Bring4th

(04-04-2015, 09:24 PM)Doctor Makuta Wrote: [ -> ]Well I have been feeling disgusted lately at injesting meats... so its just another nail in the coffin of meat eating for me. I already don't consume dairy, I only injest meat because I live with others and it makes it easier if all meals are cooked together, and for the nutrients it contains that arent naturally widespread. However I also do enjoy meat I wont lie for the flavour and texture, however I would prefer to harvest than have to do another 3rd density cycle considering I am a wanderer so perhaps you can commentate.

Wow, you are ahead of the game, if you already don't eat dairy! I went vegetarian first, but still ate cheese for many years. It was easy for me to quit eating meat (due to the disgust factor) but found it very difficult to give up cheese. (I finally did, thankfully!) Sine you already don't eat dairy, you are lucky, in a way.

You might find this helpful:

Bring4th Forums Two > Health & Diet v > Vegetarianism Made E-Z (Recipes and Stuff - NO debate allowed here!)

(04-05-2015, 04:07 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-05-2015, 03:54 PM)Lighthead Wrote: [ -> ]I highlighted the word, slaughtered. I'm not definitively saying that it refers to the killing of animals. I'm just saying that I feel it's worth analyzing.

What else could it possibly mean? Seems rather straightforward to me.

...

I'm actually just playing devil's advocate. I agree with you that it means what it says.

(04-05-2015, 04:05 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Personally, I resonate almost 100% with virtually everything Ra has said. I have no conflicts with the Material.

I don't think they did advise Carla to eat meat at all. I think they accepted that she already did, and worked with her according to her own choices.

Remember, Don never asked Ra if eating meat was depolarizing. Nor did he ever ask anything about eating meat from the perspective of the victims. The question was only asked in the context of Carla's allergies.

In analyzing Ra's response, I think it's important to remember Ra's M.O.: Ra always answered direct questions and didn't usually volunteer information that wasn't asked for.

Okay, Ra doesn't volunteer information unless asked.  Let's work with that.

Isn't Ra still STO?  Don't they take the free will of all into consideration when giving advice?  Even the animals?  Why wouldn't they just not mention meat at all?  And simply suggest some plant sourced protein?

They didn't have to even mention meats, hence no volunteering information about it.  If it was my custom to lie, would Ra incorporate the advice of lying into my behavior if I asked advice on how to better my situation in life?  Or if it was my custom to murder humans (and furthermore believed it was the right thing to do, lets say I thought I was protecting my people by performing some kind of sacrifice (i'm thinking of tribal ancient humans)) would they incorporate that into advice about someone?  Would they not say anything? To respect my free will decisions?  I sincerely doubt that.  

Do you?  These are extreme hypotheticals, but I can't in all honesty think an STO being would not say anything (if it were, in fact, extremely depolarizing).

And suppose you're right, and Ra is just accepting the free will decisions of a given person in such a dialog, isn't that telling?  That a sixth density being of light feels no need to be an activist on the issue and try to change people?  What do you make of that?  What example is Ra setting? 

(04-05-2015, 04:36 PM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]Okay, Ra doesn't volunteer information unless asked.  Let's work with that.

Isn't Ra still STO?

Ra is beyond polarity, but biased towards STO, since that was their chosen polarity.

(04-05-2015, 04:36 PM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]Don't they take the free will of all into consideration when giving advice?  Even the animals?  Why wouldn't they just not mention meat at all?  And simply suggest some plant sourced protein?

Because that would have been telling Carla what to do. Don asked specifically about what Carla should eat to avoid her allergy flareups. Was that an appropriate time for Ra to totally revamp Carla's diet? Don never asked Ra how eating meat affected Carla's polarity, or anyone else's either. Nor did Don ever ask about the spiritual implications of eating meat. It doesn't seem to have even entered his mind.

(04-05-2015, 04:36 PM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]They didn't have to even mention meats, hence no volunteering information about it.  If it was my custom to lie, would Ra incorporate the advice of lying into my behavior if I asked advice on how to better my situation in life?  Or if it was my custom to murder humans (and furthermore believed it was the right thing to do, lets say I thought I was protecting my people by performing some kind of sacrifice (i'm thinking of tribal ancient humans)) would they incorporate that into advice about someone?  Would they not say anything? To respect my free will decisions?  I sincerely doubt that.

Good questions. I'd say it would depend on exactly what questions you asked.

Don, Carla and Jim are/were all wonderful people. But none of them was 100% perfect in every way. Ra didn't address any of their personal faults at all, ever. 

(04-05-2015, 04:36 PM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]Do you?  These are extreme hypotheticals, but I can't in all honesty think an STO being would not say anything (if it were, in fact, extremely depolarizing).

And suppose you're right, and Ra is just accepting the free will decisions of a given person in such a dialog, isn't that telling?  That a sixth density being of light feels no need to be an activist on the issue and try to change people?  What do you make of that?  What example is Ra setting? 

But Ra did address it, in the other quote. The one that was about diet in general. Ra specifically said plant foods, and animal products (not meat) to the extent necessary for individual metabolism.

I think Ra recognized that humans are in a transition away from eating our younger other-selves. I think Ra was also quite aware that science was being to prove that humans don't need meat at all, and in fact don't even need any animal protein at all. But, some people transition more easily than others. Due to metabolic typing, some people do find the transition challenging. I think Ra took all this into consideration and allowed a bit of wiggle room: to the extent necessary.

