Why I am not a vegan

[Monica]

I'm sorry, I can't take you seriously anymore. I just see this hilarious caricature of a television evangelist.

shrug

[AngelofDeath]

You are shoving your values down my throat,

That's absurd. The forum has an ignore button. If you don't like my comments, then quit responding to them. Don't throw that "You are controlling me!" line at me!

If you are trying to make me feel guilty or "be aware" of the pain that goes on on this planet and around me, I'm afraid I am already too full of those things for any more.

As evidenced by the Eating Tomatoes is STS thread, it is impossible for me to make anyone feel guilty, even if I wanted to. Guilt comes from within.

I was referring to your approach.

[Monica]

I was referring to your approach.

I'm tired of hearing about 'my approach.' I usually answer point-by-point, and I use Ra quotes to back up what I say.

Bring4th Forums One > Strictly Law of One Material v > Ra's Statements About 2D Entities

[AngelofDeath]

I was referring to your approach.

I'm tired of hearing about 'my approach.' I usually answer point-by-point, and I use Ra quotes to back up what I say.

Bring4th Forums One > Strictly Law of One Material  v > Ra's Statements About 2D Entities

Well, it just seems like you assume that I haven't considered these things. Which is understandable especially on a forum but it just seems you would not ever be satisfied with any response I gave unless it ultimately agreed with you. I do agree with you, but to a point.

[Monica]

Well, it just seems like you assume that I haven't considered these things. Which is understandable especially on a forum but it just seems you would not ever be satisfied with any response I gave unless it ultimately agreed with you. I do agree with you, but to a point.

I'm not looking for agreement, nor any sort of 'satisfaction.' I would love some serious discussion, without it degenerating into name-calling and accusations. Ironically, you were actually offering some serious discussion, and I responded with what I thought were some thought-provoking questions. Then, suddenly, you start up with the "you're shoving your values down my throat!" garbage which I refuse to participate in.

It's impossible for anyone to shove their views on anyone else in an online discussion forum. I don't like being told I'm judging, or 'shoving my values down their throat' or 'trying to control' when all I'm doing is expressing my views.

I'm done here. I refuse to participate in this ridiculous drama again.

[AnthroHeart]

I just wonder in our life review if we're going to regret eating meat when we did.

[AngelofDeath]

Well, when I said that I was actually referring to your saying that it is absolutely unnecessary to eat meat. I see that as an argument but not a fact. There is evidence on both sides of that that I see as reasonable. I believe humans are naturally and by evolution omnivorous and so far I haven't seen anything to sway that to one side or the other. That is where I get confused, because an ethical point will suddenly turn in to one about body nutrition but I think we are mixing levels here, confusing mental and emotional considerations with physical ones.

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?

[AngelofDeath]

I just wonder in our life review if we're going to regret eating meat when we did.

Somehow I don't feel like our life review is a big guilty confession. Guilt is too heavy to go where we go when we die. That's why those with too much guilt become trapped like hungry ghosts.

[AnthroHeart]

Thank you AoD. Your thoughts bring me comfort.

[Monica]

Well, when I said that I was actually referring to your saying that it is absolutely unnecessary to eat meat. I see that as an argument but not a fact. There is evidence on both sides of that that I see as reasonable. I believe humans are naturally and by evolution omnivorous and so far I haven't seen anything to sway that to one side or the other. That is where I get confused, because an ethical point will suddenly turn in to one about body nutrition but I think we are mixing levels here, confusing mental and emotional considerations with physical ones.

Ah, thank you for explaining! I can see why it would be confusing, to seemingly mix ethical and health issues. If some people really did need meat/dairy, that would indeed be a conflict!

There is actually no conflict, because eating meat and dairy are both biologically unnecessary. Medical science has proven that. However, being that humans, in their early 3D experience, were indeed meat-eaters, then they clearly are in a transition. So, ever since the beginning of this conversation 5-6 years ago, I have frequently stated that some humans have a harder time transitioning than others. Some crave meat. Some fail to thrive without meat. That is a given. But, those who've gone before us have paved the way. They have discovered the reasons some people immediately thrive on a vegan diet, while others need to make some dietary adjustments. An MD who has worked with thousands of people, including hundreds who wanted to be vegan but failed to thrive, claims a 100% success rate with those people...simply by making adjustments to their diet, based on their metabolic type.

The science is there. Even the mainstream medical establishment acknowledges that a whole-foods-based vegan diet is adequate, and in fact medical research shows that vegans have a drastically lower risk for nearly all the major diseases.

It's no longer disputable.

