(04-06-2015, 08:40 PM)Lighthead Wrote:

(04-06-2015, 08:17 PM)AngelofDeath Wrote:

(04-06-2015, 08:14 PM)Lighthead Wrote:

(04-06-2015, 05:37 PM)AngelofDeath Wrote:

(04-06-2015, 05:17 PM)Lighthead Wrote: Why do you think that the eating of meat needs to be defended? Please explain it from your point of view. As Monica has said, because you like the taste is a poor excuse.

I'm gonna be bold and jump on to this particular point. WHY is enjoying the taste a poor excuse? Why would it be considered purely an excuse at all?

Note: I have not and am not actually defending either side of this argument, I don't think either side 'needs defending'. I believe humans are adaptive and we are CAPABLE of many, many things. That some say one thing is absolutely better and others say another thing is better leaves me with only myself to decide. In some ways, I think I view myself as a scavenger when it comes to food, I will eat mostly anything.

This density is the density of choice. So we have to base our actions on whether they are STS or STO to evolve to the next phase. I'm speaking of the average 3rd density entity who is concerned about efficiently utilizing catalyst. So if we are concerned about evolving into the next STO phase, we have to start with those entities that are closest to us.

That doesn't really answer my question.

I didn't answer your question directly because I don't see why whether something tastes good is a very important consideration in determining whether something is ethical or not. You spoke of morbidity before, but, to me, that seems morbid.

(04-06-2015, 10:50 PM)anagogy Wrote: Again, animal abuse and eating meat are different topics.  By all means, avoid abusing animals.  Killing an animal quickly by skillful hunting is less cruel than dying slowly of starvation or by a pack of wolves tearing it apart in the wild.  

To assume one is worse 100% of the time otherwise, is naive.

(04-06-2015, 10:50 PM)anagogy Wrote:

Monica Wrote: You just said that those actions aren't consonant with the Law of One. Why not? The only reason to assume that lying or killing humans isn't consonant with the Law of One, but killing younger other-selves IS consonant with the Law of One, is societal bias.

In our current society, it is deemed unacceptable to kill humans, but acceptable to kill animals. That is societal bias, and you just illustrated it.

So, my question to you was, why are lying and killing humans not consonant with the Law of One? (other than societal bias)

Because the lessons that precipitate STO 4th density, and the lessons that precipitate 3rd density are completely different.  Different beings are reaching for different vibrations.  In any STO act, for it to *BE* an STO act, the recipient has to, if even at the soul level, see the action as, predominantly, a benefit to its evolution.

Naturally, a certain behavior towards a rock, an animal, and a human being (in terms of STO polarity) will be quite different.

Killing an animal can be STO, STS, or even neutral.  I will concede that there situations where killing a human, or lying, could be STO (to protect another).

(04-06-2015, 10:50 PM)anagogy Wrote:

Monica Wrote: But you just did yourself. You just said that lying or killing humans wasn't consonant with the Law of One...presumably you meant the STO path. Why not? Because those actions are inherently STS?

I guess it would depend greatly on the circumstance.  It is a question of *why* you are doing something.  There are situations where killing humans or lying could be STO, hard as that may be to believe.  I apologize If I gave you a different impression.  In the examples I gave, the context of the conversation was such that I was asking if the advice given by a STO being would incorporate more positive behaviors, or if they would they simply accept that killing and lying was my custom and incorporate such behaviors into their advice for me.  My opinion is that they would try to get me to see a broader perspective, rather than allow me to just go on in my less than effective manner, as per my hypothetical custom.

(04-06-2015, 10:50 PM)anagogy Wrote: You assume that all people are alike, and that everybody can eat the same thing and thrive.

(04-06-2015, 10:50 PM)anagogy Wrote: I don't think you can unequivocally say that, and it is judgmental to advocate that.  It is, however, a great way to look down on people who don't live the same way you do.

(04-06-2015, 10:50 PM)anagogy Wrote: I don't understand your logic that you think that would somehow give license to rape women.