What does this mean? I think it means exactly what it says: Eat animal products ONLY if necessary. For most people, that is zero. For others, it might mean in small amounts, only temporarily, as the person makes the adjustments and learns how to thrive on a plant-based diet. But even in that case, the goal for a serious spiritual seeker would, presumably, be to not knowingly contribute to cruelty. Even for those in the minority who need a little more time and education to transition to fully vegan, the goal is still the same. It just might take a little more effort for them, and if so, they have animal products (organic eggs and dairy) rather than dead animals, to cushion their transition, only to the extent necessary. As they get educated about how to thrive, it won't be necessary at all. Ra knew all this and chose their words very carefully.

I don't think Ra ever intended for this to mean eat hamburgers and bacon any time, because they like the taste.

...

(04-05-2015, 04:14 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, I agree with you that Ra intended the latter, for the simple reason that meat doesn't usually have preservatives added.
It is well to attempt to find those items which are fresh

Tons of meat has preservatives added.  Most of it, in fact.

(04-05-2015, 04:14 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Something that is dead can't be fresh.

That is extremely subjective.

(04-05-2015, 04:51 PM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]Tons of meat has preservatives added.  Most of it, in fact.

(04-05-2015, 04:14 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Something that is dead can't be fresh.

That is extremely subjective.

OK, I acknowledged that those comments were subjective. But I stand by my assertion that in the slaughtered...preservatives quote, one interpretation is as valid as the other.

(04-05-2015, 04:54 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ] But I stand by my assertion that in the slaughtered...preservatives quote, one interpretation is as valid as the other.

I agree when you omit the fuller context of Ra's reply and leave out "fresh", and its possible relevance to "preservatives", they seem equally valid. Another context worth noting is the term "other selves" attributed to animals. Its metaphysical, where as with other humans its also physical.

(04-05-2015, 06:24 PM)Nicholas Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-05-2015, 04:54 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ] But I stand by my assertion that in the slaughtered...preservatives quote, one interpretation is as valid as the other.

I agree when you omit the fuller context of Ra's reply and leave out "fresh", and its possible relevance to "preservatives", they seem equally valid. Another context worth noting is the term "other selves" attributed to animals. Its metaphysical, where as with other humans its also physical.

You think so? Most humans don't think of other humans as other-selves. How is it physical? Even though we are of the same species, many humans still think that those of other ethnicities are 'other' to the point of not even really human. 

(04-05-2015, 06:24 PM)Nicholas Wrote: [ -> ]I agree when you omit the fuller context of Ra's reply and leave out "fresh", and its possible relevance to "preservatives", they seem equally valid.

It wasn't my intention to leave out context. I just went back and reread the quote:

Quote:84.2 Questioner: In the last session you mentioned least distorted complex protein in that the body complex of the instrument was capable of greatly increased distortion. Would you define the protein of which you spoke and we would like to know, increased distortion in which direction, towards health or ill-health?

Ra: I am Ra. We were, in the cautionary statement about complex protein, referring to the distortions of the animal protein which has been slaughtered and preservatives added in order to maintain the acceptability to your peoples of this non-living, physical material. It is well to attempt to find those items which are fresh and of the best quality possible in order to avoid increasing this particular entity’s distortions which may be loosely termed allergic.

the animal protein which has been slaughtered seems to be differentiating from meat and other animal protein (eggs, dairy).

Oh WOW oh WOW!!! I just noticed something significant!

Don referenced the last session. So, I looked up Session 83, and searched for the word 'protein', and found this:

Quote:83.28 Questioner: I noticed you started this session with “I communicate now.” You usually use “We communicate now.” Is there any significance or difference with respect to that, and then is there anything that we can do to make the instrument more comfortable or improve the contact?
Ra: I am Ra. We am Ra. You may see the grammatical difficulties of your linguistic structure in dealing with a social memory complex. There is no distinction between the first person singular and plural in your language when pertaining to Ra.

We offer the following, not to infringe upon your free will, but because this instrument has specifically requested information as to its maintenance and the support group does so at this querying. We may suggest that the instrument has two areas of potential distortion, both of which may be aided in the bodily sense by the ingestion of those things which seem to the instrument to be desirable. We do not suggest any hard and fast rulings of diet although we may suggest the virtue of the liquids. The instrument has an increasing ability to sense that which will aid its bodily complex. It is being aided by affirmations and also by the light which is the food of the density of resting.

We may ask the support group to monitor the instrument as always so that in the case of the desire for the more complex proteins that which is the least distorted might be offered to the bodily complex which is indeed at this time potentially capable of greatly increased distortion.

...in the case of the desire for the more complex proteins...this clearly means that WHEN Carla desires meat, THEN give the LEAST DISTORTED meat.  :exclamation:  :exclamation:  :exclamation:

This supports what I said earlier: Ra was working with Carla where she was at. She already had the desire to eat meat, so Ra gave suggestions on how to minimize any distortion from it; ie. that it must, therefore, cause distortion!

There's really no way this could be construed to say that Ra was encouraging the consumption of meat, even in Carla's case, in my opinion.

