The act of eating is a service.

[3DMonkey]

The act of eating is a service. Is eating a selfish act (STS) or a communal act (STO) ? I choose communion.

PS: I just had to get this out of my system. You can nuke this thread now if you want. I promise I will understand if it's deleted and won't bring this up ever again.

All those cute little 1D entities having a meet and greet. It's adorable.

---

Only I would add that those who are not interested in seeking inner guidance should be left alone to reap the fruits thereof.

Absolutely. BUT, if they seek us out, then they are, on some level, choosing our input. A Jehovah's Witness knocking on my door is inviting my opinion, not asking to be left alone. If s/he wanted to be left alone, s/he wouldn't be knocking on my door.

---

Yes. My "benefits of vegetarianism" was nuked.

What!!! Even though it was one-sided, and focused only on the positive, rather than on debate, it was nuked?

Yes

We should remix our alchemical solution, you and I. (it might be scary for some)

[Tenet Nosce]

Absolutely. BUT, if they seek us out, then they are, on some level, choosing our input. A Jehovah's Witness knocking on my door is inviting my opinion, not asking to be left alone. If s/he wanted to be left alone, s/he wouldn't be knocking on my door.

Interesting selection for an example! Jehovah's Witnesses being the quintessential "substitute an external spiritual authority for your own" type of religion- replete with an entire array of rules and "Thou shalt nots" (beyond those already dictated by our good friend up on the mount) which must be strictly obeyed lest one risk "Disfellowship" such as: premarital or extramarital sex, using alcohol excessively, using tobacco products, celebrating Christmas, reciting the pledge of allegiance, joining the military, speaking to a disfellowshipped Witness, reading religious material not published by the organization, or running for political office just to name a few. Witnesses hold a quite unshakeable confidence that all these acts are gravely injurious to the soul!

It's much too dangerous to live under the mere guidance of one's own conscience and intuition, what with Satan lurking around every corner!

Oh- and it's not enough to simply follow the rules oneself, but it is additionally one's duty to basically spy on their fellow Witnesses to make sure THEY aren't breaking the rules, and if they are, it is of course one of the rules to report anybody who is breaking the rules to the "Governing Body".

All of these rules and regulations are of course set by the "Governing Body" of "spirit-anointed ones" who are the sole instruments of God- and thus know better than everybody else as to the proper way to live one's life and that there is no other way to be "saved" except to fully accept and follow their spiritual authority. But even then it might not work, as salvation is earned through the "Grace of God" alone, and well, you know, God is kind of a fickle and unforgiving type, and besides there are only so many spots in "Heaven".

"But a spirit of independent thinking does not prevail in God’s organization, and we have sound reasons for confidence in the men taking the lead among us." -- The Watchtower

I can't help but wonder if anybody, anywhere, left to their own devices would be internally guided to go knocking on people's doors in order to spread the "Good Word". I put that in quotes because it seems the "Good Word" seems to revolve around little more than promulgating the near endless sets of rules and regulations that one has subjected oneself to, in hopes of earning "salvation".

I also can't help but wonder what exactly goes down if a Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door! It must be entertaining as all get-out!!

[Monica]

The subject is allowed. But up to this point (and we're actually getting closer with these recent threads because the process espoused by new ways of thinking - that is many people in a community becoming aware of an issue and directing their conscious attention towards solving it for the good of all, is being played out), the topic has not been discussed in a harmonious manner consistent with the guidelines.

If that is the case, then specific examples of guideline violations could be given.

I don't think guidelines have been violated in a tangible way. Rather, there has simply been very strong disagreement, and some people have gotten offended by the disagreement and by the differing opinion itself.

In other words, if someone said "you are an idiot for thinking that" then that is clearly a guideline violation.

However, if someone said "I think it's wrong to eat animals" then that is just an opinion, not a guideline violation.

What has happened is that some people got offended when some other people expressed their opinions.

That's not guideline violation; that's simply lack of acceptance of others' viewpoints.

The discord itself isn't coming from the opinions being expressed; it's coming from the lack of acceptance.

It is the honor and duty of a moderator when a thread is experiencing discord to fix the situation in the most balanced way possible.

Perhaps the role of the moderator has changed since I had the job. In my day, I never considered it my duty to fix any discord. My duty was only to enforce the guidelines. If people experienced discord amongst themselves, that was their catalyst and there was no way I could control that, even if I wanted to.

The people within the thread and even the topic being discussed are secondary to this concern of keeping the peace and harmony in this sacred space of sharing and seeking which is so dear to our hearts.

That exact opinion was recently expressed by another member.

