Humanity should respect animals.

[Tenet Nosce]

Assuming you are referring to physical, 3D life when you say 'life' (as opposed to the existence of the spirit)

No, I am referring to spirit. That's why I was attempting to distinguish between Life and form. Words sure are a pain, aren't they?!

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

Got it.

The Law of One, of course.

I think we agree that STS entities offer catalyst, but I wouldn't say that is their purpose. When I say purpose I am referring to a conscious intent.

But in any case, when I was talking about humanity giving catalyst to life, I meant that in the physical sense... in the chemical sense. Literally manufacturing physical catalyst for chemical reactions in the planetary cycles. In other words- helping Life along. Making it easier for physical forms to exist- and yes to evolve.

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! :-/

LOL- points within points within points! No, what I am saying is that the term murder is an ethical term which primarily applies to human-human relationships. Ethical philosophy is what separates an act of murder from just plain killing.

Ethics is what makes killing "wrong." And yes- as you said it is ultimately arbitrary. That's why I think it is not the best branch of philosophy to apply to the situation.

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?

I am saying that I understand why people extend ethical principles to farm animals. But since ethical principles are ultimately arbitrary, this process will never lead to consensus. Therefore, an ethical discussion about the raising of farm animals for food- while engaging- is not likely to reach resolution any time in the near future, in this density or the next.

What I DO think will change is the level awareness of who we are, and what is our purpose. And when that happens, the notion of large-scale raising animals for food will be rather quickly abandoned. This is because it will be obvious that it is not in any case necessary, and moreover is a waste of resources.

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

I dunno. There might still be hope.

We can't all agree on interpretation, much less application.

What is there to interpret? What do you think is controversial about it? I think it is a pretty straightforward and concise statement. Like all universal laws.

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

Your statement contradicts itself. If compassion leads to love, then it is is possible to have compassion without love. Thus compassion can be experienced separately from love.

Basically, what you said was there is compassion alone, there is love alone, and then there is compassion and love together. Yes, I would agree. Can each form a foundation for the other? Sure, why not? But that isn't to say they must always come together.

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!

LOL! That's pretty absurd that people would use density of origin as some kind of yardstick to compare one another against! Seeing as how a primary characteristic of a Wanderer is a desire for remediation and recapitulation of lessons. Oh yeah, Wanderers are a real classy bunch!

I used to think I was a 6D Wanderer. But lately I have been considering if it is 6th subdensity of 4D. It can be an interesting thing to ponder, but ultimately fruitless, in terms of a definitive answer. That's why I said I could be completely wrong.

I meant no offense! What I was thinking in my mind is that you clearly have an abundance of compassion relative to the population. So take that however you will!

I'm not offended...just amused.

At your service... *bow*