In regards to eating meat

[Diana]

I'll take a stab at your questions.

1. Is it as easy to butcher a cow as it to pull a carrot from the ground? What is the significance of this?

"Butcher" means cut up for food. That is a big job with a cow. Are you asking if it is as easy to shoot a cow as it is to pull up a carrot?

If you really do need further clarification, just substitute the word "butcher" for "slaughter."

I'm quite sure the meaning was: kill carrot; kill cow; which is easier?

[βαθμιαίος]

No, I'm asking if it's as easy to kill a cow with one's hands or with a simple weapon like a knife, as it is to pull up a carrot with one's hands. Guns make it too easy.

Oh, OK. It's obviously not as easy physically. An apter analogy might be killing a tree with your bare hands or with a knife.

[Monica]

Oh, OK. It's obviously not as easy physically. An apter analogy might be killing a tree with your bare hands or with a knife.

Are you serious? You really feel nothing more when killing a cow? I didn't mean physically.

[Diana]

Oh, OK. It's obviously not as easy physically. An apter analogy might be killing a tree with your bare hands or with a knife.

Are you serious? You really feel nothing more when killing a cow? I didn't mean physically.

@ βαθμιαίος: I would like to know what you would feel if you killed a human.

It sounds to me as though you think of trees, animals, etc. as things. Your words are very emotionless. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[βαθμιαίος]

Are you serious? You really feel nothing more when killing a cow? I didn't mean physically.

I'm just trying to understand your question. I didn't say I feel nothing. I do -- I feel compassion.

You're asking if emotionally it would be harder to kill a cow with a knife or one's bare hands than it would be to pull a carrot?

It's not physically possible, at least not for me, but if it were, yes, it would be more difficult.

---

@ βαθμιαίος: I would like to know what you would feel if you killed a human.

It sounds to me as though you think of trees, animals, etc. as things. Your words are very emotionless. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Yikes. You're wrong.

[Monica]

I didn't say I feel nothing.

And, to be clear, I didn't say you did say that. Key word being more. I asked if you feel nothing more when killing a cow than when pulling a carrot.

You're asking if emotionally it would be harder to kill a cow with a knife or one's bare hands than it would be to pull a carrot?

It's not physically possible, at least not for me, but if it were, yes, it would be more difficult.

Sorry if this seems like an interrogation. I'm leading up to a point. Yes, that is what I'm asking. Thank you for your participation!

OK, so it would be more difficult emotionally? May I ask why?

[βαθμιαίος]

OK, so it would be more difficult emotionally? May I ask why?

Would you like to continue via PM? After this post, you can imagine that I'm a little leery right now.

[Diana]

It sounds to me as though you think of trees, animals, etc. as things. Your words are very emotionless. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Yikes. You're wrong.

I apologize for misinterpreting your words.

[βαθμιαίος]

Thank you for your apology.

[BrownEye]

This thread made me laugh to think of how easy it is to dish out advice, and how hard it is to accept advice.

Having said that, all one need do for advice on flesh is flip through tv stations. I have noticed fox news promoting it right alongside the continuance of oil consumption.

Just a random thought that made me laugh.

---

"Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming"

[Monica]

Would you like to continue via PM? After this post, you can imagine that I'm a little leery right now.

I'm 100% certain Diana didn't intend any offense, but was just trying to understand your stance.

If it's ok with you, now that that has been cleared up, I would prefer to continue here, for the benefit of others who might be following the conversation.

You were saying that yes, you do feel more emotion when killing a cow than when pulling carrot. Hypothetical, apparently, since killing a cow isn't physically possible for you. May I ask why it isn't physically possible? Couldn't the throat be slit in an instant? Please forgive my ignorance here. I saw my father butchering chickens all the time. He cut their heads off. Wouldn't a cow just die instantly if her throat was slit? Or are guns used because it's easier and cleaner?

