Why I am not a vegan

[Monica]

* I notice that meat people on this thread (so far) respond to suggestions... (usually from Diana) and lock horns with you (Monica) because you come from that locked horns energy... combative...

Please read the early threads first, before making such a judgment. I was syrupy sweet for a very long time, until I realized that it didn't matter how sweet I was...people would attack me for my views, no matter how nicely I said it.

Not only that, but I was in the discussion far longer than Diana. Others came and went, but I was there the whole time. It took its toll on me. Or maybe she's just more evolved than I am. I want to be like Diana when I grow up!

[Monica]

I wonder if you would be better leaving the issue on Bring4th and using all your passion, strength and fighting spirit into practical non internet related activism...

I did that. I left about 18 months ago and only peeked in once during that time, until a few days ago, when I decided to post the thread about the Law of One possibly turning into a religious dogma, which I thought was an important topic for discussion.

But others turned it into yet another endless, heated debate about meat, because of my signature (which I have a right to and which I've had since the last time I was here).

I'm thinking of changing it to Eating tomatoes is an STS act. Do you think anyone will get their panties in a bundle over that? Surely there are many tomato eaters here!

[Monica]

I would ask again.. do you think (5 years later) that your way of speaking about animal rights is achieving the result you want?

I'm not concerned with results. That is up to the Creator, not me. I just do what I feel guided to do. I hear the cries of the billions of animals every single day. It is getting louder.

I have shared how upset I feel about animal cruelty YET everytime I see the words below each post your 'signature' (on each post).. I FEEL your strong energy of judgement and hostility - you're a "right-fighter"...

"If you judge people you have no time to love them" - Mother Teresa


animal cruelty occurs from a LACK OF LOVE

yet - people can't feel love coming from you...

if we fight hate with hate... more hate


Love brings the change

I feel no hate. NONE. I feel only sadness that these people do not hear the calls of the billions of victims.

As I said, for several years I was syrupy sweet, and they still perceived my words as judgmental.

There were multiple threads on the meat issue...the one I posted (with the index) plus half a dozen more. You can find them by searching for the word 'meat' in the diet sub-forum, plus there are even more in other sub-forums too! The one I posted was just the biggest one, but there were probably at least 10, total, most of which were started by other people, NOT me. This went on for 5 years. I was there for all of it.

Is it doing any good? I have no idea. That isn't my job to figure out. But clearly, it's a topic people are interested in, because the  main thread consistently got the most hits out of any thread in the whole forum, until the mods shut it down.

I appreciate your well-intentioned feedback. I really do. Again, please read those early threads before you judge me.

[Diana]

 I want to be like Diana when I grow up!

I have two things to say about that:

1. Don't grow up—that's no fun. Better to skip through life and sniff buttercups. 

2. If you must grow up, don't be like me. I'm a complete mess. 3D is driving me nuts!

 

[Plenum]

If you must grow up, don't be like me. I'm a complete mess. 3D is driving me nuts!

I'm sure you'll figure things out.  You seem to have a strong sense of identity, which is key to being able to navigate the tangled vibrations on this planet.

[K-PAX]

~ Left Bring4th to avoid bullying ~

[Monica]

Monica.. you asked me to read the early threads (again) I have begun doing that and as I've said - the first thing I read (of note) is:

["When I first became a vegetarian, I was awful! Very self-righteous! I made it into a religion and tried to cram it down people's throats. I felt justified because, not only was I trying to help them, but I was trying to speak up on behalf of the animals, who could not speak for themselves.

Alas, my approach did not work, and I only succeeded in alienating people. Finally, a friend spoke up to me, and made me realize how obnoxious I had become." ]




I think it could be very useful for you to re-visit this past understanding.

I was referring to live, in person, going up to people eating dead animals and telling them about diet. I haven't done that in over 30 years.

This is a discussion forum. No one is being forced to participate in any discussions they don't want to.

No, I'm not going to change my views, just because people want me to. I'm not going to pretend I think eating animals is ok, when it's not.

This is a discussion forum, not a restaurant. We're not at a social gathering, having dinner. We're discussing. In discussions, people have opinions. Mine happens to be an unpopular opinion.

