone is serving others, with the motivation of compassion and truly caring about others with an open heart, rather than just for fame or glory (which would be serving self) then, duh, it's inherently STO!

True, we can't conclusively measure any action for its exact polarizing potential in numerical terms, because we are veiled. But to completely ignore the guidelines Ra gave us makes no sense at all.

True, we don't have strict rules, like religions do. Why not? Because strict rules don't take into consideration intangibles like intention and extenuating circumstances. That's why Ra gave only guidelines and principles. It's up to us to utilize those guidelines and principles.

To completely throw them out and never ever use any discernment at all, would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The words "inherently" and "generally" are entirely your own. Ra never says anything of the sort about actions and their relationships to the paths. These are entirely your own conclusions. (Specifically I found Ra only uses the word 'inherent' a handful of times and none of them related to this.)

So, do you feel that Ra's words are like a Bible that should be followed strictly and explicitly?

[Parsons]

Since you aren't just coming right out and saying it, I'm not sure if you are saying that eating meat is polarizing STS or neutral. If you are implying that eating meat is STS, then you are judging the polarity of the act of a 3D entity which Ra said is impossible.

If we were talking about raping and killing humans (other than self-defense), no one would be protesting at all. No one would be disagreeing that in general, those actions tend to be inherently STS polarizing. I've tried repeatedly to test this hypothesis. Everyone has stopped short of saying "Oh sure, it's ok to rape and murder humans! Go for it!" Neither has anyone said "Oh gosh, I couldn't possibly say that raping and killing humans is inherently STS because that is impossible." No, on the contrary, people have said things like "Well of course it's negative to rape and kill humans" and "obviously it's negative to rape and kill humans".

So the logic fails.

So you disagree with Ra's words? That's perfectly fine.

[Monica]

Do you think it would be harder to go vegetarian if you didn't like the taste of vegetables?

No, not at all. Lots of vegans eat rice, beans, tortillas, tofu, tempeh, and other 'hearty' staples known for their high protein and satiation factor. Some eat a lot of veggie burgers and other convenience foods. Not all vegan eat lots of salads, fruits and veggies.

So no, it's not hard to just replace meat with those hearty staples.

It is, however, harder to be healthy if one doesn't like veggies. But that's true of meat-eaters too!

It's the fresh fruits and veggies that have the powerful, anti-aging, anti-cancer antioxidant nutrients. Study after study shows that fresh fruits and veggies have all sorts of health benefits. (hmmm...another clue?)

But many people eat meat and still don't eat much fruits and veggies anyway, so it wouldn't matter. If anything, once they detox from the meat, their taste buds change. I've seen it happen. Just recently a customer (and now friend) of mine who was a staunch meat-eater went vegan and got a juicer. She did it all on her own. She just...changed.

But for those who don't like veggies, I wouldn't be concerned. If you aren't eating veggies anyway, then it won't matter. There are plenty of other vegan foods to eat. (I'd be more concerned about how to be healthy without any veggies.)

Some vegans eat a lot of junk food. Those are the unhealthy ones, just like meat-eaters who eat a lot of junk food.

[Monica]

So you disagree with Ra's words? That's perfectly fine.

I've actually never disagreed with any of Ra's words. But which words are you referring to?

[Diana]

Monica literally calls meat eaters rapists and murderers.

You're kidding, right?

Do you understand the word, analogy? People, let's use our brains here. Do you REALLY think Monica would mean this? 

If you go back and read her posts you may see that she is trying to point out the disconnect most humans have: that the lives of humans matter more than the lives of animals. That it is okay to slaughter animals for food because they agree to it on some level they aren't conscious of, but if you say this about humans it doesn't scan the same.

[Monica]

To Parsons:

There is a seeming contradiction in what you have emphasized. Note what Ra said here, and what I have emphasized:
...
It seems likely that the intent of the question and where the question was leading to was in regards to 3D illusion. If your implication was that there was no way of knowing what polarity an act or an entity was at all, then how could any entity be harvested according to its polarity?

I noticed that too. There are many more examples. One that comes to mind was the war general (forgot his name) whose bellicose actions were deemed STO because of his noble intentions. Ra was making that point about intention.

So, was Ra contradicting themselves? I think not. I think Ra was simply explaining that there are myriad factors contributing to the polarizing potential of any action, and thus we shouldn't just make blanket statements that xyz action is always x percentage polarizing, and as long as we're veiled, we can never assume that Joe Blow is x percentage polarized...we just can't know exactly.

