In regards to eating meat

[apeiron]

For now I will just say that animal products can mean eggs and dairy. It doesn't necessarily mean dead animals.

You know that is an excellent analysis.

[Monica]

I find this amazing: that, in a forum of people who are supposedly here because they have an interest in evolving, there is so much clinging to eating meat with any justification that can be thought of. Is it really possible that you don't understand this? That eating meat, and in particular, the cruel way we have developed to bring the meat to you, isn't an evolved way to live? I addressed the argument of eating plants earlier.

I feel that with this group, and after 47 pages of this, it's time to stop trying to gently shift your thinking as if you are members of the anesthetized sleeping masses. I understand Monica's frustration. My guess is that everyone who is aware of the cruelty and negative health issues associated with eating animals is in denial. I mean no offense, but if this group can't even evolve past such barbaric behavior, where does that leave the human race, and for that matter, the planet?

Well said, Diana! I agree completely. It's major denial. There's no other explanation.

Eating meat = cruelty
Cruelty not compatible with STO

It's so...basic.

---

For now I will just say that animal products can mean eggs and dairy. It doesn't necessarily mean dead animals.

You know that is an excellent analysis.

Thank you! That simple point seems to often get lost. Eggs provide a perfect protein. Nothing died.

Provided they are free range eggs, and not the commercially produced ones, there is nothing wrong with eating eggs.

Finding humanely-produced dairy is a bit trickier but it can be done.

[3DMonkey]

Eating plants is just as cruel.

Evolution is about accepting third density others for what they are. Not changing them.

[Monica]

Eating plants is just as cruel.

Fine. Then don't eat plants. Eat fruits and nuts only.

You seem to be saying "Killing animals is just as cruel as killing humans, so go ahead and kill humans." It's the same logic.

Evolution is about accepting third density others for what they are. Not changing them.

Evolution is about choosing a path, and if that path is STO, then it's about serving others.

I don't think Ra meant serving others on a plate!

[3DMonkey]

We do kill humans. All the time. And if we want to serve others, we need to accept those that kill humans. That's all I'm saying.

I don't personally. It is against the law. Just like I don't shoot deer at night with a spotlight. Again, against the law. If eating meat were against the law, I wouldn't eat it. Either way though, looking down on others isn't very compassionate.

[Monica]

We do kill humans. All the time. And if we want to serve others, we need to accept those that kill humans. That's all I'm saying.

Yes, I remember. My understanding of what you told us, is that you think "we should never stop someone from hurting another...we should just 'accept' the murderer about to kill that child, and if we stop the murderer, we are being STS." I remember your views, Monkey.

I can see that, given your views, you find nothing wrong with allowing cruelty to animals. Since you are ok with allowing cruelty to humans, then cruelty to animals is no big deal.

Please feel free to correct me if I am misunderstanding you. That is what I got from what you have said in other discussions.

I don't personally. It is against the law. Just like I don't shoot deer at night with a spotlight. Again, against the law. If eating meat were against the law, I wouldn't eat it.

So are you saying you simply do whatever the law tells you to do? With no sense of personal responsibility? What if the law is wrong?

Either way though, looking down on others isn't very compassionate.

You perceive a discussion about eating animals being incompatible with the STO path, as "looking down on others"?

[3DMonkey]

We've had this discussion many times.

I'm not saying we allow ourselves whatever the law will allow. That's silly. There is no right or wrong, there are only consequences.

I accept what bodily consequences may come to my body through my diet, although it would be much too complex to pinpoint a source. In that same respect, I accept what consequences may come to my body through my polarizing attitudes towards others.

I equate the following as "looking down on others":

I find this amazing: that, in a forum of people who are supposedly here because they have an interest in evolving, there is so much clinging to eating meat with any justification that can be thought of. Is it really possible that you don't understand this? That eating meat, and in particular, the cruel way we have developed to bring the meat to you, isn't an evolved way to live? I addressed the argument of eating plants earlier.

