Esther/Jerry Hicks views on animal cruelty.

[Kwimper]

I know I sound like I'm out to "get" the poor old Hicks but I truly believe that they are con artists sucking in many people with their retarded views, the worst of which is the their view that animals in factory farms "chose" to incarnate in those conditions to feed humans.

Am I the only one who has a major problem with that TOTALLY UNTRUE opinion?

When I first heard Esther talking about that I nearly fell of my chair!

Why do they have to preach such nonsense? Is to justify their unhealthy eating habits? Or are they just cold hearted?

Those comments showed me what charlatans they really are.

Let me know what you think.

[Elrond]

This could be fun. I've wondered when someone would question Abraham's more controversial "teachings" about the nature of reality. And I know you think that it is Esther who is saying this, but it is allegedely Abraham. She translates blocks of thoughts from Abraham into the English language. Yes, you probably don't believe this, but let's just refer to the right entity as far as their own assumtptions go as to not create confusion. Or else people will just ask "was it Esther or Abraham that said this?"

Originally Posted by Kwimper

I know I sound like I'm out to "get" the poor old Hicks but I truly believe that they are con artists sucking in many people with their retarded views, the worst of which is the their view that animals in factory farms "chose" to incarnate in those conditions to feed humans.

They chose most of all for their own selfish reasons, just as humans incarnated for their own selfish reasons. I don't know about this particular statement, but I do know that they claim that animals incarnate with the knowing and acceptance that they are likely going to be food for other animals. And I don't think that it is a "Ok, sure, I can tolerate that", but that there is no sense of compromise or loss in it. Sure, having your flesh torn apart by a lion might seem like a cruel fate, but I'm going to propose a very radical and irrational - based on our own perception of what is cruel and not - version: maybe not.

Originally Posted by Kwimper

Am I the only one who has a major problem with that TOTALLY UNTRUE opinion?

Logical fallacy numero uno. You can't know that it is untrue.

Originally Posted by Kwimper

Why do they have to preach such nonsense?

They don't preach as much as tell it like it is. If they said something like this, it was most probably as a direct question to some workshop paricipant, or a question from Jerry. If you want to accuse them of preaching, you would be more accurate in pointing out their "preaching" of being selfish, that you can follow your emotions unconditionally, and that we aren't here to learn spiritual lessons or to advance in a spiritual hierarchy, which are stuff that they "preach" a lot more. There is a lot of controversial stuff for you to be mad about and type in capital letters about.

Originally Posted by Kwimper

Is to justify their unhealthy eating habits?

Come on now, that is just weak.

Originally Posted by Kwimper

Or are they just cold hearted?

Abraham says there is no loss in death, and I think also no loss in dying by a butchers hand.

Originally Posted by Kwimper

Those comments showed me what charlatans they really are.

Those comments made you poignantly aware of the vast differences in your belief systems. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by Kwimper

I know I sound like I'm out to "get" the poor old Hicks but I truly believe that they are con artists sucking in many people with their retarded views, the worst of which is the their view that animals in factory farms "chose" to incarnate in those conditions to feed humans.

Am I the only one who has a major problem with that TOTALLY UNTRUE opinion?

When I first heard Esther talking about that I nearly fell of my chair!

Why do they have to preach such nonsense? Is to justify their unhealthy eating habits? Or are they just cold hearted?

Those comments showed me what charlatans they really are.

Let me know what you think.

Kwimper, I've been impressed with the content of your other posts so far, this one took me by surprise.

First my comments on the Abraham group. I believe they are channeled beings and I believe Esther channels them. I've been around enough channeled entities to feel comfortable saying that.

The problem I have with Abraham and the teachings is they don't seem to have spent any time actually here. It's like they've read books about life in the physical plane, but have never really walked their talk... here. Saying that your thoughts do anything besides being your thoughts is ludicrous. It shows they haven't been here or weren't paying any attention while being in this plane of existence. The concept of denial is lost on them. That's what's missing from the books.

Now on to your comment.
What is so wrong with animals incarnating in support of humanity?
We would never do such a thing for them, right? When you think you are a separate being with a life and a history, you would never do such a thing. Notice I said, 'think' you are a separate being. Animals don't think in the way humans do. Animals (and everything on earth) are still part of the totality of existence. They have no 'selves' as we would think it. They are life -- something we are also a part of but don't identify with. We see ourselves separate from life. We are very identified with physical forms and don't see ourselves as the awareness which makes this physical life possible.

If you dive deeper you'll find physicality isn't real either. That's another discussion.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Dharma

The problem I have with Abraham and the teachings is they don't seem to have spent any time actually here. It's like they've read books about life in the physical plane, but have never really walked their talk... here. Saying that your thoughts do anything besides being your thoughts is ludicrous. It shows they haven't been here or weren't paying any attention while being in this plane of existence. The concept of denial is lost on them. That's what's missing from the books.

Hi Dharma!

I was just curious, and I'm not trying to attack your perspective nor am I necessarily saying it is incorrect -- just seeking further clarity on the issue at hand. With that caveat, I just wanted to speak to this comment of yours. I suppose I don't understand what you mean when you say the concept of denial is lost in Abraham's teachings. From my perspective, their teachings are all about denial in a certain way. My understanding of their teachings is that all things we experience as negative are the result of our denial of the stream of well being. This well-being is the only stream that flows, and our suffering is a result of our denial or resistance of that state of well being.

Also, your comment that, "that your thoughts do anything besides being your thoughts is ludicrous" could also use some clarification. It could have something to do with us defining thoughts in entirely different ways. Or perhaps not?