I disagree that this statement is a given, because "keeping the peace and harmony" is very subjective.

How is such a thing defined, and who gets to define it?

If we have perfect peace and harmony, there is no growth.

What is the purpose of this forum? Is it to have a 'safe haven, a sort of inn for weary Wanderers' as another member has suggested?

Or, is it for stimulating thought, questioning preconceived ideas, and growing and evolving?

Perhaps the purpose of this forum should be reevaluated. Or, at the very least, if the objective has been changed, then members should be apprised of that. Because, some might erroneously think the forum has a different objective than what the moderators have agreed upon.

I contend that the forum is different things to different people, and these differing needs can easily be met by allowing different threads on different topics. That way, people can simply choose which ones they want to participate in.

The goal is to allow these energies to come together and be discussed in a mutually beneficial and harmonious way.

That's a tall order. The only way to pull that off is to follow guideline #1: to be able to accept others and treat them with respect even while disagreeing. The problem is, as I see it, that some are unable to accept the viewpoints of others. They are requiring that viewpoints be watered down before they can be accepted. Meanwhile, those with strong convictions aren't willing to water down their views; hence, it's a stalemate. That's what happens with volatile topics.

If anything, our community's handling of this volatile topic has been much more peaceful and harmonious than it would be handled anywhere else. It might even be accurate to say that nowhere on Earth has this topic ever been discussed so amicably!

It's all relative, of course. What is amicable on some other forums, is considered discordant here.

The question then becomes: Are volatile topics allowed here at Bring4th?

As you said, members want to talk about this. The energies are seeking to be expressed. But it is the moderators' duty to see that this expression is not harmful to the body of Bring4th.

Aaron, it would be helpful to us if you could explain how disagreement is harmful to the body of Bring4th.

I understand that some people don't like the thread. Why, then, have they not been told to simply avoid the thread? (In the same way I avoid threads about tv shows, which I have zero interest in.)

Why must the moderators take responsibility for the discomfort of someone who chooses to venture into a thread they don't like, and then chooses to complain about it? Especially when the only way to appease this person is to censor others who do wish to participate in the discussion?

Why is the disgruntled person(s) not simply asked to do what other members are expected to do: Take responsibility for his/her choices?

It always boils down to this: No one has ever been forced to participate in the meat discussion. Each person who has done so, has done so voluntarily.

One idea that was emerging towards the end of the meat thread was to kind of make group posts representing ideas for finality.

Finality? Do you mean some summaries posted, then the thread is permanently locked?

If so, then why? That seems rather arbitrary to me. What if some new members may wish to voice their own opinions?

Being that, as far as I can tell, the only complaints were from those who eat meat, it seems that the moderators have a bias against the vegetarians. No vegetarians have ever complained about the thread.

So any locking of the thread will automatically show a bias in favor of the meat-eaters, since they are the ones who are complaining, rather than just accepting those with differing opinions or opting out of the thread.

The idea was present to capitalize on this by organizing the effort and allowing it to happen on the meat thread. However, we also thought that to organize the effort in that specific way would in fact encourage division, and to take the view away from the big picture. (by big picture I mean what Tenet Nosce is often saying about how there is no right and wrong in this - every situation and diet and person is absolutely unique)

Even that is debatable. This question came up on the radio show recently: Is there right and wrong in 3D? See, that is a topic unto itself! It's not a given. We don't all agree on that.

So discussion stalled out on that and we are now trying to brainstorm on that plan while simultaneously watching what is developing here and trying to deal with it in the most balanced way.

Respectfully, it seems inconsistent to disallow those other threads, while allowing this one.

Our highest and best selves would like to see all of us put our conscious efforts together and harmonize on this catalyst. So... what's your input? And anyone reading this? How can these things be respectfully and carefully discussed without damaging the wellbeing of our site and community? How can we come together on this?

Well first, we'd need to agree on what is meant by harmonize.

Apparently, to some people, harmonize means no disagreement.

Secondly, I think we need a clearer definition of what is meant by respectful.

For example, I was told that my statement "eating meat contributes to the suffering of animals" was disrespectful.

I am baffled by this.

If I said "driving a car contributes to air pollution" would that also be disrespectful?

I was also told that my statement "cancer rates in children have risen dramatically in the last few decades" was disrespectful and insensitive.

I was baffled by that too.

How, then, are we to discuss anything?

I can understand a statement such as "you are an idiot" because that is clearly disrespectful. I contend that enforcement of such a blatant violation of the guidelines should be swift and firm.

