[split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."

[Jade]

What happens a lot is that people confuse a viewpoint about eating meat, with the actual person. The viewpoint about eating meat is NOT directed to the actual person! If the person eats meat, then THEY are personalizing a general comment into one that is perceived as personal. That is their doing. They are personalizing a discussion about a topic that isn't personal.

You do realize that this is the same argument I am presenting you. While I disagree with your actions, I'm not directly attacking you. It is the EXACT same thing but you constantly refuse to acknowledge that.

And I still respect your actions. I just disagree with them. On the contrary, you say:

This discussion is about meat-eating. I love and respect all of you, regardless of whether you eat animals. But don't ask me to respect the eating of animals itself. And that is exactly what we're talking about here - the eating of animals.

"I respect you, but I don't respect your choices." You do realize that is double-speak and contradicting? Respect and acceptance is meant to be applied towards all, not just cherry picked.

Disagreement =/= disrespect, but saying "I don't respect x" does = disrespect.

[Monica]

More mean to DO that, than to point out that it's being done.

So people are saying "You are mean for saying that something I'm doing is mean" when what they're doing is far, far meaner than saying it's mean. See what I mean?

...

You have metaphorically killed me with the gavel right here.

As in you've judged my opinion null.  That is what is mean to me.

Does this help clarify?  I don't mean to judge in reaction,I just don't know how to show you that you have nullified many.opinions of others in arguing their cruelty for how they eat.

If you think having a stance on what Ra calls a 'serious' issue is being mean, then I have nothing to say to that.

Its not said to hurt or dissect you this time.  As a human to a human.  I am worried you're being cruel unintentionally.  Maybe I have misread your entire tone across the many threads I've read your posts.  I could very well be wrong and overreacting.

I just noticed...That you can be mean.  In ways that legitimately made me question your motives or your identifying as of being STO oriented.

I know I crossed the line, Diana is right about the judging.  This is me trying to be change.  Some of us don't adhere to.the guidelines, nothin is done about it.

So we need to make the guidelines matter, when we break them, that catalyst will return, all of those are inevitable.

So when it does return,we need to be sincere, honest, open, at the very least considerate.

This forum taught me that.  You taught me that.

I can be mean.  I do not want to be.  If I am please tell me, if I dont listen then please ask others to disregard me.

All's fair in time, in the Way of Learning.

I am in the process of mentally preparing to once more give up cheese...  -tear rolls down cheek-
Andmany processed foods...  preservatives, chemicals and GMO's.
Ihope to maintain that eating style too.

Yeah, cheese is a tough one! So creamy and yummy!

Thankfully, there are now vegan cheeses that are pretty good. The early ones were dreadful, but they are getting better.

and without the opioids!

...

[Jade]

So we can throw Bluebell under the bus, but we shouldn't talk about others, right?  

I was just pointing out that she was accepted for who she was, no matter what—even crossing guidelines all over the place. I'm just asking that a little acceptance be given to Monica, a little kind understanding. 

And I will also take responsibility for using Bluebell as an example, though it was not my intention to throw her under the bus. I should have said, some members, though if I had my point would not have been as clear. That is not an excuse, just a reason.

Yes, using specific examples of each others' actions is indeed one valuable way to learn/teach, I agree with that.

[Monica]

You do realize that this is the same argument I am presenting you. While I disagree with your actions, I'm not directly attacking you. It is the EXACT same thing but you constantly refuse to acknowledge that.

No it's not. I have never said to any of the meat-eaters: "I think you are a monster for eating meat!" whereas you have said "Monica YOU are being xyz" You singled me out. I never singled anyone out. Big difference.

Plus, meat is the topic here! If you want to discuss communication styles in a generic way, without singling anyone out, then start a thread exploring the topic of how to be polite while disagreeing in a volatile discussion on a internet forum.

"I respect you, but I don't respect your choices." You do realize that is double-speak and contradicting? Respect and acceptance is meant to be applied towards all, not just cherry picked.

Acceptance doesn't mean that we pretend it's ok to enslave/torture/rape/kill others. Again, if we were talking about human victims, no one would be complaining that we weren't 'accepting and respecting' the oppressors.

Disagreement =/= disrespect, but saying "I don't respect x" does = disrespect.

No, it's not the same at all. Again, Meat is the TOPIC here. We can talk about what we think about eating meat all day long. If anyone wants to take that personally, that is their choice.

Talking about how someone communicates on an internet forum is bringing up an entirely different topic.

Furthermore, talking about how a certain person communicates, instead of communication in general, is making it personal.



...

[Jade]

I'm going to be honest, I can't keep up with all the edits you make along with your circular reasoning. I just wanted to know where I crossed the forum guidelines. It seems we have an arbitrary rule that if someone says something that bothers someone personally, that that is when the guidelines are crossed. I don't feel I personally attacked you, and in my honest opinion I was contributing to the conversation. But you still threaten me with admin retaliation or whatever else because you don't like hearing what I have to say. I can't make you feel personally attacked, Monica, only your own feelings can make you feel that way - this is the philosophy you preach. You can say "well it's different this time!" but to me, it's really, really not.

I make the assumption when I post (and I've admitted that I'm wrong and need to fix that) that we are all here to work on ourselves and our distortions. Discussing communication styles falls within the realm of blue-ray crystallization. I think it's very important that we continue these discussions. I'd be happy if an admin split the thread if that's the only way that we can openly discuss this. Otherwise, dismissing my points as being "off-topic" gets us nowhere.

