In regards to eating meat

[Tenet Nosce]

Then this is the crux of our disagreement. I don't think we will just automatically change in a higher density. I think we have to embody the qualities of that density, in order to resonate with it and live in it.

Take an average human and put them in almost any environment and watch with amazement as they adapt with rapidity.

But then, another reason we might not be agreeing on some of these concepts is that we might view consensual reality differently.

I think so. I wonder what the consensus reality between our concepts of consensus reality would be?

Compassion is a quality of 4D.

Right. And compassion does not result from abstaining from meat. I submit that an entity inhabiting a fully 4D body would not view it as "abstention" at all as they will quite naturally not desire it.

I'm not sure I would call it a lie - that seems too strong a word for an issue that is so complex, getting into microbes and such - but I agree that it's a higher intention to do something out of compassion, rather than duty.

But it is a lie. Spirit does not impose duties of any sort upon entities. To me, it is "shock and amazement" that another would get offended at calling a spade a spade. (Not saying you were offended. Just saying.)

One can feel a sense of duty without being compassionate.

"Sense of duty" is a control mechanism. It is not necessary for a fully flourishing STO community to impose "sense of duty" in order to regulate behaviors.

It's a case of the 'letter of the law vs the spirit of the law.' When humans evolve to the point where they no longer wish to kill other humans, there will no longer be a need for laws against murder. (for example)

Are you suggesting there should be laws against eating meat? Because you keep equating this to murder.

But what is a sphere? It's illusion. And what about M Theory? The work of Nassim Haramein? If there is only 1 timeline, why is Ra unable to tell us exactly what the future holds, not because of violating our free will, but because they see many possible futures in the possibility/probability vortex?

A "sphere" means an area of activity bound by a given set of parameters. I never said there is only one timeline (are you slipping into unity100-land anyway?). A "sphere" is capable of supporting infinite timelines.

I think your response is starting to get off the mark here. My comment is about the consensus view among those who are not limited by the veil.

If that's the case, then I am doing what I'm supposed to be doing.

No doubt.

They are the same thing of course. All is One.

Unity does not equate to sameness. It is one thing to heal a relationship to another, it is something different to try to "fix" the other. I submit that Mother Earth is not in danger. It is humans that are in danger of missing yet another opportunity for graduation. Everything else remains in perfect order.

As I've said, I never walk up to a person in my everyday life and tell them out of the blue to quit eating meat. In everyday life, I tune into people, always on the lookout for clues that they might be receptive to the idea that eating meat isn't necessary. Usually, in the course of conversation about their health, it comes up, and then I gently offer suggestions, taking into consideration where they're at in their process.

This is certainly why you are more effective than others at navigating this topic. Remember... part of your responses here are to comments I made to somebody else.

But guess what...recently she was diagnosed with cancer. Now, because she has a need for healing, she is suddenly asking me for vegetarian recipes, what kind of juicer to buy, etc.

OK. But then in all seriousness... how much do you suppose that meat-eating contributed to the development of cancer? 5%? 95%? I hope you're not saying that meat-eating "causes" cancer.

I don't personally care about the 'design' of the human body because I believe our bodies are mutating, and that can happen very quickly. So what our ancestors ate doesn't really factor into the equation, in my view.

When our bodies are done "mutating" we will be able to manifest them in the 4D sphere, where meat-eating doesn't factor into the equation, in my view.

But see, your classmate apparently did it out of some ideal...more in the duty category.

Yup.

If I had ever gotten any hint that he was deficient in anything, I would have quickly evaluated his diet.

Your level of social awareness is significantly more developed than most.

It has too many components that are harmful.

Such as?

Proponents of meat often say that the reason people should eat meat is that it is nutrient dense. But the only nutrient it's dense in, is protein.

Actually, meat is nutrient dense in other things. Particularly B12 and zinc. But no, it is not necessary to eat meat to get these things. But you aren't going to get them from most vegetables, either.

