Humanity should respect animals.

[Monica]

I'd say the function of life is to express itself in physical form, but that isn't its purpose. Its purpose is to evolve spiritually.

I said Life likely has multiple purposes. Expressing itself in physical form is an act of will. Life doesn't have to do that; It chooses to.

Assuming you are referring to physical, 3D life when you say 'life' (as opposed to the existence of the spirit) then I still contend that the very purpose of 3D reality at all, is so that entities can evolve. 3D reality is just a stage, an illusion set up for the express purpose of providing a school for 3D entities, to learn the lessons needed for graduation to 4D. Everything else is secondary.

That's my understanding.

Really? Without any animals? What about worms or bees? Or did you just mean without farm animals?

I meant just farm animals kept in captivity, raised for food. Bees, worms, dogs and cats don't count.

It is the function of STS to create catalyst.

Where did you get that from?

The Law of One, of course.

To clarify: The very structure of 3D is rife with catalyst. Just living here on this planet and interacting with the environment generates catalyst. Interacting with other-selves, whether STS or STO, also generates catalyst. So I didn't intend to imply that anyone who triggers catalyst is STS!

But, STS entities provide the spice, the fire that forges the blade, the impetus that spurs STOs into evolution. Ra stated that the duality design was to accelerate evolution. Think about it: If all STS entities were suddenly eliminated from the planet, a big chunk of our catalyst (horrors of war, many of the violent acts, etc.) would be eliminated. Our world would be all peace love and puffies, and growth would slow down, because there'd be less catalyst.

Ra stated that STS entities serve the Creator. My understanding is that that is precisely how they serve: by providing more catalyst than we'd get with environmental factors alone. Someone's gotta do the dirty work!

And they do so willingly. Advanced STS entities do so consciously and knowingly. Take for example the famous (or infamous, depending on your perception) the self-proclaimed STS entity Hidden Hand. He claims to be serving the rest of us. And indeed he is.

But what is acceptable and even advisable for an STS entity, isn't necessarily acceptable or appropriate for an STO. An STS will gain polarity when s/he harms or controls another; whereas, an STO would lose polarity when making that same choice.

By that logic, then why ever try to save anyone's life? Why not just look the other way if we witness an impending murder?

Because when human-human interactions are involved, ethical principles come into play. Swatting a mosquito is not murder.

That's just a cultural moré. Swatting a mosquito isn't considered murder because society decided it wasn't murder. That has no bearing on spiritual considerations.

What you seem to be saying is that we should try to save a human victim because, well, society says it's murder. But swatting a mosquito doesn't matter because, well, it's just a bug.

Or are you saying the opposite? Sometimes we dig so deep, Tenet, that I forget what we were talking about! :-/

What I meant is that if the argument is made that humans shouldn't elevate themselves over farm animals, then it follows that we shouldn't elevate farm animals over other animals, or for than matter animals over the other kingdoms of lifeforms. I wasn't making that argument myself.

The point is to show why ethical principles are problematic when extended outside of human-human relationships.

OK, I can agree with that! But I don't think in terms of anyone elevating themselves over anyone else, whether plant or animal or human. It's not about elevating. That doesn't even enter into the conversation, in my mind.

I am not totally discrediting your approach!

OK, good to know.

Farm animals are a special case because they have been domesticated by humans, and in that domestication process we have reduced their ability to survive in nature without our assistance. Thus we bear some special responsibility to them, and I think it is fair to extend ethical principles to domesticated animals. It is fair, but problematic.

I agree that the entire situation is problematic, just as are other volatile, highly charged subjects, like war, abortion, etc. (Again I marvel that we haven't had any ongoing abortion debates in this community! Amazing!)

But are you saying that we should extend ethical principles to farm animals only because we are responsible for them (since we domesticated them) or do you think we should do so anyway?

Should some humans elevate themselves over other humans?

Of course not.

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding me. For example, we are not in agreement over the difference between a purpose and a function. So therefore anything downstream from that will be confusing.