[Monica]

I'm going to be honest, I can't keep up with all the edits you make along with your circular reasoning. I just wanted to know where I crossed the forum guidelines. It seems we have an arbitrary rule that if someone says something that bothers someone personally, that that is when the guidelines are crossed.

??? I don't know how you got THAT out of what I said!

I don't feel I personally attacked you, and in my honest opinion I was contributing to the conversation. But you still threaten me with admin retaliation or whatever else because you don't like hearing what I have to say.

You're twisting my words. I never threatened admin retaliation. I said that if the discussion didn't get back on-topic I'd report it to the mods because it's been getting waaaaay out of hand...and continues to do so even though I've asked you several times to please get back on topic.

How could I possibly threaten moderator retaliation when I'm not longer a mod? I mean that doesn't even make sense!

I can't make you feel personally attacked, Monica, only your own feelings can make you feel that way - this is the philosophy you preach.

C'mon, seriously? You seriously can't see the difference between analyzing a PERSON and analyzing a TOPIC??

And, you can't see how analyzing a PERSON is OFF-topic?

You can say "well it's different this time!" but to me, it's really, really not.

I make the assumption when I post (and I've admitted that I'm wrong and need to fix that) that we are all here to work on ourselves and our distortions. Discussing communication styles falls within the realm of blue-ray crystallization. I think it's very important that we continue these discussions. I'd be happy if an admin split the thread if that's the only way that we can openly discuss this. Otherwise, dismissing my points as being "off-topic" gets us nowhere.

You can discuss communication styles all you want, and you don't need an admin to do that. Simply start your own thread. But leave it out of THIS thread.

Also leave ME out of your new thread. I'm Not up for grabs as a topic of conversation. Neither are you, neither is Bluebell, neither is anyone else.

...

[Matt1]

cant we all just have a bong?

[Monica]

cant we all just have a bong?

Great idea Matt!                       

Oh wow, I thought you said hug. Did you just change it to bong? 

[Minyatur]

As a clarification and addition to what I have said so far.

I do not think anyone I have dicussed with is wrong, I simply think there's different ways to be right and different angles to look at this situation or anything else from.

I do not dismiss the cruelty and suffering of it, I simply think suffering is a willingly chosen experience by the Creator of Himself. In my eyes, just how it can get to some and generate passion as we can see in this thread is a reason for it to be, it is catalyst and experience. The Creator witnesses this experience from the entity suffering, from those who suffer along this suffering, from those who fight this injustice, from those who fight to keep this injustice in existence, from those who watch it happen and do nothing, from those who are incarnated, those non-incarnated, etc...

This in my view this is why Intelligent Infinity is Intelligent, this is the purpose of existence and the beauty of those who walk the path of suffering. Everything always being a service to the All, in it's dark and light ways so that the Creator may know Itself.

[Jade]

You're twisting my words. I never threatened admin retaliation. I said that if the discussion didn't get back on-topic I'd report it to the mods because it's been getting waaaaay out of hand...and continues to do so even though I've asked you several times to please get back on topic.

I must have misunderstood. I took "Documenting" to be an implied threat that what I was saying was being saved as proof of my violations. Still not sure what else it would have meant, though.

You can discuss communication styles all you want, and you don't need an admin to do that. Simply start your own thread. But leave it out of THIS thread.

Also leave ME out of your new thread. I'm Not up for grabs as a topic of conversation. Neither are you, neither is Bluebell, neither is anyone else.

I'm not sure what people are so afraid of. For what it's worth, I state here that I allow myself to be an open topic of conversation, in the interest of facilitating further learning. That's why I'm here, to be part of a community where we can talk with/about/to each other about all sorts of different things, and not be held in by what's "on topic". A community where we feel safe and understand that others are *rarely* attacking others, but that we do need to learn how to communicate more effectively so we don't unintentionally make others feel attacked. I'm not mad at anyone, and I hope that it hasn't come across that way. I just feel like it's my duty to respect myself enough to be honest and open, and post when I feel inclined to post. I see that steps on others' toes but I'm hard pressed to censor myself when I am sincerely trying my best to be open, honest, and loving.

Practice makes perfect better.

[Matt1]

cant we all just have a bong?

Great idea Matt!                       

Oh wow, I thought you said hug. Did you just change it to bong? 

hey , i would love a hug as well! <3

i wonder if animals can get high as well hmm.

[Jade]

Almost all "animals" including single-celled organisms can and do. The cannabinoid system is a reward system for physical exertion - a "runner's high" is from our body's own ability to produce cannabinoids. Dogs specifically produce several times more cannabinoids after exertion than humans do.

[Monica]

I must have misunderstood. I took "Documenting" to be an implied threat that what I was saying was being saved as proof of my violations. Still not sure what else it would have meant, though.

I had no response to what you said so I just documented it for the mods. But I cannot tell them what to do about it. That's up to them.

I'm not sure what people are so afraid of. For what it's worth, I state here that I allow myself to be an open topic of conversation, in the interest of facilitating further learning. That's why I'm here, to be part of a community where we can talk with/about/to each other about all sorts of different things, and not be held in by what's "on topic". A community where we feel safe and understand that others are *rarely* attacking others, but that we do need to learn how to communicate more effectively so we don't unintentionally make others feel attacked. I'm not mad at anyone, and I hope that it hasn't come across that way. I just feel like it's my duty to respect myself enough to be honest and open, and post when I feel inclined to post. I see that steps on others' toes but I'm hard pressed to censor myself when I am sincerely trying my best to be open, honest, and loving.

