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

[Monica]

I agree with you that animals are choosing these conditions to incarnate. Earth, at its most heightened place of polarity, has some heinous conditions to experience for beings that are willing. But as we move into 4D positive more and more of these things will eventually fall away, the less people choose to participate in them. It's a collective agreement when we decide that we don't need to experience trauma and imprisonment in such ways.

In the same way we are offering them a service of a home in our planet of polarity, they too are offering us a service: a chance to serve them. A chance to make a more nuanced choice of service, and choosing to abstain from the collective acts of negative catalyst. Or we can continue to participate, either way, it *is* a service. However, if we use the analogy of a sick person - someone who has bodily catalyst that is lowering their quality of life - and they ask me for help, and I hear them, I feel it is my duty to alleviate the illness, and not perpetuate it because they are experiencing the negative catalyst they need. If possible, my choice is to avoid participating in negative catalyst for others. I know I can't avoid that entirely, but if I'm aware that a choice involves me inflicting negative catalyst, I prefer to avoid it. If I can aid in alleviation, I will, and they can subsequently choose to experience "illness" again if they so desire.

Well said! You totally nailed it!

I don't understand why this simple concept is so difficult for so many people to understand. This is the essence of the difference in polarities: How we choose to respond when we encounter an opportunity to be of service to others.

Again, that is if the help is asked for and I hear it. Not everyone hears the animals' calls for help, which just means it's not their service, at this time. Just like most of us aren't in Africa feeding the hungry.

While I do get your point that we can't all do everything, and not everyone feels compelled to spend time each day championing African children (or animals), this conversation isn't even about activism. Actively working to help the starving children is called activism, just as actively working to end the enslavement and torture of animals is activism.

But we're Not even talking about activism. We're talking about directly contributing to the starvation/enslavement/torture/slaughter!

It's one thing to say "I'm too busy to help the starving children in Africa, and anyway I contribute to other worthy causes and I just can't do everything" but quite another to actually CAUSE more children to starve with one's choices every single day.

Don't have time, or don't feel compelled to be an activist? Ok, no problem. But at least don't keep knowingly contributing to the problem!

So of course the vibratory state of our being (being accepting and loving and compassionate) is of primary importance, but there can also be a point where our actions begin to contradict that desired state of being. That's the one caveat with 3D, you *have* to act and cannot just be. And those physical actions are infinite refinements of choice.

Exactly! And, non-action is still action. Non-choice is still choice.

But beyond that, continuing to knowingly contribute to the unnecessary suffering of animals IS a choice! It isn't a non-choice; it's a choice! A negatively polarizing choice, most likely, because it's simply Not necessary, and thus falls into the category of callous disregard, at best.

...