Why I am not a vegan

[Parsons]

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?

It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.

[Lighthead]

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.

I just looked at all of Monica's posts about the Logos in this thread. At any time when she was "complaining" about the Logos, she was obviously joking.

[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?

It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.

I see no conflict, and elaborated here:

http://bring4th.org/forums/showthread.ph...#pid176754

...

[isis]

"It isn't STO to cause the suffering/killing of other-selves by eating them."

Monica, your signature says that...but don't you think there's a chance that it actually could be STO to cause the suffering/killing of other-selves by eating them - since there's a chance they could have incarnated here just for that? They could have done something in another life that made them want to severely punish themselves.

It's not unheard of for the self to punish the self. Self-flagellation comes to mind.

[Monica]

"It isn't STO to cause the suffering/killing of other-selves by eating them."

Monica, your signature says that...but don't you think there's a chance that it actually could be STO to cause the suffering/killing of other-selves by eating them - since there's a chance they could have incarnated here just for that? They could have done something in another life that made them want to severely punish themselves.

It's not unheard of for the self to punish the self. Self-flagellation comes to mind.

No. That is the task of STS-oriented entities. That is their job: to accommodate such needs. That is how they serve the Creator.

[Parsons]

I see no conflict, and elaborated here:

http://bring4th.org/forums/showthread.ph...#pid176754

...

You are judging the polarity of an act by saying eating meat is STS. Ra said that is impossible from inside the 3D illusion. You still have not addressed that. Responding to a post and addressing the logic of a post are not necessarily mutually inclusive. In fact, in that case you weren't even responding to my post. You were responding to Lighthead's post which I also addressed.

[Monica]

You are judging the polarity of an act by saying eating meat is STS. Ra said that is impossible from inside the 3D illusion. You still have not addressed that. Responding to a post and addressing the logic of a post are not necessarily mutually inclusive. In fact, in that case you weren't even responding to my post. You were responding to Lighthead's post which I also addressed.

Would you say that knowingly, consciously, unnecessarily raping and killing a human, against their will, is an inherently STS act?

[anagogy]

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.

2nd density, and 3rd density are different, thus, your cross examples are not compatible.

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?

No one said anything about control and domination.  Those are ideas you brought into it.  Animals willfully incarnate into a realm of prey and predation.  Humans are exploring those systems in more of a societal way.  And your interpretation of "late 2D" is much different than my own.

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

You mean like the insinuations that eating meat is entirely concomitant with being a straight up murderer?  I'm not sure what insinuations/jabs you were referring to, but if you find my posts too offensive, you are not obligated to respond.

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

I was referring to your interpretation of the logic of manifestation as I related it, because you were offering hypothetical examples that didn't make logical sense to me.  If I was less than clear, it wasn't intentional.  I'll try to be more specific in the future.

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.

The following is just my intuition and opinion:

I think you may be interpreting this situation differently than I do.  There are plenty of times when death is desired by an animal.  Just as there are plenty of times when humans do. Animal thoughts aren't generally as specific as human thoughts (their consciousness is, usually, more resistance free, but less specifically focused than human consciousness) but when an animal is in pain, and generally desires to not be in pain anymore, it will then attract those experiences that will end such pain by virtue of said desire.  In many cases, this is swift merciful death.  Whether by animals, hunters, or having a random massive brain aneurysm and god knows what else.  Or it might just get better, if that is the path of least resistance.

There are also times, when animals simply get out of alignment with what is wanted, by focusing on what is not wanted, and then attract that, resulting in their death (sometimes very slow death).

The point being, you can't know which.  But if you *ASSUME* it is one or the other, which is judgment, you will tend to only attract that circumstance into your experience.

You can't know the polarity of a given action just by seeing said action.  So whatever point you thought you were making is not really effective since you can't know the polarity of an act just by observing it.

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.

You can't know the polarity of an act.  That is judgment.

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?

I have it on good authority, that some STS versions do.