Practice makes perfect better.

Then if you want to start a topic about yourself, go for it! I'm sure it would be allowed because YOU started it, see?

What's NOT allowed (or at least wasn't when I was a mod) is starting a discussion about someone else.

I don't know how long you're been a member, but this forum has witnessed a few lynchings. As mod, I never allowed anyone to be the victim of a lynch mob.

If someone chooses on their own to talk about themselves and invite feedback, that's an entirely different situation.

...

[Matt1]

i always new dogs could flow. Good times.

i think cats can get high from catnip right?

[Jade]

Not all respond to it, but some if not most do.

[Monica]

hey , i would love a hug as well! <3

Ok HUGS!!!

i wonder if animals can get high as well hmm.

Yes, they can. Whether they enjoy it or not is a different matter.

...

[Monica]

i always new dogs could flow. Good times.

i think cats can get high from catnip right?

Yeah, catnip is their Cannabis!

They can get high from Cannabis too though...or they get something anyway. Not sure if it's high!

...

[Matt1]

one time when me and my friends got really high in the woodlands, a cat followed us home, we took it as a good sign. She chilled under my friends bed for a while, cats are pretty smart.

[Monica]

one time when me and my friends got really high in the woodlands, a cat followed us home, we took it as a good sign. She chilled under my friends bed for a while, cats are pretty smart.

Yes they sure are!

So are dogs. One of my dogs learned how to lick her paws and wash her face, after watching the cats do it. And yesterday my other dog figured out how to open the latch on the garden gate, so she could get into the garden. Silly girl.

Some studies show that pigs are actually smarter than dogs!

Here is a pig putting together a simple puzzle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twS_COailzk

And here is a test done showing young pigs solving the mirror puzzle, but at a much earlier age and much faster than human children!

Smart Pigs vs Kids - Extraordinary Animals - BBC Series 2

...

[Matt1]

Far out.

I often dream about my dog, i have a feeling he is now in 3rd density.

[Nicholas]

Do you think it is possible Monica to graduate from this density while eating meat our entire lives? For example a good natured person becomes a pillar of support in his/her community. They are honest, committed and see no value distinction between the local vicar and a Mongolian nomad, yet his favourite time of the week is the Saturday morning trip to the local butchers for his prime rashers of bacon?

I will answer that with a counter question: That same man, early 1800s, when slavery was still legal and socially acceptable. That man is a pillar of support in his community, is honest, committed, and goes to church every Sunday. He loves his wife dearly and has always been faithful to her. He is a good father to his children. He helps out his neighbors whenever they need help. For his entire adult life, he also 'owns' 50 black slaves, just like his father before him. He treats them pretty much the same as most slave 'owners' do: He feeds them the minimum to keep them strong, he gives them a barn and some hay to sleep in, and he whips them when they rebel or don't work like he thinks they should.

Is he harvestable?

...

Before I answer your counter question I need to express how I fell about your response here. (friggin smart cookie   )

He aint got a snowballs chance in hell! How can his green ray be activated in this situation!?

But your counter question totally brings home to me the subjective nature of trying to communicate with words (as well as our desire to change things for the better). Indeed, how can a meat consuming third density entity have an activated heart centre when Ra terms this activation as one of "universal love"? Let alone a 3rd density entity enslaving 50 other 3rd density entities! With your analogy in mind though, what in comparison do 2nd density entities do to each other?

Again, I think there is some wiggle room here with the term "universal love". To me this term references a complete lack of judgement of other selves. Where do the boundaries begin and end when contemplating that term? I have heard other terms like "unity consciousness", or a more poignant reference (personally speaking), "love has no opposite".

Meanwhile, here we are getting ourselves embroiled in dualism, the yellow ray thought/feeling phenomena. 

So without the political nuance (narrative). Do you think it is possible to graduate from our 3rd density while using 2nd density as a form of 3rd density sustenance?

There are socio/political/economic/geographical/historical and physiological factors that come into play here, and we are surely assuming an awful lot if we commit to a definitive answer, are we not?

[Monica]

Before I answer your counter question I need to express how I fell about your response here. (friggin smart cookie   )

He aint got a snowballs chance in hell! How can his green ray be activated in this situation!?

How is he any different from the man in your example? He thinks black people are 'animals' and the man in your example does even worse to actual animals. What's the difference? In both cases, they are selectively 'good' people to other humans that they deem on the same level as themselves, but enslave and/or kill entities that they deem inferior.

The slave 'owner' views black people the same way meat-eaters today view cows: Inferior, OK to enslave, beat, torture, kill...just property.

But your counter question totally brings home to me the subjective nature of trying to communicate with words (as well as our desire to change things for the better). Indeed, how can a meat consuming third density entity have an activated heart centre when Ra terms this activation as one of "universal love"? Let alone a 3rd density entity enslaving 50 other 3rd density entities! With your analogy in mind though, what in comparison do 2nd density entities do to each other?

Wild animals tear each other apart but only for survival. Genuine hunger, with No other options. The lion's physiology is designed to crave meat - raw, bloody meat - and his instinct (which is just the word for group mind) teaches him how to hunt. But it's only for survival, never for sport, or just for taste, as humans do. And there is no enslavement.

At any rate, humans are presumably more evolved than the lions, no?

So without the political nuance (narrative). Do you think it is possible to graduate from our 3rd density while using 2nd density as a form of 3rd density sustenance?

I'm going to be more generous than you were with the slave 'owner.' You said he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Why so harsh?

