I don't disagree with people that Indigos exist. Hey, *I* fit all the characteristics. So do a LOT of people I know. My point(s) are:
1) This term is abused
2) There are MANY special people. We ALL have higher purposes, missions, and gifts. Even that drunk on the corner.
I AM spiritual. Very much so. But I am also A REALIST. You still have got to be a part of the world. A lot of Indigo parents play the blame game and consider the school inferior for not conforming to their child's "needs". While we have lots of problems in our public (and private) schools, we also have a lot of problems with kids acting out and not knowing how to handle either obeying OR how to properly take issue with authority, etc. Another whole skill altogether that is indirectly learned in school.
There IS a tendency for Indigos and their parents to ballyhoo about how the system is not set up for them, how nobody understands their "mission", etc. A "holyness", if you will, about their self-image. And a lot of "Indigos" I hear about are just plain autistic or behaviorally messed up (read: cracked out on sugar), which leads one to believe the mom is having a hard time accepting things----as in, they are IN DENIAL. Or, they are just those "smart kids" in high school who don't try at all and get bad grades. Lazyess is now "holyness"?
My point is, these labels segregate and even alienate. As others have pointed out, sometimes this information isn't always a blessing.
I do believe that a lot of OLD SOULS are being born, to change the consciousness. (Either that, or little kids just sound like old people now with their stress levels and adult level of understanding of sex and violence? Only half-kidding.....) Spiritually, a shift must go on, BUT....
IT IS NOT WHO YOU ARE (OR WHO YOU BELIEVE YOURSELF TO BE), BUT WHAT YOU DO.
NO amount of Indigo Children will be able to "save" the planet if people don't start preserving the forrests, water, and land by EATING VEGAN. It is necessary. And, it will open up food resources to feed those starving kids we all see on TV that we cry over.
A bunch of Indigo kids eating at Mcdonalds or whatever, depressed as adults because there "is no place for them", will help the world NIL.
Look at Harriet Tubman or Martin Luther King. Were they "Indigo"? Did they care? They came to earth and got to work, doing what they knew was right, no matter what. Broke laws, etc. Didn't know the word Indigo and didn't care. They knew God and their purpose, that is it.
So, Yes, spiritual-awareness varies and some of us may have higher missions. You know what? In other lifetimes, we were those dull-witted neanderthals who couldn't spell Purpose with all the help in the world. So-?
I am not saying you disagree with all of the above, nor assuming you agree. I am just explaining questioning Indigo doesn't equate a lack of spirituality or education on the matter.
It is how we live that speaks more than our message or title. All the spiritual masters knew this........
I'm sorry to hear that. Our actions can either have devastating effects on the world or others or preserving, peaceable effects that benefit the earth and it's inhabitants, including the future families of all the "Indigos" and other youth who inhabit the earth.
That is just pure science.
I don't see why it "lost" you to hear that. Seems more that it is just not what you wanted to hear, which is not the same thing.
No, it means that I agreed with you up until the point where you argued that veganism was the answer to all. I just don't agree with you, that's all. I don't buy into the idea that there's one single answer for everyone on earth. Since this isn't a veganism debate forum, I don't really care to get into a debate about it which is why I said that's where you lost me ("lost" meaning 'lost my support or agreement'... not lost as in 'confused').
Ertarox! I beleive your pure Science is very flawed wishful thinking, to try to feed the world without animals and thier byproducts would be a disaster! Look at nature look at the cycles of life and the food chain.
No where in history has man been a complete vegan, in fact I myself consider it nothing more then a PC fad and the force driving this consensis is not to be trusted!
When fiction is misconstrued as science there is a reason for it. I think forced veganism is just as bad as forced birth control! India a vegan state has an epidemic in eye cataracts caused by a deficiency
in vitamin A, which can only be obtained through animal products!
I have no problem with short term fasting or vegan type diets for health purposes , but like many things if taken to extreme can actually have the reverse desired effect!
MYTH #1: Meat consumption contributes to famine and depletes the Earth's natural resources.