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.

[Monica]

Somehow I don't feel like our life review is a big guilty confession. Guilt is too heavy to go where we go when we die. That's why those with too much guilt become trapped like hungry ghosts.

Agreed. But, guilt isn't the same thing as healthy remorse, or contemplation leading to insights and learning/growing/evolving.

[AnthroHeart]

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

Where can I sign up?

[AngelofDeath]

Well, when I said that I was actually referring to your saying that it is absolutely unnecessary to eat meat. I see that as an argument but not a fact. There is evidence on both sides of that that I see as reasonable. I believe humans are naturally and by evolution omnivorous and so far I haven't seen anything to sway that to one side or the other. That is where I get confused, because an ethical point will suddenly turn in to one about body nutrition but I think we are mixing levels here, confusing mental and emotional considerations with physical ones.

Ah, thank you for explaining! I can see why it would be confusing, to seemingly mix ethical and health issues. If some people really did need meat/dairy, that would indeed be a conflict!

There is actually no conflict, because eating meat and dairy are both biologically unnecessary. Medical science has proven that. However, being that humans, in their early 3D experience, were indeed meat-eaters, then they clearly are in a transition. So, ever since the beginning of this conversation 5-6 years ago, I have frequently stated that some humans have a harder time transitioning than others. Some crave meat. Some fail to thrive without meat. That is a given. But, those who've gone before us have paved the way. They have discovered the reasons some people immediately thrive on a vegan diet, while others need to make some dietary adjustments. An MD who has worked with thousands of people, including hundreds who wanted to be vegan but failed to thrive, claims a 100% success rate with those people...simply by making adjustments to their diet, based on their metabolic type.

The science is there. Even the mainstream medical establishment acknowledges that a whole-foods-based vegan diet is adequate, and in fact medical research shows that vegans have a drastically lower risk for nearly all the major diseases.

It's no longer disputable.

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.

Again, claims, but I haven't seen anything irrefutable. I'm not saying that those claims aren't true or that evidence isn't there, but there is evidence that says otherwise as well. It really comes down to what evidence you believe supports your own choice. I have read articles which make claims, but I haven't ever actually seen the methods of study. That's why I am, at this point, agnostic on the subject as I haven't yet decided it is exactly one way or another. Omnivorous nature in humans still makes the most sense to me.

[AnthroHeart]

Omnivorous nature in humans still makes the most sense to me.

And to me.

[AngelofDeath]

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.

[Lighthead]

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

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

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.

[AngelofDeath]

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

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

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.

[Lighthead]

Please answer my question first, then I will respond.

I'll let Lighthead answer, since that was his comment, not mine. (Though I agree with him.)

You may answer a question directed at me any time, Monica. Today has been a busy day for me, so I haven't been afforded much time to be here.

[Monica]

Again, claims, but I haven't seen anything irrefutable. I'm not saying that those claims aren't true or that evidence isn't there, but there is evidence that says otherwise as well. It really comes down to what evidence you believe supports your own choice. I have read articles which make claims, but I haven't ever actually seen the methods of study. That's why I am, at this point, agnostic on the subject as I haven't yet decided it is exactly one way or another. Omnivorous nature in humans still makes the most sense to me.

There is certainly a lot of controversy among proponents among this or that diet. Particularly contentious is the ongoing debate between the Paleo people and vegetarians.

But what does the research say?

Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets:

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods. This article reviews the current data related to key nutrients for vegetarians including protein, n-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, and vitamins D and B-12. A vegetarian diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, supplements or fortified foods can provide useful amounts of important nutrients. An evidence- based review showed that vegetarian diets can be nutritionally adequate in pregnancy and result in positive maternal and infant health outcomes. The results of an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates. Features of a vegetarian diet that may reduce risk of chronic disease include lower intakes of saturated fat and cholesterol and higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, soy products, fiber, and phytochemicals. The variability of dietary practices among vegetarians makes individual assessment of dietary adequacy essential. In addition to assessing dietary adequacy, food and nutrition professionals can also play key roles in educating vegetarians about sources of specific nutrients, food purchase and preparation, and dietary modifications to meet their needs.

CDC:

Is it true that complementary proteins must be eaten together to count as a complete protein source?
In the past, it was thought that these complementary proteins needed to be eaten at the same meal for your body to use them together. Now studies show that your body can combine complementary proteins that are eaten within the same day.1

What if I am a vegetarian?
Because some vegetarians avoid eating all (or most) animal foods, they must rely on plant-based sources of protein to meet their protein needs. With some planning, a vegetarian diet can easily meet the recommended protein needs of adults and children.