But when a small but vocal minority complains about statements such as the 2 examples I just gave, as being disrespectful, and entire threads are taken offline, that sends a very clear message of inconsistency...and bias.

That's just my 2 cents' worth.

[Tenet Nosce]

How about: You are a murderer for eating meat. Would that be disrespectful?

[Monica]

Interesting selection for an example! Jehovah's Witnesses being the quintessential "substitute an external spiritual authority for your own" type of religion- replete with an entire array of rules and "Thou shalt nots"

Right. They are so locked into that mentality, that they might easily perceive my expression of my own spiritual beliefs quite offensive!

I would never ever ever walk up to a JW in their church parking lot, or anywhere in public, and say "I think the old testament was influenced by evil" - I would just never do that! They'd get very offended, and rightfully so! How dare I shake up their little world!

But, if they knock on my door, proselytizing, then on some level they have chosen to interact with me.

So I let 'em have it!

Sweetly of course!

I can't help but wonder if anybody, anywhere, left to their own devices would be internally guided to go knocking on people's doors in order to spread the "Good Word".

They chose to belong to that religion, so they chose to do what their 'authorities' told them to do.

I also can't help but wonder what exactly goes down if a Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door! It must be entertaining as all get-out!!

Haha, well sorry to disappoint you, but actually it's usually quite nice. I give them a bright smile and say something like this:

"Oh, I really admire that you are doing what you believe in. But, I don't want to waste your time, so I'm going to tell you upfront that I already have a very strong faith in God, but it isn't based on the Bible and I could never, ever be a Bible believer."

(pause)

They invariably ask "Why not? Have you ever read the Bible? In the book of Acts, chapter xx it says..."

I gently interrupt and say "OH yes!! I've read the whole book cover to cover, several times over, and even studied it! In fact that is WHY I could never be any sort of Christian! Well, I mean Christian religion. I definitely have utmost reverence for Jesus - he was cool! But not the religion in his name. I just couldn't lower my standard enough to follow the Bible. There's too much creepy stuff in the old testament. I mean, God showing favoritism...that's bigotry. And God telling his 'chosen' people to invade other tribes and slaughter everyone, even the children! That's genocide!! And infanticide! Sorry, but your book is just too bloody violent for me! I believe in a loving, just Creator!"

(smile sweetly)

They always make big eyes at that point.

I then tell them "There are so many religions...all bickering about who is right. I think it's all just a TEST...God is testing us to see if we can figure out that LOVE is the answer! That's what Jesus said! To love and forgive! I reject the Bible, but I am a follower of Jesus!"

Then sometimes I give them a hug, and sometimes they give a hug back and look like their minds are clearly blown, but in a good way. And I have no doubt that they will never be the same again.

Sometimes not. Sometimes they run away as fast as they can, with me saying "Peace and blessings to you! See you in heaven! Oh yeah, heaven's not just for JW's by the way! You'll be amazed! You might even see some Buddhists and Pagans there! Isn't God cool!"

All very cheerily! I have never, ever, EVER gotten into a single debate with a JW! Not even once! And I've had dozens of interactions with them.

---

How about: You are a murderer for eating meat. Would that be disrespectful?

Yes. But no one ever said that.

[3DMonkey]

My hopes with creating the "benefits of.." thread was to create a thread dedicated to the "pros" column of a subject in order that the "cons" wouldn't intermix.

[Monica]

We should remix our alchemical solution, you and I. (it might be scary for some)

Oh, that sounds exciting, Monkey!! Yes, let's!

---

My hopes with creating the "benefits of.." thread was to create a thread dedicated to the "pros" column of a subject in order that the "cons" wouldn't intermix.

I saw that. And applauded your effort.

[Tenet Nosce]

How about: You are a murderer for eating meat. Would that be disrespectful?

Yes. But no one ever said that.

What was said is that killing an animal is murder. Thus if I were to kill an animal and eat it that makes me a murderer. Or is there a logical step I am missing?

[Patrick]

Trying to get back on course.

Ra stated that the purpose of eating in 4d is the learn/teaching of patience. What is the purpose of eating in 3d and what learn/teachings are there for us ?

[Monica]

What was said is that killing an animal is murder. Thus if I were to kill an animal and eat it that makes me a murderer. Or is there a logical step I am missing?

You are choosing to make a deduction, based on what was said. That is your choice and you can conclude whatever you wish.

The point is that no line was crossed. No disrespectful words were said.

If you perceive them as such, that is because of your own conclusions and deductions, which only you are responsible for.

