The act of eating is a service.

[Tenet Nosce]

But nobody ever called anybody else a zealot... the term was used "academically".

[BrownEye]

Monica, don't forget the downfalls of trying too hard to work on the understanding of others.

Tenet, you didn't run out of hemp oil did you? LoL

[Tenet Nosce]

Monica, don't forget the downfalls of trying too hard to work on the understanding of others.

Tenet, you didn't run out of hemp oil did you? LoL

No but I only have a little left and have been trying to conserve! LOL

[Monica]

But nobody ever called anybody else a zealot... the term was used "academically".

Haha, I knew you were going to say that, and was waiting for it.

That's true. So if I got offended by your use of zealot, that was my problem and my responsibility.

I might have grumbled about it, because I felt butthurt at the time, but I was in the wrong. If I truly felt 100% comfortable in my own actions, I wouldn't have cared whether, in my speculation, you thought I was a zealot or not. (I say "in my speculation" because you never actually called me personally a zealot, and in fact even said a few times that you weren't referring to me personally.)

As I recall, I got offended at the time not because I thought you were including me in that description, but because I perceived an implication that all activists=zealots.

But see, I was wrong in that perception, because you clarified later that you didn't mean that at all. Although, you did seem to have strong opinions about activism in general...but even that, shouldn't have bothered me. Why should it bother me if you approve or disapprove of my actions?

My point is that if I got butthurt by your opinions about vegetarianism, or about activism or whatever, that's my problem, NOT yours!

I may have grumbled, but I wouldn't dream of complaining to the mods, or, worse, asking them to shut down an entire discussion just because I got my panties in a bundle!

That wouldn't be fair to the others who may be interested in the discussion, now would it.

[Cyan]

Monica, don't forget the downfalls of trying too hard to work on the understanding of others.

Tenet, you didn't run out of hemp oil did you? LoL

No but I only have a little left and have been trying to conserve! LOL

Nope, never ran out of hemp (oil), but i tried so hard to!

[Monica]

Monica, don't forget the downfalls of trying too hard to work on the understanding of others.

Oops! There I go again! groan

Thanks for the reminder, Pickle!

Tenet, you didn't run out of hemp oil did you? LoL

What do you use hemp oil for?

[BrownEye]

I don't use it. I just scratch.

[Monica]

I don't use it. I just scratch.

Haha, um, ok!

OH!!! I just now got it! duh

[3DMonkey]

This type of comment is the root.

I agree, though my reason might be different from your reason.

My point was that the vegetarians haven't had issues with the meat-eaters' opinions, except when a line was crossed into blatant disrespect (like when inflammatory names were used, such as zealot etc.).

But apparently some of the meat-eaters have been complaining about the thread in general. NOT about a specific comment that crossed a line, but just about the vegetarians' opinions in general.

This says to me, that, while both vegetarians and meat-eaters alike have said things out of frustration, and both have gotten offended by specific statements, understandably so, only the meat-eaters have gotten offended by the very topic itself...by the very existence of the thread itself.

I've never thought of myself as part of a select group called anything, let alone "meat eaters". I haven't approached the topic as if we were in a political shoot out, as if it were democrats versus republicans. Actually, I've never even considered it a personal choice discussion. Neither have I considered it a discussion about an industry.

This thread is an expression of my considerations. It's always been about chewing.

...
Valtor, I'm guessing that chocolate is very STO. It makes me so pleasant toward others.

[BrownEye]

Our little joke. I don't get butthurt, i get butt itch.

Easy enough for me to take care of while i pull triggers lol!

[Patrick]

I think I'll just sit back, relax and watch.

[3DMonkey]

Our little joke. I don't get butthurt, i get butt itch.

Easy enough for me to take care of while i pull triggers lol!

Your MO

---

I think I'll just sit back, relax and watch.

This is why people love sports.

[Diana]

Ra stated that the purpose of eating in 4d is the learn/teaching of patience. What is the purpose of eating in 3d and what learn/teachings are there for us ?

In my opinion, because this is the density of choice, to make choices about eating that align with the self's chosen path.