Choosemyplate.gov provides meal planning tips for vegetarians

Even the ultra-conservative FOX News:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/06/04...udy-finds/

Vegetarian diet provides good nutrition, health benefits, study finds

A vegetarian diet provides adequate nutrition to adults and children and can also reduce health problems, an Australian study has found.

The scientific research review, "Is a vegetarian diet adequate?" published in the Medical Journal of Australia on Monday, puts to rest the long-held belief a vegetarian diet lacks sufficient protein and iron, The Advertiser reported.

The study found those who adopted a vegetarian diet are receiving adequate levels of protein, iron and zinc, and are less likely to suffer from heart disease, colorectal cancer, type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Livestrong.com

There are significant health differences between vegetarians and meat-eaters, with the majority of the positive ones falling on the side of the plant-eaters.

...Regardless of the type of vegetarian, consuming a primarily plant-based diet can yield a great deal of health advantages.

Those are all mainstream sources.

More on the research:

http://www.forksoverknives.com/

...

[Lighthead]

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

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.

[Monica]

Please answer my question first, then I will respond.

I'll let Lighthead answer, since that was his comment, not mine. (Though I agree with him.)

You may answer a question directed at me any time, Monica. Today has been a busy day for me, so I haven't been afforded much time to be here.

Ok.

Well in my opinion, the reason that it's a 'poor excuse' is that, for an STO-aspiring entity, putting one's momentary pleasure ahead of the well-being of another, even to the point of actually causing suffering to that entity in order to enjoy that 'taste' is an STS-polarizing action.

In light of what we know about the STO path, saying "I like bacon!" is a decidedly STS reason.

So it just doesn't cut it, for one aspiring to STO.

"I am sick and need the nourishment" is a much more reasonable reason, because at least then it's based on need, or the perception of need, rather than mere luxury. In that case, it's just a matter of raising awareness that the human body doesn't have any biological need for animal products at all.

[Monica]

the path according to the Ra Material, mind you

Well, yes! This is, after all, a forum based on study of the Ra Material, is it not?

Why assume that everyone who is eating meat is gleefully thinking of the cruelty the animal may have experienced before it died? That seems a little morbid.

On the contrary, I would assume that most otherwise 'good' people prefer to be in denial about the suffering experienced by the animal on their plate. In a court of law it's called callous disregard.

Why is thinking of it morbid?

While yes, you could say that people eating meat leads to animals thus being killed for meat, that is fair reasoning, the minds of those who ultimately receive the meat are not the same as those who raise and slaughter the animals.

In most cases, yes, that is true. But they are contributing just as much, nonetheless. Paying the assassin to do the killing doesn't absolve one of their part of the responsibility, just because they aren't the one who pulled the trigger.

it is easy to say that particular scenario doesn't reflect service to others. That doesn't at all however define the entirety of an individual's path and their work towards service to others. It is part of the STO path to recognize that you enjoy the taste of whatever it is you enjoy. It would also be part of the STO path to accept that about yourself. From there would then be the decision as to how to be more of service to these other selves, the service which would be unique to each individual. There would also be recognizing that others enjoy that taste and accepting that about them, loving them despite their supposed STS nature. Then one would share their understandings of love/light in whatever way they best know as themselves, how each one knows the One Infinite in their own personal way. Then one would begin to conceptualize the taste on a planetary level, and this is where we actually encounter the difficulty that you are focused upon which would be the source, environment and conditions from which the taste arose. There are many, many paths for service to others, so each might go about their own way in finding a way to be of service to the other selves they see to be tied to that experience.

Except for the first sentence, all of this pertains to serving other human selves. What about serving our younger other-selves?

[Parsons]

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.

Questioner: Thank you. The foundation of our present illusion we have stated previously to be the concept of polarity. I would ask that since we have defined the two polarities as service to others and service to self, is there a more complete or eloquent or enlightening definition or any more information that we don’t have at this time on the two ends of the poles that would give us a better insight into the nature of polarity itself?
Ra: I am Ra. It is unlikely that there is a more pithy or eloquent description of the polarities of third density than service to others and service to self due to the nature of the mind/body/spirit complexes’ distortions towards perceiving concepts relating to philosophy in terms of ethics or activity. However, we might consider the polarities using slightly variant terms. In this way a possible enrichment of insight might be achieved for some.

One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet. The negative and positive, with their electrical characteristics, may be seen to be just as in the physical sense. It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.

Another method of viewing polarities might involve the concept of radiation/absorption. That which is positive is radiant; that which is negative is absorbent.