I've seen slaughterhouse videos which showed cows getting their throats slit. Apparently they need to be hung up first...? OK, assuming that's done. Just the act of killing...aside from the size of the animal, why is it emotionally more difficult? That is what I'm wondering.

[Patrick]

Everything comes down to intentions.

I personally believe that humanity making use of the concept of money gives rise to much more negativity than eating meat ever could.

Most people would not think to question how ethical (or unethical) the use of money is.

If you seriously believe that eating meat is negative and you do it anyway, you will probably polarize in the negative. If you truly believe it is ok to eat meat, then polarity is not affected.

We should not forget that Truth is subjective in 3d. "Wrong" and "Right" is subjective in 3d.

This IMHO fully applies to eating meat. Non meat eaters may find it very difficult to believe that other selves truly believe it is ok to eat meat.

But there you are, I do believe this.

So my other selves may judge me on my meat eating. I know the feeling, I am walking the path of acceptance and every day challenges my acceptance of the monetary system.

We seem to collectively be perfectly fine with asking money in exchange for service. I find this concept disgusting, but still I do accept that my other selves are well at ease with it.

In this thread, I feel a lot of subtle judgments on both sides of the argument and I seriously believe that this brings more negativity to Earth than eating meat ever could.

I hope this was helpful in putting things in perspectives regarding the relativity of everything in veiled 3d.

[βαθμιαίος]

I'm 100% certain Diana didn't intend any offense, but was just trying to understand your stance.

Really? She implied that I'd feel nothing if I killed a human. She said I think of animals and trees as things.

Ironic, because she thought I wasn't emotional. I'm feeling plenty of emotion at the moment...

[Monica]

If you seriously believe that eating meat is negative and you do it anyway, you will probably polarize in the negative. If you truly believe it is ok to eat meat, then polarity is not affected.

Everything? Does that work for killing humans too? Let's try it:

If you seriously believe that killing humans meat is negative and you do it anyway, you will probably polarize in the negative. If you truly believe it is ok to kill humans, then polarity is not affected.

We should not forget that Truth is subjective in 3d. "Wrong" and "Right" is subjective in 3d.

To a point, yes, but only to a point. We do have polarizing to contend with, and that works whether we believe it or not.

This IMHO fully applies to eating meat. Non meat eaters may find it very difficult to believe that other selves truly believe it is ok to eat meat.

I have no trouble with people who aren't aware, but I do have more trouble comprehending that mindset in those who are spiritually aware.

So my other selves may judge me on my meat eating.

As we've said countless times, we're not judging those who eat meat.

I know the feeling, I am walking the path of acceptance and every day challenges my acceptance of the monetary system.

I don't think that analogy fits here. We can't choose to not participate in the money system. But we can choose to not participate in the torture and slaughter of beings who can feel pain and clearly wish to not be killed.

In this thread, I feel a lot of subtle judgments on both sides of the argument and I seriously believe that this brings more negativity to Earth than eating meat ever could.

I find this amazing. Let's try this with humans substituted:

I feel a lot of subtle judgments on both sides of the argument and I seriously believe that this brings more negativity to Earth than killing innocent children in wars ever could.

[BrownEye]

In this thread, I feel a lot of subtle judgments on both sides of the argument and I seriously believe that this brings more negativity to Earth than eating meat ever could.

You mean unconsciously eating meat. There is a definite safety in ignorance itself, applied by your guides. I find it matches the work of consciously/unconsciously using money for profit. Not much different to me. But that is just from where i stand.

We can become aware of intelligently designed illusion/reality, then we can consciously maneuver our way "through" it. Or, we can take as long as we want to continue and repeat our current mode of experience.

Some are not happy where they are, and at the same time are not ready to take the steps to change their position in the game. We are all at a different stage, although it appears that some are moving closer to unified purpose. That may be how the "complex" is formed, the move towards unified change.

[Monica]

Really? She implied that I'd feel nothing if I killed a human. She said I think of animals and trees as things.

