In regards to eating meat

[_X7]

I like the way Monica moderates the ad hominem attacks on food-harmonizers. Character assassination and covert distractions can or should sharpen the STO wits. QED

[3DMonkey]

IMO, the best way to proceed is to raise animals your way, and be happy that it is enough. Cuz if you ain't happy, you ain't helping the world's happiness meter.

I wonder how much all those millions of animals being tortured on a daily basis, is affecting the world's happiness

I seriously doubt any at all. If I may, this is what I've been repeating
many times and in many ways throughout this thread, and I have been consistent.

The action of polarizing toward positive begins with acceptance. I cannot change the world. I can only change my contribution to the world. By first finding acceptance for the actions of others that I currently deem 'bad', then I can proceed forth with clear understanding of love. On the other hand, if I continue to choose to reject the actions of others, then I only become like them myself and I begin to contribute to the same mentality that started the ones I rejected on their path.

I can only change what I think and do, so if I want to affect the world's love meter, I have to do it by my single alotted notch.

---

I like the way Monica moderates the ad hominem attacks on food-harmonizers. Character assassination and covert distractions can or should sharpen the STO wits. QED

Character assassination?

Like "you would allow a murderer to kill a child"

Covert distractions?

Like reminding me to stick to forum rules when I've done nothing to break them?

Is that what you are talking about? I'm confused.

---

If I have made a comment toward any person here, please locate that comment and let me know.

On the other hand, if there are no comments as such to be found, please contact the moderators and let them know that. I am being accused. I need help in defense.

---

I remember that conversation, Monkey. You know I never said those things.

Since you think it's ok to let a person kill a child, then am I "looking down on you" if I voice my opinion that it's not ok?

I can understand why someone who thinks allowing a murderer to kill a child, might feel that way.

Your views are very strange to me, Monkey.

For clarification, this is not me being angry that Monica said these things.

This is me demonstrating that I have not said anything more worthy of "invoking rules" than Monica has.

Monkey, by digging up old quotes and quoting them out of context. You know full well that I was incredulous at the time, after you explicitly said you were in favor of letting the murderer kill the child. There was no misunderstanding there. You have repeatedly stated this. All I did was echo it back to you, trying to get clarification.

You never denied believing that killers should be allowed to kill children, and in fact repeated it again and again. And now you throw it back at me, for repeating what you said yourself?

You are misrepresenting me, by quoting just snippets of the conversation. You are leaving out your part, where you were the one saying "those things" you now accuse me of, as though so awful.

This has to stop here. This thread has degenerated into petty bickering. I have asked you to pm me if you have a grievance, rather than continuing to post inflammatory and accusatory statements directed at me or anyone else.

These are new quotes!!! You brought these up on the 12th from a conversation from weeks past (so long ago I don't know the date). You brought them up out of context into a conversation where they certainly did not apply. Why? My guess is to exaggerate and to defame me in the process.

I most certainly did deny that I would allow a murder to take place. I denied it emphatically.

You accused me, Monica. You accused me. And it further defames me when you post comments like this, and then finish it with 'as a moderator I ask that you PM any further regards'. Well hell, you could have done that as well, but you didn't. Why? It certainly wasn't out of #1 rule RESPECT.

[_X7]

It's in the flavors and spices used to evade more serious research Monkey. That is what ad hominem attacks foist on food-harmonizers. It's in the cover up of health achieved through actual nutritional science and death by medicine. It's in the propagation of industrialized canabilism where cows were fed to cows, pigs to pigs, chickens to chickens, (until this was officially stopped, when mad cow disease came into debates). Yet attacks go on and on. Monica at least references issues of value to the discussion.

[Bring4th_Austin]

Perhaps you could be more specific on what you consider an "ad hominem attack" in this thread. I don't think you're being very clear.

[BrownEye]

I'm wondering why some people feel guilt about eating meat, and others don't?

It may be focus. An individual that keeps the focus on themself or gratification will feel no guilt at all.

Some individuals put the focus of importance on others above themself. You will see some that will feed others before themself. They keep the focus of well being of others above themself. The sto/sts concept is how it appears to me.

I care about humans more than animals.

This does not fit me so well, I almost like animals more than people. Instinct may cause me to save a person before an animal, but with enough thought I may do the opposite, depending on the nature of the individual.