[Lighthead]

To Parsons:

There is a seeming contradiction in what you have emphasized. Note what Ra said here, and what I have emphasized:

35.4 Questioner: I would now like to ask for the same type of information with respect to Adolf Hitler. You have given a little of this already. It is not necessary to re-cover what you have already given, but if you could complete that information it would be helpful.

Ra: I am Ra. In speaking of the one you call Adolf we have some difficulty due to the intense amount of confusion present in this entity’s life patterns as well as the great confusion which greets any discussion of this entity.

Here we see an example of one who, in attempting activation of the highest rays of energy while lacking the green-ray key, canceled itself out as far as polarization either towards positive or negative. This entity was basically negative. However, its confusion was such that the personality disintegrated, thus leaving the mind/body/spirit complex unharvestable and much in need of healing.

This entity followed the pattern of negative polarization which suggests the elite and the enslaved, this being seen by the entity to be of an helpful nature for the societal structure. However, in drifting from the conscious polarization into what you may call a twilight world where dream took the place of events in your space/time continuum, this entity failed in its attempt to serve the Creator in an harvestable degree along the path of service to self. Thus we see the so-called insanity which may often arise when an entity attempts to polarize more quickly than experience may be integrated.

We have advised and suggested caution and patience in previous communications and do so again, using this entity as an example of the over-hasty opening of polarization without due attention to the synthesized and integrated mind/body/spirit complex. To know your self is to have the foundation upon firm ground.
Category: People: Adolf Hitler

If it truly were impossible to judge the polarity of an entity or an act, Ra would not have been able to make an assessment of Adolf Hitler. I think that the key is the intent of what Don asked, and where the question was leading to. Note my emphasis:

Questioner: Thank you. The foundation of our present illusion we have stated previously to be the concept of polarity. I would ask that since we have defined the two polarities as service to others and service to self, is there a more complete or eloquent or enlightening definition or any more information that we don’t have at this time on the two ends of the poles that would give us a better insight into the nature of polarity itself?
Ra: I am Ra. It is unlikely that there is a more pithy or eloquent description of the polarities of third density than service to others and service to self due to the nature of the mind/body/spirit complexes’ distortions towards perceiving concepts relating to philosophy in terms of ethics or activity. However, we might consider the polarities using slightly variant terms. In this way a possible enrichment of insight might be achieved for some.

One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet. The negative and positive, with their electrical characteristics, may be seen to be just as in the physical sense. It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.

Another method of viewing polarities might involve the concept of radiation/absorption. That which is positive is radiant; that which is negative is absorbent.

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?

[anagogy]

Even if what you say is true, this is not a reason to cause harm. 

To those who insist that it's okay to eat meat—it's okay, according to the law of free will and choice. Just because you think an animal knows the lowdown here, does not mean that has anything to do with your choice of whether or not to participate in the cruel system of factory farming, or even hunting and killing them for food. It is cruel, no matter what anyone here says. And everyone's choices are their own. So, it boils down to the choices made. 

Arguments can go on forever that plants and animals are the same regarding the implications of using them for food. I disagree. There are many reasons why and I will reiterate if anyone cares to ask.

We know this: animals do not want to die. Animals suffer in captivity.

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.

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).

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.  

If you had a sick animal, that you loved and cared for, and it was suffering, would you just let the suffering continue, or would mercifully kill that sentient entity?

 

That is an entirely different situation. That is mercy killing. Killing animals for food is abuse, because it's unnecessary.

I thought it was understood that I meant for food when I said that killing animals is the ultimate abuse. I will edit my previous post to say for food. No animal wants to be killed, except maybe one that is dying and in pain, just as with humans. Animals make their wishes known, quite clearly.

You can edit your response if you want, but it seems disingenuous/dishonest to edit a conversation that has already happened to make yourself appear more correct to future readers than the opposing viewpoint.  You say it is unnecessary, but is that really your place to judge what is necessary and not necessary?  You seem to think the line between needs and wants is black and white, but it isn't.  You assume that all people are alike, and that everybody can eat the same thing and thrive.  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.

You're kidding yourself if you think farm animals joyfully line up to be slaughtered.  

I never said they did.  And you're still confusing animal abuse with meat eating, as if they are, by necessity, the same thing.  They aren't.    

Though, I'm sure you probably don't subscribe to the YCYOR idea, because you don't like the implications.

You are wrong in your assumptions.