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Also, your comment that, "that your thoughts do anything besides being your thoughts is ludicrous" could also use some clarification. It could have something to do with us defining thoughts in entirely different ways. Or perhaps not?

Part of his former signature used to say "Thoughts do not create. Get used to it." So i guess he means it in that sense.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Hi Dharma!

I was just curious, and I'm not trying to attack your perspective nor am I necessarily saying it is incorrect -- just seeking further clarity on the issue at hand. With that caveat, I just wanted to speak to this comment of yours. I suppose I don't understand what you mean when you say the concept of denial is lost in Abraham's teachings. From my perspective, their teachings are all about denial in a certain way. My understanding of their teachings is that all things we experience as negative are the result of our denial of the stream of well being. This well-being is the only stream that flows, and our suffering is a result of our denial or resistance of that state of well being.

Anagogy,
Could I redefine "the stream of well being" as "beingness" and still keep your meaning? As in: all things we experience as negative are the result of the denial of our beingness. If that works for you, I'd say Abraham does not approach the human condition as one of divine beings playing a game of pretend (denial) and all one has to do is become conscious of the pretending.

I see Abraham skip that part and give humanity a recipe for manifestation; a how-to guide to manifest stuff and happiness, when stuff and happiness is already there, albeit hidden by the game of pretend (denial). (forgive my terminology of the Hicks' work, my books are in another state, I'm doing this by memory and what I've read on this site) The process to manifest, LoA, is another layer of denial that people apply to their experience. It's unnecessary, unless Abraham is intending LoA to be a stepping stone of sorts.

(I have a meeting in a few minutes... so I'm going to cut this short. Idk if I've answered your question fully... I'll write more later)

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Also, your comment that, "that your thoughts do anything besides being your thoughts is ludicrous" could also use some clarification. It could have something to do with us defining thoughts in entirely different ways. Or perhaps not?

Originally Posted by Elrond

Part of his former signature used to say "Thoughts do not create. Get used to it." So i guess he means it in that sense.

Yes, thoughts are just thoughts.... they are products of manifestation. They are the output, not input to your creative flow. It's best to not take them too seriously, maybe even look at them as great entertainment.

[Kwimper]

Elrond, nice critical breakdown of my post.

Have you ever been to a factory farm?

How would you react if a bunch of cannibals entered your house, abducted your entire family, locked them in a room together where they could hardly move,fed them ground up bodies of other humans ,gave them large doses of hormones ,denied them sunlight for weeks on end, made them know that not one damn person gave a toss about them .....and then...to top it all off....hit them all over the head and then slit their throats.

For what?

Insanity.

It is well known that humans do not need animal products to live healthily. In fact the opposite is true.

Unlike the Hicks, here are some quotes from people who are actually living from the level of compassion, not selfishness.

"How are we to build a new humanity? Only by leading men toward a true, inalienable ethic of our own... Reverence for life comprises the whole ethic of love in its deepest and highest sense. It is the source of constant renewal for the individual and for mankind. "

"Until he extends his circle of compassion to all living things, man himself will not find peace. "

"We must never permit the voice of humanity within us to be alienated. It is man's sympathy with all creatures that first makes him truly a man. "

Albert Schweitzer 1875 - 1965



"Animals are God's creatures, not human property, nor utilities, nor resources, nor commodities, but precious beings in God's sight."

Rev. Dr Andrew Linzey 1952 -



"The question is not, Can they reason?
Nor Can they talk?
But, Can they suffer?"

Jeremy Bentham



If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who deal likewise with their fellow men. Not to hurt our humble brethren is our first duty to them, but to stop there is not enough. We have a higher mission - to be of service to them wherever they require it.
- Quoted in the Life by St.Bonaventura

St.Francis of Assisi 1181-1226


Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.

Thomas Edison 1847-193


"But for the sake of some little mouthful of meat,
we deprive a soul of the sun and light,
and of that proportion of life and time it had been
born into the world to enjoy."

SENECA (C.5 - C.E.65)
Roman philosopher, tutor to Nero


"The eating of meat extinguishes
the seed of great compassion."

The BUDDHA (circa 563-483 B.C.)
Indian avatar



If you don't like my opinions leave.But just remember, the animals can't leave the cages that hold them. They are captive and suffering. As you cozy into your bed tonight, try to imagine the pain and the suffering that they endure day after day and night after night. Next time you get some soap in your eyes, try to imagine that pain for 3 or 4 days at a time. Next time you have a stomach ache, try to imagine liquid plumber being poured down your throat till you puke so much blood that you bleed to death. Next time you bump your head, try to imagine being a monkey and getting a steel plate smashed into your skull at 50 miles per hour. Then, only then should you feel compelled to tell me that I'm wrong about my opinions. For all these things have happened in the name of science. They continue in abundance till this day.

Rikki Rocket.

I believe people like the Hicks are doing more harm than good on this planet with their wishy washy information. They tell people what they want to hear and pretend to be doing it through a "Channeled" group of entities called "Abraham"..... dear oh dear!


I will not say anymore about this as I have made my opinions clear.


Best wishes.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Dharma

Yes, thoughts are just thoughts.... they are products of manifestation. They are the output, not input to your creative flow. It's best to not take them too seriously, maybe even look at them as great entertainment.

Okay, so I think I'm starting to get what you are saying here. So, from your perspective, thoughts are effects rather than cause. And, I gather, you see consciousness as the initiator of manifestation? Or am I wrong? And if so, does this "initiation" or causation take the form of "intent" at some level or is it something more random, with less intelligence involved?