(04-05-2015, 04:05 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Notice that in the other quote, that was general (rather than for Carla), Ra was careful to use the term animal products rather than meat. Animal products could be eggs or dairy, which could possibly be acquired with slightly less cruelty than meat (I say slightly because the calves are still stolen from their mothers, and slaughtered, the cows are still kept pregnant, and killed at the end of their productive years).

This idea, that it only referred to eggs or dairy doesn't really hold up to the light of logic when you analyze it.  Any rational person, who was familiar with the English language, would read this and logically conclude, and assume, that this also included meat products.  To think that "meat" does not fall under the category of "animal products" is wishful thinking in the extreme.

Consider that Ra, who meticulously wielded the English language, and who carefully used terms with their literal definitions, used these terms specifically.

Here is the dictionary definition of animal products: 

An animal product is any material derived from the body of an animal. Examples are fat, flesh, blood, milk, eggs, and lesser known products, such as isinglass and rennet.
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_product)

If Ra had meant something more specific than that (such as only dairy, honey, or eggs) they, quite simply, would have been more specific than that.  I mean, it isn't as if they suddenly forgot how the English language worked.  They absolutely knew what this referred to.

(04-05-2015, 10:08 PM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]This idea, that it only referred to eggs or dairy doesn't really hold up to the light of logic when you analyze it.  Any rational person, who was familiar with the English language, would read this and logically conclude, and assume, that this also included meat products.  To think that "meat" does not fall under the category of "animal products" is wishful thinking in the extreme.

Oh I agree that it can include meat. I didn't say that it couldn't include meat. I said that it could include eggs and dairy...meaning that it didn't mean only meat. Some people have used that quote to argue that Ra said to eat meat...but Ra didn't specifically say meat.

A possible implication is: If one's metabolism (during transition) seems to require animal products, why not satisfy that (temporarily) with eggs and dairy, rather than meat?

Interestingly, Ra used the term meat only twice...and both times were in response to questions specifically about Carla's specific ailments.

(04-05-2015, 04:05 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think Ra advocated the eating of meat at all, for anyone, even Carla. I think that quote is simply congruent with the way Ra always avoided telling them exactly what to do, in respect to free will. Ra acknowledged that Carla already ate meat, and gave advice in accordance with her choices.

I'm sure you're familiar with the two uses of the word "meat" in the sessions.  To me, both seem to be cases where Ra is advising Carla to eat meat, and I'm pretty sure that's how Carla understood them, too.

Quote:18.4 Questioner: Are there any foods that are helpful or harmful that the instrument might eat?

Ra: I am Ra. This instrument has body complex distortion towards ill health in the distortion direction corrected best by ingestion of the foodstuffs of your grains and your vegetables, as you call them. However, this is extremely unimportant when regarded as an aid with equality to other aids such as attitude which this instrument has in abundance. It, however, aids the vital energies of this instrument, with less distortion towards ill health, to ingest foodstuffs in the above manner with occasional ingestion of what you call your meats, due to the instrument’s need to lessen the distortion towards low vital energy.

Quote:102.16 Questioner: Would Ra please mention which foods are highly probable in not causing any spasming in the instrument’s digestive system?

Ra: I am Ra. The liquids not containing carbonation, the well-cooked vegetable which is most light and soft, the well-cooked grains, the non-fatted meat such as the fish. You may note that some recommended foodstuffs overlap allergies and sensitivities due to the juvenile rheumatoid arthritic distortions. Further, although sugar such as is in your sweetened desserts represents a potential, we may suggest that it be included at this period for aforementioned reasons.

Here's a quote from Carla's A Channeling Handbook about the subject:

Quote:One other cause of indulging among channels is the need for earth-heavy food while channeling high energies. If you are losing weight while eating normally, you’ll need to eat meat, the redder and rarer the better. Sorry.

I think that Carla was convinced that she wouldn't have been able to continue bringing the Law of One sessions through without meat, and I think Ra affirmed the helpfulness for her of eating meat in the quotes above.

Monica ' Wrote: [ -> ]Oh I agree that it can include meat. I didn't say that it couldn't include meat. I said that it could include eggs and dairy...meaning that it didn't mean only meat. Some people have used that quote to argue that Ra said to eat meat...but Ra didn't specifically say meat.

A possible implication is: If one's metabolism (during transition) seems to require animal products, why not satisfy that (temporarily) with eggs and dairy, rather than meat?

Another possible implication Ra was making: it is not wrong to partake of animal products (meat, eggs, dairy, honey etc).

Monica ' Wrote: [ -> ]Don, Carla and Jim are/were all wonderful people. But none of them was 100% perfect in every way. Ra didn't address any of their personal faults at all, ever. 

Well, I guess you would have to clarify what you mean by "perfect".  In some macrocosmic sense, we are all perfect.  

But in terms of our goals, like for example, to be as purely STO as possible, Ra actually *did* bring up some of the personal distortions of these guys, that were getting in the way of more pure "STO'ness".  

So that's not really an accurate statement.

In regards Jim:

Quote:Ra: The entity has a mental/emotional tendency, which has been lessening in distortion for some of your space/time, towards negative wisdom.

In regard Carla:

Quote:Ra: There is the need for the instrument to choose the manner of its beingness. It has the distortion, as we have noted, towards the martyrdom. This can be evaluated and choices made only by the entity.