Your conclusions about what the other person meant, may or may not be accurate. That's irrelevant. What's relevant is that, in any discussion of a volatile topic, we must have specific rules of conduct, in order to discuss the topic.

---

Ra stated that the purpose of eating in 4d is the learn/teaching of patience. What is the purpose of eating in 3d and what learn/teachings are there for us ?

That's an excellent question.

I will venture an answer:

Based on what we know about the purpose of 3D - to make the choice for love/compassion/forgiveness, and to activate one's green ray, to the point of polarizing Service to Others, I would conclude that the purpose of eating in 3D is to learn love/compassion/forgiveness:

Compassion for those that are hungry, and feed them

Forgiveness for those who would steal food, land or other resources

Forgiveness towards self when eat for comfort, or eat in excess

Compassion towards others who eat for comfort, or in excess

Peace when faced with limited resources

Coorperation - learn to work together so that all may be fed

And, last but not least:

Compassion for animals who are crying out to us in pain and suffering

[Tenet Nosce]

What was said is that killing an animal is murder. Thus if I were to kill an animal and eat it that makes me a murderer. Or is there a logical step I am missing?

You are choosing to make a deduction, based on what was said. That is your choice and you can conclude whatever you wish.

The point is that no line was crossed. No disrespectful words were said.

If you perceive them as such, that is because of your own conclusions and deductions, which only you are responsible for.

Your conclusions about what the other person meant, may or may not be accurate. That's irrelevant. What's relevant is that, in any discussion of a volatile topic, we must have specific rules of conduct, in order to discuss the topic.

Oh, I see. So the sponsoring thought behind a post is irrelevant, the only thing that counts is the actual words which end up printed in the thread. Thanks for clarifying!

Mods- Can you confirm/deny this?

[Monica]

To add to my previous post:

If someone says to me "you are a murderer for killing plants" it wouldn't bother me one bit.

---

Oh, I see. So the sponsoring thought behind a post is irrelevant, the only thing that counts is the actual words which end up printed in the thread. Thanks for clarifying!

Mods- Can you confirm/deny this?

What would you like the mods to say? How in the world could the mods even begin to assess what someone's thoughts are?

[Patrick]

In short, eating in 3d brings tons of catalysts. Like any other interaction with other-selves.

I remember when I was younger being told that in the future we would eat one pill per day to sustain ourselves. That future is not yet here it seems.

[Diana]

Please, somebody explain to me why the subject is "not allowed." This is censorship for no apparent good reason. I would like to hear from the moderators what the heck is going on here. Members obviously WANT to talk about this.

Hi, Diana

. . .

Our highest and best selves would like to see all of us put our conscious efforts together and harmonize on this catalyst. So... what's your input? And anyone reading this? How can these things be respectfully and carefully discussed without damaging the wellbeing of our site and community? How can we come together on this?

Hi Aaron,

I will think about this, however, I still do not understand the efficacy of closing threads for the reasons you have given.

I very much agree with what Monica said here, and could not have improved upon it: post: #33

But thank you for the post. I do hope to see open communication continue on this subject.

[Patrick]

Another good question is. Why is this subject so touchy ??? We get all along pretty well on any subjects, except food ! LOL ! I seriously wonder why that is?

[Tenet Nosce]

What would you like the mods to say?

Whatever their opinion happens to be.

How in the world could the mods even begin to assess what someone's thoughts are?

In this case, they might assess that based upon how many times one chooses to use the word "murder" when discussing the eating of animals. Certainly the topic could be thoroughly discussed without the employment of such an inflammatory type of word.

[Patrick]

I would simply say that the mods asserts the "mood" of a thread and do what they can to keep this forum as friendly a place as it can be.

I don't mind that at all. We can surely find ways of discussing this without all the drama?

[Monica]

What would you like the mods to say?

Whatever their opinion happens to be.

Well you seem to be implying that I said something 'wrong' or admitted to having unclean thoughts or something, and you'd like the mods to intervene. Busted!

But see, here I am, trying to guess what your thoughts/intentions might have been. I could be totally wrong, so what's the point of doing that at all?

How in the world could the mods even begin to assess what someone's thoughts are?

In this case, they might assess that based upon how many times one uses the word "murder" when discussing the eating of animals.

Why have you singled out that one word? Because it tends to trigger more (to use a Tenet Nosce term) butthurt?

I don't recall ever even saying that directly, though I did post a song by The Smiths once, with that title.

But see, that was just posting a song. I usually do post the title of the song, and that happened to be the title.

Does this mean I think meat is murder?

You might be very surprised to learn that I actually don't, in most cases. In fact, I posted a very long, detailed essay detailing the difference, in the early days of the thread. Maybe you missed it?

