Humanity should respect animals.

[Monica]

Words sure are a pain, aren't they?!

Yup. Yet we keep coming back for more!

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.

OK how about: One of the tasks of STS entities is to offer catalyst, and they tend to do it gladly.

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.

OK. I think of this reality as a manifestation of patterns in the higher planes, so I don't really think of the physical as being separate, in that sense. It's all just energy, ultimately.

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.

Yes, there is a certain connotation to the term.

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.

We're splitting hairs here, but I'd disagree that ethics is what makes killing 'wrong.' We know that, ultimately, there is no right or wrong, but in relative terms, there is indeed right and wrong, with 'wrong' being defined as something that is in opposition to one's intended path.

Ie. it would be 'wrong' for an STO to knowingly harm another entity, but not wrong for an STS to do that. It's wrong because it impairs polarization, not because society says it's wrong or unethical.

In terms of society's rules, there is no distinction between the same action by and STS and by an STO. Yet, from a Law of One perspective, there's a world of difference.

The very concept of ethics only applies to the STO path. It has no relevance to the STS path.

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.

Got it. I agree it won't reach any resolution, but maybe not for the same reason. I think that as long as this planet is a 1-room schoolhouse, there won't be consensus. Maybe after the repeaters and STS graduates have been moved to their new planet, we might have consensus. Maybe. Or maybe it won't happen until late 4D. Maybe a good bit of 4D will be spent getting into consensus as the new baby 4D'ers learn to be an SMC.

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.

Yes. Or, it might be required for the population to survive on this planet. They might not have a choice!

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.

Which statement are you referring to? The entire Ra Material is subject to interpretation! This entire forum is made up of tons of discussions, that go back and forth and round and round, debating various interpretations!

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.

Does it? Hmmm...let me think about that. Well I guess it depends on one's definition of love.

If I see a picture of a starving child, I immediately feel compassion. But, I don't 'love' that child in the same way I love my husband, son or best friend. That's what I meant by compassion without love.

But after compassion has been triggered in me, my usual response is to intentionally send love to that child. Still not the same kind of love as the familial love, but it love nonetheless!

I feel compassion for family members when the situation warrants it...but I'm not feeling compassion for them at all times. Yet, I do love them at all times. So, that is love without compassion, at any given moment. Other moments contain love with compassion.

So, you're right: One can exist without the other. BUT, not for long! Only momentarily! In order for my compassion for that starving child to do any good, it kinda has to progress into love, dontcha think? That seems to be the natural progression for how my mind works, anyway. For me, love just naturally follows compassion.

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.

As my examples just illustrated, you're right. But, I think they do flow into each other, and don't stay separate for long, so in that respect we're both right.

Love can naturally flow from compassion, but it doesn't always happen that way. When an entity is first learning love, they may need to consciously choose one or the other, and then the other will naturally flow from that, hopefully.

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!

Yeah!

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!

OK. It is what it is. I just find it funny when some say that to me in a condescending way, as though I am really behind the times since I haven't yet learned to "turn off" the compassion.

You didn't do that, so we're cool.

But doesn't it strike you as a bit funny that some people seem to think being more spiritually advanced is based on having less love and compassion? That to measure up, one must stifle love's natural flow.

Which of course begs the question: Are those people really 'beyond' such compassion, or are they in denial about their own blockages?

(NOT referring to anyone in particular, and certainly not to you, Tenet...just a general musing.)

I'm not offended...just amused.

At your service... *bow*

I certainly wouldn't want you to get butthurt over me getting butthurt, now would I?

Well now that we've reached a pretty good level of understanding, very soon I'm going to have to exit this discussion for awhile. It's gotten a bit too time consuming!

Carry on!