These are just random examples.  I don't really consider them faults, but in the context of the discussion, they were distortions they held at the time, which were challenges to further and more effective positivity.

I now see why Monica gets so frustrated with these threads. It seems like these issues are brought up by people who defend the eating of meat, ad nauseum.

(04-05-2015, 10:37 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure you're familiar with the two uses of the word "meat" in the sessions.  To me, both seem to be cases where Ra is advising Carla to eat meat, and I'm pretty sure that's how Carla understood them, too.

Quote:18.4 Questioner: Are there any foods that are helpful or harmful that the instrument might eat?

Ra: I am Ra. This instrument has body complex distortion towards ill health in the distortion direction corrected best by ingestion of the foodstuffs of your grains and your vegetables, as you call them. However, this is extremely unimportant when regarded as an aid with equality to other aids such as attitude which this instrument has in abundance. It, however, aids the vital energies of this instrument, with less distortion towards ill health, to ingest foodstuffs in the above manner with occasional ingestion of what you call your meats, due to the instrument’s need to lessen the distortion towards low vital energy.

Quote:102.16 Questioner: Would Ra please mention which foods are highly probable in not causing any spasming in the instrument’s digestive system?

Ra: I am Ra. The liquids not containing carbonation, the well-cooked vegetable which is most light and soft, the well-cooked grains, the non-fatted meat such as the fish. You may note that some recommended foodstuffs overlap allergies and sensitivities due to the juvenile rheumatoid arthritic distortions. Further, although sugar such as is in your sweetened desserts represents a potential, we may suggest that it be included at this period for aforementioned reasons.

Monica has already addressed these issues. She mentioned that Ra was specifically addressing Carla's situation. These should not be interpreted as blanket statements.

(04-05-2015, 10:37 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a quote from Carla's A Channeling Handbook about the subject:

Quote:One other cause of indulging among channels is the need for earth-heavy food while channeling high energies. If you are losing weight while eating normally, you’ll need to eat meat, the redder and rarer the better. Sorry.

I'm think that Carla was convinced that she wouldn't have been able to continue bringing the Law of One sessions through without meat, and I think Ra affirmed the helpfulness for her of eating meat in the quotes above.

Ibidem.

(04-05-2015, 10:55 PM)Lighthead Wrote: [ -> ]Monica has already addressed these issues. She mentioned that Ra was specifically addressing Carla's situation. These should not be interpreted as blanket statements.

She said she didn't think Ra advocated the eating of meat at all, for anyone, even Carla.

(04-05-2015, 10:55 PM)Lighthead Wrote: [ -> ]Monica has already addressed these issues. She mentioned that Ra was specifically addressing Carla's situation. These should not be interpreted as blanket statements.

And even if that were only about Carla, I addressed *that exact point* earlier, and explained why it made no sense that it wouldn't apply to others, as well.

(04-05-2015, 10:55 PM)Lighthead Wrote: [ -> ]I now see why Monica gets so frustrated with these threads. It seems like these issues are brought up by people who defend the eating of meat, ad nauseum.

You mean....sorta like how she and others attack eating meat, ad nauseum? That right there, is what we call irony.

(04-05-2015, 11:00 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-05-2015, 10:55 PM)Lighthead Wrote: [ -> ]Monica has already addressed these issues. She mentioned that Ra was specifically addressing Carla's situation. These should not be interpreted as blanket statements.

She said she didn't think Ra advocated the eating of meat at all, for anyone, even Carla.

I'll let Monica answer. I'm pretty sure she can clarify. I don't generally like speaking for others.

(04-05-2015, 08:14 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ] I just noticed something significant!

Don referenced the last session. So, I looked up Session 83, and searched for the word 'protein', and found this:

Quote:83.28 Questioner: I noticed you started this session with “I communicate now.” You usually use “We communicate now.” Is there any significance or difference with respect to that, and then is there anything that we can do to make the instrument more comfortable or improve the contact?
Ra: I am Ra. We am Ra. You may see the grammatical difficulties of your linguistic structure in dealing with a social memory complex. There is no distinction between the first person singular and plural in your language when pertaining to Ra.

We offer the following, not to infringe upon your free will, but because this instrument has specifically requested information as to its maintenance and the support group does so at this querying. We may suggest that the instrument has two areas of potential distortion, both of which may be aided in the bodily sense by the ingestion of those things which seem to the instrument to be desirable. We do not suggest any hard and fast rulings of diet although we may suggest the virtue of the liquids. The instrument has an increasing ability to sense that which will aid its bodily complex. It is being aided by affirmations and also by the light which is the food of the density of resting.

We may ask the support group to monitor the instrument as always so that in the case of the desire for the more complex proteins that which is the least distorted might be offered to the bodily complex which is indeed at this time potentially capable of greatly increased distortion.

...in the case of the desire for the more complex proteins...this clearly means that WHEN Carla desires meat, THEN give the LEAST DISTORTED meat.  :exclamation:  :exclamation:  :exclamation:

This supports what I said earlier: Ra was working with Carla where she was at. She already had the desire to eat meat, so Ra gave suggestions on how to minimize any distortion from it; ie. that it must, therefore, cause distortion!

There's really no way this could be construed to say that Ra was encouraging the consumption of meat, even in Carla's case, in my opinion.