I feel that with this group, and after 47 pages of this, it's time to stop trying to gently shift your thinking as if you are members of the anesthetized sleeping masses. I understand Monica's frustration. My guess is that everyone who is aware of the cruelty and negative health issues associated with eating animals is in denial. I mean no offense, but if this group can't even evolve past such barbaric behavior, where does that leave the human race, and for that matter, the planet?

Well said, Diana! I agree completely. It's major denial. There's no other explanation.

---

BTW, you are the only, Only, member of bring4th that raises my blood pressure.

---

It is as though meat eating should be a "sin" that we should all feel guilty for.

[Monica]

We've had this discussion many times.

Yes we have, and I have no interest in resurrecting it again.

I'm not saying we allow ourselves whatever the law will allow. That's silly. There is no right or wrong, there are only consequences.

This seems to contradict what you said earlier:

I don't personally. It is against the law. Just like I don't shoot deer at night with a spotlight. Again, against the law. If eating meat were against the law, I wouldn't eat it.

To me, this seems to convey that your decisions are based on what is legal or illegal.

I equate the following as "looking down on others":

What's the point of a discussion forum, then, if we can't express our views? How is expressing our views "looking down on others"?

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?

Sorry, but I am again confused by your words.

By the way, you are the only, Only, member of bring4th that raises my blood pressure.

I'm not to blame for your high blood pressure, Monkey.

What you're really saying is that you don't like my views. What's ironic is that I have intentionally refrained from answering any of your posts for many months, out of respect for you and the fact that we disagree so strongly. I'm sorry I can't do more than that. I cannot be expected to never share my views. I actually didn't post anything for 2 whole months, and even now, I post in only about 3 threads. Yet I raise your blood pressure?

You speak of acceptance a lot. You accept a murderer killing a child. But you cannot accept other people have a difference of opinion?

You say I am 'STS' if I stop the murderer. And now you say Diana and I are "looking down on others" if we want to stop the murder of animals?

They are the same. If you wouldn't even stop someone from killing a human child, then of course you would disagree with us trying to stop the killing of animals.

It is as though meat eating should be a "sin" that we should all feel guilty for.

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.

[BrownEye]

Certain "law" is kind of like the original satan idea.

Satan proper name of the supreme evil spirit in Christianity, O.E. Satan, from L.L. Satan (in Vulgate, in O.T. only), from Gk. Satanas, from Heb. satan "adversary, one who plots against another," from satan "to show enmity to, oppose, plot against," from root s-t-n "one who opposes, obstructs, or acts as an adversary." In Septuagint (Gk.) usually translated as diabolos "slanderer," lit. "one who throws (something) across" the path of another (see devil), though epiboulos "plotter" is used once.
In biblical sources the Hebrew term the satan describes an adversarial role. It is not the name of a particular character. Although Hebrew storytellers as early as the sixth century B.C.E. occasionally introduced a supernatural character whom they called the satan, what they meant was any one of the angels sent by God for the specific purpose of blocking or obstructing human activity

In my findings, our purpose is simply experience. Full wide open experience without infringing on others sovereign right to experience. The purpose of the veil is to allow the newness of experience. Keeping this in mind, infringement is the same as blocking the path of another. While combining your experience with others traveling the same path, you accelerate the rate of experience. Many paths, many choices, but is it in our best interest to join certain paths? Is it in our highest good? I consider the path of least resistance to also be a repeating, or stagnant path.

On the one hand, it does not matter. You are just dirt the same as I. On the other hand we are also a vessel for experience. We can become friends with the passenger/observer of you the vessel, and possibly become more than what we are.

---

But Diana was a hunter!

Maybe she is hunting right now?

---

By the way, you are the only, Only, member of bring4th that raises my blood pressure.

Have you read about the blood pressure benefits of a vegetarian diet?


Ok, bad joke

[apeiron]

It is also finding our way back to the original source (infinite intelligence/creator), then start new experiences or octaves or universes in an infinity dance coupled with infinite mysteries.

Incarnational experiences seemingly makes this more intense and faster depending where you are in your trail at least in this octave.

[Monica]

By the way, you are the only, Only, member of bring4th that raises my blood pressure.