---

Questioner: Can you describe the mechanism of the planetary healing?

Ra: I am Ra. Healing is a process of acceptance, forgiveness, and, if possible, restitution. The restitution not being available in time/space, there are many among your peoples now attempting restitution while in the physical.

[βαθμιαίος]

The sto/sts concept is how it appears to me.

Could you expand on what you mean by that? Are you saying it's STO to feel guilty about eating meat but STS not to feel guilty? Or that it's STO not to eat meat but STS to eat meat? Or something else?

[Diana]

I'm wondering why some people feel guilt about eating meat, and others don't?

I guess the people who don't either don't care, rationalise, forgive the feeling or maybe see all as perfect as it is.

I find it odd to have an order of importance/care... with humans being most important, then animals, then fish bugs plants and so on. I guess it seems hierarchical to me.


Perhaps I’m just an earthling – but I kind of find the way stuff works down here pretty amazing and awesome, the food chain connects us all.
In a world with no hunting there would be no cat’s or dogs, no owls, or eagles.

Good points all. Yes, it all fits together naturally. However:

1. Factory farms (cattle, poultry, lambs, pigs, and I will add zoos) and the cruelty they cause are not natural.

2. I keep saying this--and so do others--plants are made for eating in part or completely. Fruit needs to be eaten to propagate the plant. All seeds need to be spread--toucans in the rain forest help trees to grow that way. You can take leaves or parts from a plant and it doesn't die; not so with an animal if you take a leg or ear (think of what Japanese do to sharks--cut off their fins and throw them back in the water, they have to swim to stay alive). So the consequences of taking the lives of animals for sustenance is different than for plants. This is to say nothing of cruel commercial farming practices.

3. There is the concept of evolution. As a human, I feel compelled to continually try to grow, evolve, become more harmonious, etc. So, using my discernment and conscious choosing, I choose to move toward more harmonious and gentler ways of being here, and leave a smaller footprint, causing less harm. Also, I do not judge and preach this causing harm that way; I am here in a discussion with intelligent, spiritually minded individuals who--I assume--are here to discuss the subject openly.

For my part, I don't think any life is better or more important than any other life, be it human, plant, animal, insect etc. The difference is that humans have advanced thinking capabilities which enable discernment and conscious choices that seem to be more varied than the animal kingdom.

And all this is to say nothing of health.

---

IMO, the best way to proceed is to raise animals your way, and be happy that it is enough. Cuz if you ain't happy, you ain't helping the world's happiness meter.

I wonder how much all those millions of animals being tortured on a daily basis, is affecting the world's happiness

I seriously doubt any at all. If I may, this is what I've been repeating
many times and in many ways throughout this thread, and I have been consistent.

Monkey, she means the unhappiness of the animals.

[3DMonkey]

Monkey, she means the unhappiness of the animals.

Oh. .... I wonder. .... Maybe they have found a "happy place" to accept the person with the knife. There is no way to know...

[Diana]

Monkey, she means the unhappiness of the animals.

Oh. .... I wonder. .... Maybe they have found a "happy place" to accept the person with the knife. There is no way to know...

You claimed to have seen feedlots, then you must know they aren't happy. Have you seen them lined up for slaughter? They are terrified.

[3DMonkey]

I'm wondering why some people feel guilt about eating meat, and others don't?

It may be focus. An individual that keeps the focus on themself or gratification will feel no guilt at all.

Some individuals put the focus of importance on others above themself. You will see some that will feed others before themself. They keep the focus of well being of others above themself. The sto/sts concept is how it appears to me.

I care about humans more than animals.

This does not fit me so well, I almost like animals more than people. Instinct may cause me to save a person before an animal, but with enough thought I may do the opposite, depending on the nature of the individual.

---

Questioner: Can you describe the mechanism of the planetary healing?

Ra: I am Ra. Healing is a process of acceptance, forgiveness, and, if possible, restitution. The restitution not being available in time/space, there are many among your peoples now attempting restitution while in the physical.

That's a good quote.

About loving animals more than humans. I have found that to be largely the case with animal lovers. I know a specific person, not on this forum, who will save a lady bug then turn right around and berate an overweight person. This person is also very unforgiving toward children and is unaware that they are not adults in small bodies. I think it has something to do with considering an animal's ignorance to be its disposition requiring .... restitution?