This makes sense to me. Thank you Monica. Ra's respect for the free will and the distortions of Carla, regarding advice about her diet, seem to be based on that prime directive: no interference. Rather than making a statement about whether or not eating meat is a compassionate choice (or anything pertaining to the implications of eating meat in general), Ra only addressed Carla's particular situation.

It reminds me of people's belief systems around medicine. If I speak with someone who has cancer, and their faith is in allopathic medicine, I never try to dissemble their beliefs, because that is where their power in healing derives from. If they are interested in alternative things, I will suggest things, but I am very careful not to weaken their beliefs.

(04-05-2015, 11:00 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-05-2015, 10:55 PM)Lighthead Wrote: [ -> ]Monica has already addressed these issues. She mentioned that Ra was specifically addressing Carla's situation. These should not be interpreted as blanket statements.

She said she didn't think Ra advocated the eating of meat at all, for anyone, even Carla.

Perhaps a little open-mindedness can be applied here. Maybe Ra wasn't advocating anything. Ra may have just been addressing Carla's situation based on her belief system. Ra did this also in the way the channelings were set up: Carla had her bible near her for instance—not because Ra was a Christian or advocated being in a religion, but because Carla held great importance in it. As far as the bible goes, does anyone here think Ra would have advocated the teachings of the bible, the most of which is nonsensical violence and a jealous and wrathful God? 

Here's an even better question: would they have if Carla had believed those negative aspects of the bible?  Or would they have just let it slide, in the name of free will?

I doubt they would have included those aspects, because they were not consonant with the Law of One.  Similarly, if eating meat were so negative and wrong (depolarizing), they would have left it out too in their dietary advice, regardless of her nonchalance towards it.  As I recall they specifically said, "We do not suggest any hard and fast rulings of diet".  That is also why they said, "to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, the animal products."  

I think the main thing to take away from this, is *no one* can unanimously say what another's body requires to function in this physical world, so there is no sense judging others for their diet. Perhaps some peoples bodies *DO* need animal products to function optimally.  And that seems to be what Ra is saying -- that everybody is unique.  

At least, that is my opinion.       

(04-06-2015, 01:03 AM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps a little open-mindedness can be applied here. Maybe Ra wasn't advocating anything. Ra may have just been addressing Carla's situation based on her belief system. Ra did this also in the way the channelings were set up: Carla had her bible near her for instance—not because Ra was a Christian or advocated being in a religion, but because Carla held great importance in it. As far as the bible goes, does anyone here think Ra would have advocated the teachings of the bible, the most of which is nonsensical violence and a jealous and wrathful God? 

Are you distinguishing between "advocated" and "said it would aid the vital energies"? Ra said that it would aid Carla's vital energies to eat meat occasionally. In contrast, they told her that marijuana was not helpful to the work she was trying to do and that LSD caused weakness.

(04-06-2015, 06:17 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]Are you distinguishing between "advocated" and "said it would aid the vital energies"?  Ra said that it would aid Carla's vital energies to eat meat occasionally.  In contrast, they told her that marijuana was not helpful to the work she was trying to do and that LSD caused weakness.

There's no question that eating meat could aid the vital energies of someone who is weak. That is a totally separate issue and has nothing to do with whether it's STO polarizing. Ra simply stated a fact, as Ra tended to do.

(04-05-2015, 10:37 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure you're familiar with the two uses of the word "meat" in the sessions.  To me, both seem to be cases where Ra is advising Carla to eat meat, and I'm pretty sure that's how Carla understood them, too.

I agree that Carla understood them that way, but I disagree that Ra was advising her to do so. The key here is when Ra said:

Quote:in the case of the desire for the more complex proteins.

This is clearly a condition. In the case of is a condition. This sure sounds to me like Ra was granting some concessions, in the case of Carla's desire for meat. Carla's desire for meat was already there, so Ra worked with her where she was at, just as Ra worked with her on her devotion to the Bible, as Diana pointed out.

(04-05-2015, 10:37 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:18.4 Questioner: Are there any foods that are helpful or harmful that the instrument might eat?

Ra: I am Ra. This instrument has body complex distortion towards ill health in the distortion direction corrected best by ingestion of the foodstuffs of your grains and your vegetables, as you call them. However, this is extremely unimportant when regarded as an aid with equality to other aids such as attitude which this instrument has in abundance. It, however, aids the vital energies of this instrument, with less distortion towards ill health, to ingest foodstuffs in the above manner with occasional ingestion of what you call your meats, due to the instrument’s need to lessen the distortion towards low vital energy.

While you are using this quote to make your case that Ra advised her to eat meat, there is another way to look at this. Notice that Ra always included a caution when speaking of meat. Ra even used the word caution when referring to past references to meat. Ra used these cautions:

occasional
to the extent necessary
in the case of the desire for

There ya go. This does not, in any way shape or form, give free license to eat meat on a daily basis, but in fact puts limitations on it. At best, Ra was granting some concessions to Carla, just as they did with the Bible.

NO limits or cautions were given for plant foods. (Cannabis wasn't used as a food, so we can't count that.)

(04-05-2015, 10:37 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a quote from Carla's A Channeling Handbook about the subject:

Quote:One other cause of indulging among channels is the need for earth-heavy food while channeling high energies. If you are losing weight while eating normally, you’ll need to eat meat, the redder and rarer the better. Sorry.