Have you read about the blood pressure benefits of a vegetarian diet?


Ok, bad joke

I almost said that too, but refrained.

I'm not to blame for your high blood pressure, Monkey. (Maybe it was that hamburger you just ate, haha!)

Sad thing is, it's not a joke. Eating dead animals, and even excessive dairy, contributes to high blood pressure. Oh, the irony!

[3DMonkey]

We've had this discussion many times.

Yes we have, and I have no interest in resurrecting it again.

I'm not saying we allow ourselves whatever the law will allow. That's silly. There is no right or wrong, there are only consequences.

This seems to contradict what you said earlier:

I don't personally. It is against the law. Just like I don't shoot deer at night with a spotlight. Again, against the law. If eating meat were against the law, I wouldn't eat it.

To me, this seems to convey that your decisions are based on what is legal or illegal.

I equate the following as "looking down on others":

What's the point of a discussion forum, then, if we can't express our views? How is expressing our views "looking down on others"?

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?

Sorry, but I am again confused by your words.

By the way, you are the only, Only, member of bring4th that raises my blood pressure.

I'm not to blame for your high blood pressure, Monkey.

What you're really saying is that you don't like my views. What's ironic is that I have intentionally refrained from answering any of your posts for many months, out of respect for you and the fact that we disagree so strongly. I'm sorry I can't do more than that. I cannot be expected to never share my views. I actually didn't post anything for 2 whole months, and even now, I post in only about 3 threads. Yet I raise your blood pressure?

You speak of acceptance a lot. You accept a murderer killing a child. But you cannot accept other people have a difference of opinion?

You say I am 'STS' if I stop the murderer. And now you say Diana and I are "looking down on others" if we want to stop the murder of animals?

They are the same. If you wouldn't even stop someone from killing a human child, then of course you would disagree with us trying to stop the killing of animals.

It is as though meat eating should be a "sin" that we should all feel guilty for.

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.

Yes. I can see this would be a resurrection of a nasty little beast created by you and I alone .

I don't know how to accept others. I think I know what it means though. I can also see when I am not being accepted for my perspective.

[Monica]

I don't know how to accept others. I think I know what it means though. I can also see when I am not being accepted for my perspective.

Acceptance doesn't mean we have to agree.

I do indeed accept your perspective. I just don't agree with your views.

---

Getting back to the meat topic, here is some interesting info about diet and high blood pressure:

You don't actually need any cholesterol in your diet, since your body can make all the cholesterol it needs. Studies show that a vegetarian diet can lower your risk for obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, and some types of cancer.

from http://www.everydayhealth.com/high-chole...-diet.aspx

[3DMonkey]

The following is not about disagreeing with someone's perspective. It is about disparaging someone's perspective.

I find this amazing: that, in a forum of people who are supposedly here because they have an interest in evolving, there is so much clinging to eating meat with any justification that can be thought of. Is it really possible that you don't understand this? That eating meat, and in particular, the cruel way we have developed to bring the meat to you, isn't an evolved way to live? I addressed the argument of eating plants earlier.

I feel that with this group, and after 47 pages of this, it's time to stop trying to gently shift your thinking as if you are members of the anesthetized sleeping masses. I understand Monica's frustration. My guess is that everyone who is aware of the cruelty and negative health issues associated with eating animals is in denial. I mean no offense, but if this group can't even evolve past such barbaric behavior, where does that leave the human race, and for that matter, the planet?

Well said, Diana! I agree completely. It's major denial. There's no other explanation.

Eating meat = cruelty
Cruelty not compatible with STO

It's so...basic.

That isn't disagreeing. That is disrespecting.

[Monica]

That isn't disagreeing. That is disrespecting.

Well, as I said, you felt the same way when I disagreed with you about letting a murderer kill a child. If you call it disrespect when someone disagrees with you about something they consider basic to the STO path, then you are certainly entitled to your viewpoint, Monkey. I accept that.

I am a bit puzzled, though, as to why people who already have their minds made up about eating meat, go to a thread about eating meat, and then get offended at the views expressed there.