Yes, but avocados, coconuts, nuts and seeds all come from plants. So did you mean to say "not enough to simply eat vegetables"?

Yes.

Haha, well I see your point, but even then, the 'experts' don't even agree. Even on this thread the 'facts' about a vegetarian diet being not only adequate but healthier, which has been quite irrefutably proven, has been questioned.

Some people just like to flap their jaws. As for those "experts" I dunno your guess is as good as mine...

I can see how that 'package' might come wrapped with denial and dualism, but not necessarily.

Right. Which is why I said tends.

Right. But that's not the perspective we're at. Being Wanderers notwithstanding, we are in the density of Choice.

Yes. And the Choice is about service to others. One can be well into the range of "service to others" and still eat meat. Even nasty mass-produced hamburger patties.

Killing when it's not necessary is harm. Who would disagree with that?

Clorox?

Maybe. Maybe not. It's a moot point because it's impossible for us to totally avoid killing microbes, just as it's impossible for us to to totally avoid eating plants. We cannot be held responsible for that we cannot change.

But we can be held responsible for that which we can change, but choose not to.

We can choose not to use bleach wipes and antibacterial soaps... this is the point in the debate where one calls me absurd but the point is that true spiritual principles don't lead one to absurd conclusions.

That is the crux of the debate, as I see it. We are all in agreement that it's proper, and even necessary, for an STO-aspiring person to develop compassion for other-selves, ie. human other-selves.

The only way to develop compassion, or whatever it is one is aspiring to, is to first make the choice to aspire to it. Then, each time the choice is made, it is empowered. Eventually, it becomes natural.

The choice is a question or an opening. It says to the universe: What is compassion? Show me.

Ra never specified that. It is an assumption that when Ra used the term 'other-selves' they were referring to only humans.

I'm not making that assumption. I am saying that Ra specified 51% STO which can certainly be achieved by a meat eater.

Why must it be either/or? Yes, there are some fanatics who ignore the plight of humans in favor of helping animals...but I don't see it as either/or. To me, compassion is compassion, whether bestowed on humans or animals. Personally, I try to help both humans and animals, in any way I can. There is no either-or. One can do both.

Well, it doesn't have to be either/or. But in a practical sense, there are only 24 hours in a day.

And in fact, reducing animal cruelty has the added bonus of helping humans too!

I would imagine that reducing human cruelty also helps the animals!

Whereas, by ignoring animal cruelty, we're actually harming humans! By perpetuating the meat industry, our grandchildren will have to pay the price, with a planet raped and poisoned.

Eating meat does not equate to ignoring animal cruelty. There is plenty that a meat-eater can do to be more cognizant of what kinds of practices they support. As you pointed out.

Not only that, but sometimes people are able to open their hearts to animals before opening them to other people, because they've been hurt by other people. It doesn't matter how the heart is opened. What matters is that it is opened.

What matters is that, once opened, that the heart be extended to other humans. Otherwise the result is a highly unbalanced entity. Old maid librarian cat-lady types. So it is a double-edged sword but of course animals play an important role in the healing process of many humans.

Now... do you suppose they knew what these animal companions were getting themselves into ahead of time? Or was it a totally random luck-of-the-draw type thing?

Maybe having at least 1 lifetime as a victim/victimizer is essential too, but that doesn't mean I have to participate in it.

No, but maybe that cow did. You have to admit in the end, we just don't really know what the cow had in mind.

Well again, try substituting human for animal and see how that works.

Humans are individuated. Animals are not. (Mostly.)

We can choose what role we want to play. We aren't pawns.

Neither are we in charge.

That analogy doesn't work. In the case of meat, the product itself is a direct result of the violent action. Without violence, there can be no meat product.

Again, if you conveniently equate killing with violence, then your argument is circular.

Sure. I'm not exactly an expert, but I see no reason why not.

How might that work? A physical world with no carnivores? If you feel so strongly it is possible, then maybe you are an expert!

Aha! I knew I recognized you from someplace! I too was shackled to a wall in a dungeon! We were cellmates!