I think that Carla was convinced that she wouldn't have been able to continue bringing the Law of One sessions through without meat, and I think Ra affirmed the helpfulness for her of eating meat in the quotes above.

Yes, Carla did believe that, as do many psychics. I have met several over the years who all insisted that they had to eat meat to 'stay grounded.'

But, interestingly, I know another psychic, who happens to be a close friend whom I've know for 30 years and is my son's Godmother, and who happens to channel information every bit as high-caliber as that channeled by Carla, who has a completely different take on this.

This particular psychic, like most psychics, was a meat-eater. She also had health challenges just as serious as Carla's, though very different. I don't channel myself, so who was I to tell these psychics that they were wrong? Privately, I disagreed with them. The idea that a positive entity must participate in cruelty, in order to channel positive information, simply flies in the face of reason!

I knew there had to be a better way to 'stay grounded' or 'replenish vital energies' but I didn't know what it was. And, these psychics were doing so much positive work...I didn't want to rock the boat. I interviewed Carla for an hour every week for almost 3 years. We became close. Carla was my friend and I love her dearly, just as I love my other psychic friend, Maia.

In both cases, I never mentioned the meat issue, except in the context of my own life. I never challenged either of them. The topic came up several times on the radio show, and Carla voiced her opinion, which was the standard "Plants and animals are both 2D so eating animals is the same as eating plants" which I have challenged in a recent thread. But I never challenged Carla on the radio show. I simply said that, as a vegan, I had a different view and if anyone wanted to explore different perspectives on that issue, please read the discussions on the forum, and I directed them to those threads, where they could read my own views if they so chose.

So yes, I disagreed with Carla on that point, and Carla was well aware of this. To her credit, Carla usually commended vegetarians for their choice. She did this on the radio show several times. I always appreciated that, knowing that she had a different view personally. Carla always showed respect and admiration for the vegetarian choice.

Carla was the first to say that she was a student of the Material, just as all of us are. Obviously, she has a more intimate knowledge of it, it having been her life's crowning achievement. But remember, she channeled it while in trance. She had to then read it and study it, just as we do. 

Carla was fond of saying "I'm just another bozo on the bus." She told me personally, several times, that she didn't wish to be anyone's guru. I generally avoid ever speaking for someone else, but I am openly sharing this, because it was recorded, so anyone can see for themselves that Carla really did say that.

So, to justify eating meat, just because Carla did for whatever reason, is actually going against Carla's wishes to not be anyone's guru. Even IF it's true that psychics need meat to 'stay grounded' or 'get vital energy' how does that apply to anyone else? How many among us are psychic channels?

But even that, I question. My other psychic friend chose a different path than Carla did. She chose to go the wholistic route instead of the medical route. She is only a few years younger than Carla, but is much more active on the internet, so she has had much more exposure to info regarding diet, as well as the plight of animals.

I never said anything to her about her diet, unless asked. And ask she did. Turns out, she was already moving away from eating meat, on her own. While in transition, she relies on animal products (eggs and yogurt) rather than meat, but she is actively seeking alternatives to that, despite some very daunting health challenges, including digestive issues, which make it much more difficult to make any dietary changes, than it is for most people.

She could easily use the excuse "I am a psychic so I must eat meat" but never does. Instead, she actively champions the animals.

Now, why has she responded differently? I don't know, but can only speculate. Is it because she is a few years younger, and maybe her DNA has mutated a bit? Is it because she is of a younger generation (though by only a few years) and therefore has a more open-minded approach to alternative health and new developments in the health field? Is it because she still has work to do in this incarnation, whereas Carla's work already came to a close? Is it because of her personal closeness with many animals?

I don't know. What I do know is that she is living proof that the adage psychics must eat meat doesn't apply.

Maybe it applied to the older psychics, who didn't have the resources so readily available today. The first generation of vegans were pioneers. We now know a lot more about filling in any gaps for those with certain metabolic needs...those who previously thought they needed meat...we now know how they can indeed thrive on a vegan diet. I absolutely believe that any psychic can indeed thrive on a vegan diet, but they may have to make some adjustments to their diet and lifestyle. For example, my friend Maia sleeps on a grounding sheet, that connects her to the Earth energy. Such a device might not have been available a few decades ago. That is just one among many possible solutions, which can help modern-day psychics who may wish to avoid food obtained by cruelty.

I never judged Carla for eating meat, and still don't, even though I strongly disagree with her about meat. I understand that she had certain beliefs, about meat, about the Bible, about the medical system, that I disagreed with. That's ok. We both accepted our disagreement and we never once, never had a single conflict in the many hours I spent with her.

Why did she believe as she did? I suspect that a lot of it had to do with her paradigm, which included a more mainstream approach to diet, as well as religion and the medical system...despite channeling some of the highest spiritual info in the land.

I think it's a disservice to Carla, to analyze her life and emulate her choices. That is putting her in the position of guru, which she clearly didn't want. Maybe her spiritual choices, sure, but not her diet and lifestyle choices, some of which weren't even in alignment with Ra's advice to her. 

I am appalled at how much meat I have in the freezer, but I feel powerless to change.

(04-06-2015, 03:23 AM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]Here's an even better question: would they have if Carla had believed those negative aspects of the bible?  Or would they have just let it slide, in the name of free will?