[anagogy]

Would you say that knowingly, consciously, unnecessarily raping and killing a human, against their will, is an inherently STS act?

How would you know for sure the "against their will" part without being them, or having them tell you?

Sure you can make some pretty probable guesses if you are observing the situation happen.  But you don't know the circumstances.

As unlikely as this gruesome situation is: what if they were told, hypothetically, and absolutely knew, an entire race of people would be exterminated if they did not perform those actions?  As horrible as those actions seem to be, wouldn't that be more STO than allowing an entire race of people to be exterminated?

You can't know the reasons so you can't know the polarity of the act.

[Monica]

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.

2nd density, and 3rd density are different, thus, your cross examples are not compatible.

Why/how are they different? That is the topic of this thread:

Bring4th Forums One > Strictly Law of One Material  v > Ra's Statements About 2D Entities

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?

No one said anything about control and domination.  Those are ideas you brought into it.

Look at this. How is this NOT control and domination?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykTH_b-cXyE

Animals willfully incarnate into a realm of prey and predation.  Humans are exploring those systems in more of a societal way.

Rape and murder victims do too. So by your logic, does that mean it's congruent with the STO path to rape and murder humans?

And your interpretation of "late 2D" is much different than my own.

Please do share! In the thread on that topic, posted above.

You mean like the insinuations that eating meat is entirely concomitant with being a straight up murderer?  I'm not sure what insinuations/jabs you were referring to, but if you find my posts too offensive, you are not obligated to respond.

I do indeed insinuate about actions, but never about people. That is the difference. I don't presume to know someone's motivation.

The following is just my intuition and opinion:

I think you may be interpreting this situation differently than I do.  There are plenty of times when death is desired by an animal.  Just as there are plenty of times when humans do. Animal thoughts aren't generally as specific as human thoughts (their consciousness is, usually, more resistance free, but less specifically focused than human consciousness) but when an animal is in pain, and generally desires to not be in pain anymore, it will then attract those experiences that will end such pain by virtue of said desire.  In many cases, this is swift merciful death.  Whether by animals, hunters, or having a random massive brain aneurysm and god knows what else.  Or it might just get better, if that is the path of least resistance.

There are also times, when animals simply get out of alignment with what is wanted, by focusing on what is not wanted, and then attract that, resulting in their death (sometimes very slow death).

The point being, you can't know which.  But if you *ASSUME* it is one or the other, which is judgment, you will tend to only attract that circumstance into your experience.

Does anyone here know what the word perspective means? Anyone?

These arguments continue to be made from the perspective of the entity's preincarnational choices. No one is disputing that. On a higher level, yes, animals choose to be raped and slaughtered, even burned alive, just as humans choose to be raped, tortured, murdered, whatever.

YES that is TRUE.

But that is NOT the point!

The point is: Is it congruent with the STO path to be the one administering those services?

Put another way:

Just because the woman chose to be raped, does that mean it is ok for an STO entity to rape her?

Just because the cow chose to her baby stolen, then raped again, and and again, and again, until finally her throat is slit, does that mean WE should contribute to those things?

When I say "Selfishly satisfying one's desires, while, knowingly causing suffering to another entity isn't STO" that is because it is the very definition of STS!

Whether that victim chose it or not, is irrelevant, to the question of whether WE should participate!

If we choose to not participate, and the woman still needs someone to rape her, then some STS entity will oblige.

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.

You can't know the polarity of an act.  That is judgment.

You just did it. You just said rape was negative.

I have it on good authority, that some STS versions do.

Indeed. Whom do we wish to emulate? The higher-density STO entities, who drink nectar, or the STS entities who ruthlessly slaughter other entities to satisfy their bloodlust?

[Monica]

Would you say that knowingly, consciously, unnecessarily raping and killing a human, against their will, is an inherently STS act?

How would you know for sure the "against their will" part without being them, or having them tell you?

Sure you can make some pretty probable guesses if you are observing the situation happen.  But you don't know the circumstances.