Some vegetarians have claimed that livestock require pasturage that could be used to farm grains to feed starving people in Third World countries. It is also claimed that feeding animals contributes to world hunger because livestock are eating foods that could go to feed humans. The solution to world hunger, therefore, is for people to become vegetarians. These arguments are illogical and simplistic.
The first argument ignores the fact that about two-thirds of our Earth's dry land is unsuitable for farming. It is primarily the open range, desert and mountainous areas that provide food to grazing animals, and that land is currently being put to good use.1
The second argument is faulty as well because it ignores the vital contributions that livestock animals make to humanity's well-being. It is also misleading to think that the foods grown and given to feed livestock could be diverted to feed humans:
Agricultural animals have always made a major contribution to the welfare of human societies by providing food, shelter, fuel, fertilizer and other products and services. They are a renewable resource, and utilize another renewable resource, plants, to produce these products and services. In addition, the manure produced by the animals helps improve soil fertility and, thus, aids the plants. In some developing countries the manure cannot be utilized as a fertilizer but is dried as a source of fuel.
There are many who feel that because the world population is growing at a faster rate than is the food supply, we are becoming less and less able to afford animal foods because feeding plant products to animals is an inefficient use of potential human food. It is true that it is more efficient for humans to eat plant products directly rather than to allow animals to convert them to human food. At best, animals only produce one pound or less of human food for each three pounds of plants eaten. However, this inefficiency only applies to those plants and plant products that the human can utilize. The fact is that over two-thirds of the feed fed to animals consists of substances that are either undesirable or completely unsuited for human food. Thus, by their ability to convert inedible plant materials to human food, animals not only do not compete with the human; rather, they aid greatly in improving both the quantity and the quality of the diets of human societies.2
Furthermore, at the present time, there is more than enough food grown in the world to feed all people on the planet. The problem is widespread poverty, making it impossible for the starving poor to afford it. In a comprehensive report, the Population Reference Bureau attributed the world hunger problem to poverty, not meat-eating.3 It also did not consider mass vegetarianism to be a solution for world hunger.
What would actually happen, however, if animal husbandry were abandoned in favour of mass agriculture, brought about by humanity turning towards vegetarianism?
If a large number of people switched to vegetarianism, the demand for meat in the United States and Europe would fall, the supply of grain would dramatically increase, but the buying power of poor [starving] people in Africa and Asia wouldn't change at all.
The result would be very predictable: there would be a mass exodus from farming. Whereas today the total amount of grains produced could feed 10 billion people, the total amount of grain grown in this post-meat world would likely fall back to about 7 or 8 billion. The trend of farmers selling their land to developers and others would accelerate quickly.4
In other words, there would be less food available for the world to eat. Furthermore, the monoculture of grains and legumes, which is what would happen if animal husbandry were abandoned and the world relied exclusively on plant foods for its food, would rapidly deplete the soil and require the heavy use of artificial fertilisers, one ton of which requires ten tons of crude oil to produce.5
As far as the impact on our environment is concerned, a closer look reveals the great damage that exclusive and mass farming would do. British organic dairy farmer and researcher Mark Purdey wisely points out that if "veganic agricultural systems were to gain a foothold on the soil, then agrichemical use, soil erosion, cash cropping, prairie-scapes and ill health would escalate".6 Neanderthin author Ray Audette concurs with this view:
Since ancient times, the most destructive factor in the degradation of the environment has been monoculture agriculture. The production of wheat in ancient Sumeria transformed once-fertile plains into salt flats that remain sterile 5,000 years later. As well as depleting both the soil and water sources, monoculture agriculture also produces environmental damage by altering the delicate balance of natural ecosystems. World rice production in 1993, for instance, caused 155 million cases of malaria by providing breeding grounds for mosquitoes in the paddies. Human contact with ducks in the same rice paddies resulted in 500 million cases of influenza during the same year.7
There is little doubt, though, that commercial farming methods, whether of plants or animals, produce harm to the environment. With the heavy use of agrichemicals, pesticides, artificial fertilisers, hormones, steroids and antibiotics common in modern agriculture, a better way of integrating animal husbandry with agriculture needs to be found. A possible solution might be a return to "mixed farming", described below.