If I said that about someone eating meat, can you imagine the response I'd get??? OMG everyone would POUNCE on me!

And yet you just said that about someone with nary a ripple of interest.

Why?

What's the difference?

There are socio/political/economic/geographical/historical and physiological factors that come into play here, and we are surely assuming an awful lot if we commit to a definitive answer, are we not?

Indeed. Why, then, are you asking me for one?

...

[Nicholas]

He aint got a snowballs chance in hell! How can his green ray be activated in this situation!?

How is he any different from the man in your example?

The difference is identity! How can we realistically identify with animals when our predominant perceptions are sight and sound? A black slave says no, a cow says moo and a pig says oink.

He thinks black people are 'animals' and the man in your example does even worse to actual animals.

From your perspective this is obviously so but from mine It would be much more preferable to be ignorant of the circumstances. I would much rather be slaughtered than enslaved for life. Its quick and painful and I think man enslaving man is much worse an experience when a spirit complex (the creator within becomes conscious of itself?) is activated. An animal is well acquainted with a barbarous ending. It is economical for humans to find a quicker and easier method. I would rather be killed via the factory method than the natural one, were I to be an animal. From my human perspective that is.

What's the difference?

Density. When I first came across this idea of 4th density being invisible to third I logically queried in my mind "So how in 4th density can we commune with animals in 2nd density without 3rd density entities noticing?" This really baffled me and I concluded, initially, that I did not want to leave 3rd density if 2d communion was not possible in 4th density.

In both cases, they are selectively 'good' people to other humans that they deem on the same level as themselves, but enslave and/or kill entities that they deem inferior.

Again, identity explains a lot here. On the face of it, and in light of the LOO material there is no difference. But how can we discriminate against the ignorant in light of the ramifications of free will?

The slave 'owner' views black people the same way meat-eaters today view cows: Inferior, OK to enslave, beat, torture, kill...just property.

One that level I totally agree with you, yes. "God put them here to serve us" is one justification narrative. How do we approach these "distortions"?

But your counter question totally brings home to me the subjective nature of trying to communicate with words (as well as our desire to change things for the better). Indeed, how can a meat consuming third density entity have an activated heart centre when Ra terms this activation as one of "universal love"? Let alone a 3rd density entity enslaving 50 other 3rd density entities! With your analogy in mind though, what in comparison do 2nd density entities do to each other?

Wild animals tear each other apart but only for survival. Genuine hunger, with No other options. The lion's physiology is designed to crave meat - raw, bloody meat - and his instinct (which is just the word for group mind) teaches him how to hunt. But it's only for survival, never for sport, or just for taste, as humans do. And there is no enslavement.

I assume the orion group would find this planet a most fruitful and entertaining catch. They watch, they must surely enjoy the show. Our response to it all is vitally important!

At any rate, humans are presumably more evolved than the lions, no?

Yes, but it seems we are ripe for being enslaved ourselves if we cant discern between those that seek power and those that are seeking...

So without the political nuance (narrative). Do you think it is possible to graduate from our 3rd density while using 2nd density as a form of 3rd density sustenance?

I'm going to be more generous than you were with the slave 'owner.' You said he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Why so harsh?

Monica, I tend to express my opinion with conviction. Ahem! 

If I said that about someone eating meat, can you imagine the response I'd get??? OMG everyone would POUNCE on me!

Prrrrrrr...Me first!  

And yet you just said that about someone with nary a ripple of interest.

Why?

Perhaps one of my lessons in my life is humility? I don't know, maybe. I know I feel uncomfortable when I assert my point of view at the expense of somebody else suppressing their own. Early in my life I learned to speak up!

What's the difference?

I suppose its being able to relate, identify and communicate with eachother. Ra identified us with regards to our colour signature and it seems they set the bar high in terms of the criteria for contact. We have been blessed by this contact, yet, we persistently fail to recognise what facilitated the contact that they co-enacted. I sensed that harmony when I first read the LOO, it was almost palpable. My fiancee even asked me to read it to her even though the words I spoke from book one seemed meaningless. Regardless, she desired to join me in the experience that book one gave me.  Its way more than intellect and feelings, you know that. We can get easily lost in the details of this vast philosophy, easily dissect it to favour of our own biases. Its really about harmony and learning how to sustain that moment in time that I have attempted to describe above, long enough to usher in the ideals that we all unquestionably share.

There are socio/political/economic/geographical/historical and physiological factors that come into play here, and we are surely assuming an awful lot if we commit to a definitive answer, are we not?

Indeed. Why, then, are you asking me for one?

...

I am like you Monica, expressive, emotive and energetic. Just look at our own dashboards and you can see correlations. I was merely requesting that you remind yourself of the grey area within this discussion. One the one hand it is unequivocally obvious, yet on the other it is a mystery that suspends, with inpouring breath, timelessly awaiting its own outpouring discovery.

[Billy]

C'mon, seriously? You seriously can't see the difference between analyzing a PERSON and analyzing a TOPIC??

People do get hurt and offended though, and while it may be true that such reactions come from inside, I still think it is beneficial to approach such sensitive topics with delicacy and a light touch.  That way, everyone feels invited to participate and contribute, and the discussion produces more fruit.  

I am conflicted though, as I want to show compassion towards people on both sides of the argument, without however weakening my own convictions.  I disagree with the slaughter and consumption of animals, and I wish to see it end, but whenever I explain to others why I don't eat meat and their faces tense up at my response, I feel it necessary to not pursue any further unless questions are asked of me.