I doubt they would have included those aspects, because they were not consonant with the Law of One.  Similarly, if eating meat were so negative and wrong (depolarizing), they would have left it out too in their dietary advice, regardless of her nonchalance towards it.  As I recall they specifically said, "We do not suggest any hard and fast rulings of diet".  That is also why they said, "to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, the animal products."  

I think the main thing to take away from this, is *no one* can unanimously say what another's body requires to function in this physical world, so there is no sense judging others for their diet. Perhaps some peoples bodies *DO* need animal products to function optimally.  And that seems to be what Ra is saying -- that everybody is unique.  

At least, that is my opinion.       

I am not sure what you are trying to say about the bible and Carla. Could you restate?

Everyone is unique, yes. But I can only imagine that those of Ra would not be egocentric as humans are about themselves. Though they honor the importance of free will and choice in this density, Ra would not just consider human life as important. Sure, some people may "feel" they need meat (I don't think this is true for humans, but that's MY opinion), but to have that be the ONLY consideration is typical of humans. 

I am beginning to question the efficacy of having this conversation, here. I feel that here for some reason, at B4, there is a particular tenaciousness in the way the idea of eating meat is clung to. Does anyone here REALLY think it's the best choice for humans—especially those who are interested in evolving? If so, why? Would meat be 4D food, for instance? Consider this one point from just the perspective of being a human who consumes food: Meat carries the stress and fear chemicals released when the animal was slaughtered (and the stress chemicals released if the animal lived in bad circumstances). So you literally consume fear and stress. 

Sure, in the past, centuries and millennia ago (and in small pockets of indigenous peoples now) hunting animals for food was part of survival. But on an evolutionary scale, humanity was closer to animals then. We were more animal-like—early 3D. 

(04-05-2015, 10:45 PM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]Another possible implication Ra was making: it is not wrong to partake of animal products (meat, eggs, dairy, honey etc).

Many vegans lump all animal products together. I don't. For many people, it's difficult to go vegan overnight; thus, temporarily relying on eggs and dairy is a transitional step.

I find the idea that Ra would 'approve' of indiscriminately contributing to cruelty absurd. That would be ignoring everything else Ra said about service to others, polarizing, and the consciousness of higher 2D entities.

(04-05-2015, 10:45 PM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]

Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Don, Carla and Jim are/were all wonderful people. But none of them was 100% perfect in every way. Ra didn't address any of their personal faults at all, ever. 

Well, I guess you would have to clarify what you mean by "perfect".  In some macrocosmic sense, we are all perfect.

I meant in the microcosmic sense, the here and now. We all have our imperfections, whether it's losing our temper, having addictions, or whatever. Sure, it's all 'perfect' in the grand scheme of things, but as long as there is distortion, there is still catalyst. We all still have lessons to learn, karma to clear, and issues to resolve.   

(04-05-2015, 10:45 PM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]But in terms of our goals, like for example, to be as purely STO as possible, Ra actually *did* bring up some of the personal distortions of these guys, that were getting in the way of more pure "STO'ness".  

So that's not really an accurate statement.

...

These are just random examples.  I don't really consider them faults, but in the context of the discussion, they were distortions they held at the time, which were challenges to further and more effective positivity.

Ok, I concede that point: Ra did mention some of their distortions. But I still contend that this doesn't mean that Ra was in the business of pointing out all their flaws. Key being in the context of the discussion.

(04-06-2015, 06:17 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]Are you distinguishing between "advocated" and "said it would aid the vital energies"?  Ra said that it would aid Carla's vital energies to eat meat occasionally.  In contrast, they told her that marijuana was not helpful to the work she was trying to do and that LSD caused weakness.

What I meant was that I imagine Ra was proceeding from Carla's belief system, which was that animal protein would aide in her vital energies. A person's beliefs have power over them. I am suggesting that Ra would be wise enough to know that and suggest foods only if necessary (animal products which does not necessarily mean meat, but could be dairy or eggs which don't include slaughter—that adding death energy into the product) thereby keeping her beliefs intact and honoring free will here.

It is analogous to the example I gave about someone with cancer—to tell them chemotherapy is killing them and they would be wise to eat healthily, alkalize the body, and attend to anger issues instead is to deconstruct their beliefs in the medicine they think may heal them—it undermines their power to heal because of their conscious and unconscious beliefs. This does not in any way address what is right or best in general, it just honors where the person is at individually.

(04-06-2015, 12:51 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]I am not sure what you are trying to say about the bible and Carla. Could you restate?

Everyone is unique, yes. But I can only imagine that those of Ra would not be egocentric as humans are about themselves. Though they honor the importance of free will and choice in this density, Ra would not just consider human life as important. Sure, some people may "feel" they need meat (I don't think this is true for humans, but that's MY opinion), but to have that be the ONLY consideration is typical of humans. 

I am beginning to question the efficacy of having this conversation, here. I feel that here for some reason, at B4, there is a particular tenaciousness in the way the idea of eating meat is clung to. Does anyone here REALLY think it's the best choice for humans—especially those who are interested in evolving? If so, why? Would meat be 4D food, for instance? Consider this one point from just the perspective of being a human who consumes food: Meat carries the stress and fear chemicals released when the animal was slaughtered (and the stress chemicals released if the animal lived in bad circumstances). So you literally consume fear and stress. 