Given whatever awareness, information, sensitivities are available to the self, then the self would choose accordingly. If the path is STS, then the self only considers the self in choices. If the self's path is STO, then the self considers all other-selves in his/her choices. If the self is only considering other-selves directly connected with self, then this seems not to be true STO, rather, some hybrid of STO based on concern for one's own circle but not extended to the all.

Thought I would repost this to get back on track. Any other suggestions or comments for Valtor's question?

[Patrick]

Ra stated that the purpose of eating in 4d is the learn/teaching of patience. What is the purpose of eating in 3d and what learn/teachings are there for us ?

In my opinion, because this is the density of choice, to make choices about eating that align with the self's chosen path.

Given whatever awareness, information, sensitivities are available to the self, then the self would choose accordingly. If the path is STS, then the self only considers the self in choices. If the self's path is STO, then the self considers all other-selves in his/her choices. If the self is only considering other-selves directly connected with self, then this seems not to be true STO, rather, some hybrid of STO based on concern for one's own circle but not extended to the all.

Thought I would repost this to get back on track. Any other suggestions or comments for Valtor's question?

"If the self's path is STO, then the self considers all other-selves in his/her choices."

All other-selves of the infinite multiverse ?

"If the self is only considering other-selves directly connected with self, then this seems not to be true STO"

If your compassion reaches one it reaches all.

[BrownEye]

If your compassion reaches one it reaches all.

Shootin for that .001% polarization are you?

[Patrick]

If your compassion reaches one it reaches all.

Shootin for that .001% polarization are you?

I just felt like writing that sentence and I don't even understand it myself. Is that channeling ?

[Tango]

Monica, don't forget the downfalls of trying too hard to work on the understanding of others.

Tenet, you didn't run out of hemp oil did you? LoL

Oh Pickle, please do tell more about the downfall ....!

[BrownEye]

If your compassion reaches one it reaches all.

Shootin for that .001% polarization are you?

I just felt like writing that sentence and I don't even understand it myself. Is that channeling ?

These threads are awesome laughs. It sucks when some take it too seriously, even to the point of experiencing health effects. It kind of looks like their higher self is smearing their face in catalyst and the non acceptance makes the energy just ramp up.

---

Monica, don't forget the downfalls of trying too hard to work on the understanding of others.

Tenet, you didn't run out of hemp oil did you? LoL

Oh Pickle, please do tell more about the downfall ....!

I posted this on another thread. I have direct experience of this.
The entity of Orion pierces the same violet ray and moves to two places to attempt most of its non-physical opportunities. It activates the green-ray energy center while further blocking indigo-ray energy center. This combination causes confusion in the instrument and subsequent over-activity in unwise proportions in physical complex workings. It simply seeks out the distortions pre-incarnatively programmed and developed in incarnative state.

[Shin'Ar]

To All,

I really hope that no one thinks that I deliberately attempted to reopen a wound of contention here in the community by posting that omnivorous thread, which ultimately led to this one.

I stated right form the first post that my intention was simply to try to open a new thought on the entire matter by discussing the aspect of desensitivity of human social patterns which I believe to be the root of the problem in the first place.

I am in agreement with Monica here that disagreement is to be expected and is a natural ingredient of minds colliding in thought and speculation. if we are going to end every discussion as soon as a disagreement manifests, than we will not be able to discuss anything except those things that we are all in agreement on. and that will only allow for a very few topics.

I must be extremely careful about voicing my opinion as I do not want to be banned from this community, but in my humble opinion I do think it is time for the moderators to take a second loo0ok at the guidelines and possible make some rearrangements for the sake of the evolution of this community.

Having said that, that is as far as I am comfortable going. I will refrain at this time from further discussion on any thoughts around personal dietary practice until such a time as the mods make it clear what is tolerated. Its obvious that discussion on tolerance is needed among them.

[BrownEye]

But nobody ever called anybody else a zealot... the term was used "academically".

I like the word zealot. I have both zest and zeal. I love life and living in this illusion. Almost an addiction really. You know when i die i am sticking around. You all better just hope spirit guides are unable to have twisted senses of humor, cause i will be around.

---

If your compassion reaches one it reaches all.

Shootin for that .001% polarization are you?

I just felt like writing that sentence and I don't even understand it myself. Is that channeling ?

Yes actually. Energies from pretty much anywhere can flow through us depending on the "call". Doing some fine tuning gives you a bit more control of the energies you end up filtering.