(04-06-2015, 10:50 PM)anagogy Wrote: I can tell you that souls know there is a high probability something of that nature will occur in a given incarnation.  The flaw in your logic is that it doesn't make rape any more good or less negative. You still have a situation where someone is raping someone.  And it doesn't mean the victim isn't creating their own reality.  It's just a simple reality of the situation that a given victim wandered into a vibrational vicinity that was not in their best interest.  Their consciousness was tuned to fear and they attracted what they feared.  It doesn't make the rapist not a rapist, and it doesn't make the rape victim deliberately responsible, either.  

(04-06-2015, 10:50 PM)anagogy Wrote: I do find it somewhat ironic that you profess to subscribe to the create your own reality viewpoint, yet, still somehow think that animals aren't playing a role in creating their circumstances (and that human beings are solely responsible), no matter how unaware they are of their thoughts effect on their reality.

(04-06-2015, 10:50 PM)anagogy Wrote: How *long* does a given animal (a human for example) have to, in virtually every culture, partake of a given food source before you accept it is natural for them to do so?  If an alien race were observing us, as anthropologists, they would automatically assume it was in our nature to thrive on animal protein.

(04-06-2015, 10:46 PM)Lighthead Wrote: To Parsons:

There is a seeming contradiction in what you have emphasized. Note what Ra said here, and what I have emphasized:
...
It seems likely that the intent of the question and where the question was leading to was in regards to 3D illusion. If your implication was that there was no way of knowing what polarity an act or an entity was at all, then how could any entity be harvested according to its polarity?

(04-07-2015, 01:17 AM)anagogy Wrote:

(04-07-2015, 12:54 AM)Lighthead Wrote: I think that the problem lies in the perception that meat eaters have in being judged. Nobody is really judging anybody.

If anybody gets angry when somebody is eating meat, it is because a judgment is being made.  That anger is impossible without judgment.  It means you've concocted a story in your mind how that meat got on that plate, and that, is judgment, because you don't necessarily know.  I've repeatedly explained how meat eating and animal abuse are not the same.  For all you know, somebody came across a dead animal (that died of so called "natural" causes) and harvested meat from it.

I realize you haven't said it makes you angry, but it seemed like a nice opportunity to inject some perspective.

Also, just out of sheer morbid curiosity, Lighthead, are you purely vegan?

(04-07-2015, 03:29 AM)AngelofDeath Wrote:

(04-06-2015, 08:40 PM)Lighthead Wrote:

(04-06-2015, 08:17 PM)AngelofDeath Wrote:

(04-06-2015, 08:14 PM)Lighthead Wrote:

(04-06-2015, 05:37 PM)AngelofDeath Wrote: I'm gonna be bold and jump on to this particular point. WHY is enjoying the taste a poor excuse? Why would it be considered purely an excuse at all?

Note: I have not and am not actually defending either side of this argument, I don't think either side 'needs defending'. I believe humans are adaptive and we are CAPABLE of many, many things. That some say one thing is absolutely better and others say another thing is better leaves me with only myself to decide. In some ways, I think I view myself as a scavenger when it comes to food, I will eat mostly anything.

This density is the density of choice. So we have to base our actions on whether they are STS or STO to evolve to the next phase. I'm speaking of the average 3rd density entity who is concerned about efficiently utilizing catalyst. So if we are concerned about evolving into the next STO phase, we have to start with those entities that are closest to us.

That doesn't really answer my question.

I didn't answer your question directly because I don't see why whether something tastes good is a very important consideration in determining whether something is ethical or not. You spoke of morbidity before, but, to me, that seems morbid.

Do you enjoy the taste of vegetables?

(04-07-2015, 01:15 AM)Parsons Wrote: Since you aren't just coming right out and saying it, I'm not sure if you are saying that eating meat is polarizing STS or neutral. If you are implying that eating meat is STS, then you are judging the polarity of the act of a 3D entity which Ra said is impossible.

(04-07-2015, 09:43 AM)Lighthead Wrote:

(04-07-2015, 03:29 AM)AngelofDeath Wrote:

(04-06-2015, 08:40 PM)Lighthead Wrote:

(04-06-2015, 08:17 PM)AngelofDeath Wrote:

(04-06-2015, 08:14 PM)Lighthead Wrote: This density is the density of choice. So we have to base our actions on whether they are STS or STO to evolve to the next phase. I'm speaking of the average 3rd density entity who is concerned about efficiently utilizing catalyst. So if we are concerned about evolving into the next STO phase, we have to start with those entities that are closest to us.