Sure, in the past, centuries and millennia ago (and in small pockets of indigenous peoples now) hunting animals for food was part of survival. But on an evolutionary scale, humanity was closer to animals then. We were more animal-like—early 3D. 

Basically, the argument has been offered that the only reason Ra brought up eating meat was, allegedly, because it was just Ra catering to Carla's belief or desire surrounding meat.

I think that's an extremely illogical conclusion.

I'll repost what I said to Monica earlier in the thread because it is the same essential question, rephrased in a different way:

If it was my custom to lie, would Ra then incorporate the advice of lying into my behavior if I asked advice on how to better my situation in life?  Or if it was my custom to murder humans (and furthermore believed it was the right thing to do, lets say I thought I was protecting my people by performing some kind of sacrifice (i'm thinking of tribal ancient humans)) would they incorporate that into advice about someone?  Would they not say anything? To respect or cater to my free will decisions/beliefs?  I sincerely doubt that.  These actions would not be consonant with the Law of One.

The question whether meat is best for this or that is irrelevant.  Do you think that all beings desire the same thing?  A vegan or vegetarian diet may be better for this or that, and a diet of meat may be better for this or that.  Again, irrelevant.  It is not our place to make hard and fast rules about diet.  It fails to take into account the uniqueness of all beings.

It is the idea, promulgated, that eating is meat is wrong, somehow.  *That* is the issue.  It is the constant judgment of others who eat meat, as being somehow wrong for doing that.  I maintain it is not wrong to eat meat.  And it doesn't have to polarize you negatively either.  

Animal abuse, and eating meat are two *separate* things.  Obviously, there is a whole lot wrong with factory farming.  And plenty of abuse happens there.  It just doesn't have to be that way.  And I don't think anyone would argue that eating meat EVERY single day is probably not a good idea.  But then again, who am I to judge? 

Correlation does not equal causation.  It is naive to think eating meat and animal abuse are synonymous.  It is the constant anthropomorphization of animals. They are different than us.  Not lesser, not better, but different.  Yes, they have emotions, yes they have minds, yes they see the world differently than you, just as minerals see the world different from us, and fourth density beings see the world differently than us.  

And there can be compassion in using animals for food, too.  To actually think that a transformation to spirit in as painless and quick a way as possible by a skilled hunter is inherently worse than slowly dying in the wild, by disease, or because it got so old it's teeth fell out and it slowly starved to death, is naive at best, and deliberately ignorant at worst.  

(04-06-2015, 03:23 AM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]Here's an even better question: would they have if Carla had believed those negative aspects of the bible?  Or would they have just let it slide, in the name of free will?

That's a good question. I don't know how much of the Bible Carla believed. I do know that she focused a lot on the words of Jesus and referred to him as her 'Savior.'

(04-06-2015, 03:23 AM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]I doubt they would have included those aspects, because they were not consonant with the Law of One.

But they did include those aspects, by allowing Carla to have the entire Bible on her altar during the sessions. Granted, it was open to some passages in the New Testament that Carla found comforting, but all of that STS content was right there, inside the book, on the altar! Why was Ra so meticulous about alignments, yet allowed some obviously very dark material to be included on the altar?

Have you read the bible? I have. I studied it extensively for several years. It's hideous! There are some good parts in it - mostly the words of Jesus - but I'd say that, overall, there is far more negative in it than positive.

Ra never told Carla to discard her Bible, even though it had a lot of obviously negative material in it.

(04-06-2015, 03:23 AM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]Similarly, if eating meat were so negative and wrong (depolarizing), they would have left it out too in their dietary advice, regardless of her nonchalance towards it.

But that's not what Ra did, in the case of the obvious STS influences in the Bible. Ra never told Carla to discard her Bible, but worked with her where she was at.

Ra made statements about Yahweh, in context, but never directly told Carla to quit reading the Bible.

It was the same with the meat issue...exactly the same. Ra gave information about Yahwah...Ra gave information about the STO path. Carla chose to read a book containing a lot of negative stuff supposedly from Yahweh...just as Carla chose to eat meat. In both cases, Ra simply answered questions, and left it up to her (and to us) to extrapolate from that.

(04-06-2015, 03:23 AM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]As I recall they specifically said, "We do not suggest any hard and fast rulings of diet".  That is also why they said, "to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, the animal products."

Ra never gave any hard and fast rulings about religions either. Ra gave only general guidelines, saying that the 'holy works' were of mixed polarity, containing both negative influences and remnants of the Law of One. 

(04-06-2015, 03:23 AM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]I think the main thing to take away from this, is *no one* can unanimously say what another's body requires to function in this physical world, so there is no sense judging others for their diet. Perhaps some peoples bodies *DO* need animal products to function optimally.  And that seems to be what Ra is saying -- that everybody is unique. 

I don't think that's what Ra was saying at all. It's quite a stretch to say that Ra somehow gave blanket approval for engaging in the support of unnecessary cruelty. It's also quite a stretch to say that Ra advised Carla to eat meat, just as it would be a stretch to say that Ra advised Carla to read the Bible.

In both cases, Carla had already made that choice, and Ra worked with her where she was at.

Ra never gave any 'hard and fast rules' about anything. Only guidelines and principles. It's up to us to decide whether we wish to follow those guidelines and principles.