2. Using the description "syrupy-sweet" shows much about your attitude, your anger...

WTF? I was syrupy sweet because that is my normal nature. If you are insinuating that I was pretending to be sweet, to hide anger, you are wrong.

The point was that it didn't matter how sweet I was...because I really was verrrrry nice in those early days. And guess what? They STILL got angry at me, no matter what I said or how I said it...NOT because I was rude or judgmental because I wasn't...They got angry and offended, to the point of calling me and the other vegetarians nasty names, simply because we had the audacity to stand firm on our convictions in a public internet discussion.

If anything, I am more direct about this topic now, because I am no longer willing to tolerate abuse from meat-eaters who lash out at vegetarians. They did a LOT of lashing out at us! But maybe you haven't read that far yet...?

3. I don't believe that you don't feel hate... perhaps not towards people here.. but surely towards the cruelty?
The anger/hate of the cruelty is what has driven your energy on this topic for years...

No, you are wrong again. I have said numerous times what drives me, and I will say it again:

I HEAR THE CALLS OF THE BILLIONS OF SENTIENT BEINGS WHO ARE BEING TORTURED ON A DAILY BASIS, BECAUSE PEOPLE WON'T QUIT SUPPORTING THIS BARBARIC, CRUEL, EVIL MEAT INDUSTRY.

THAT is what drives me.

Anger? No. Frustration? Yes.

I feel you haven't allowed almost anything I've said into your heart, nor will you with this

You have read only a tiny fraction of what I've written, and you dare to judge me? Since when did you decide that it's ok to analyze me?

In 5 years, I have NEVER EVER analyzed ANYONE personally on this forum.

I do NOT give you permission to do it to me!

If you have feedback for me, you may do so in private. Don't expect me to listen to your public psycho-analyzing...especially when you haven't even bothered to read it all before deciding that you know my inner motivations and feelings. (And even if you had, you still wouldn't.)

We can't solve negativity with negativity... IT DOESN'T WORK!

That's just BS. My sig is 'negative'?? Yet changing it to Eating tomatoes is STS isn't negative?

Ever wonder WHY? Isn't calling tomato-eaters STS negative/judging? Yet no one minds that.

I stand firm on my convictions about the BILLIONS of sentient beings being TORTURED as being STS. Apparently most people here think that me stating that is somehow worse than what THEY are doing, which is supporting the torture!!!

That's f***** up.

So if you'd rather analyze ME, instead of helping with the PROBLEM, well, that's your choice.

Oh yes, and by the way, NOW I'm angry.

I wasn't before.

I've read MORE than enough. Your latest tomato STS sarcastic post is proof positive you're obsessed with 'winning' this argument.

Oh good grief. Couldn't you tell that I was trying to make a POINT?

Guess what: Someone actually GOT IT! (Or did you not read that far?)

You're setting the cause way - WAY back

That's hilarious. Did you expect the world to go vegetarian just because of a handful of vegetarians on an internet forum?

Actually, the meat threads have consistently gotten the most hits out of nearly all the threads on the forum. So clearly a lot of people are reading them. Maybe just for the entertainment, who knows? But I have gotten a number of private messages from people thanking me for speaking up, because they didn't have the courage to. I did back then, and I got several more just in the last few days, since I came back. A number of people have also pm'ed me over the past few years, telling me that my words had had an impact on their choices, and they thanked me.

So no, I don't accept your analysis, of me or my impact on the 'cause.'

[Alexis]

As much as I want to stay out of this drama, I can't help but put my thoughts into your signature and yes it is a negative statement because it contains the word "don't". Any statements that contain phrases such as "should not" or "do not" are negative.

[K-PAX]

~ Left Bring4th to avoid bullying ~

[Ashim]

As much as I want to stay out of this drama, I can't help but put my thoughts into your signature and yes it is a negative statement because it contains the word "don't".  Any statements that contain phrases such as "should not" or "do not" are negative.

16.20 Questioner: It would be unlike an entity fully aware of the knowledge of the Law of One to ever say “Thou shalt not.” Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

[Monica]

As much as I want to stay out of this drama, I can't help but put my thoughts into your signature and yes it is a negative statement because it contains the word "don't".  Any statements that contain phrases such as "should not" or "do not" are negative.