This really does puzzle me!

[BrownEye]

I thought you would just love the "christian" reference Monica LoL!

Technically scripture has the guidlines of "Law of One" although wrongly manipulated into english.

I take the same side of the "adversary" when I tell someone what to do. It becomes a reality if they do it though, stopping an experience. One one side it is wrong for me to tell monkey "how" to experience. Also in the fact that it is not our place to "offer" when not asked for help.

Acceptance is a hard pill to swallow. The largest failures you see are the persecutions of exotic individuals because they are "different". The hardest lesson of acceptance are those individuals that came only to allow for the choice of suffering on a wide scale, which involves us as free willed individuals rather than other forms of consciousness. Our day to day lessons are how we rationalize accepting the free will of those that do not accept the free will of others.

Acceptance kind of also moves you to make the smallest footprint possible on the scale of infringement.

So even these arguments are pointless in one aspect.

[Monica]

I thought you would just love the "christian" reference Monica LoL!

Yeah, very interesting!

Technically scripture has the guidlines of "Law of One" although wrongly manipulated into english.

It has both STO and STS in it.

I take the same side of the "adversary" when I tell someone what to do. It becomes a reality if they do it though, stopping an experience. One one side it is wrong for me to tell monkey "how" to experience. Also in the fact that it is not our place to "offer" when not asked for help.

Very true.

The question is, though, why are they coming into this discussion, and participating? They could choose to not read this thread.

And, no one has told Monkey what to do. We're just discussing the spiritual implications of eating 2D entities.

Everyone chooses which discussions to participate in. Should the vegetarians refrain from voicing their opinions, in their own thread, because there might be meat-eaters reading it?

Acceptance kind of also moves you to make the smallest footprint possible on the scale of infringement.

So even these arguments are pointless in one aspect.

It's difficult to balance. By not speaking up, even in a thread whose express purpose is about this particular topic, then we are contributing to the footprint of infringement on other beings (the animals).

So it's kinda damned if you, damned if you don't.

Which is why I don't ever go around telling people to quit eating animals. In everyday life, I never bring it up! I only talk about it when the other person initiates the conversation.

Why do meat-eaters act as if the vegetarians were talking about eating meat, in other threads having other topics? It's all contained right here, in this single thread. If they choose not to discuss it, why do they come into this thread?

[BrownEye]

We're just discussing the spiritual implications of eating 2D entities.

In my understanding most small plants are not a complete individual, especially not losing an experience because of the amount of experience alloted to them, or even experiencing the suffering in any comparable scale. A tree on the other hand is very much an individual in my understanding, and can suffer.

Another strange thought, the comments about the form of energies in the sun that "sacrifice" themselves in our benefit. (can't remember the question number) This is comparable to the seed that chooses to bear for us. Wild animals are a sacrifice, but farming methods are not, simply because they have already chosen to terminate and exit that existence, but we pump them full of drugs to overcome nature and extend the suffering.

[3DMonkey]

The original post was a person concerned with plants. Something Monica has her mind made up with.

I think murder of humans is wrong. In case anyone thought otherwise.

I understand killing animals is nasty business. I do it. But not with apathy.

I have a love for plants. I kill them too. But not with apathy.

If you eat meat, I don't think you are hurting yourself. If you have killed a human, for whatever reason, I don't think you are going to hell or that you have harmed your chances for life, whatever that means for you.

[Monica]

The original post was a person concerned with plants. Something Monica has her mind made up with.

My mind is made up about eating animals, but not about eating plants. I've reiterated countless times that, eventually, we won't eat plants either. I just see quitting meat as a first step in that direction.

I think murder of humans is wrong. In case anyone thought otherwise.

I understand killing animals is nasty business. I do it. But not with apathy.

I have a love for plants. I kill them too. But not with apathy.

If you eat meat, I don't think you are hurting yourself. If you have killed a human, for whatever reason, I don't think you are going to hell or that you have harmed your chances for life, whatever that means for you.

Thank you for sharing your views, Monkey! Peace

[Diana]

We've had this discussion many times.