I think that folks do want to have a discussion about this topic, but fear of judgement holds them back from doing so.  Again, personal catalyst, but it can be worked through more effectively with the assistance of those offering it.  

[Monica]

The difference is identity! How can we realistically identify with animals when our predominant perceptions are sight and sound? A black slave says no, a cow says moo and a pig says oink.

You say I need to remind myself of the 'grey areas' yet I am the one pointing out the grey, while others continue to insist on black-and-white demarcations.

Right there, your comment above: That's a black-and-white demarcation. First of all, the black slave didn't say No in the beginning because he didn't speak English. So he didn't use the word No!

He did, however, convey the meaning of the word No! How? By his body language of course. By resisting, struggling, fighting capture, and of course speaking in his own language.

The cow and pig do the EXACT same thing! They resist, struggle, fight, and speak in their own language! Any human, even a caveman, understands that! They know that the cow or pig doesn't want to be captured, enslaved or killed. It's really quite obvious.

You might now say "Oh but the black 'slave' is human and the cow and pig aren't."

That is entirely arbitrary. We all know that, until a few decades ago, many white people thought it was ok to enslave blacks because they thought they were 'so different.' They were focusing on skin color and missing how much alike all humans are. To us, it now seems ridiculous, but back then, white people commonly thought of blacks as animals, which of course they considered inferior. Horrible but true! (Thinking they were animals AND thinking that animals were inferior and could thus be enslaved with impunity.)

Even today, sadly, some people are still racist. All 3 of my brothers are racist bigots. I have no idea how they got that way, because our parents weren't racist at all. Even just a few years ago, my ex-sister-in-law and I met a really nice, good-looking, black man who was flirting with her. Since she was single, I excitedly asked her if she was going to go out with him. She looked at me like I was nuts. Puzzled, I said "Why not?" He seemed very attractive to me (for HER - I'm happily married) and I didn't understand why she would reject him. She then said "Well because he's black of course" like that was so obvious. I was stunned! Here it was 2012 and someone I loved very much still thought in terms of black-and-white, was still racist to the point that she wouldn't even consider getting to know this nice man better and see what developed. She wasn't rude to blacks like my brothers are, but she still thought he was 'too different' to even consider allowing herself to feel attracted to him. So strong was the societal conditioning she'd been brought up with. And she was half Hispanic!

My point is that these demarcations are entirely arbitrary. Somewhere along the line, white humans decided they were superior to other humans just because of the difference in skin color. That seems so silly to most of us now, but how is it really any different than thinking we're superior based on species? What if 3D alien races think they are superior to us just because we are of a different species?

Speciesism is just another -ism, like racism and sexism. It's an arbitrary demarcation for discrimination and bigotry.

He thinks black people are 'animals' and the man in your example does even worse to actual animals.

From your perspective this is obviously so but from mine It would be much more preferable to be ignorant of the circumstances. I would much rather be slaughtered than enslaved for life. Its quick and painful and I think man enslaving man is much worse an experience when a spirit complex (the creator within becomes conscious of itself?) is activated. An animal is well acquainted with a barbarous ending. It is economical for humans to find a quicker and easier method. I would rather be killed via the factory method than the natural one, were I to be an animal. From my human perspective that is.

Aside from the fact that your preference is subjective, and aside from the fact that regardless of whether killing or enslaving is worse, there still remains the fact that it's NOT congruent with the STO path to do either! ...but aside from those points, You are missing a very important point: Farm animals are BOTH enslaved AND killed against their will! So regardless of which you might think is worse, it's irrelevant because both are being done to them.

What's the difference?

Density.

That's entirely arbitrary to the question of whether it's ok to enslave and kill sentient beings of another species.

Density is completely invisible to us, while here in 3D. None of us would even know there is such a thing as density, had Ra Not told us!!!

The vast majority of humans don't even know there is such a thing as density. How, then, can we expect density to be a barometer for whether it's ok to enslave and kill other species of sentient beings?

It would be impossible to apply such a guideline, for starters. But then there is the more important point that deciding it's ok to enslave/kill other sentient beings based on the arbitrary demarcation of density is entirely arbitrary and Not based on anything Ra said.

In fact, it's the opposite! Ra distinctly said that they answered the call of higher 2D entities! This seems to imply that they consider higher 2D entities other-selves!

So how did Law of One students somehow get it into their minds that it was OK to support the enslavement/torture/rape/killing of higher 2D other-selves??? Where did that come from? Nowhere did Ra say anything of the sort. Only Q'uo did, and Q'uo was consciously channeled by Carla, who had a definite bias in favor of eating animals. In that particular Q'uo session, obvious errors were made about kosher slaughter that Q'uo would have known better about, so it was very obvious that there was some degree of distortion in that session, despite Carla's best efforts to be clear.

For that and for the simple reason that any conscious channeling isn't as UNdistorted as the Ra Material, I base my conclusions on the Ra Material only. And in that Material, Ra never gave any indication that it was somehow ok for humans to go willy-nilly enslaving and killing the very entities whose call Ra has answered! Certainly Not based on density!

So leaving aside density, which is invisible to us anyway, simple observation shows us that animals are much more like US than they are to carrots and lettuces. They obviously feel pain and fear, they have social structures, friendships, even play games. Most importantly, they have WILL and they use that will to tell us, in No uncertain terms, that they do NOT wish to be captured, enslaved, raped, tortured or killed!

There is simply NO question about any of that, to anyone who has the courage to actually look them in the eyes and SEE what is THERE!