That doesn't really answer my question.

I didn't answer your question directly because I don't see why whether something tastes good is a very important consideration in determining whether something is ethical or not. You spoke of morbidity before, but, to me, that seems morbid.

Do you enjoy the taste of vegetables?

I actually do enjoy the taste of vegetables. I don't like bland salads. My salads would just be cucumbers and tomatoes. But I've been mixing them (the cucumbers and tomatoes) into the main dish, cold. Vietnamese dishes are served a similar way.

(04-07-2015, 09:21 AM)Monica Wrote:

(04-06-2015, 10:46 PM)Lighthead Wrote: To Parsons:

There is a seeming contradiction in what you have emphasized. Note what Ra said here, and what I have emphasized:
...
It seems likely that the intent of the question and where the question was leading to was in regards to 3D illusion. If your implication was that there was no way of knowing what polarity an act or an entity was at all, then how could any entity be harvested according to its polarity?

I noticed that too. There are many more examples. One that comes to mind was the war general (forgot his name) whose bellicose actions were deemed STO because of his noble intentions. Ra was making that point about intention.

So, was Ra contradicting themselves? I think not. I think Ra was simply explaining that there are myriad factors contributing to the polarizing potential of any action, and thus we shouldn't just make blanket statements that xyz action is always x percentage polarizing, and as long as we're veiled, we can never assume that Joe Blow is x percentage polarized...we just can't know exactly.

But that doesn't mean that we can't apply general principles to actions, and speak of inherent polarizing potential. Ra stated that Hitler was 'basically negative' so that right there proves that it CAN be done. Ra did it!

And in fact, Ra gave us guiding principles, shown in the very names chosen to describe the 2 paths: Service to Self and Service to Others.

I'd say that's a clue!

I mean, duh, if something is serving self, at the expense of others, then it's inherently STS. Now, there may be extenuating circumstances, sure, but the key words here are generally and inherently. Those words provide a little wiggle room.

Likewise, if someone is serving others, with the motivation of compassion and truly caring about others with an open heart, rather than just for fame or glory (which would be serving self) then, duh, it's inherently STO!

True, we can't conclusively measure any action for its exact polarizing potential in numerical terms, because we are veiled. But to completely ignore the guidelines Ra gave us makes no sense at all.

True, we don't have strict rules, like religions do. Why not? Because strict rules don't take into consideration intangibles like intention and extenuating circumstances. That's why Ra gave only guidelines and principles. It's up to us to utilize those guidelines and principles.

To completely throw them out and never ever use any discernment at all, would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

(04-07-2015, 11:53 AM)AngelofDeath Wrote:

(04-07-2015, 09:43 AM)Lighthead Wrote:

(04-07-2015, 03:29 AM)AngelofDeath Wrote:

(04-06-2015, 08:40 PM)Lighthead Wrote: I didn't answer your question directly because I don't see why whether something tastes good is a very important consideration in determining whether something is ethical or not. You spoke of morbidity before, but, to me, that seems morbid.

Do you enjoy the taste of vegetables?

I actually do enjoy the taste of vegetables. I don't like bland salads. My salads would just be cucumbers and tomatoes. But I've been mixing them (the cucumbers and tomatoes) into the main dish, cold. Vietnamese dishes are served a similar way.

Do you think it would be harder to go vegetarian if you didn't like the taste of vegetables?

(04-07-2015, 01:17 AM)anagogy Wrote: If anybody gets angry when somebody is eating meat, it is because a judgment is being made. 

(04-07-2015, 12:05 PM)Diana Wrote:

(04-07-2015, 01:17 AM)anagogy Wrote: If anybody gets angry when somebody is eating meat, it is because a judgment is being made. 

This is incorrect. No one here, as far back as I have been here (since 2010 I think), has ever gotten angry that someone is eating meat. This is a misperception. Being misunderstood sometimes causes frustrations. And, being accused of being superior, controlling, zealots, extremists and the like may cause some anger on the side of those proposing a plant-based diet. 