16.20 Questioner: It would be unlike an entity fully aware of the knowledge of the Law of One to ever say “Thou shalt not.” Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

Perhaps English isn't your native language. My sig didn't say "do not do xyz". Nor did it say "thou shall not eat meat."

It said "don't" as in, a contraction for "do not." It is used to state a fact; in this case, a fact about the scientific evidence for the human body to thrive without any dead animals in its diet. It wasn't even telling anyone what to do or not do. It was simply stating a fact about the nutritional needs of the human body.

This exact type of usage of do not (which is the more formal way to say don't) is used by Ra 105 times.

The Law of One Search Results for ‘do not’
Results 1 to 30 of 105.

      Next 30 >>

Sort by session.         Sorted by relevance.


New Search
Refine search
Hide ads

L/L Research

Plenum Healer: offering metaphysical healing

17.27 Questioner: Can you tell me what causes that phenomenon?
Ra: I am Ra. Picture, if you will, a forest. One tree is struck by lightning. It burns. Lightning does not strike elsewhere. Elsewhere does not burn. There are random occurrences which do not have to do with the entity, but with the window phenomenon of which we spoke.

104.6 Questioner: Is there anything that we can do to alleviate this situation?
Ra: I am Ra. There is a course of therapy which would aid the situation. However, we do not recommend it as the condition is more benign than the treatment.

18.1 Questioner: I was thinking last night that if I were in the place of Ra at this time, the first distortion of the Law of One might cause me to mix some erroneous data with the true information that I was transmitting to this group. Do you do this?
Ra: I am Ra. We do not intentionally do this. However, there will be confusion. The errors which have occurred have occurred due to the occasional variation in the vibrational complex of this instrument due to its ingestion of a chemical substance. It is not our intent in this particular project to create erroneous information but to express in the confining ambiance of your language system the feeling of the infinite mystery of the one creation in its infinite and intelligent unity.

...and many more...105 of them. This is just the first 3.

[isis]

[Diana]

Dear Monica,

“The butcher does not relent at the bleating of the lamb; neither is the heart of the cruel moved with distress. But the tears of the compassionate are sweeter than dew-drops, falling from roses on the bosom of spring.”
Amenohis IV aka Akhenaton (“servant of the one, true god”), the Heretic King (1380 – 1362 BC) (Egyptian pharaoh, pacifist, banned animal sacrifice and traditional Egyptian religion and instituted a religion based on compassion and monotheism)

Akhenaton was the author of the above poem? That's beautiful. Thank you.

This is sadly true. I can tell you though, that the "tears of the compassionate" do sometimes have an effect. It happened to me once in Costa Rica, when my tears (though I tried to hide them) for a hooked fish moved our guide so much he felt compelled to rethink his "great white hunter" life.

[Diana]

At risk of continuing an unwanted debate about Monica's signature, I have the following to say about it:

I understand, and can understand why, many here feel they are being "told what to do" and this idea is counter to Ra's views on STO behavior.

I would propose that Monica's signature is not telling anyone what to do. I think she is expressing her heartfelt views, based on her own research which is considerable. However, if she is trying to force members here to change or agree with her, then it is her catalyst. If any here are reacting to it, it is theirs. I include myself in this as I react all the time to things, as we all do in 3D.

Allow me to make an analogy. If there was a person here who had, "I love to eat animals, and Ra agrees," so what? Or, "Vegetarians are STS because they eat screaming carrots," so what? I, being vegetarian, wouldn't turn every thread into an argument about it. I might start a thread to discuss it. If I think someone has crossed a guideline, I report it to the Mods. If someone says something offensive to me, I would try and express what I think about it and LET IT GO.

The ego wants to be right, not the spirit. But that is not to say it isn't good to discuss and have conflicts. I am just trying to shift the target off one individual a bit, and suggest that we are ALL fallible, and in Ra's words, one.

 

[Alexis]

Dear Monica, the word "don't" is a negative word, this is something I leraned before reading the Law of One. An example of a positive message derived from your signature would be: humans can live without meat. I'm not asking you to change it or your thoughts, I am merely sharing mine.

