Killing insects

[Shine]

I try to put them outside when I find them, but our cat seems to think they are yummy. I've not spotted very many in the house since kitty moved in.

[linen53]

I have two kitties and they totally ignore them. I am outside alot during the summer because I have ducks and livestock guardian dogs that need attending to. Ducks love mosquitoes but can only eat 98% of them.

There is no choice. I have to be outside during the summer (as well as winter too but no mosquitoes). So I have to take things in my own hand.

I hav'nt read all the posts, I'm sure no one should disagree that killing ants, flies,misquitos,wasps etc. can be a bad thing.I'm thankful I don't have to deal with scorpions or deadly snakes.

[Squatchit]

Originally Posted by primrose

I hav'nt read all the posts, I'm sure no one should disagree that killing ants, flies,misquitos,wasps etc. can be a bad thing.I'm thankful I don't have to deal with scorpions or deadly snakes.

Don't be so sure. Not everyone thinks like you. Thankfully.

[knightofalbion]

I quite often have flies and the like find their way in. I catch them in a plastic cup and release them unharmed outside.
The secret is not in speed - that creates a down draught - but in a gentle approach.
Where there is a will, there is a way.
And my way is compassion....

[alamode]

Fencing ...crop rotation...grain buffer strips... irrigation. All make gopher habitation preventable, unsustainable or unsuitable.

Who pays for all those extra costs in implementing these theories? Are you ready to pay $20+ for a loaf of bread? That's so easy to name theories that may not even work rather than actually putting those theories into practice. And they cost a fortune more to implement and for what purpose, if life is already being grown to kill that life anyway, as if its the presumed correct assumption that animal life is more sacred than plant life. I totally disagree that it is more sacred. All life is sacred, not animal life more than plant life. All life will live forever. The Creator designed life to eat other life's temporary shells. We (and every living thing) uses these temporary shells for food while the real essence of life never dies and continues to live forever.

Originally Posted by knightofalbion

I certainly like the quote, though I have a problem squaring it with your killing animals without conscience stance and your killing unborn babies without conscience stance that I saw elsewhere.
Love does not seek to hurt and kill, but to care, serve and protect. Through understanding - and practice - of this we grow.

I have the same conscience in killing animals as I do with plants. I'm not going to pretend that animal life is more special or sacred than plant life.

I've had two abortions within my first trimester and I absolutely have no regrets, no guilt, and am 100% positive I will have no negative moral implications from them when I go back to the spiritual world. My birth control method that I had been using successfully before had failed and its not my fault this method failed. If we the parents were financially secure, we would have kept the baby and it would have only been one baby (the 2nd pregnancy would have never happened because it was within the same time period that I would have still been pregnant with the first). Its not our fault that we were not financially secure in order to support a baby. Also, at the time of my abortions, these pregnancy sacs/clumps of cells were definitely not "babies", as it would be impossible for these things to live outside my body on their own and they did not even resemble anything like an actually "baby" and more likely than not it was impossible for a soul to attach itself yet (not enough brain tissue to integrate itself). Therefore, your description of me "killing babies" with no conscience is 100% false. I would never kill an actual real baby that was outside of my body, as that would be morally wrong. Plants and animals on the other hand are 100% morally acceptable to kill for food.

Originally Posted by alamode

Who pays for all those extra costs in implementing these theories?

And therein lies the problem. Some people value money more highly than life.

[knightofalbion]

Originally Posted by alamode

1) Who pays for all those extra costs in implementing these theories? Are you ready to pay $20+ for a loaf of bread? That's so easy to name theories that may not even work rather than actually putting those theories into practice. And they cost a fortune more to implement and for what purpose, if life is already being grown to kill that life anyway, as if its the presumed correct assumption that animal life is more sacred than plant life. I totally disagree that it is more sacred. All life is sacred, not animal life more than plant life. All life will live forever. The Creator designed life to eat other life's temporary shells. We (and every living thing) uses these temporary shells for food while the real essence of life never dies and continues to live forever.



I have the same conscience in killing animals as I do with plants. I'm not going to pretend that animal life is more special or sacred than plant life.