But that doesn't mean that we can't apply general principles to actions, and speak of inherent polarizing potential. Ra stated that Hitler was 'basically negative' so that right there proves that it CAN be done. Ra did it!

And in fact, Ra gave us guiding principles, shown in the very names chosen to describe the 2 paths: Service to Self and Service to Others.

I'd say that's a clue!

I mean, duh, if something is serving self, at the expense of others, then it's inherently STS. Now, there may be extenuating circumstances, sure, but the key words here are generally and inherently. Those words provide a little wiggle room.

Likewise, if someone is serving others, with the motivation of compassion and truly caring about others with an open heart, rather than just for fame or glory (which would be serving self) then, duh, it's inherently STO!

True, we can't conclusively measure any action for its exact polarizing potential in numerical terms, because we are veiled. But to completely ignore the guidelines Ra gave us makes no sense at all.

True, we don't have strict rules, like religions do. Why not? Because strict rules don't take into consideration intangibles like intention and extenuating circumstances. That's why Ra gave only guidelines and principles. It's up to us to utilize those guidelines and principles.

To completely throw them out and never ever use any discernment at all, would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The words "inherently" and "generally" are entirely your own. Ra never says anything of the sort about actions and their relationships to the paths. These are entirely your own conclusions. (Specifically I found Ra only uses the word 'inherent' a handful of times and none of them related to this.)

Hold on. I just wrote a lengthy post about Ra giving us guidelines and principles, and you're trying to pin down an exact word?

[Spaced]

Monica literally calls meat eaters rapists and murderers.

You're kidding, right?

Do you understand the word, analogy? People, let's use our brains here. Do you REALLY think Monica would mean this? 

If you go back and read her posts you may see that she is trying to point out the disconnect most humans have: that the lives of humans matter more than the lives of animals. That it is okay to slaughter animals for food because they agree to it on some level they aren't conscious of, but if you say this about humans it doesn't scan the same.

She brings it up in every single discussion she's had on the forums regarding the consumption of meat. it's always "Oh, you're OK with eating meat? Then why not just go rape and murder people?" It's her go to argument. Eating meat = rape and murder

[Monica]

Monica literally calls meat eaters rapists and murderers.

No. I didn't.

Rape & other analogies / Relative value of animals vs humans / Meat-Eaters NOT being compared to rapists! But killing animals compared to killing/raping humans from the victim's perspective / Do we wish to emulate higher STO (drinking nectar) or higher STS (mutilating cattle and abducting lower density entities) entities?
Post #96
Post #111  
Post #146  

...

[Diana]

The following post is my very first on this subject, years ago. I thought it worth reposting. 

I am very conflicted on the issue of eating meat I would very much like to begin a dialogue as to why one should not or should be able to consume meat.

I would like to respond to your inquiries about eating meat, and your observation that plants have life which should be respected too. 

I agree that all life should be respected. Then, the problem remains, as we exist in 3-D and must consume food until we evolve to something higher, what do we eat? 

An animal has a strong instinct for survival, even when hunted in a natural environment. It experiences terror when chased by predators. This fear is only a fraction of what farm animals feel when taken to slaughter because they are trapped and cannot even run. Just considering the physical results of this fear and terror--release of hormones, adrenaline, fight-or-fight response--it is unwise to consume the meat as you will be ingesting these hormones too, which the animal's body has manufactured. Also, you cannot cut a leg off an animal without killing it.

You can, however, prune a plant and cut off leaves without killing it. You can harvest vegetables without killing the plant. Many plants "want" animals to eat them as it is their way of spreading seed and propagating. Fruit falls off trees, vines, and bushes to be eaten by animals so that the seeds can be spread. It seems obvious that it is less cruel to consume the life force from plants, rather than animals.

I agree with one of the posts here, that the Native American way of thanking the animal ceremonially is best if one has to consume meat. But does anyone HAVE to eat meat? Why not touch the world more lightly, more gently, and be healthier in the process? 

You might think of the issue this way:

Imagine the most Utopian future world you can. What would it be like? Perhaps at that point consuming anything but air and sunlight would be all we need? Draw a straight line from where we are now to that future world. Now start taking steps along that line.

[Spaced]

Monica literally calls meat eaters rapists and murderers.

No. I didn't.

Rape & other analogies / Relative value of animals vs humans / Meat-Eaters NOT being compared to rapists! But killing animals compared to killing/raping humans from the victim's perspective / Do we wish to emulate higher STO (drinking nectar) or higher STS (mutilating cattle and abducting lower density entities) entities?
Post #96
Post #111  
Post #146  

...