The educated consumer and the enlightened farmer together can bring about a return of the mixed farm, where cultivation of fruits, vegetables and grains is combined with the raising of livestock and fowl in a manner that is efficient, economical and environmentally friendly. For example, chickens running free in garden areas eat insect pests, while providing high-quality eggs; sheep grazing in orchards obviate the need for herbicides; and cows grazing in woodlands and other marginal areas provide rich, pure milk, making these lands economically viable for the farmer. It is not animal cultivation that leads to hunger and famine, but unwise agricultural practices and monopolistic distribution systems.8
The "mixed farm" is also healthier for the soil, which will yield more crops if managed according to traditional guidelines. Mark Purdey has accurately pointed out that a crop field on a mixed farm will yield up to five harvests a year, while a "mono-cropped" one will only yield one or two.9 Which farm is producing more food for the world's peoples? Purdey well sums up the ecological horrors of "battery farming" and points to future solutions by saying:
Our agricultural establishments could do very well to outlaw the business-besotted farmers running intensive livestock units, battery systems and beef-burger bureaucracies, with all their wastages, deplorable cruelty, anti-ozone slurry systems, drug/chemical-induced immunotoxicity resulting in BSE and salmonella, rainforest eradication, etc. Our future direction must strike the happy, healthy medium of mixed farms, resurrecting the old traditional extensive system as a basic framework, then bolstering up productivity to present-day demands by incorporating a more updated application of biological science into farming systems.10
It does not appear, then, that livestock farming, when properly practised, damages the environment. Nor does it appear that world vegetarianism and exclusively relying on agriculture to supply the world with food are feasible or ecologically wise ideas
Yes , I too was with you until you went to the vegan thing. You say you are spiritual, do you read the bible: meat is acceptable you know. If you abuse and over-use anything it can be bad for you, it's all in the choices you make...you can choose to eat a big gigantic slab of red meat or you can choose to have a small portion of steamed or grilled salmon......see.....it's not the food that's bad, it's the choices of the people.
I don't know where the following quote came from, but it is not difficult to deduce...and I fully agree. "Spirituality unites people, Religion divides"
You're right, the term is abused. If we're following the 'rules' here, anyone who has a predominantly Indigo aura can call themselves Indigo, and if they don't, they're not Indigo - isn't that how it goes? That's where the phrase came from.
I do believe that just because a child has so-called ADHD etc etc, does not make them an Indigo child. There is a hell of a lot more to all of those disorders, and it's to do with the way the world has changed - not only are children today bombarded with toxins from the moment they are conceived, but they also have a lot of very confusing information to process - being a child now is a lot more complicated than it used to be, and the same goes for being a parent. I think a lot has to change about the whole educational system for ALL children, and that has nothing to do with anyone being Indigo or otherwise.
You're right, the term is abused. If we're following the 'rules' here, anyone who has a predominantly Indigo aura can call themselves Indigo, and if they don't, they're not Indigo - isn't that how it goes? That's where the phrase came from.
I do believe that just because a child has so-called ADHD etc etc, does not make them an Indigo child. There is a hell of a lot more to all of those disorders, and it's to do with the way the world has changed - not only are children today bombarded with toxins from the moment they are conceived, but they also have a lot of very confusing information to process - being a child now is a lot more complicated than it used to be, and the same goes for being a parent. I think a lot has to change about the whole educational system for ALL children, and that has nothing to do with anyone being Indigo or otherwise.
I agree. In fact, maybe that's the "test" for an "indigo." If you're callous enough to stuff the flesh of factory farmed animals into your mouth (animals who were forced to suffer from birth until miserable death), you are NOT an indigo. No one who is sensitive to the earth's creatures would do such a cruel thing.
fetched in 0.63 sec
at 5/24/2013 4:59:30 AM, requested by 50.19.155.235, referred by http://curezone.com/forums/am.asp?i=107623 , requested 1 pages in this session, y=2
Home
Additional Thoughts On Indigos...... 