I've had two abortions within my first trimester and I absolutely have no regrets, no guilt, and am 100% positive I will have no negative moral implications from them when I go back to the spiritual world. My birth control method that I had been using successfully before had failed and its not my fault this method failed. If we the parents were financially secure, we would have kept the baby and it would have only been one baby (the 2nd pregnancy would have never happened because it was within the same time period that I would have still been pregnant with the first). Its not our fault that we were not financially secure in order to support a baby. Also, at the time of my abortions, these pregnancy sacs/clumps of cells were definitely not "babies", as it would be impossible for these things to live outside my body on their own and they did not even resemble anything like an actually "baby" and more likely than not it was impossible for a soul to attach itself yet (not enough brain tissue to integrate itself). Therefore, your description of me "killing babies" with no conscience is 100% false. I would never kill an actual real baby that was outside of my body, as that would be morally wrong. Plants and animals on the other hand are 100% morally acceptable to kill for food.

1) Where there is a will, there is a way.
Where there is Love, there is not the desire to hurt and kill. Quite the reverse, the desire is to show mercy, to care, to protect and to save.

God gave to man the fruits and grains of the Earth for food (The First Blessing).
He also commanded Thou shalt not kill....


2) http://www.athenaharmony.com/a-great-life.html
I would draw you up on what you said. The soul attaches itself at the moment of conception.

As for aborted children: All the disincarnate spirit teachers are very clear on the matter.
I hear your reasoning. When your 'time' comes you will be able to explain it to them.

[alamode]

God gave to man the fruits and grains of the Earth for food (The First Blessing).
He also commanded Thou shalt not kill....

I'd believe that, if he also commanded all animals to not kill. But he created many animals, insects, plants, etc. with the intention for them to kill to eat. Lots of his creations were created so that they can kill for food. The way the Creator designed our world, shows that that above assumption is just not the way living things/nature were designed by the creator.

I've been studying health and nutrition for many years. Living off of a "fruit and grains only" diet is disastrous for health. I've studied what the healthiest societies from all around the world ate, generation after generation, for thousands of years. They lived in perfect health (no disease, perfect teeth with no cavities)and their diets were not "fruit and grains". They had minimal, if any, fruit and grains in their diets.

The soul attaches itself at the moment of conception.

Attaches itself to what? There is not enough brain tissue for it to attach yet. Its typically around 5 months gestation when there is finally enough brain tissue for the soul to attach to the brain tissue.

FYI: its impossible to abort "children". This may be a semantics issue, but its important to use the right words here. "Children" have souls and live outside of their mother's body. Fetuses or pregnancy sacs, if within the first trimester, do not have souls and cannot live outside of their mother's body.

[knightofalbion]

Originally Posted by alamode

I'd believe that, if he also commanded all animals to not kill. But he created many animals, insects, plants, etc. with the intention for them to kill to eat. Lots of his creations were created so that they can kill for food. The way the Creator designed our world, shows that that above assumption is just not the way living things/nature were designed by the creator.

I've been studying health and nutrition for many years. Living off of a "food and grains only" diet is disastrous for health. I've studied what the healthiest societies from all around the world ate, generation after generation, for thousands of years. They lived in perfect health (no disease, perfect teeth with no cavities)and their diets were not "fruit and grains". They had minimal, if any, fruit and grains in their diets.

2) Attaches itself to what? There is not enough brain tissue for it to attach yet. Its typically around 5 months gestation when there is finally enough brain tissue for the soul to attach to the brain tissue.

FYI: its impossible to abort "children". This may be a semantics issue, but its important to use the right words here. "Children" have souls and live outside of their mother's body. Fetuses or pregnancy sacs, if within the first trimester, do not have souls and cannot live outside of their mother's body.

1) It is a matter of soul evolution. The further one ascends the spheres of Light the more one recognises and applies in their day to day life the law of Love.
Souls are strung out as in a marathon. Some are racing along at the front, some are trailing in the rear and most are somewhere in between.

An angel is more spiritually evolved than a human, a human is more spiritually evolved than a mouse.
Carnivorous animals are slaves to their nature. 'We' should know better.

Did not the Israelites of the Bible live to great ages? Their lifespan only plummeted when flesh was introduced into their diets.

With that logic, the Masai with their meat and blood diet ought to live to fantastic ages, yet they have the lowest lifespan of any people.

It was the introduction of sugar that had the catastrophic impact on dental health.

2) How much 'brain tissue' does anyone have on the Other Side? Yet they still live, still communicate in their world and ours.

I would agree with you on that, though not in the way you mean. When you pass over both of your 'aborted children' will be there to greet you, as living individuals.