It's cool to see that you've been on the same crusade for years repeating the same things. You've even got your dogma indexed for easy reference and everything, good for you!

Some of the responses you got for those posts are worth reading so thanks for the links. I personally like this one from thefool:

Personally I could care less what people eat. I think and believe that a predominantly vegetarian diet is healthy and healing. But I would never want to force it upon others. Let it be a choice. I am totally supportive of education of benefits of vegetarian diet that does not create a sense of guilt in people's mind.

[Monica]

It's cool to see that you've been on the same crusade for years repeating the same things. You've even got your dogma indexed for easy reference and everything, good for you!

Nothing constructive to say, eh?

Some of the responses you got for those posts are worth reading so thanks for the links. I personally like this one from thefool:

Personally I could care less what people eat. I think and believe that a predominantly vegetarian diet is healthy and healing. But I would never want to force it upon others. Let it be a choice. I am totally supportive of education of benefits of vegetarian diet that does not create a sense of guilt in people's mind.

Goodness gracious, let slavery, rape, murder and pedophilia be a choice too! Victims don't matter! Only the free will of the oppressors matters! And never ever ever say anything to anyone that might trigger feelings of guilt! Horrors! That is worse than whatever they did! Heaven forbid that we have any ethical guidelines whatsoever!

[Spaced]

It's cool to see that you've been on the same crusade for years repeating the same things. You've even got your dogma indexed for easy reference and everything, good for you!

Nothing constructive to say, eh?

Some of the responses you got for those posts are worth reading so thanks for the links. I personally like this one from thefool:

Personally I could care less what people eat. I think and believe that a predominantly vegetarian diet is healthy and healing. But I would never want to force it upon others. Let it be a choice. I am totally supportive of education of benefits of vegetarian diet that does not create a sense of guilt in people's mind.

Goodness gracious, let slavery, rape, murder and pedophilia be a choice too! Victims don't matter! Only the free will of the oppressors matters! And never ever ever say anything to anyone that might trigger feelings of guilt! Horrors! That is worse than whatever they did! Heaven forbid that we have any ethical guidelines whatsoever!

I have plenty constructive to say, but often destruction is needed before anything constructive can be accomplished.

So from what I gather and what you've said previously you think our creator messed up by giving people free will? You think you know better how creation should be? You'd rather have a creation in which we behaviour is controlled so that entities behave as you would prefer?

[Monica]

So from what I gather and what you've said previously you think our creator messed up by giving people free will? You think you know better how creation should be? You'd rather have a creation in which we behaviour is controlled so that entities behave as you would prefer?

???????????????

I have no idea what you're talking about. There is NO possible way you could have gotten THAT from anything I said.

I won't be conversing with you, Spaced, unless you can be respectful and discuss the topic. I won't be answering to insults or extreme twisting of my words.

[Spaced]

I was referring to this exchange

I have noticed in some of your posts you seem to be somewhat dissatisfied with the choice of this Logos as to creating a system of this nature. Do you feel at all that these might be things that are a challenge for you to accept?

Oh definitely! I readily admit that. What helps me is remembering that we are living in a school for juvenile delinquents. Apparently other 3D planets aren't like this.

I realize that I did read that wrong, it's just that you don't accept the nature of our logos. I don't know where you get this "school for delinquents" idea though.

anyhow I agree, I don't think this conversation is benefiting anyone.

[AngelofDeath]

I'm out, it's suffocating in here. Peace.

[Monica]

I was referring to this exchange

I have noticed in some of your posts you seem to be somewhat dissatisfied with the choice of this Logos as to creating a system of this nature. Do you feel at all that these might be things that are a challenge for you to accept?

Oh definitely! I readily admit that. What helps me is remembering that we are living in a school for juvenile delinquents. Apparently other 3D planets aren't like this.

I realize that I did read that wrong, it's just that you don't accept the nature of our logos. I don't know where you get this "school for delinquents" idea though.

anyhow I agree, I don't think this conversation is benefiting anyone.

That exchange was referring to a particular aspect of the system on this planet - the one of bloodshed.

I said nothing about the 'nature of the Logos' or about free will, whatsoever.

The 'school for juvenile delinquents' idea came from what Ra told us about this planet's population being largely entities who failed to graduate on other 3D planets, and were all deposited here, like a 1-room schoolhouse of flunkies. (Ra didn't use those exact terms, obviously.)