I'm not saying we allow ourselves whatever the law will allow. That's silly. There is no right or wrong, there are only consequences.

I accept what bodily consequences may come to my body through my diet, although it would be much too complex to pinpoint a source. In that same respect, I accept what consequences may come to my body through my polarizing attitudes towards others.

I equate the following as "looking down on others":

I find this amazing: that, in a forum of people who are supposedly here because they have an interest in evolving, there is so much clinging to eating meat with any justification that can be thought of. Is it really possible that you don't understand this? That eating meat, and in particular, the cruel way we have developed to bring the meat to you, isn't an evolved way to live? I addressed the argument of eating plants earlier.

I feel that with this group, and after 47 pages of this, it's time to stop trying to gently shift your thinking as if you are members of the anesthetized sleeping masses. I understand Monica's frustration. My guess is that everyone who is aware of the cruelty and negative health issues associated with eating animals is in denial. I mean no offense, but if this group can't even evolve past such barbaric behavior, where does that leave the human race, and for that matter, the planet?

Well said, Diana! I agree completely. It's major denial. There's no other explanation.

---

By the way, you are the only, Only, member of bring4th that raises my blood pressure.

---

It is as though meat eating should be a "sin" that we should all feel guilty for.

My dear Monkey, I accept that you interpret what I said as looking down. But what I am talking about is evolving. Do you not want to evolve? Do you have no compulsion to move forward? Do you not feel a responsibility to create a better existence? Do you not think that, as Monica said, one step in the direction of evolving is ceasing to cruelly take animal life? Do you not agree that plant life is different, and does not die if you trim a leaf, so does not have the same fear?

[3DMonkey]

I believe evolution has absolutely nothing to do with diet.

I believe setting those standards attempts to place oneself ahead, or higher, than an other.

I believe making a specific request of an other to be different is to take steps backward in one's own evolution.

[BrownEye]

I don't believe it is.

I don't believe it isn't.

If I was to "believe" it would mean I am stopped right where I am.

[Monica]

I believe evolution has absolutely nothing to do with diet.

Do you think being cruel to other beings affects evolution?

I believe setting those standards attempts to place oneself ahead, or higher, than an other.

No one is setting standards for anyone else. The vegetarians are simply explaining why they have chosen to quit eating animals. What others do with that information, is up to them.

I believe making a specific request of an other to be different is to take steps backward in one's own evolution.

No one is going into other threads asking people to quit eating animals.

Those who choose to click on this thread, have done so of their own free will.

[3DMonkey]

What is cruel to other beings? You mean beings that you consider higher evolved than other beings. That just takes us back to the original post. Plants are beings.

I just pointed out to you specific chosen words that are doing nothing of explaining why they have chosen certain things, but instead are saying why others are not good enough. You down right ignored it.

[Bring4th_Austin]

I think saying that meat eaters are in denial is an ignorant and ironic statement.

[Monica]

What is cruel to other beings? You mean beings that you consider higher evolved than other beings. That just takes us back to the original post. Plants are beings.

Is this directed to me or to Diana?

Can you define being?

Is a blade of grass a being? When you cut your grass, is each blade of grass writhing in agony?

Do you have any house plants? When you plant an ivy cutting, is it a separate being from the plant you cut it from?

Have you ever had a garden? Did you watch the lettuce grow? Does the lettuce plant suffer when you tear off a few leaves for your salad?

What are the boundaries of beingness?

When does life force become a separate, sentient entity?

I just pointed out to you specific chosen words that are doing nothing of explaining why they have chosen certain things, but instead are saying why others are not good enough. You down right ignored it.

I honestly have no idea what you're referring to. Can you please clarify?

I don't always respond to every single sentence you post. But then, you don't either.

Monkey, you seem to be feeling judged. No one has judged you. Maybe the feeling of judgment is coming from within?

---

Plants are beings.

You seem to be arguing against eating plants.

Can you explain to me how, if eating plants is just as 'wrong' as eating animals, that makes it ok to eat animals?

Seriously. I'm really confused by this. I am trying to understand you.