[Patrick]

Like Ra stated, we take thought. So then all thoughts are there and we just take some.

---

I'll really have to learn more about this tuning stuff.

[Shemaya]

The act of eating is a service. Is eating a selfish act (STS) or a communal act (STO) ? I choose communion.

PS: I just had to get this out of my system. You can nuke this thread now if you want. I promise I will understand if it's deleted and won't bring this up ever again.

Hi Valtor,

Not sure if this is the right thread to talk about this at this point.

To me the answer is obvious...of course sharing with others and caring and nourishing our bodies are heart-ful acts. We need to eat to live. If we stop eating, unless something miraculous happens, we will shortly die of malnourishment. If we don't feed our children, we are neglecting them. If we go on a hunger strike, we'll die if we take it to the extreme outcome.

Our bodies are a Temple, we are responsible to care for it, I believe.

Our bodies are a part of a natural cycle and rhythm, we are born, we live and we eventually die. All beings the planet take part in this normal natural cycle of birth , life, and death. In order to live, we must eat. It's really a sacred action, because it is life-giving. And other 2-d beings (plants and animals) that nourish us, are giving us life. They die, so we may live for a while. And then we die, and our organic substance returns to earth to be re-formed.

There are so many overlays of negative-influenced thought regarding the simple sacred act of eating. So I think we can get confused and lose the simplicity, and wholesomeness of the ritual of eating.

[Monica]

There are so many overlays of negative-influenced thought regarding the simple sacred act of eating. So I think we can get confused and lose the simplicity, and wholesomeness of the ritual of eating.

The act of eating may be simple, but the act of acquiring food is far from simple.

[BrownEye]

That is how food becomes catalyst and choice.

[Diana]

There are so many overlays of negative-influenced thought regarding the simple sacred act of eating. So I think we can get confused and lose the simplicity, and wholesomeness of the ritual of eating.

The act of eating may be simple, but the act of acquiring food is far from simple (unless one is living on fruit).

Unfortunately this is true. We are not living 300 years ago in an indigenous culture. Modern-day eating involves the getting of food from questionable sources, unless a family/individual grows all their own food.

Shemaya's above sentiment regarding the wholesomeness and simplicity of eating is nice, but the reality is that eating involves more than that today. The question is: how aware does a person want to be, and how responsible, with the choices made for food.

[Monica]

Monica it seems you are drawing conclusions and making statements that are possibly untrue and also very provoking ( inciting emotion). I just wanted to say something because it seems this thread is getting off- topic ( violating guidelines ). I think you should discuss this in the cognitive distortions thread.


Back to the thread.....

LMAO!!!

[Shemaya]

There are so many overlays of negative-influenced thought regarding the simple sacred act of eating. So I think we can get confused and lose the simplicity, and wholesomeness of the ritual of eating.

The act of eating may be simple, but the act of acquiring food is far from simple (unless one is living on fruit).

Tell me about it, I have a family of 5 that I feed.

Shemaya's above sentiment regarding the wholesomeness and simplicity of eating is nice, but the reality is that eating involves more than that today. The question is: how aware does a person want to be, and how responsible, with the choices made for food.

I don't think that was Valtor's question, the OP question was "Is eating a selfish act or communal act?" And he stated that he views it as communion, a unifying (STO) act. And I agree with him.

There are negative, separating, thought-forms in the ethers that would have us believe otherwise. But Christ said, "It's not what goes into the mouth that defiles you, but the words that come out of the mouth that defile you." Mt. 15:11 This statement also resonates with me, I believe Christ actually made this statement.

Regardless of where others-selves draw the line of responsibility in choices in acquiring food, it's not relevant to the original question. Food choice is a personal and individual choice based on numerous factors, of which we cannot possibly know completely.

---

Monica it seems you are drawing conclusions and making statements that are possibly untrue and also very provoking ( inciting emotion). I just wanted to say something because it seems this thread is getting off- topic ( violating guidelines ). I think you should discuss this in the cognitive distortions thread.


Back to the thread.....

LMAO!!!

What's so funny about that?

[Diana]

Shemaya's above sentiment regarding the wholesomeness and simplicity of eating is nice, but the reality is that eating involves more than that today. The question is: how aware does a person want to be, and how responsible, with the choices made for food.