In order to do that, we must set aside societal conditioning that has taught us that 'animals are for food' and 'animals don't matter' which are both antiquated, false notions. There is No denying any of this. It is there for all to see! To reject what is obvious, in favor of some abstract notion that because Ra said there is such a thing as densities, that it's somehow ok to negatively treat those of other densities!

Not to mention that animals are closer to 3D than they are to the beginning of 2D! Just as some of us, Wanderer or Not, might consider ourselves closer to our 4D+ elders, than to prehistoric cavemen.

If anything, cavemen were very 'animal-like.' They grunted, they pulled their women by the hair (supposedly), they beat one another with clubs, they hunted and ate raw, bloody meat, they were very crude overall and were more like apes than modern humans. So do we identify more with those early cavemen, or with the higher beings like Ra? But the cavemen are 3D and so are we, at least right now while we're visiting this planet! See where the idea of using density as a demarcation falls apart?

I contend that the demarcation should NOT be density at all, but something that makes a lot more sense: the ability to feel pain, which goes hand-in-hand with self-awareness and WILL. Animals have all of those.

How would we like it is 4D STS aliens decided it was ok to enslave and eat us because we're of a lower density?

Oh wait! They already do!!!

And is there any question that only STS entities would do that? You can't imagine STO entities enslaving anyone, can you?

This sums it up:


  Aliens eating humans.jpg (Size: 68.87 KB / Downloads: 3)

Again, identity explains a lot here. On the face of it, and in light of the LOO material there is no difference. But how can we discriminate against the ignorant in light of the ramifications of free will?

No one is suggesting that we discriminate against the ignorant. Rather, our task is to illuminate.

The slave 'owner' views black people the same way meat-eaters today view cows: Inferior, OK to enslave, beat, torture, kill...just property.

One that level I totally agree with you, yes. "God put them here to serve us" is one justification narrative. How do we approach these "distortions"?

By starting with ourselves.

I assume the orion group would find this planet a most fruitful and entertaining catch. They watch, they must surely enjoy the show.

Oh yes, indeed they do! Not only do they watch, but they feed.

Think about it. Billions of sentient entities, living in a constant state of enslavement, pain and fear, and then slaughtered, every single year! On top of millions of humans living in pain and fear and being killed too. That's a lot of FOOD for them! No wonder they are thriving here! We're feeding them!

This is precisely why I believe our planet has been held back, and precisely why I don't think there's going to be any sort of Shift any time soon. This planet is waaaaaay too dense and heavy, from all that enslavement and bloodshed. This is why I believe that the meat issue is THE single most important issue in regards to spiritual work for self-professed Wanderers. How can we possibly expect to suddenly go POOF when we are, ourselves, contributing to the dark energy of this planet? The idea is absurd!


  MenKillingAnimalsMen.jpg (Size: 16.62 KB / Downloads: 1)

Our response to it all is vitally important!

Yes it is. Vitally important! More important than the title of this thread indicates. The title Some people eat animals...some don't makes it sound like it doesn't matter...it's just personal preference...like Some people like rock music and others like country or some other benign preference. This 'preference' is far from benign.

At any rate, humans are presumably more evolved than the lions, no?

Yes, but it seems we are ripe for being enslaved ourselves if we cant discern between those that seek power and those that are seeking...

Humans are already enslaved, by the power elite who control the world. More and more humans are waking up to that sad fact and because they are waking up, we now have a chance to free ourselves. And that is exactly what I think the original plan was, and precisely why Ra gave us this valuable information.

But how can we expect to free ourselves from enslavement when we are still enslaving????

Monica, I tend to express my opinion with conviction. Ahem! 

Nothing wrong with that!  

If I said that about someone eating meat, can you imagine the response I'd get??? OMG everyone would POUNCE on me!

Prrrrrrr...Me first!  

:-/

And yet you just said that about someone with nary a ripple of interest.

Why?

Perhaps one of my lessons in my life is humility? I don't know, maybe. I know I feel uncomfortable when I assert my point of view at the expense of somebody else suppressing their own. Early in my life I learned to speak up!

I think that's a good thing. But Not what I was referring to. What I was asking was: Why did No one seem to mind when you said the slave 'owner' didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of graduating? Had I said that a meat-eater didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of graduating, they would have all jumped on me, yelling and screaming that I was judging.

What's the difference?

It's simple. Because, in this lifetime anyway, they aren't enslaving/killing black humans.

They're enslaving/killing other sentient beings, who, just as blacks are to whites, are more LIKE us than they are UNlike us.

But because, at this point in time, society says it's acceptable to enslave/rape/torture/kill those beings, then the people here at B4 would get their panties in a bundle if I dared to suggest that they aren't harvestable due to their hearts being blocked in this area. (For the record, I have never actually said that.)

Meanwhile, you just said that the white slave 'owner' didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being harvestable, and No one cared. No one said a word. No one jumped on you for 'judging'. WHY?

Because they aren't slave 'owners' and slavery is No longer socially acceptable. That's it. That's the only reason!

So they are basing spiritual principles Not on what Ra said, Not on simple observation, but on societal conditioning.

I suppose its being able to relate, identify and communicate with eachother. Ra identified us with regards to our colour signature and it seems they set the bar high in terms of the criteria for contact. We have been blessed by this contact, yet, we persistently fail to recognise what facilitated the contact that they co-enacted. I sensed that harmony when I first read the LOO, it was almost palpable. My fiancee even asked me to read it to her even though the words I spoke from book one seemed meaningless. Regardless, she desired to join me in the experience that book one gave me.  Its way more than intellect and feelings, you know that. We can get easily lost in the details of this vast philosophy, easily dissect it to favour of our own biases. Its really about harmony and learning how to sustain that moment in time that I have attempted to describe above, long enough to usher in the ideals that we all unquestionably share.