As unlikely as this gruesome situation is: what if they were told, hypothetically, and absolutely knew, an entire race of people would be exterminated if they did not perform those actions?  As horrible as those actions seem to be, wouldn't that be more STO than allowing an entire race of people to be exterminated?

You can't know the reasons so you can't know the polarity of the act.

I give up. Go ahead and rape humans. Who knows? Maybe they want it! That's what rapists and pedophiles say, right? Who are we to say they're wrong? I mean, the person's struggling, saying NO!, screaming for help, crying out in pain...nah, none of that stuff matters at all...

[Parsons]

You are judging the polarity of an act by saying eating meat is STS. Ra said that is impossible from inside the 3D illusion. You still have not addressed that. Responding to a post and addressing the logic of a post are not necessarily mutually inclusive. In fact, in that case you weren't even responding to my post. You were responding to Lighthead's post which I also addressed.

Would you say that knowingly, consciously, unnecessarily raping and killing a human, against their will, is an inherently STS act?

You are blatantly deflecting my point and have yet to directly address it.

[isis]

Question for Monica:

As you know, Ra says that to be eligible for graduation into 4D we must have a 51% or more orientation towards STO. So, I'm wondering, if you're a full-fledged meat-eater, that knows all about the horrors of the slaughterhouses, how much exactly would you guess that may put a dent in your percentage? (I'm looking for numbers.)

[Lighthead]

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

[AngelofDeath]

^ Yeah, that's why.

Oh, last words. I'm not 'trying' to become vegetarian or vegan. So I can't really bemoan how difficult it is if I'm not trying to do it. It seems you are just bemoaning that I am not trying to go vegetarian. Oh well, c'est la vie.

Also, no, Ra's words shouldn't be taken as anything other than opinion and observation. Even if I were to take Ra's words as dogma, there is certainly nothing that says "eating meat is service to self" in the Ra Material. I accept that I am omnivorous, I accept the karmic responsibilities that come with this choice. I accept the possibility of negative polarization resulting from this choice, as it no less enables me to dedicate myself and my thoughts to service of others. I apologize if my service, and the way in which I go about it is not comfortable for you. I have accepted about myself that I will likely not fit in to the status quo of 'enlightened' seeking.

[anagogy]

Look at this. How is this NOT control and domination?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykTH_b-cXyE

Animal abuse and eating meat are different subjects.  Suppose someone only ate meat from animals they found dead.  Would you have a problem with that?  Perfect example of why they are different subjects.  Meat obtained, and no animals were deliberately killed by the obtainer.

For the record, I didn't watch the video (I assume it is a video of some kind of animal abuse), some of us don't want to focus on violent imagery.  I have no idea if that involved violent imagery, but you might want to include a description in the future so people don't have to guess.

I do indeed insinuate about actions, but never about people. That is the difference. I don't presume to know someone's motivation.

Okay, when did I presume to know your motivation?

The point is: Is it congruent with the STO path to be the one administering those services?

It is funny you bring up "perspective", because you tend to describe situations where you ASSUME the perspective, like you absolutely know what it is.  When you look out at the animal kingdom, in my opinion, you don't see them as they are, you see them as little people.  Their consciousness has a different perspective, and they are perfectly content being in the food chain.  And please don't post a video of factory farming abuse, because that is not even remotely the same thing.

The animals that live around people tend to pick up more and more of our qualities however.

It may seem like i'm assuming perspective here, as well, but the difference is I'm not making hard and fast rules about what is STS and what is STO.  You are drawing lines in the sand.  Every situation is unique.

You just did it. You just said rape was negative.

But how did you know it was rape, without asking the victim?  I said rape is still negative because rape is negative (for someone).  The word rape presupposes polarity/motivation/response beforehand.  So yes, rape is definitely negative for SOMEBODY, because it presupposes "unwillingness".  You just can't judge the unwillingness without recourse to the victim.  Appearances are not always what they seem.  

