In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

I don't think 4D entities eat the bloody flesh of still-living animals. Somehow I can't quite picture that! So for the food to be living, it must be plant.

Snails? Oysters? American Indians supposedly ate the hearts out of freshly-killed game.

I said 4D entities.

The catalyst itself - the cruel living conditions - are what triggers the self-awareness in cows and chickens.

....

To miss the potential of extreme suffering to awaken sentience, is to miss the point of catalyst, rendering the suffering even more abhorrent because it's without any purpose at all.

OK, I'm starting to see where you're coming from. It's possible, but I think it's unlikely. Green-ray love is what individuates pets. I doubt that red-ray survival needs would cause second-density entities to move towards third density.

It's not just red-ray. Animals have herds, packs, social structures. Those are ripped asunder by humans who put them into unnatural and obscenely cruel living conditions. So orange comes into play here.

Further, I seem to recall Ra talking about the purpose of 2D catalyst. If only love from 3D entities caused 2D to become self-aware, then only pets would evolve! Then what would be the purpose of 2D catalyst at all?

I have repeatedly stated that eventually, we wouldn't be eating plants either, but that we have to start someplace.

Right. You think the place to start is not eating animals. I think it's to recognize and honor the sacrifice that the food is offering to you. I think a lettuce or a carrot is sacrificing just as completely as a cow or a pig.

Sacrifice means the entity chose it. Cows and pigs aren't sacrificing, because they have no choice in the matter.

I still don't get what the algae has to do with your point. Sorry, I guess I still don't get your point! Wild bluegreen algae from Klamath Lake is the single most sustainable food on the planet. Bar none. There just isn't any comparison.

Sustainable food doesn't need to be packaged and shipped thousands of miles. It's grown and consumed locally.

The term sustainable has nothing to do with whether it's local or not.

sus·tain·a·ble  [suh-stey-nuh-buhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
capable of being supported or upheld, as by having its weight borne from below.
2.
pertaining to a system that maintains its own viability by using techniques that allow for continual reuse: sustainable agriculture. Aquaculture is a sustainable alternative to overfishing.
3.
able to be maintained or kept going, as an action or process: a sustainable negotiation between the two countries.
4.
able to be confirmed or upheld: a sustainable decision.
5.
able to be supported as with the basic necessities or sufficient funds: a sustainable life.

Bluegreen algae is the single most sustainable food on the planet, because if you removed half the algae in the morning, by the end of the day the lake would be full again. No other food reproduces that fast.

Because you're OK with killing plants to eat them but you think compassion for animals requires not killing them.

You are oversimplifying my many thousands of words expended to explain my position.

I would add that, since this is the density of Choice, allowing an STS action to take place, when we have the ability to stop it, is to polarize STS.

Not necessarily. Ra said that our lessons at this time involve the balance between love and wisdom. It would depend why one allowed the STS action to take place.

Not caring about the suffering of others...lusting for the taste of animal flesh...Just what are the reasons for eating animals, especially those raised in factory farms?

(Replying generally and not in the context of this thread, where you may be implying that allowing the butchering of animals is STS.)

I think that the way Austin (abridgetoofar) does it - consciously, humanely, and lovingly - isn't STS at all. It's not something I could do. But I can see that Austin's intentions are to improve the overall conditions of the animals. We disagree as to whether the animals should even be killed at all, but I am able to see past that to his heart, which is plainly out in the open for all to see. He clearly cares a great deal, and has expressed how conflicted he is when he must kill bugs in order to raise crops. Even though his approach is different from mine, I consider us on the same team.

That's right: A farmer who butchers animals, and me, a vegetarian animal rights activist, on the same team!!

I see no conflict in this.

Now contrast that with those who aren't even willing to watch a video and get educated about what goes on in a slaughterhouse, or, worse, who can watch it and not even care...who insist on putting their own desires for taste above caring about the suffering of the animals.

NOT referring to any person on this thread!!! I am speaking in generalities. If someone is unaware of the suffering, they aren't responsible for it. For most people, eating a hamburger isn't STS at all, because they aren't even thinking about that animal. They are barely conscious enough to even realize it was once an animal.

But for someone who is aware, and chooses to not care, then yeah, I'd say that is depolarizing.