I don't think that was Valtor's question, the OP question was "Is eating a selfish act or communal act?" And he stated that he views it as communion, a unifying (STO) act. And I agree with him.

My question was meant as something additional to the overall discussion, not what the original question of the thread was.

There are negative, separating, thought-forms in the ethers that would have us believe otherwise.

Could you explain? Like what??

But Christ said, "It's not what goes into the mouth that defiles you, but the words that come out of the mouth that defile you." Mt. 15:11 This statement also resonates with me, I believe Christ actually made this statement.

I disagree with this statement. You can defile the body, mentality and emotions with drugs, alcohol, bad food, poisons . . .

The bible is all hearsay, and most of it only makes any sense within the context of the times it was written. Perhaps the quote (although it was not a real quote) was meant to teach something about the power of words, rather than to say it doesn't matter what you put in your body.

Regardless of where others-selves draw the line of responsibility in choices in acquiring food, it's not relevant to the original question. Food choice is a personal and individual choice based on numerous factors, of which we cannot possibly know completely.

But it is relevant to the original question. The act of eating as a STO act, as a communal act, is relevant to where one acquires food. If you think the community is only made of humans, then perhaps you are right. But if you think as the Native Americans did, and the animals and plants are brothers and sisters, and the planet itself is the "mother," then your community would include the very food you are obtaining.

[Monica]

Tell me about it, I have a family of 5 that I feed.

I already did. I told you "all about it" over yonder in that 'other' thread.

I don't think that was Valtor's question, the OP question was "Is eating a selfish act or communal act?" And he stated that he views it as communion, a unifying (STO) act. And I agree with him.

The problem is that eating cannot be separated from the act of acquiring food, which is no longer a natural, rhythmic and harmonious act.

There are negative, separating, thought-forms in the ethers that would have us believe otherwise.

There might also be positive thought-forms in the ethers, that are trying to bring to our attention, the impact of our choices.

But Christ said, "It's not what goes into the mouth that defiles you, but the words that come out of the mouth that defile you." Mt. 15:11 This statement also resonates with me, I believe Christ actually made this statement.

Maybe so, but I think it's taken out of context. Not to mention, the other things attributed to Christ, about violating the Temple with energies of death.

Regardless of where others-selves draw the line of responsibility in choices in acquiring food, it's not relevant to the original question. Food choice is a personal and individual choice based on numerous factors, of which we cannot possibly know completely.

I disagree that it's irrelevant. It's relevant to anyone who thinks it's relevant. It's relevant because such 'choices' have a huge impact on other-selves and on the planet. How is that not relevant?

---

What's so funny about that?

Oh I'm just doing my Pickle impersonation! I want to be like Pickle when I grow up!

[Shemaya]

Unfortunately this is true. We are not living 300 years ago in an indigenous culture. Modern-day eating involves the getting of food from questionable sources.

Modern life involves questionable sources of everything we consume and use. Clothing, petroleum, electricity, dry goods, everything we use. You can focus on food only, or have more awareness and think about your entire modern life.

Could you explain? Like what??

Like the body is dirty, the "flesh" is too impure for Spirit. Caring for one-self is selfish. I'm fat .I'm ugly (actually I'm thin and attractive, but I know that thought is out there. ) People have all kinds of body dysmorphia that causes and contributes to eating disorders. Parents force-feed their children and cause issues later, food used for comfort , for reward, for bribery. That's just off the top of my head, I am sure there is plenty more.

But it is relevant to the original question. The act of eating as a STO act, as a communal act, is relevant to where one acquires food. If you think the community is only made of humans, then perhaps you are right. But if you think as the Native Americans did, and the animals and plants are brothers and sisters, and the planet itself is the "mother," then your community would include the very food you are obtaining

Yes it does. birth, life, death. A natural cycle. Of course "modern-day" has disrupted natural cycles, but that applies to way more than just eating food.

I disagree that it's irrelevant. It's relevant to anyone who thinks it's relevant. It's relevant because such 'choices' have a huge impact on other-selves and on the planet. How is that not relevant?

Valtor's OP is exploring the act of eating.....this seems to be a sub-topic. Tangentially related, but the original question was not really addressed.