[Monica]

You are judging the polarity of an act by saying eating meat is STS. Ra said that is impossible from inside the 3D illusion. You still have not addressed that. Responding to a post and addressing the logic of a post are not necessarily mutually inclusive. In fact, in that case you weren't even responding to my post. You were responding to Lighthead's post which I also addressed.

Would you say that knowingly, consciously, unnecessarily raping and killing a human, against their will, is an inherently STS act?

You are blatantly deflecting my point and have yet to directly address it.

Intentionally so. If you can't answer the very same question about humans, then how can you ask me to answer it about animals?

[Diana]

Personally I don't care about percentages of STO and harvestability. 

This is yet another example of humans only caring about themselves.

I wouldn't be kind to someone because I'm afraid of not being harvestable if I tell the truth and hurt them. I would be kind because I am responsible for what I say and how I say it, and I endeavor to be kind so that the truth as I see it is delivered in such a way that is not just about me. 

To worry about harvestability is no different than Christians worrying about going to heaven. The deal goes: if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your savior, you don't get into heaven.

I don't eat meat because I know in doing so I would contribute to the perpetuation of animal cruelty, not because I am afraid it'll tip the scales and I won't get to go to 4D. It is my responsibility to make that choice, and it doesn't matter if something "wants" to be eaten. As has been said over and over here, (example) just because a person incarnates and can't forgive themselves of a past-life crime, I am not going to kill them so they can feel better. It is my choice not to harm another person, and my actions are my responsibility. There are others who may align with the person's wishes for their own reasons, and help that person by killing them (if it is help).

There are many things here on this planet now that are harmful to all life including the life of the planet itself. It is impossible as I see it to be aware of it all and thereby live without harming anything. But we do the best we can, if we care. The meat industry is one of those very blatant and huge things that something CAN be done about, thereby relieving the suffering we are causing to billions of animals. We know they suffer, no matter how much anyone wants to question that. Just because they can't tell us so in human language, doesn't mean it isn't absolutely clear. 

[Lighthead]

^ Yeah, that's why.

It was meant as a lighthearted joke.

Also, no, Ra's words shouldn't be taken as anything other than opinion and observation. Even if I were to take Ra's words as dogma, there is certainly nothing that says "eating meat is service to self" in the Ra Material. I accept that I am omnivorous, I accept the karmic responsibilities that come with this choice. I accept the possibility of negative polarization resulting from this choice, as it no less enables me to dedicate myself and my thoughts to service of others. I apologize if my service, and the way in which I go about it is not comfortable for you. I have accepted about myself that I will likely not fit in to the status quo of 'enlightened' seeking.

You of all people have the esoteric discipline to deal with that. Many do not.

[Monica]

Animal abuse and eating meat are different subjects.  Suppose someone only ate meat from animals they found dead.  Would you have a problem with that?  Perfect example of why they are different subjects.  Meat obtained, and no animals were deliberately killed by the obtainer.

That is the only example...aside from lab-grown meat. But you are venturing into the realm of absurdity. People don't normally eat roadkill, and if they do, that's the exception.

The conversation is about eating meat...that usually means meat bought from the grocery store, a farmer, a butcher, or a hunter...or hunting and killing the animal yourself.

That question is like "but what if you're stranded on an island?" It's just absurd.

For the record, I didn't watch the video (I assume it is a video of some kind of animal abuse), some of us don't want to focus on violent imagery.  I have no idea if that involved violent imagery, but you might want to include a description in the future so people don't have to guess.

What's wrong with violent imagery? If killing animals is no big deal, then why not watch how it's done? Why not face what one is supporting?

I don't have time right now to go back to all the old posts, but the general response from many people is "oh you are judging...you are controlling...you are preaching...you are trying to make me feel guilty." blah blah blah

But how did you know it was rape, without asking the victim?  I said rape is still negative because rape is negative (for someone).  The word rape presupposes polarity/motivation/response beforehand.  So yes, rape is definitely negative for SOMEBODY, because it presupposes "unwillingness".  You just can't judge the unwillingness without recourse to the victim.  Appearances are not always what they seem.  

