In regards to eating meat

[Patrick]

Yes. Now finding a human who truly believes it is ok to kill humans is not going to be easy.

Many entities who think it's ok to kill other humans, are indeed polarizing - to STS.

It's a question of what is meant by "ok". I'm pretty certain that an STS entity is not neutral when it comes to killing another human being. It does not chose do this because it believes it is natural to kill another human being. An STS entity does this killing with the intent to polarize negatively.

I respectfully disagree. IMHO polarizing is 100% dependent on intent and context.

I believe the Ra material supports my claims on this subject.

Yes, that's true. What, then, is the context of continuing to support the torture and slaughter of sentient beings, when it's not necessary?

One who is truly ignorant won't polarize from such support, but those who are consciously aware of what they're doing...their polarity will be affected. How could it not? To be presented with an opportunity to have compassion and reduce suffering, and turn one's back on that opportunity...would be depolarizing.

I don't know about other meat eaters, but I certainly do not support the torture of animals. At least for some of us, I do believe it is necessary to eat meat.

Also, we do not seem to have the same definition of what a sentient being is. For me, this means self-aware and this comes in 3d. I also believe everything is conscious even if not self-aware.

I understand this. But still according to Ra the simple act of giving an opinion is judging. So in this context, we are all judging each others here. From my experience, this is more so in this thread than in any other I read on this site so far.

I don't recall Ra saying that. But if Ra did indeed say that, then that would mean Ra was judging too, and Q'uo too, for they did offer opinions.

I remember thinking that this was a paradox. But it would not be the first paradox I encounter.

I will try to find the quote, maybe the word "opinion" is not the one I am looking for.

Ra did say that service to others is the determining factor in harvestability. Animal activists are trying to serve others. If some people feel 'judged' by their service, it's coming from within, not from the animal activists.

The reason I say this, is because we are trying to free the oppressed. We aren't trying to control anyone. We just want to free the oppressed! We cannot refrain from doing that, because that would be declining an opportunity to answer a call for service.

Absolutely! I do understand this. (except for the "'judged' by their service" part)

Personally, I am focusing on the path of acceptance. Even accepting that it is "ok" for the Elites to enslave me. It is "ok" for humans to go to war with each others. It is "ok" for us the judge each others. For all this provides extremely potent catalysts for our collective evolution and also ALL path ends with the Creator.

My service is accepting, to the best of my ability, that which is, exactly as it is. In so doing I channel the Unconditional Love and Light of the One Infinite Creator on our planetary sphere.

Incidentally, STS entities are also serving the One Infinite Creator which they are.

You believe that eating meat, while knowing that animals have to die for it, will automatically polarize someone negatively. I believe intent and context is crucial here. I do not know any adults who is not aware that animals are killed to provide them with meat. I would argue that if there is automatic negative polarization, it's minimal.

Are you implying that eating meat would prevent one from being harvested in 4d positive?

We can choose to not participate in the money system. It's a very difficult decision to make, but we can. If I chose this myself, I would hurt all my loved ones so I do not.

Exactly. But it wouldn't hurt anyone to quit eating meat. In fact, it would actually help...it would help the person by improving health, it would help the environment, and it would actually help promote sustainability on the planet overall. (Oh yeah, and as an aside, it would help the animals.)

You are right for the meat part, but if you mean the vegan way, then I do not agree that it wouldn't hurt anyone.

I find this amazing. Let's try this with humans substituted:

I feel a lot of subtle judgments on both sides of the argument and I seriously believe that this brings more negativity to Earth than killing innocent children in wars ever could.

The killing of innocent children in wars comes directly from the act of judgment. Without judgment, there is acceptance. With acceptance there are no disagreements. And without disagreements there are no wars.

OK, but your statement was that judgment was more harmful than the actual killing. When applied to humans, does that still hold true?

Yes simply because without judgment there would be no murders. And in this context, even if a human would be to kill another human, we could not call it murder.