In regards to eating meat

[Diana]

@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.



3D Monkey: I understand your point of view of exerting no will upon free will. I, personally, find it difficult sometimes to refrain from pushing the envelope, as this 3-D world in my view needs so badly to evolve. I see your point that in a world where meat is eaten, why try to change it. But, isn't that what evolution is--change? To evolve from a survival-mode to a cooperative society, isn't change integral? You say eating meat is a nasty business; then how is not eating meat not a part of your envisioned evolved world?

As for Ra, I came to this site because I liked an old book of Ra someone left to me, and I was very impressed with the information in it. I read a lot, and this information rose to the top like cream. However, I am not a follower. I think things out for myself, and may use selected works such as Ra for reference in developing my working theories and understanding, but that's all.

---

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.

I take your point. And in the public world, this is how I act. It could be said that regarding the phrase I used "shift your thinking" I was attempting to exert my will. However, I thought this was a discussion. In a discussion, isn't that what you do: try and explain your point of view so that the others involved in the discussion understand it? That is what I meant by "shift your thinking," although I can see how it might sound "pushy."