Oh good grief. This is just stupid. Sorry, but it is. You're not even willing to watch actual footage of real victims screaming in pain and struggling to get away, and then you say "you can't judge the unwillingness" and "Appearances are not always what they seem"? I mean, seriously???

Have people's interpretation of the Law of One made them so 'politically correct' that they can't even acknowledge that someone - not even an animal but a human - getting raped is a violation of free will? Seriously???

I have zero respect for those who participate in the suffering of others, but aren't even willing to take a look at what they are doing because they are too squeamish. If just observing the cruelty to these beings is uncomfortable to watch, then what does that say about what the victims are experiencing?

Ooops, I forgot...they don't matter of course. They are only '2D' so they don't matter. It's fine to mutilate them without anesthesia, keep them confined their entire lives, unable to even turn around, rape them, steal their babies, feed them drugs so they are in constant pain, scald them and pluck their fur or feathers while they are still awake and conscious...all of that is ok because they are 'only 2D.'

That sounds exactly what was said about human slaves...

This place is just a farce. Yes, it's a farce. Spiritual BS. Yes, I'm venting right now, and I don't apologize for it. I guess if it bothers anyone they will just have to 'accept' it. But I think all the talk about being Wanderers - 6D Wanderers! - is total BS, when people can't even understand basic compassion, and continually defend their own participation in the senseless violence towards sentient beings. It's disgusting.

[AngelofDeath]

I just can't get behind the idea that those who consume are the same as those who torture and kill. It doesn't make sense in the arrangement of time. How, in time, does an action in the future (eating meat) 'produce' an action in the past (killing the animal)? You say there is demand, and so supply meets the demand, but there's a reason there's demand, and I highly doubt it's just that nobody cares about the animals.

In my mind, it is wasteful and disgraceful to not make use of the parts of the animal after it has been killed, even if it was killed in injustice. How is it a service to the animal not to make some positive charge of its death rather than just wallowing in and perpetuating more negativity?

It isn't, in my mind, the demand for meat that produce factory farming, cruelty and torture, it is the demand for convenience which is a whole other demon.

[AnthroHeart]

Look at this. How is this NOT control and domination?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykTH_b-cXyE

I checked out about half of it before I started crying. But it's PETA, which is an extremist group. They set fires to restaurants and such.
They even wanted to call fish "sea kittens", because nobody would kill a kitten. Crazy.

[AngelofDeath]

^ Yeah, that's why.

It was meant as a lighthearted joke.

Also, no, Ra's words shouldn't be taken as anything other than opinion and observation. Even if I were to take Ra's words as dogma, there is certainly nothing that says "eating meat is service to self" in the Ra Material. I accept that I am omnivorous, I accept the karmic responsibilities that come with this choice. I accept the possibility of negative polarization resulting from this choice, as it no less enables me to dedicate myself and my thoughts to service of others. I apologize if my service, and the way in which I go about it is not comfortable for you. I have accepted about myself that I will likely not fit in to the status quo of 'enlightened' seeking.

You of all people have the esoteric discipline to deal with that. Many do not.

I meant that I also feel the facepalming.

With that, I would be the first to say that I do not talk about my path in recommendation of it but only in acknowledgement of it. I neither advise for or against my particular approach, as it is something which has developed for me personally through much trial and error and inner exploration.

However, this actually comes back to my point in all of this is that the thoughts regarding these things will not change until there has been an appropriate grasp of perspective. No matter how much you try and tell someone that something is ethically wrong, or that it's unnatural, or that it's horrible, they won't really know or understand until they have touched upon that kind of emotion within themselves. This means going within oneself and seeing one's bias', preferences, etc. Until you accept that you have a certain bias, preference or trait you are powerless to grasp it or change its influence. That's why I don't approach this issue from an external perspective, but rather try to address the internal structures involved.