Only Diana knows exactly what she intended to convey, but that's not how I perceived her words at all! In fact, I perceived them as quite the opposite: She knew that of course you would feel emotion if you ever killed a human! so, I'm pretty sure, she was trying to point that out, and was curious whether you truly felt no emotion when killing an animal.

Which is exactly what I thought too, based on your words. When you said "an apter analogy was killing a tree" because it was physically more demanding, that was leaving out any emotional component.

Diana and I both were surprised at that, so we both asked you for clarification, and you gave it. No implication was intended! They were just honest questions, seeking to understand you better.

I would have found it surprising, but I am learning that I can't assume anything about what another person feels or doesn't feel. (I learned that in this thread.)

Ironic, because she thought I wasn't emotional. I'm feeling plenty of emotion at the moment...

It's difficult to convey one's true thoughts in an internet forum, because we lack tone of voice, facial expressions, etc. I invite you to consider how your words might have been perceived, taken alone, at face value. I too wondered whether you felt any emotion when killing a cow, because your words, at that point, didn't indicate any emotion.

This is why I am asking for clarification - to better understand you. Thank you for working with us towards better understanding!

[BrownEye]

Another thought crossed my mind. I can't imagine the joy of being a spirit guide that guides cattle into steaks. I find that to be similar to "shipping clerk" status LMAO!

[3DMonkey]

I'm concerned the transaction would be against the law. The scenario is quite silly to me. You created the hypothetical scenario to try to explain how we must already know compassion towards animals by using a pet as the example. This example has no bearing on eating meat because it only shows that people take issue with an other telling them what to do with their property.

This has nothing to do with my relationship with my pet, and nothing in this conversation reveals my relationship with my pet.

What is revealed to me is that you see your pet as your property.

This is the very egocentric human behavior that has nearly wrecked this planet: that all things (and life other than human) are for our (human) use, our "property," our chattel (as men once thought of women, and still do in some cultures).

The purpose of the hypothetical scenario is lost in your translation.

[Monica]

I'm concerned the transaction would be against the law.

Would you be concerned about the welfare of the dog?

The scenario is quite silly to me. You created the hypothetical scenario to try to explain how we must already know compassion towards animals by using a pet as the example. This example has no bearing on eating meat because it only shows that people take issue with an other telling them what to do with their property.

No, property has nothing to do with it. Proof of this is that those who care about dogs would be equally upset even if it wasn't their own dog.

[3DMonkey]

I'm concerned the transaction would be against the law. The scenario is quite silly to me. You created the hypothetical scenario to try to explain how we must already know compassion towards animals by using a pet as the example. This example has no bearing on eating meat because it only shows that people take issue with an other telling them what to do with their property.

This has nothing to do with my relationship with my pet, and nothing in this conversation reveals my relationship with my pet.

It reveals a great deal, actually. Your words reveal that you view your dog as a mere object, a thing, a possession. Your concern is the same as with any other piece of property. YOUR words, not mine.

I had hoped to elicit some feeling of compassion towards an animal that one already loves, rather than broaching the taboo subject of the obvious love we all (presumably) have for other humans.

I had hoped that an analogy of a beloved dog might trigger a sense of compassion that others could relate too, because I (mistakenly) assumed that we all have love for our dogs, not just as mere property, but as members of our family.

The point was to show that we naturally have more love for an animal, than for a plant. (Just as most of us naturally have more love for our human family members than for our animal family members, though that isn't always true, especially in cases of lonely people whose only family might be their dog or cat.)

Unfortunately, my analogy didn't work. Perhaps the point wasn't lost on everyone, hopefully.

You aren't allowed to do anything with MY dog without my permission. This is why your scenario has nothing to do with EATING meat. That was the purpose of my words.

To take my words and apply them to my character is as ludicrous as me making the claim that YOUR WORDS indicate to me that you truly want to eat my dog. Do you understand your unreasonableness in this?