On the other hand, anger seems to crop up at times when the implications of eating meat are challenged. Defensiveness kicks in. 

This is not to imply that there aren't very valid ideas to discuss all the way around the subject. That is why we are here. That is why we are discussing it. 

I live my life around people who eat meat. There is nowhere I can go where it isn't happening. Do I get angry at them? No.

(04-06-2015, 08:01 PM)AngelofDeath Wrote: I think there's something in the fact that this whole argument fundamentally is an "us vs them" kind of phenomena and that is strange to me.

(04-07-2015, 11:59 AM)AngelofDeath Wrote:

(04-07-2015, 09:21 AM)Monica Wrote:

(04-06-2015, 10:46 PM)Lighthead Wrote: To Parsons:

There is a seeming contradiction in what you have emphasized. Note what Ra said here, and what I have emphasized:
...
It seems likely that the intent of the question and where the question was leading to was in regards to 3D illusion. If your implication was that there was no way of knowing what polarity an act or an entity was at all, then how could any entity be harvested according to its polarity?

I noticed that too. There are many more examples. One that comes to mind was the war general (forgot his name) whose bellicose actions were deemed STO because of his noble intentions. Ra was making that point about intention.

So, was Ra contradicting themselves? I think not. I think Ra was simply explaining that there are myriad factors contributing to the polarizing potential of any action, and thus we shouldn't just make blanket statements that xyz action is always x percentage polarizing, and as long as we're veiled, we can never assume that Joe Blow is x percentage polarized...we just can't know exactly.

But that doesn't mean that we can't apply general principles to actions, and speak of inherent polarizing potential. Ra stated that Hitler was 'basically negative' so that right there proves that it CAN be done. Ra did it!

And in fact, Ra gave us guiding principles, shown in the very names chosen to describe the 2 paths: Service to Self and Service to Others.

I'd say that's a clue!

I mean, duh, if something is serving self, at the expense of others, then it's inherently STS. Now, there may be extenuating circumstances, sure, but the key words here are generally and inherently. Those words provide a little wiggle room.

Likewise, if someone is serving others, with the motivation of compassion and truly caring about others with an open heart, rather than just for fame or glory (which would be serving self) then, duh, it's inherently STO!

True, we can't conclusively measure any action for its exact polarizing potential in numerical terms, because we are veiled. But to completely ignore the guidelines Ra gave us makes no sense at all.

True, we don't have strict rules, like religions do. Why not? Because strict rules don't take into consideration intangibles like intention and extenuating circumstances. That's why Ra gave only guidelines and principles. It's up to us to utilize those guidelines and principles.

To completely throw them out and never ever use any discernment at all, would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The words "inherently" and "generally" are entirely your own. Ra never says anything of the sort about actions and their relationships to the paths. These are entirely your own conclusions. (Specifically I found Ra only uses the word 'inherent' a handful of times and none of them related to this.)

(04-07-2015, 09:54 AM)Monica Wrote:

(04-07-2015, 01:15 AM)Parsons Wrote: Since you aren't just coming right out and saying it, I'm not sure if you are saying that eating meat is polarizing STS or neutral. If you are implying that eating meat is STS, then you are judging the polarity of the act of a 3D entity which Ra said is impossible.

If we were talking about raping and killing humans (other than self-defense), no one would be protesting at all. No one would be disagreeing that in general, those actions tend to be inherently STS polarizing. I've tried repeatedly to test this hypothesis. Everyone has stopped short of saying "Oh sure, it's ok to rape and murder humans! Go for it!" Neither has anyone said "Oh gosh, I couldn't possibly say that raping and killing humans is inherently STS because that is impossible." No, on the contrary, people have said things like "Well of course it's negative to rape and kill humans" and "obviously it's negative to rape and kill humans".

So the logic fails.

(04-07-2015, 11:53 AM)AngelofDeath Wrote: Do you think it would be harder to go vegetarian if you didn't like the taste of vegetables?

(04-07-2015, 12:18 PM)Parsons Wrote: So you disagree with Ra's words? That's perfectly fine.

(04-07-2015, 12:08 PM)Spaced Wrote: Monica literally calls meat eaters rapists and murderers.