---

Monkey, she means the unhappiness of the animals.

Oh. .... I wonder. .... Maybe they have found a "happy place" to accept the person with the knife. There is no way to know...

You claimed to have seen feedlots, then you must know they aren't happy. Have you seen them lined up for slaughter? They are terrified.

Diana, I have no idea what my wife is thinking. I can't possible know what a cow thinks. I have the power to choose to believe they are all happy to be contributing to the One. Just like I have the power to think that lettuce is happy to become One with me as I chew. The principle here is using my thought for good.

[Meerie]

That's a good quote.

About loving animals more than humans. I have found that to be largely the case with animal lovers. I know a specific person, not on this forum, who will save a lady bug then turn right around and berate an overweight person. This person is also very unforgiving toward children and is unaware that they are not adults in small bodies. I think it has something to do with considering an animal's ignorance to be its disposition requiring .... restitution?

you could be right. A famous example would be Brigitte Bardot.
I think I read a study somewhere that people who have been let down by others will turn to love animals more than humans instead. Because they won't disappoint them the same way than humans.

[3DMonkey]

That's a good quote.

About loving animals more than humans. I have found that to be largely the case with animal lovers. I know a specific person, not on this forum, who will save a lady bug then turn right around and berate an overweight person. This person is also very unforgiving toward children and is unaware that they are not adults in small bodies. I think it has something to do with considering an animal's ignorance to be its disposition requiring .... restitution?

you could be right. A famous example would be Brigitte Bardot.
I think I read a study somewhere that people who have been let down by others will turn to love animals more than humans instead. Because they won't disappoint them the same way than humans.

Yeah, I can understand loving an animal more than a human on a case by case basis. I mean, let's be honest, I obviously love my pet dog more than I love the starving children in Africa.

[Meerie]

you have a dog? really? (or are you talking about a stuffed animal)

[Diana]

Diana, I have no idea what my wife is thinking. I can't possible know what a cow thinks. I have the power to choose to believe they are all happy to be contributing to the One. Just like I have the power to think that lettuce is happy to become One with me as I chew. The principle here is using my thought for good.

Point taken. I agree with using thought for good, and that thoughts are as harmful as physical things.

I want to optimize my existence. Some people say that everything is polluted so why try to quit smoking, or eat better, etc. I say, do the best you can with everything you can.

It seems obvious to me to choose not to participate in the cruel treatment of meat-animals (although I recognize that that is only my feeling). I could justify it--perhaps rightly so--by saying that the "higher selves" of the animals are on board with it. But that doesn't change that cruelty is undesirable.

It is not my intention to take away from anyone else's choices. I do feel compelled to evolve. My evolution is enmeshed with general evolution, which suggests to me, that my choices are not disconnected from the whole. Which suggests, conversely, that your choices are not disconnected from me.

We are evolving as a species as well as individuals. We are part of a system. When electrons supposedly pop in and out existence, it is my theory that they are part of a system beyond our 3D, part of which we have no access to. All life here is a part of a system, but is also part of a greater system, possibly ad infinitum.

So acceptance of free will, yes, but collective responsibility is also a consideration.

[Phoenix]

Have they tried Dr. Cousens' solution for being vegetarian?

.......

Even IF Ra is saying eating meat is ok, and that's a very big IF because Ra is very selective about choice of words, and it's significant that the carefully worded animal products was chosen instead of meat...but even if Ra is saying some people might need meat because of their metabolism, Ra very clearly said to the extent necessary.

It has been proven that a vegetarian diet is adequate for the human body. Not only that, but vegetarians have much less risk for nearly every disease.

Even so, some people do indeed crave meat. Why? Because their bodies are in transition. Also because foods don't have the nutrients they're supposed to, because of chemical farming methods.

But there are solutions to this: superfoods. As explained by Dr. Gabriel Cousens, they fill in the gap.

Not only that, but aren't we supposed to be evolving? Metabolism can change.

When I went on the vegetarian diet I was doing something called the Ph Miracle diet. Which consists of almost nothing but superfoods.

Also, as far as the Ra Material goes. Firstly, I'm not going back on 44 pages worth of material. Secondly, I won't try too hard to interpret Ra's suggestion, I think they are self explanatory in that if ethics are important then they would have been mentioned. Also, the line 'products of the animal, such as the milks or cheeses,' or some other definition could easily have been stated if that in fact was needed.