[Monica]

Dear Monica, the word "don't" is a negative word, this is something I leraned before reading the Law of One.  An example of a positive message derived from your signature would be: humans can live without meat. I'm not asking you to change it or your thoughts, I am merely sharing mine.

That's a great idea! I'll see if it'll fit.

[Monica]

I tried, but I couldn't change it without leaving something else out, and the qualifiers like unnecessary and knowingly are too important to leave out. But thanks for your suggestion! If they ever expand the sig, I'm open to changing it for greater clarification.

[βαθμιαίος]

I tried, but I couldn't change it without leaving something else out, and the qualifiers like unnecessary and knowingly are too important to leave out. But thanks for your suggestion! If they ever expand the sig, I'm open to changing it for greater clarification.

to the extent necessary
Humans don't need meat. Eating meat causes unnecessary suffering of other-selves. Knowingly doing so is STS.

Does "doing so" in the final sentence refer to eating meat or causing unecessary suffering (or both)?

[Monica]

Does "doing so" in the final sentence refer to eating meat or causing unecessary suffering (or both)?

Being that the human body doesn't require meat - and this is proven by science and agreed upon by the mainstream medical community - then all eating of meat is biologically unnecessary. (There may be some logistical issues which may make it temporarily necessary, such as indigenous tribes whose livelihoods are intricately woven with the killing of animals, but biologically it's unnecessary.)

Being that all slaughter of animals for food is unnecessary and a violation of sentient beings' free will to live, then it follows that:

Knowing that it's unnecessary, and knowingly choosing to do so anyway, is inherently STS.

[βαθμιαίος]

So would it be an accurate paraphrase to say "eating meat while knowing that humans don't need to do so is STS"?

[Monica]

So would it be an accurate paraphrase to say "eating meat while knowing that humans don't need to do so is STS"?

Yes, it would be accurate. But, it wouldn't be as complete, because it wouldn't be saying why.

[βαθμιαίος]

"Eating meat while knowing that humans don't need to is STS because it causes the unnecessary suffering of other-selves"?

[Monica]

That is a softer way of saying the same thing, yes. It's longer though. Mine is already maxed out. Your version won't fit into the sig field.

[βαθμιαίος]

Not trying to rewrite your signature; just trying to understand it.

So are there outs if

• Someone doesn't know that humans don't need meat (for example, a member of a traditional indigenous group)?
  
• The slaughter of the animal didn't cause unnecessary suffering -- say road kill, a beached whale, or a cow that had broken a leg and needed to be put down?
  

[K-PAX]

~ Left Bring4th to avoid bullying ~

[BrownEye]

Actually, the meat threads have consistently gotten the most hits out of nearly all the threads on the forum.

It pushes buttons. How do you push buttons? Highlight an imbalance

[Monica]

Not trying to rewrite your signature; just trying to understand it.

Ok!

So are there outs if

What do you mean by 'outs'?

Someone doesn't know that humans don't need meat (for example, a member of a traditional indigenous group)?

Hence my qualifier knowingly.

Some past comments about indigenous peoples:

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...7#pid65117

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...9#pid82769

The slaughter of the animal didn't cause unnecessary suffering -- say road kill, a beached whale, or a cow that had broken a leg and needed to be put down?

Road kill wasn't slaughtered; it was killed accidentally. It's not about the eating; it's about the killing.

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...4#pid62314

http://bring4th.org/forums/showthread.ph...6#pid62766

[Shemaya]

Road kill wasn't slaughtered; it was killed accidentally. It's not about the eating; it's about the killing.

Monica, you clearly say in your signature it's about the eating

[βαθμιαίος]

Outs = exceptions.

What about people that don't agree with the science that says that humans don't need meat? After all, on bring4th there are people who don't agree with mainstream science on vaccinations, the moon landings, 9/11, etc. Surely there are some who don't agree that it's settled science that humans don't need meat.

[Monica]

Road kill wasn't slaughtered; it was killed accidentally. It's not about the eating; it's about the killing.

Monica, you clearly say in your signature it's about the eating

Eating meat cannot happen without the killing of animals. My sig is focused on the end result: The choice to eat meat.

When analyzed further, the reason eating meat is STS is because it involves the killing of sentient beings against their will. It is the ultimate control, it is violent, and it is unnecessary.