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

[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.

...