Also, most of the things we do have ethical problems. Most of the things we eat, wear, etc. Have some unethical relation. Ever put petrol in your car? Given money to a bank? Used a crystal or gold when you hadn't been to the mine that created them? Or brought diamonds before the United Nations ruling on blood diamonds?

[Diana]

That's a good quote.

About loving animals more than humans. I have found that to be largely the case with animal lovers. I know a specific person, not on this forum, who will save a lady bug then turn right around and berate an overweight person. This person is also very unforgiving toward children and is unaware that they are not adults in small bodies. I think it has something to do with considering an animal's ignorance to be its disposition requiring .... restitution?

you could be right. A famous example would be Brigitte Bardot.
I think I read a study somewhere that people who have been let down by others will turn to love animals more than humans instead. Because they won't disappoint them the same way than humans.

There may be people like that. But the individuals on this site are thinking, intelligent, spiritually minded people (I assume).

The reason could be that humans have a collective responsibility for the harm done to this planet in so many ways. Animals live in equilibrium and are not culpable. They have intent to survive and not to destroy. You may be able to cite an example of an alpha male killing another male, but this is survival.

So the general feeling toward animals is that they are innocent of the planet's trouble. Humans aren't innocent, collectively even. There have been times in my life when I have despised the human race. Of course I transmute that negative thought. But I have no such feelings about animals.

[3DMonkey]

Diana, I have no idea what my wife is thinking. I can't possible know what a cow thinks. I have the power to choose to believe they are all happy to be contributing to the One. Just like I have the power to think that lettuce is happy to become One with me as I chew. The principle here is using my thought for good.

Point taken. I agree with using thought for good, and that thoughts are as harmful as physical things.

I want to optimize my existence. Some people say that everything is polluted so why try to quit smoking, or eat better, etc. I say, do the best you can with everything you can.

It seems obvious to me to choose not to participate in the cruel treatment of meat-animals (although I recognize that that is only my feeling). I could justify it--perhaps rightly so--by saying that the "higher selves" of the animals are on board with it. But that doesn't change that cruelty is undesirable.

It is not my intention to take away from anyone else's choices. I do feel compelled to evolve. My evolution is enmeshed with general evolution, which suggests to me, that my choices are not disconnected from the whole. Which suggests, conversely, that your choices are not disconnected from me.

We are evolving as a species as well as individuals. We are part of a system. When electrons supposedly pop in and out existence, it is my theory that they are part of a system beyond our 3D, part of which we have no access to. All life here is a part of a system, but is also part of a greater system, possibly ad infinitum.

So acceptance of free will, yes, but collective responsibility is also a consideration.

I too recognize my own justifications that form my own perspective and opinions. It is this recognition that will help up live harmoniously, IMO- allowing and accepting our free will

[BrownEye]

The sto/sts concept is how it appears to me.

Could you expand on what you mean by that? Are you saying it's STO to feel guilty about eating meat but STS not to feel guilty? Or that it's STO not to eat meat but STS to eat meat? Or something else?

The feeling rather than the doing. Feeling it must be a response of a reaction between self and other self. Other self is not narrowed down to human only.

I also look at polarization differently. It is not how much experience has been gained, but how attracted to one side of polarity an individual is. Polarity describes positive and negative, one attracts, one repels. One way to see the physical effect of this in nature might be that we "attract" on one end of the body, and "repel" on the opposite end. It would appear that the physical mechanics are the same concept of the flow characteristics of polarities.



A magnet, showing the flow of polarity.


The earth.

The energy flow of everything, as I see it.

The symbol of god, eternal, infinity.

Polarity can be applied to the force underlying emotion that we see on this thread. Too much of the positive can cause a "push". Too much negative would be "gratification". Acceptance is a hard area to remain in.

A magnet is the simplest physical manifestation of this concept of polarity. Look at how the magnet functions, how everything functions in this way.

Balance should be the key to movement through density, and I have a sneaking suspicion that "harvest" is something based on emotional polarity of imbalance. If higher densities tend to feed on lower densities we may actually be preparing a feast for these higher densities as the planet moves towards extremes in global emotion, which we see happeneing in the news. (Not that this is a negative thing in any way, it would only be emotions that are taken.)