You've said a great deal there. Firstly, I think that's wonderful that you are able to share this treasure with your fiancee! Sounds like you have found a treasure in her!

Secondly, yes indeed it's easy to dissect it and cherry-pick to favor our own biases. We all do that to some degree. In my observation, it seems that this is done a great deal. I frequently see people drawing conclusions based on a single quote, while seemingly disregarding the rest. That is just tragic, in my opinion. They often miss the gist of what Ra was trying to convey, in favor of a minute detail completely misinterpreted, in light of the big picture.

Thirdly, I'm Not so sure that we all 'unquestionably share' these ideals. As evidenced by various discussions here, but this topic in particular, wherein people frequently dismiss STO concepts in favor of an 'anything goes' attitude, I have concluded that we don't all share the same ideals at all.

Not by a long shot.

...

[Monica]

People do get hurt and offended though, and while it may be true that such reactions come from inside, I still think it is beneficial to approach such sensitive topics with delicacy and a light touch.

Over the course of 5 years, I've learned that it doesn't matter. When the vegetarians/vegans were super sweet and walked on eggshells, we still got nasty insulted flung our way. It didn't matter how nice we were. When we were told we were 'too serious' and then tried to lighten up, we were then accused of being sarcastic, when what we intended was just a little humor, and maybe facetiousness at best, Not even to the point of sarcasm. It really was a matter of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

We've been told probably hundreds of times that we are supposed to 'accept' the choice to enslave and kill animals. Well if we're being expected to accept that, then I think they can accept our passion and conviction, as well as our sometimes lame attempts at humor.  

It works both ways!

That way, everyone feels invited to participate and contribute, and the discussion produces more fruit.

Hmmm....how do you determine whether any fruit has been produced or not?

Ironically, I've observed the opposite. In the early days, when we were treading delicately and overly sweet, trying to avoid ever offending anyone, we actually got MORE nasty insults than we did later when we were more open and free in our comments. Yes, 'tis true! I've actually been marveling at how fruitful the discussion has been lately, in comparison to the early days. And by 'fruitful' I don't mean how many people decide to go vegan; I mean simply focused, respectful discussion, as in the exchange of ideas.  

I am conflicted though, as I want to show compassion towards people on both sides of the argument, without however weakening my own convictions.  I disagree with the slaughter and consumption of animals, and I wish to see it end, but whenever I explain to others why I don't eat meat and their faces tense up at my response, I feel it necessary to not pursue any further unless questions are asked of me.

I think that folks do want to have a discussion about this topic, but fear of judgement holds them back from doing so.  Again, personal catalyst, but it can be worked through more effectively with the assistance of those offering it.  

We all go through that, my friend. It's a very difficult task that has been entrusted to us. I wish I knew the answer to that but I don't. All I can offer is my own experience.

In real life, I focus mostly on the health benefits of a plant-based diet. That is less threatening to most people because it doesn't trigger their guilt mechanism. I really don't care if they decide to go plant-based just for selfish health reasons, because the end result is the same, at least from the perspective of the animals. Whenever I talk with people in real life, I endeavor to remain focused in my heart center. That comes easily to me. I just naturally feel compassion for people, and, contrary to what some might think, I feel very compassionate towards people who are struggling with the meat issue. As an example, my best friend from high school is the daughter of a rancher, and she sometimes see my vegan postings on facebook. One of my vegan friends got into an exchange with her, and I pm'ed the vegan and asked her to be gentle with my friend, who had probably never even questioned her lifestyle. Yet I know that she is seeing what I post, and she has asked some questions. And get this: Her own daughter seems very progressive, with tattoos, and calls herself 'the animal rescuer'!! So my friend is being shown, from different sides, the information.

On the other hand, when my bigoted brothers start their rants, I'm much stronger in my demeanor and words. Why? Because that's the only language they know. It's called rapport. It's all about tuning into that particular person and focusing on LOVING them, and then the right words will flow. It happens every time, when we stay centered in the heart. We WILL say the right words, the exact right words that they need to hear, and they will receive them, to whatever degree they are ready for. And if, in some cases, they stiffen and look uncomfortable, that too is part of the process. That is NOT a bad thing. That might actually be necessary, to tear down the walls blocking their heart, and trigger new neuropathways in the brain.

Sometimes, depending on the situation, I might cheerily and brightly say "Did you know that pigs are smarter than dogs?" when someone is talking about their dog. Then I tell them about some intelligence experiments with pigs, or maybe I tell them about the cows forming friendships, or the bear saving the life of the bird, or the swans feeding the goldfish, or whatever...something to invite them to think and question what they've long believed. Sometimes all I can do is plant the seed, because that's all they're ready for.

If they are open and receptive, then yes, I absolutely do tell them about the atrocities of the meat/dairy industry. I do speak up, on behalf of those who are oppressed. It just depends on the person, as to HOW I speak up.

Sometimes, when offered meat, I shudder and look horrified, and say "Oh gosh, no thank you, I don't eat dead animals!" as though that were the most vile, disgusting thing in the world. This isn't an act; it's how I really feel. Why should I pretend otherwise? Why must I suppress myself just because I'm a minority? Again, just by me being me, it may trigger some new neuropathways in their brain. Whether it does or not, thought, isn't my concern in that moment. I'm just being REAL, just being who I really am. Why shouldn't I be?