In my mind, trying to convince people to change through shock, reason or emotion is only going to cause them to withdraw more. Rather, it is through the inner silence and balancing of one's own distortions that compassion is awakened. I see no longer needing to eat meat as an end result, but the work is upon your inner self. Thus, I believe if the focus is upon the internal complexes that drive humans in their actions we will come to quicker change than trying to change things from the outside.

I, like I said, am omnivorous and would be perfectly content with pretty much any kind of diet. That wasn't easy to accept about myself and it has taken years to become comfortable with that fact about myself.

[Monica]

I checked out about half of it before I started crying. But it's PETA, which is an extremist group. They set fires to restaurants and such.
They even wanted to call fish "sea kittens", because nobody would kill a kitten. Crazy.

Gemini, bless you Sweetie! for having the courage and compassion to watch it. Yes, it's difficult to watch, isn't it? Now do you understand why we speak up for them?

If it's so difficult for us to even watch, can you imagine how difficult it is for them to LIVE it?  

That the video came from PETA is irrelevant. There are some PETA extremists, just as there are some Christian extremists, etc. Regardless of who recorded it, the footage is real. All that really happened, and continues to happen, every single day, to the tune of billions of sentient beings.

But if that bothers you, there is plenty of footage from other groups too:

Mercy for Animals: Farm to Fridge

...

[anagogy]

What's wrong with violent imagery? If killing animals is no big deal, then why not watch how it's done? Why not face what one is supporting?

Because you think it is black and white and it is only done one way, by abusing the animal.  That is not so, as I've repeatedly explained.

I don't have time right now to go back to all the old posts, but the general response from many people is "oh you are judging...you are controlling...you are preaching...you are trying to make me feel guilty." blah blah blah

You accidentally misquoted this as being my words.

Ooops, I forgot...they don't matter of course. They are only '2D' so they don't matter. It's fine to mutilate them without anesthesia, keep them confined their entire lives, unable to even turn around, rape them, steal their babies, feed them drugs so they are in constant pain, scald them and pluck their fur or feathers while they are still awake and conscious...all of that is ok because they are 'only 2D.'

I don't believe anybody here said they supported animal abuse.  You just assume animal abuse in all situations of killing animals, which is just not necessarily true in my opinion.  Agree to disagree.

This place is just a farce. Yes, it's a farce. Spiritual BS. Yes, I'm venting right now, and I don't apologize for it. I guess if it bothers anyone they will just have to 'accept' it. But I think all the talk about being Wanderers - 6D Wanderers! - is total BS, when people can't even understand basic compassion, and continually defend the senseless violence towards sentient beings. It's disgusting.

I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion.  Everybody is doing the best they can with what they know.  There will always be beings eating other beings, even if you convince the entire world that it is wrong.  Is your house made out of wood per chance?  Or your furniture?  Aren't trees capable of being enspirited (a late 2D being)?  Did you ask their permission?  There is no difference.

Life feeds on life.  Be the example you want to be, and let others be the example they want to be.

[Lighthead]

With that, I would be the first to say that I do not talk about my path in recommendation of it but only in acknowledgement of it. I neither advise for or against my particular approach, as it is something which has developed for me personally through much trial and error and inner exploration.

However, this actually comes back to my point in all of this is that the thoughts regarding these things will not change until there has been an appropriate grasp of perspective. No matter how much you try and tell someone that something is ethically wrong, or that it's unnatural, or that it's horrible, they won't really know or understand until they have touched upon that kind of emotion within themselves. This means going within oneself and seeing one's bias', preferences, etc. Until you accept that you have a certain bias, preference or trait you are powerless to grasp it or change its influence. That's why I don't approach this issue from an external perspective, but rather try to address the internal structures involved.

In my mind, trying to convince people to change through shock, reason or emotion is only going to cause them to withdraw more. Rather, it is through the inner silence and balancing of one's own distortions that compassion is awakened. I see no longer needing to eat meat as an end result, but the work is upon your inner self. Thus, I believe if the focus is upon the internal complexes that drive humans in their actions we will come to quicker change than trying to change things from the outside.