[3DMonkey]

That's a good quote.

About loving animals more than humans. I have found that to be largely the case with animal lovers. I know a specific person, not on this forum, who will save a lady bug then turn right around and berate an overweight person. This person is also very unforgiving toward children and is unaware that they are not adults in small bodies. I think it has something to do with considering an animal's ignorance to be its disposition requiring .... restitution?

you could be right. A famous example would be Brigitte Bardot.
I think I read a study somewhere that people who have been let down by others will turn to love animals more than humans instead. Because they won't disappoint them the same way than humans.

There may be people like that. But the individuals on this site are thinking, intelligent, spiritually minded people (I assume).

The reason could be that humans have a collective responsibility for the harm done to this planet in so many ways. Animals live in equilibrium and are not culpable. They have intent to survive and not to destroy. You may be able to cite an example of an alpha male killing another male, but this is survival.

So the general feeling toward animals is that they are innocent of the planet's trouble. Humans aren't innocent, collectively even. There have been times in my life when I have despised the human race. Of course I transmute that negative thought. But I have no such feelings about animals.

Yes, you are describing the mentality of the person, not on this forum, that I was describing.

As for animals not being culpable. I don't agree. I don't even understand how to sympathize/empathize* with that. (* whichever one you take to mean feel the same feelings as someone else) For instance, I don't even know the justifications that would be necessary to create my mindset to think that way.

---

you have a dog? really? (or are you talking about a stuffed animal)

Grissom. 95 pound Great Pyrenees/Labrador mix. I think the term is Pyrador? He's 10 years old.



Now THIS post is off topic

[BrownEye]

I mean, let's be honest, I obviously love my pet dog more than I love the starving children in Africa.

I would put an underprivileged child above a child in the states. But I am on the opposite side of the world, in the middle of overprivileged folks.

[3DMonkey]

I mean, let's be honest, I obviously love my pet dog more than I love the starving children in Africa.

I would put an underprivileged child above a child in the states. But I am on the opposite side of the world, in the middle of overprivileged folks.

That was my point. "obviously" was my word choice, because the truth is there aren't any starving children from Africa digging holes in my back yard. I'm literally feeding my dog every day, and literally not feeding those children.

[Diana]

As for animals not being culpable. I don't agree. I don't even understand how to sympathize/empathize* with that. (* whichever one you take to mean feel the same feelings as someone else) For instance, I don't even know the justifications that would be necessary to create my mindset to think that way.

---

Holes in the ozone come to mind. Humans have cut down the rain forests, over-mined resources from the Earth, polluted the oceans, taken over habitats, etc, etc. And, the salient point is, humans have taken more than they need. Out of selfishness, greed, unconsciousness.

What have animals done to contribute to the destruction of the life here (including the planet, which I consider live)?

[3DMonkey]

As for animals not being culpable. I don't agree. I don't even understand how to sympathize/empathize* with that. (* whichever one you take to mean feel the same feelings as someone else) For instance, I don't even know the justifications that would be necessary to create my mindset to think that way.

---

Holes in the ozone come to mind. Humans have cut down the rain forests, over-mined resources from the Earth, polluted the oceans, taken over habitats, etc, etc. And, the salient point is, humans have taken more than they need. Out of selfishness, greed, unconsciousness.

What have animals done to contribute to the destruction of the life here (including the planet, which I consider live)?

I'll just say I don't think that way. I wouldn't make those connections from A to B.

[BrownEye]

We have advised and suggested caution and patience in previous communications and do so again, using this entity as an example of the over-hasty opening of polarization without due attention to the synthesized and integrated mind/body/spirit complex. To know your self is to have the foundation upon firm ground.

I am pretty sure the "self" in context is the inner portion that is hidden behind ego and gratification.

I may love corn, while the inner self will advise me that corn is detrimental to my health.(organic or not) Is it best for me to ignore the inner self and continue with my gratification?

This is the concept I would promote. Learn who/what/why of the inner self, then attempt to apply it to the outer self (ego) and you will speed up the process you are here for.

[Diana]

As for animals not being culpable. I don't agree. I don't even understand how to sympathize/empathize* with that. (* whichever one you take to mean feel the same feelings as someone else) For instance, I don't even know the justifications that would be necessary to create my mindset to think that way.