[BrownEye]

You are just too indifferent.

[Diana]

I'm 100% certain Diana didn't intend any offense, but was just trying to understand your stance.

Really? She implied that I'd feel nothing if I killed a human. She said I think of animals and trees as things.

You are completely wrong here. I did not imply that. You interpreted it in this manner. No need for an apology for misinterpreting me.

Monica's above analysis is correct. Your words DID sound as though the trees and animals were "things," and I have already apologized for not understanding you there, so I hope we are okay now.

[3DMonkey]

Proof of this is that those who care about dogs would be equally upset even if it wasn't their own dog.

This is your completely biased judgement of what "care" is. It is fine for you to personally possess this bias. I hope you realize it is not an Absolute Universal Truth.

[Monica]

You aren't allowed to do anything with MY dog without my permission. This is why your scenario has nothing to do with EATING meat. That was the purpose of my words.

To take my words and apply them to my character is as ludicrous as me making the claim that YOUR WORDS indicate to me that you truly want to eat my dog. Do you understand your unreasonableness in this?

OK, Monkey.

[Patrick]

If you seriously believe that eating meat is negative and you do it anyway, you will probably polarize in the negative. If you truly believe it is ok to eat meat, then polarity is not affected.

Everything? Does that work for killing humans too? Let's try it:

If you seriously believe that killing humans meat is negative and you do it anyway, you will probably polarize in the negative. If you truly believe it is ok to kill humans, then polarity is not affected.

Yes. Now finding a human who truly believes it is ok to kill humans is not going to be easy.

We should not forget that Truth is subjective in 3d. "Wrong" and "Right" is subjective in 3d.

To a point, yes, but only to a point. We do have polarizing to contend with, and that works whether we believe it or not.

I respectfully disagree. IMHO polarizing is 100% dependent on intent and context.

I believe the Ra material supports my claims on this subject.

This IMHO fully applies to eating meat. Non meat eaters may find it very difficult to believe that other selves truly believe it is ok to eat meat.

I have no trouble with people who aren't aware, but I do have more trouble comprehending that mindset in those who are spiritually aware.

I understand the difficulty in this. It is indeed a potent catalyst by itself on the path of acceptance.

So my other selves may judge me on my meat eating.

As we've said countless times, we're not judging those who eat meat.

I understand this. But still according to Ra the simple act of giving an opinion is judging. So in this context, we are all judging each others here. From my experience, this is more so in this thread than in any other I read on this site so far.

I know the feeling, I am walking the path of acceptance and every day challenges my acceptance of the monetary system.

I don't think that analogy fits here. We can't choose to not participate in the money system. But we can choose to not participate in the torture and slaughter of beings who can feel pain and clearly wish to not be killed.

We can choose to not participate in the money system. It's a very difficult decision to make, but we can. If I chose this myself, I would hurt all my loved ones so I do not.

I know it's not directly related to eating meat. But I'm trying to put things in perspective regarding the relativity of our illusion.

Each of us have our own path and our own set of biases to work with.

In this thread, I feel a lot of subtle judgments on both sides of the argument and I seriously believe that this brings more negativity to Earth than eating meat ever could.

I find this amazing. Let's try this with humans substituted:

I feel a lot of subtle judgments on both sides of the argument and I seriously believe that this brings more negativity to Earth than killing innocent children in wars ever could.

The killing of innocent children in wars comes directly from the act of judgment. Without judgment, there is acceptance. With acceptance there are no disagreements. And without disagreements there are no wars.

[3DMonkey]

You are just too indifferent.

In this discussion of eating meat, ABSOLUTELY

[Patrick]

In this thread, I feel a lot of subtle judgments on both sides of the argument and I seriously believe that this brings more negativity to Earth than eating meat ever could.

You mean unconsciously eating meat. There is a definite safety in ignorance itself, applied by your guides. I find it matches the work of consciously/unconsciously using money for profit. Not much different to me. But that is just from where i stand...