---

I think saying that meat eaters are in denial is an ignorant and ironic statement.

Not you, Austin. You aren't in denial at all. Diana and I were speaking in general terms. Most meat-eaters seem to be trying to justify their actions.

Not you. You are clearly very aware.

[BrownEye]

When you plant an ivy cutting, is it a separate being from the plant you cut it from?

[Diana]

I would like to rephrase, and repeat a bit of what I wrote much earlier in this thread, in an effort to clarify.

If you (hypothetical "you" not directed toward anyone in particular) imagine a future existence, say, in a higher density, or whatever highly evolved future you might imagine, would eating animals be part of it (including the fear it creates)? If not, wouldn't you want to take steps toward this better, greater, more evolved future and be a part of its creation? Or would you want to continue eating meat, and especially meat that comes from horrible cruelty, because you like the way it tastes?

How can it be said, or even thought, that diet has nothing to do with evolution? Everything has to do with evolution. Nothing in the universe is static; change is inevitable and unstoppable, and all is in constant flux. It seems to me that we are directing the change, whether consciously or not. And the individuals on this site would most likely be aware that they have the ability to consciously create.

---

I think saying that meat eaters are in denial is an ignorant and ironic statement.

Do you mean it's ironic because vegetarians are in denial?

And I take issue with my comments being called "ignorant." Firstly, I said it was my "guess" rather than a statement. Secondly, I have had many years experience discussing this issue, so I am not ignorant, in that I heard the opposite arguments of those discussions and I am entitled to my assessment of the same. It doesn't mean that I am right, but I am not ignorant in this case.

This is apparently a very touchy issue, which triggers a lot of emotion. Does anyone have any speculations as to why?

[3DMonkey]

What is cruel to other beings? You mean beings that you consider higher evolved than other beings. That just takes us back to the original post. Plants are beings.

Is this directed to me or to Diana?

Can you define being?

Is a blade of grass a being? When you cut your grass, is each blade of grass writhing in agony?

Do you have any house plants? When you plant an ivy cutting, is it a separate being from the plant you cut it from?

Have you ever had a garden? Did you watch the lettuce grow? Does the lettuce plant suffer when you tear off a few leaves for your salad?

What are the boundaries of beingness?

When does life force become a separate, sentient entity?

I just pointed out to you specific chosen words that are doing nothing of explaining why they have chosen certain things, but instead are saying why others are not good enough. You down right ignored it.

I honestly have no idea what you're referring to. Can you please clarify?

I don't always respond to every single sentence you post. But then, you don't either.

Monkey, you seem to be feeling judged. No one has judged you. Maybe the feeling of judgment is coming from within?

---

Plants are beings.

You seem to be arguing against eating plants.

Can you explain to me how, if eating plants is just as 'wrong' as eating animals, that makes it ok to eat animals?

Seriously. I'm really confused by this. I am trying to understand you.

---

I think saying that meat eaters are in denial is an ignorant and ironic statement.

Not you, Austin. You aren't in denial at all. Diana and I were speaking in general terms. Most meat-eaters seem to be trying to justify their actions.

Not you. You are clearly very aware.

I'm really sorry, Monica. I feel like unity100 must feel sometimes because the only thing I can say is that you haven't followed the conversation at all. I am constantly retracing the steps only to be met with the same one liners you write.

I answered your question about cruelty to beings, and elaborate that you have a Personally subjective definition of what a being is. Then you ask me to define being! WTF? Then you try to give examples of why plants are not beings, and then ironically say that meat eaters are the ones in denial are are justifying. That is rich. But, I suppose the one who is actually in denial is the one who is blinded.

I have acknowledged that killing animals is nasty business. I also acknowledge that plants are beings too. I accept that I live in a universe where eating them both is possible and necessary. It's not an ideal world, but we don't live in an ideal world.

@Diana, to answer your question that you directed to anyone, I would not expect to eat meat on a future planet of existence in which the entire planet was created specifically to not eat meat. Personally, I do not think refraining from this current planet's ways are what will create your hypothetical world, and I don't think Ra suggested it as the method to reach Fourth Density.