Holes in the ozone come to mind. Humans have cut down the rain forests, over-mined resources from the Earth, polluted the oceans, taken over habitats, etc, etc. And, the salient point is, humans have taken more than they need. Out of selfishness, greed, unconsciousness.

What have animals done to contribute to the destruction of the life here (including the planet, which I consider live)?
[/quote]

I'll just say I don't think that way. I wouldn't make those connections from A to B.
[/quote]

Okay, accepted. But I was positing why some people might have more concern for animals than humans. Or rather, feel that animals deserve concern over humans. Just a theory.

[3DMonkey]

We have advised and suggested caution and patience in previous communications and do so again, using this entity as an example of the over-hasty opening of polarization without due attention to the synthesized and integrated mind/body/spirit complex. To know your self is to have the foundation upon firm ground.

I am pretty sure the "self" in context is the inner portion that is hidden behind ego and gratification.

I may love corn, while the inner self will advise me that corn is detrimental to my health.(organic or not) Is it best for me to ignore the inner self and continue with my gratification?

This is the concept I would promote. Learn who/what/why of the inner self, then attempt to apply it to the outer self (ego) and you will speed up the process you are here for.

I absolutely agree. Listening to the "self" is paramount. Above all justifications. [IMO]

If you were to go back in this thread far enough, you'd find my original entry that brought Monica and I into our food relationship. It was me, conceding that my "self" was telling me not to eat meat. It turned out to be for fasting reasons that it "spoke" to me.

[Diana]

As for animals not being culpable. I don't agree. I don't even understand how to sympathize/empathize* with that. (* whichever one you take to mean feel the same feelings as someone else) For instance, I don't even know the justifications that would be necessary to create my mindset to think that way.

---

Holes in the ozone come to mind. Humans have cut down the rain forests, over-mined resources from the Earth, polluted the oceans, taken over habitats, etc, etc. And, the salient point is, humans have taken more than they need. Out of selfishness, greed, unconsciousness.

What have animals done to contribute to the destruction of the life here (including the planet, which I consider live)?

I'll just say I don't think that way. I wouldn't make those connections from A to B.

Okay, accepted. But I was positing why some people might have more concern for animals than humans. Or rather, feel that animals deserve concern over humans. Just a theory.

[3DMonkey]

As for animals not being culpable. I don't agree. I don't even understand how to sympathize/empathize* with that. (* whichever one you take to mean feel the same feelings as someone else) For instance, I don't even know the justifications that would be necessary to create my mindset to think that way.

---

Holes in the ozone come to mind. Humans have cut down the rain forests, over-mined resources from the Earth, polluted the oceans, taken over habitats, etc, etc. And, the salient point is, humans have taken more than they need. Out of selfishness, greed, unconsciousness.

What have animals done to contribute to the destruction of the life here (including the planet, which I consider live)?

I'll just say I don't think that way. I wouldn't make those connections from A to B.

Okay, accepted. But I was positing why some people might have more concern for animals than humans. Or rather, feel that animals deserve concern over humans. Just a theory.

Oh! To help me understand? Thank you. I happened to be aware of those points. Again, I don't seem to find a way to believe those points.

[BrownEye]

If you were to go back in this thread far enough, you'd find my original entry that brought Monica and I into our food relationship. It was me, conceding that my "self" was telling me not to eat meat. It turned out to be for fasting reasons that it "spoke" to me.

If you put enough investigation into this occurence, you will see that the issue comes up as a way to eliminate an overburden of toxins. (physical and spiritual) It may even be that it was a message your waking mind took to have temporary meaning. That is, you may not always get this helping hand at extending your health. If you made no permanent changes as a result of the message then the message was not retrieved.

[3DMonkey]

If you were to go back in this thread far enough, you'd find my original entry that brought Monica and I into our food relationship. It was me, conceding that my "self" was telling me not to eat meat. It turned out to be for fasting reasons that it "spoke" to me.

If you put enough investigation into this occurence, you will see that the issue comes up as a way to eliminate an overburden of toxins. (physical and spiritual) It may even be that it was a message your waking mind took to have temporary meaning. That is, you may not always get this helping hand at extending your health. If you made no permanent changes as a result of the message then the message was not retrieved.

I agree with everything except "permanent". I wasn't made that way and my higher self doesn't expect that from me. We like change.