I, like I said, am omnivorous and would be perfectly content with pretty much any kind of diet. That wasn't easy to accept about myself and it has taken years to become comfortable with that fact about myself.

I also feel that change happens slowly. But I feel that humans are ready for that change to start happening now.

I'm going to use my out-loud voice: but I just don't understand why a quasi-New Age group is so staunch in its defense of eating meat. I would expect it from a libertarian board like the one I used to frequent (Above Top Secret). I seriously don't get it.

[AngelofDeath]

With that, I would be the first to say that I do not talk about my path in recommendation of it but only in acknowledgement of it. I neither advise for or against my particular approach, as it is something which has developed for me personally through much trial and error and inner exploration.

However, this actually comes back to my point in all of this is that the thoughts regarding these things will not change until there has been an appropriate grasp of perspective. No matter how much you try and tell someone that something is ethically wrong, or that it's unnatural, or that it's horrible, they won't really know or understand until they have touched upon that kind of emotion within themselves. This means going within oneself and seeing one's bias', preferences, etc. Until you accept that you have a certain bias, preference or trait you are powerless to grasp it or change its influence. That's why I don't approach this issue from an external perspective, but rather try to address the internal structures involved.

In my mind, trying to convince people to change through shock, reason or emotion is only going to cause them to withdraw more. Rather, it is through the inner silence and balancing of one's own distortions that compassion is awakened. I see no longer needing to eat meat as an end result, but the work is upon your inner self. Thus, I believe if the focus is upon the internal complexes that drive humans in their actions we will come to quicker change than trying to change things from the outside.

I, like I said, am omnivorous and would be perfectly content with pretty much any kind of diet. That wasn't easy to accept about myself and it has taken years to become comfortable with that fact about myself.

I also feel that change happens slowly. But I feel that humans are ready for that change to start happening now.

I'm going to use my out-loud voice: but I just don't understand why a quasi-New Age group is so staunch in its defense of eating meat. I would expect it from a libertarian board like the one I used to frequent (Above Top Secret). I seriously don't get it.

I think because the fundamental philosophy of the Law of One and service to others is acceptance (according to Ra). This has created very polarized views as to what exactly 'acceptance' entails and so there are many disagreements on this point. I imagine many are not actually arguing "for meat-eating" but rather arguing in defense of the right for people to make a choice, afterall Free Will is paramount.

I, personally, am not arguing either for or against as with all actions I see the potential for both negative and positive polarization. I think the assumption that you are automatically being more positive by being vegetarian is silly, just like I think someone automatically being negative because they eat meat as silly. It just doesn't add up in my mind.

You will find, however, that while there may not be agreement on the particular point of actual ingestion, it is pretty unanimous that torture, cruelty, factory farming and the like are not positive. We do unite in compassion on that point, even if different people take it to different extents.

Also, technically, if you really include everyone on the forum, people here are just as staunch about defending vegetarianism.

[AnthroHeart]

I would offer my body to some starving children in Africa if I were killed quickly. Though I am pretty fatty.

[AnthroHeart]

I would offer my body to some starving children in Africa if I were killed quickly. Though I am pretty fatty.

Though I'm sure my money would go further.

[Parsons]

You are judging the polarity of an act by saying eating meat is STS. Ra said that is impossible from inside the 3D illusion. You still have not addressed that. Responding to a post and addressing the logic of a post are not necessarily mutually inclusive. In fact, in that case you weren't even responding to my post. You were responding to Lighthead's post which I also addressed.

Would you say that knowingly, consciously, unnecessarily raping and killing a human, against their will, is an inherently STS act?

You are blatantly deflecting my point and have yet to directly address it.

Intentionally so. If you can't answer the very same question about humans, then how can you ask me to answer it about animals?

Then I'm going to assume you are intentionally being obtuse because you can't answer the question directly. "Eating meat is STS" is the cornerstone of logic that ties your personal views to the Ra Material, which falls apart if you can't judge the polarity of another 3D entity's act.