Uh oh. Maybe we should just quit here then...?

The Law of One is a philosophy that works in all instances.

Agreed! But, the problem is in applying the Law of One. We can't all agree on interpretation, much less application.

other than the general philosophy of compassion, since that is, after all, what we're supposed to be learning here in 3D, and, in my understanding, the actual purpose of 3D to begin with.

Oh gosh, no! Compassion is a function of 4D. If humanity were here to teach/learn compassion, this whole experience would have been a miserable failure, don't you think? The spiritual functions of humanity in 3D are faith and love.

A function of 4D, yes, but we must demonstrate it in 3D to get into 4D. We go to the density that matches our vibration, then hone the love there. I already had that conversation with another member:

Bring4th Forums One > The Harvest > Green Ray Requirement for Harvest to 4D

I don't think compassion can be separated from love. Compassion often leads to love, and vice versa.

Faith is referenced by Ra along with will in most cases. I didn't see a single instance in which faith was referenced along with love.

Compassion, however, was referenced along with love many times.

To my estimation (which could be entirely wrong!) you are a 4D wanderer. Which is why you display an abundance of compassion relative to the population.

Oh, so I am 'only' a 4D Wanderer? Oh man, no wonder I'm out of my league here! Most B4 members believe themselves to be 6D! There was even a poll conducted, and the overwhelming majority believed themselves to be from 6D. Those few 4D'ers are quite the minority! One person even told me s/he felt intimidated, being 'only' from 4D, and was afraid to participate for fear of being outsmarted. (I encouraged them to express themselves and not worry about others analyzing which density they were from.) Another person, claiming to be from 6D (of course!) said s/he knew what density everyone was from, and what their lessons were. :exclamation:

LOL! Several B4 members have told me which density they think I'm from. Some said 4D (for the same reason you just listed), others said 5D (and made an equally good case for 5D), and others said 6D (and made an equally good case for 6D).

So whom do I believe? Gosh, it's a toss-up. They all made good arguments for thinking I was from x density.

I find it very amusing, actually, to think that any of us could know what density we are from ourselves, much less someone else! I know there are many techniques people use to determine such info...and many don't use any technique at all, but just arrive at that conclusion somehow. To that I say: Whatever floats your boat! I don't take any of those opinions or techniques as authoritative. They might be interesting to explore, but to put all one's faith into them is to set oneself up for disappointment or delusion at some point down the road. (NOT saying you intended it that way! I just found humor in it since you're not the first person to tell me which density I'm from...probably at least 9-10 people have done so...with opinions pretty much evenly divided into 4, 5, and 6...definitely not a consensus!)

I'm not offended...just amused. I do, however, feel compassion for those poor 4D schmucks who are feeling so intimidated. Apparently, here at B4 all the cool folks are from 6D!

But as with all wanderers, there is a propensity to project the functions of one's home density into the current situation. Unfortunately- and I have been teach/learning this the hard way- this is not the purpose of wanderers.

That topic has been discussed in other threads, though I don't remember which ones. There was much debate about the purpose of Wanderers.

I will say only that there can be multiple purposes.

Also, I refute this idea that if a Wanderer is displaying traits of x density, then that means they are from that density. We cannot know that from simple observation. There are myriad other explanations, like maybe they're brushing up on x density lessons, refining some areas that needed refining, or maybe even took on a particular mission and chose to focus on certain aspects, in order to accomplish that mission. A 6D Wanderer, for example, might display what appears to be 4D traits, to accomplish his/her mission. S/he hasn't lost those qualities just because s/he moved on to other qualities as well. A balanced entity would be able to pull out whichever qualities are appropriate to the mission, as needed.

I'm not saying you're wrong in your assessment of me. To be honest, I have no idea which density I'm from and I really don't care. I do, however, find it fruitless to guess as to the density of others, and I think any such conversation has inherent risks.

Even Ra declined to answer Don's question about which of the 3 was 'merely' a 5D Wanderer, for this very reason.