But even if I did think that...so what? NOT saying I do or don't...just hypothetical. Let's say you thought it is 'murder to kill plants. That is your opinion. Saying "it's murder to kill plants" isn't the same as saying "you are a murderer because you kill plants." There's a world of difference. The first is academic and the second is a personal judgment.

In order to discuss volatile topics respectfully, it's necessary to keep the conversation academic and avoid personal assessments.

A more fitting example would be abortion. Let's say we had a staunch pro-lifer among us, who believed that killing unborn babies was murder, since their DNA is, after all, quite human, they have brainwaves and a heartbeat, and even fingernails and eyelashes. They could build quite a good case!

Undoubtedly, our community contains some women who have had abortions.

How, then could we possibly discuss that topic, without those who've had abortions getting offended by those who think it's murder?

[Diana]

Trying to get back on course.

Ra stated that the purpose of eating in 4d is the learn/teaching of patience. What is the purpose of eating in 3d and what learn/teachings are there for us ?

In my opinion, because this is the density of choice, to make choices about eating that align with the self's chosen path.

Given whatever awareness, information, sensitivities are available to the self, then the self would choose accordingly. If the path is STS, then the self only considers the self in choices. If the self's path is STO, then the self considers all other-selves in his/her choices. If the self is only considering other-selves directly connected with self, then this seems not to be true STO, rather, some hybrid of STO based on concern for one's own circle but not extended to the all.

[Monica]

Another good question is. Why is this subject so touchy ??? We get all along pretty well on any subjects, except food ! LOL ! I seriously wonder why that is?

That's a very good question! As several vegetarians have stated, we all get along just fine with the meat-eaters in our lives.

An extension of that question is:

Why haven't any vegetarians complained about the meat thread?

[3DMonkey]

Another good question is. Why is this subject so touchy ??? We get all along pretty well on any subjects, except food ! LOL ! I seriously wonder why that is?

That's a very good question! As several vegetarians have stated, we all get along just fine with the meat-eaters in our lives.

An extension of that question is:

Why haven't any vegetarians complained about the meat thread?

This type of comment is the root.

[Tenet Nosce]

How, then could we possibly discuss that topic, without those who've had abortions getting offended by those who think it's murder?

It's a pickle, no doubt about it! (No offense to Pickle! )

[Monica]

This type of comment is the root.

I agree, though my reason might be different from your reason.

My point was that the vegetarians haven't had issues with the meat-eaters' opinions, except when a line was crossed into blatant disrespect (like when inflammatory names were used, such as zealot etc.).

But apparently some of the meat-eaters have been complaining about the thread in general. NOT about a specific comment that crossed a line, but just about the vegetarians' opinions in general.

This says to me, that, while both vegetarians and meat-eaters alike have said things out of frustration, and both have gotten offended by specific statements, understandably so, only the meat-eaters have gotten offended by the very topic itself...by the very existence of the thread itself.

[Patrick]

or not...

[Monica]

or not...

Not what?

[Diana]

Another good question is. Why is this subject so touchy ??? We get all along pretty well on any subjects, except food ! LOL ! I seriously wonder why that is?

It's not the only volatile subject. There was a short thread on sexuality I remember that got more heated more quickly than the eating (meat) subject.

People get triggered. But that's what assists us to grow and learn about ourselves. Getting offended is another subject, unless someone is personally attacked.

Eating, sexuality . . . these are basic to everyone. These would be the 1st and 2nd chakra. In the radio show, Carla has talked more than once about attending to the lower chakras, and not bypassing them in favor of the higher, more "fun" chakras to work with and on.

[Patrick]

or not...

Not what?

We can surely find ways of discussing this without all the drama?

[Shemaya]

Monica it seems you are drawing conclusions and making statements that are possibly untrue and also very provoking ( inciting emotion). I just wanted to say something because it seems this thread is getting off- topic ( violating guidelines ). I think you should discuss this in the cognitive distortions thread.


Back to the thread.....

[Monica]

We can surely find ways of discussing this without all the drama?

That would be very nice.

So then: What causes drama?

[Patrick]

...Eating, sexuality . . . these are basic to everyone. These would be the 1st and 2nd chakra. In the radio show, Carla has talked more than once about attending to the lower chakras, and not bypassing them in favor of the higher, more "fun" chakras to work with and on.

That's interesting Diana.

---

That would be very nice.

So then: What causes drama?

The veil ? Normally in a theater the drama starts when the veil is lifted. But for us it starts when the veil is put into place.