Let's apply your theory to humans and see if your logic holds:

Do you maybe think the human rape victim's consciousness knows the kind of world it is incarnating into?  Because I assure you it does.  And if they didn't want to participate in the game of life, they simply would not come forth to play.

And many don't, and don't incarnate anywhere near rapists.

How does that work? Does this give us free license to rape women?

I don't understand your logic that you think that would somehow give license to rape women.  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.  

Accidentally tuning your consciousness to fear is no different than the commonly held idea of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.  When you don't understand what you are doing with your consciousness, it is easy to wander down the wrong road of vibrational activation.  Becoming aware of this fact of reality, is empowering in that you can deliberately tune your consciousness to more desirable circumstances.

Similarly, animals don't have perfect control of their consciousness (nor do we), but they are, nevertheless creating their own realities (just as we).  

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.

But even not being aware, exposure to what is *NOT* wanted, unconsciously launches a desire for what *is* wanted.  So even if a person, or animal, doesn't find their creative control in this life, after death they will come into this reality from the new platform, or focus, of what is *wanted*.  i.e. there is an inevitable vector upwards toward better experiences, as subjectively defined.   

If you can find any human who has sharp fangs, designed to tear apart flesh, and is able to kill a cow using only his teeth, and then delights in the taste of blood, and devours the bloody flesh of the cow, then that person might qualify as a carnivore.

I think you may be biased toward assuming that certain physical attributes are only allowed to thrive on animal protein, even though thousands of years of human history, and survival on occasional animal protein, has continued to sustain the human civilization.

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.

[Billy]

Not to mention, carnivores don't just go for old and diseased, they go for whomever falls behind the bigger pack which in many case is perfectly healthy YOUNG animals. Babies and children are constant prey in the animal kingdom. There are some creatures which even live primarily on the young of other creatures.

[Parsons]

If it truly were impossible to judge the polarity of an entity or an act, Ra would not have been able to make an assessment of Adolf Hitler.

Hitler was dead at the time. The rules for sharing information about dead entities is totally different than entities that are still alive. I can't find a specific quote, but several times throughout the material, Ra refrains from judging the polarity of any live entity.

I think that the key is the intent of what Don asked, and where the question was leading to.

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 am saying (and what I believe Ra is plainly saying in that quote) is there is no way for a 3D entity to properly judge the polarity of another entity or act from within this 3D illusion we both enjoy. Clearly, 6th (and perhaps 4th and 5th) density entities are able to judge the polarity of a living entity, but are unable to share the information due to egregious free will infringement (best quote I can find quickly):

11.23 Questioner: Is this how we learned of nuclear energy? Was it mixed, both positive and negative orientation?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. The entities responsible for the gathering of the scientists were of a mixed orientation. The scientists were overwhelmingly positive in their orientation. The scientists who followed their work were of mixed orientation including one extremely negative entity, as you would term it.

11.24 Questioner: Is this extremely negative entity still incarnate on Earth?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

11.25 Questioner: Then I assume you can’t name him...

[Lighthead]

I think that the key is the intent of what Don asked, and where the question was leading to.

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 am saying (and what I believe Ra is plainly saying in that quote) is there is no way for a 3D entity to properly judge the polarity of another entity or act from within this 3D illusion we both enjoy. Clearly, 6th (and perhaps 4th and 5th) density entities are able to judge the polarity of a living entity, but are unable to share the information due to egregious free will infringement (best quote I can find quickly):

11.23 Questioner: Is this how we learned of nuclear energy? Was it mixed, both positive and negative orientation?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. The entities responsible for the gathering of the scientists were of a mixed orientation. The scientists were overwhelmingly positive in their orientation. The scientists who followed their work were of mixed orientation including one extremely negative entity, as you would term it.

11.24 Questioner: Is this extremely negative entity still incarnate on Earth?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

11.25 Questioner: Then I assume you can’t name him...

I think that the problem lies in the perception that meat eaters have in being judged. Nobody is really judging anybody. I can't say that anybody is 46% STS or even 99.9999% STS. We are just saying that if your goal is to polarize towards STO, you would be helped that much more if you displayed kindness to sentient entities. I think that it's obvious that 3rd density entities can't judge the ratio of STS or STO that another person is because they do or do not eat meat. It simply makes sense that being a part of and, in addition, being indifferent to the killing of other entities (by eating them, even if not taking part in the slaughtering itself) doesn't help polarization towards STO.

Since plants don't have nerve receptors, it would be hard to have compassion for eating them. It even seems that they desire to be eaten so that their seed can spread. There seem to be certain things that are natural for humans to eat.

[Parsons]

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.

[anagogy]

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?