... or have chosen the same memory imprints from the Akashic Records on our way in... in any case it explains part of my distaste for the Church... but that is another topic entirely...

That is an assumption. We don't know that.

Maybe it is just a limit of my imagination. I just can't seem to conceive of how it would work.

Really? You don't see an entity overpowering another entity, resulting in bloody death, as violence? Shock and amazement.

Yes, really! Why would I see my cat as violent? It is genetically programmed to behave a certain way. That is not violence. Violence is a learned behavior that really only applies to humans.

In some cases, animals held in captivity have demonstrated violent behavior. This is probably why most humans demonstrate violent behavior. Only some don't even realize they are in captivity. They think they are "free".

This just reminded me of past debates with Christians who told me I could never question anything in the Bible, because that would be "calling God a liar."

I can understand how you would be reminded of that, but I think you know that is not what I mean.

You seem to be saying that if we "don't resonate" with something Q'uo said, then we are heretics!

No. What I am saying is: taken in the context of the whole body of L/L Research transcripts, other various channeled materials, and sacred texts from around the globe, what Q'uo said in the above excerpt is entirely consistent and corroborated by many other sources.

So even Q'uo encourages us to accept only that which resonates.

What you are rejecting as "not resonating with" is not a statement of opinion. It is a statement of how the universe is actually constructed.

By your own logic, if Q'uo's words are infallible and anyone disputing Q'uo's words is calling Q'uo a liar, then it logically follows:

No. I think you are putting unity100's words in my mouth. I never said Q'uo is infallible. I am speaking to the specific excerpt which I offered in the point.

Perhaps you would like to draw specific attention to the parts of the message that "don't resonate" with you, and we could discuss them separately in a "Sessions in Focus" thread.

But otherwise, you are mischaracterizing what I have been saying. One can find rails of posts I have authored about why Ra is not infallible. You have even responded to many of them.

gotcha!

You got unity100, not me.

1. The Law of One isn't a religion. There are no rules. No authorities. Not even Ra. Carla has stated that she doesn't want the Law of One made into a religion/cult/dogma/doctrine.

The doctrine of nested spheres of influence is neither a statement of rules nor religion. It is a statement of fact, and is demonstrably true at every level of Creation. Moreover, it is entirely consistent with the Ra material.

2. The Q'uo sessions are all conscious channeled, in contrast to the Ra sessions, which were trance channeled.

... and so that makes Q'uo a liar? Because I didn't notice any signs of personality distortion coming from Carla in that particular reply. I have written of these in other places as well.

3. Carla isn't always the person doing the channeling. In many cases, someone else is channeling Q'uo. Thus, to consider all Q'uo sessions as absolute, infallible and authoritative, is to be putting one's faith into multiple people who did the channeling, assuming that there was zero distortion.

Seriously, are you including this for my benefit? Or... ?

4. Not even the Ra sessions are 100% free of distortion.

You are kind of repeating yourself. *shock and amazement* that you are telling me this. Remember The Detuning of Session 17 and Ra's True Intentions Regarding 2011 - Part II?

5. It's impossible to verify the Q'uo sessions as being 100% correct. On the contrary, some statements made in the Q'uo sessions are provably incorrect. See Pablisimo's example below. Does this mean the Q'uo sessions aren't, in general, trustworthy? No. I personally get tremendous value from the Q'uo channelings. But I don't consider them infallible.

...

You appear to have totally missed the thrust of my post in assuming that my comments about that particular Q'uote applies to the whole of the material.

Let me rephrase: for a person to state that they "don't resonate" with what Q'uo says about 4D earth being distinct from 3D earth, means that they are, in essence, calling Q'uo a liar.

Q'uo very clearly and distinctly states three times- in no uncertain terms- that 3D earth does not become 4D earth.

Not only did Q'uo clearly state this three times, but the statements made by Q'uo are 100% consistent with everything else Q'uo ever said, everything Ra ever said, and everything that any other reliably channeled entity has ever said.