(04-07-2015, 11:59 AM)AngelofDeath Wrote:

(04-07-2015, 09:21 AM)Monica Wrote:

(04-06-2015, 10:46 PM)Lighthead Wrote: To Parsons:

There is a seeming contradiction in what you have emphasized. Note what Ra said here, and what I have emphasized:
...
It seems likely that the intent of the question and where the question was leading to was in regards to 3D illusion. If your implication was that there was no way of knowing what polarity an act or an entity was at all, then how could any entity be harvested according to its polarity?

I noticed that too. There are many more examples. One that comes to mind was the war general (forgot his name) whose bellicose actions were deemed STO because of his noble intentions. Ra was making that point about intention.

So, was Ra contradicting themselves? I think not. I think Ra was simply explaining that there are myriad factors contributing to the polarizing potential of any action, and thus we shouldn't just make blanket statements that xyz action is always x percentage polarizing, and as long as we're veiled, we can never assume that Joe Blow is x percentage polarized...we just can't know exactly.

But that doesn't mean that we can't apply general principles to actions, and speak of inherent polarizing potential. Ra stated that Hitler was 'basically negative' so that right there proves that it CAN be done. Ra did it!

And in fact, Ra gave us guiding principles, shown in the very names chosen to describe the 2 paths: Service to Self and Service to Others.

I'd say that's a clue!

I mean, duh, if something is serving self, at the expense of others, then it's inherently STS. Now, there may be extenuating circumstances, sure, but the key words here are generally and inherently. Those words provide a little wiggle room.

Likewise, if someone is serving others, with the motivation of compassion and truly caring about others with an open heart, rather than just for fame or glory (which would be serving self) then, duh, it's inherently STO!

True, we can't conclusively measure any action for its exact polarizing potential in numerical terms, because we are veiled. But to completely ignore the guidelines Ra gave us makes no sense at all.

True, we don't have strict rules, like religions do. Why not? Because strict rules don't take into consideration intangibles like intention and extenuating circumstances. That's why Ra gave only guidelines and principles. It's up to us to utilize those guidelines and principles.

To completely throw them out and never ever use any discernment at all, would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The words "inherently" and "generally" are entirely your own. Ra never says anything of the sort about actions and their relationships to the paths. These are entirely your own conclusions. (Specifically I found Ra only uses the word 'inherent' a handful of times and none of them related to this.)

(04-07-2015, 12:25 PM)Diana Wrote:

(04-07-2015, 12:08 PM)Spaced Wrote: Monica literally calls meat eaters rapists and murderers.

You're kidding, right?

Do you understand the word, analogy? People, let's use our brains here. Do you REALLY think Monica would mean this? 

If you go back and read her posts you may see that she is trying to point out the disconnect most humans have: that the lives of humans matter more than the lives of animals. That it is okay to slaughter animals for food because they agree to it on some level they aren't conscious of, but if you say this about humans it doesn't scan the same.

(04-07-2015, 12:08 PM)Spaced Wrote: Monica literally calls meat eaters rapists and murderers.

Diana Wrote: Wrote:

(04-14-2009, 08:58 PM)Clordio Wrote: Wrote:I am very conflicted on the issue of eating meat I would very much like to begin a dialogue as to why one should not or should be able to consume meat.

I would like to respond to your inquiries about eating meat, and your observation that plants have life which should be respected too. 

I agree that all life should be respected. Then, the problem remains, as we exist in 3-D and must consume food until we evolve to something higher, what do we eat? 

An animal has a strong instinct for survival, even when hunted in a natural environment. It experiences terror when chased by predators. This fear is only a fraction of what farm animals feel when taken to slaughter because they are trapped and cannot even run. Just considering the physical results of this fear and terror--release of hormones, adrenaline, fight-or-fight response--it is unwise to consume the meat as you will be ingesting these hormones too, which the animal's body has manufactured. Also, you cannot cut a leg off an animal without killing it.

You can, however, prune a plant and cut off leaves without killing it. You can harvest vegetables without killing the plant. Many plants "want" animals to eat them as it is their way of spreading seed and propagating. Fruit falls off trees, vines, and bushes to be eaten by animals so that the seeds can be spread. It seems obvious that it is less cruel to consume the life force from plants, rather than animals.