Other times, depending on the social setting, I don't have that luxury. I must suppress my normal reaction and just politely say "No thank you, I'm a vegan" and leave it at that. This is fake to me, but because I have business and social commitments, I must suppress who I really am and what I really think. I don't like doing that, but I understand the reasons for it, and accept it. But, at the very least, I always do say I'm a vegan. I have that right. I'm Not judging them or saying anything at all about them; I'm simply expressing who I am.

Here, in a group dedicated to the study of the most advanced spiritual teaching in the land, I think it's appropriate to delve more deeply into the spiritual implications of eating animals, than we do with mainstream people we bump into at the grocery store, who might never have even questioned it before. Even then, vegans ARE making a HUGE impact, and most of them have never read the Law of One! Some are Christians, many are atheists. And yet they are out there, talking to people, and effecting change to the tune of meat consumption plummeting (in the words of the Huffington Post).

Then there are some who take more aggressive actions, going to grocery stores and other public places, and talking to the crowd with a megaphone. These are the ones who are more 'in your face' and annoying to the meat-eaters. But they DO have an impact too. They do have their place. I don't work like that; I lack the courage and the inclination. I prefer to work more one-on-one, in my everyday life, with the people I come into contact with. Since those are mostly mainstream people, it's only here that I can really get into the deeper implications, from a spiritual perspective.

All of these methods work, at different times, for different people. By 'work' I mean simply to raise awareness. What people do with that awareness is up to them.

Focus on Love, to all, human AND animal, and find the resolution of paradox. Refuse to choose between love for animals and love for humans. Love is love. Compassion is compassion. It makes NO difference whether it's directed towards 2D or 3D. Those are just arbitrary demarcations, which cause more blockages. Express love and compassion FREELY, towards human and animal alike. You CAN do BOTH! Indeed, doing both is the only way to be effective.

...

[Diana]

People do get hurt and offended though, and while it may be true that such reactions come from inside, I still think it is beneficial to approach such sensitive topics with delicacy and a light touch.  That way, everyone feels invited to participate and contribute, and the discussion produces more fruit.  

I am conflicted though, as I want to show compassion towards people on both sides of the argument, without however weakening my own convictions.  I disagree with the slaughter and consumption of animals, and I wish to see it end, but whenever I explain to others why I don't eat meat and their faces tense up at my response, I feel it necessary to not pursue any further unless questions are asked of me.

I think that folks do want to have a discussion about this topic, but fear of judgement holds them back from doing so.  Again, personal catalyst, but it can be worked through more effectively with the assistance of those offering it.  

I understand completely. I have been vegetarian since '93, and I could count on one hand the times I've talked about it (excluding posting here). I don't hide the fact, but I don't offer any explanations. If someone asks me, I say only that there are many reasons including that it's healthier. That is safe ground, as it is pretty widely accepted that plant-based diets are healthier. If someone wants to know more, and they ask, I tell them as I would talk to a child, saying only what is required until more is wanted. To talk to someone this way is not an insult. To make the leap from being societally conditioned and not awake to the facts of factory farming or sentience, to considering things that perhaps have not even been thought of, is too much in one lump.

[edit] I just wanted to clarify that I don't tell people about why I'm vegetarian because of their free will. I don't seek to convert anyone. That is not to say I don't wish for a kinder world.

Here, at B4, presumably, those participating are more awake and conscious of what is going on in the world both mundanely and energetically, than the average human out there anesthetized by popular media, etc. It is completely voluntary to be here. Given that the Ra Material is so advanced, I don't expect very asleep people to have any interest in this site. 

Participating in these discussions is voluntary. That doesn't mean it's okay to be insulting to anyone. There is the idea though of not wishing to coddle and taking the opportunity to be honest. I find that very challenging and I struggle constantly with it. Monica is correct when saying that being extra careful to not offend makes no difference here. The ironic thing is that if one were to go through and read from the beginning all the posts on this subject, one would find that insults and attacks were prolific against the vegetarian viewpoint, with mean and hurtful remarks, even to the point of endless postings of cruel photos of cooked animals and the like. So what about our feelings? There have been points when I threw my arms up and gave into my honest nature and just said what I thought because of being pushed so hard or seeing one of those photos. These were not my best moments and were not deriving from a mature or "heart" place. But I am not perfect, and can only tolerate so much attacking be it subtle or direct. The subtle attacks were perhaps the worst. I really prefer open honesty.

I understand from the meat-eater's perspective that within this conversation about animals it is easy to feel judged. This makes it difficult to discuss things honestly from the perspective of those who don't eat meat. But I can't, as a vegetarian, be responsible for someone feeling judged. I CAN be responsible for the way I express myself. I think this gets overlapped and muddied, and is at the core of misunderstandings.

The problem does remain: How to communicate effectively and with love about eating animals. Where I find myself getting tipped off my balance and sucked into being emotional is the idea that a person's feelings are more important than the life-long suffering and slaughter of an animal. If I am centered I can deal with this idea, as all is one and all is important. But when a member here posts a photo of a cooked animal with its mouth open on a platter, it pushes me too far.

So how about a little consideration for vegetarians here, please? It seems as though it's always about us being considerate to those who do eat meat. And that is valid. I would like the consideration to be reciprocal. It's not that it never is, though. Don't get me wrong. Some have been very considerate and mature in this conversation. But when the argument devolves into the feelings of meat-eaters, I would like to see the feelings of everyone be included.