Yes. That is why I said that we all have our own set of biases to work through.

In the end ALL is well. Finding our way into accepting this is the whole journey.

[Monica]

Yes. Now finding a human who truly believes it is ok to kill humans is not going to be easy.

Many entities who think it's ok to kill other humans, are indeed polarizing - to STS.

I respectfully disagree. IMHO polarizing is 100% dependent on intent and context.

I believe the Ra material supports my claims on this subject.

Yes, that's true. What, then, is the context of continuing to support the torture and slaughter of sentient beings, when it's not necessary?

One who is truly ignorant won't polarize from such support, but those who are consciously aware of what they're doing...their polarity will be affected. How could it not? To be presented with an opportunity to have compassion and reduce suffering, and turn one's back on that opportunity...would be depolarizing.

I understand the difficulty in this. It is indeed a potent catalyst by itself on the path of acceptance.

I feel understood.

I understand this. But still according to Ra the simple act of giving an opinion is judging. So in this context, we are all judging each others here. From my experience, this is more so in this thread than in any other I read on this site so far.

I don't recall Ra saying that. But if Ra did indeed say that, then that would mean Ra was judging too, and Q'uo too, for they did offer opinions.

Ra did say that service to others is the determining factor in harvestability. Animal activists are trying to serve others. If some people feel 'judged' by their service, it's coming from within, not from the animal activists.

The reason I say this, is because we are trying to free the oppressed. We aren't trying to control anyone. We just want to free the oppressed! We cannot refrain from doing that, because that would be declining an opportunity to answer a call for service.

We can choose to not participate in the money system. It's a very difficult decision to make, but we can. If I chose this myself, I would hurt all my loved ones so I do not.

Exactly. But it wouldn't hurt anyone to quit eating meat. In fact, it would actually help...it would help the person by improving health, it would help the environment, and it would actually help promote sustainability on the planet overall. (Oh yeah, and as an aside, it would help the animals.)

Each of us have our own path and our own set of biases to work with.

Oh so true!

I find this amazing. Let's try this with humans substituted:

I feel a lot of subtle judgments on both sides of the argument and I seriously believe that this brings more negativity to Earth than killing innocent children in wars ever could.

The killing of innocent children in wars comes directly from the act of judgment. Without judgment, there is acceptance. With acceptance there are no disagreements. And without disagreements there are no wars.

OK, but your statement was that judgment was more harmful than the actual killing. When applied to humans, does that still hold true?

[βαθμιαίος]

You are completely wrong here. I did not imply that. You interpreted it in this manner. No need for an apology for misinterpreting me.

Hmm. You certainly questioned what I'd feel if I killed someone.

One who is truly ignorant won't polarize from such support, but those who are consciously aware of what they're doing...their polarity will be affected. How could it not? To be presented with an opportunity to have compassion and reduce suffering, and turn one's back on that opportunity...would be depolarizing.

Here's why I'm questioning whether participation in this thread makes any sense. Monica, if I understand you, you're saying that eating meat once consciously aware is depolarizing. I disagree, but I don't have any evidence to suggest that anything I or anyone else posts could possibly convince you otherwise. So what's the point? It's not really a dialog but rather a continual restating of positions.

[3DMonkey]

I find this amazing. Let's try this with humans substituted:

I feel a lot of subtle judgments on both sides of the argument and I seriously believe that this brings more negativity to Earth than killing innocent children in wars ever could.

The killing of innocent children in wars comes directly from the act of judgment. Without judgment, there is acceptance. With acceptance there are no disagreements. And without disagreements there are no wars.

OK, but your statement was that judgment was more harmful than the actual killing. When applied to humans, does that still hold true?

It seems obvious in the answer, judgement as the source of killing. Yes, judgement is where the harm starts.

My opinion on this is that judgement is catalyst for the mind, whereas eating is catalyst for the body.