I agree with one of the posts here, that the Native American way of thanking the animal ceremonially is best if one has to consume meat. But does anyone HAVE to eat meat? Why not touch the world more lightly, more gently, and be healthier in the process? 

You might think of the issue this way:

Imagine the most Utopian future world you can. What would it be like? Perhaps at that point consuming anything but air and sunlight would be all we need? Draw a straight line from where we are now to that future world. Now start taking steps along that line.

(04-07-2015, 12:40 PM)Monica Wrote:

(04-07-2015, 12:08 PM)Spaced Wrote: Monica literally calls meat eaters rapists and murderers.

No. I didn't.

Rape & other analogies / Relative value of animals vs humans / Meat-Eaters NOT being compared to rapists! But killing animals compared to killing/raping humans from the victim's perspective / Do we wish to emulate higher STO (drinking nectar) or higher STS (mutilating cattle and abducting lower density entities) entities?
Post #96
Post #111  
Post #146  

...

Quote:Personally I could care less what people eat. I think and believe that a predominantly vegetarian diet is healthy and healing. But I would never want to force it upon others. Let it be a choice. I am totally supportive of education of benefits of vegetarian diet that does not create a sense of guilt in people's mind.

(04-07-2015, 01:03 PM)Spaced Wrote: It's cool to see that you've been on the same crusade for years repeating the same things. You've even got your dogma indexed for easy reference and everything, good for you!

(04-07-2015, 01:03 PM)Spaced Wrote: Some of the responses you got for those posts are worth reading so thanks for the links. I personally like this one from thefool:

Quote:Personally I could care less what people eat. I think and believe that a predominantly vegetarian diet is healthy and healing. But I would never want to force it upon others. Let it be a choice. I am totally supportive of education of benefits of vegetarian diet that does not create a sense of guilt in people's mind.

(04-07-2015, 01:16 PM)Monica Wrote:

(04-07-2015, 01:03 PM)Spaced Wrote: It's cool to see that you've been on the same crusade for years repeating the same things. You've even got your dogma indexed for easy reference and everything, good for you!

Nothing constructive to say, eh?

(04-07-2015, 01:03 PM)Spaced Wrote: Some of the responses you got for those posts are worth reading so thanks for the links. I personally like this one from thefool:

Quote:Personally I could care less what people eat. I think and believe that a predominantly vegetarian diet is healthy and healing. But I would never want to force it upon others. Let it be a choice. I am totally supportive of education of benefits of vegetarian diet that does not create a sense of guilt in people's mind.

Goodness gracious, let slavery, rape, murder and pedophilia be a choice too! Victims don't matter! Only the free will of the oppressors matters! And never ever ever say anything to anyone that might trigger feelings of guilt! Horrors! That is worse than whatever they did! Heaven forbid that we have any ethical guidelines whatsoever!

(04-07-2015, 01:26 PM)Spaced Wrote: So from what I gather and what you've said previously you think our creator messed up by giving people free will? You think you know better how creation should be? You'd rather have a creation in which we behaviour is controlled so that entities behave as you would prefer?

Monica Wrote:

AngelofDeath Wrote:I have noticed in some of your posts you seem to be somewhat dissatisfied with the choice of this Logos as to creating a system of this nature. Do you feel at all that these might be things that are a challenge for you to accept?

Oh definitely! I readily admit that. What helps me is remembering that we are living in a school for juvenile delinquents. Apparently other 3D planets aren't like this.

(04-07-2015, 01:41 PM)Spaced Wrote: I was referring to this exchange

Monica Wrote:

AngelofDeath Wrote:I have noticed in some of your posts you seem to be somewhat dissatisfied with the choice of this Logos as to creating a system of this nature. Do you feel at all that these might be things that are a challenge for you to accept?

Oh definitely! I readily admit that. What helps me is remembering that we are living in a school for juvenile delinquents. Apparently other 3D planets aren't like this.

I realize that I did read that wrong, it's just that you don't accept the nature of our logos. I don't know where you get this "school for delinquents" idea though.

anyhow I agree, I don't think this conversation is benefiting anyone.