In regards to eating meat

[3DMonkey]

Most interesting thread, and not unexpectedly long, as this is a very emotionally charged issue. Why?

Honestly, I think its more about 'don't tell me what to do' than anything else.

[Diana]

So, what is it then? Is Ra "right" or "wrong"? Perhaps Ra is misguided? Trying to trick us? Or are there maybe, just maybe, people whose health would benefit from the consumption of animal products... most notably the very person who channeled Ra and still suffers in this very moment from near debilitating health conditions?

Okay, what I heard in all of that was ... Carla should use meat medicinally .... meaning ... a couple of ounces of organic meat occasionally as needed. And, most of all, to listen to her body as to what it needs, which would extend to all of us. Sounds pretty balanced to me. One can be veg for the most part while still using meat medicinally, don't you think?

I am a strong advocate of listening to your body. And for that matter, listening.

However, due to The Principle of Least Action, and cell memory, our default mechanism tells us: MEAT if we need protein (for instance), because that's the most familiar and easiest path to PROTEIN as we know it.

The thing humans need to be doing above all else is to think and discern for themselves, thereby overriding the millennia of 3-D experience. I think the entities known as Ra may agree with that, no matter what suggestions they have made for anything, which, I imagine would only have been meant as suggestions, not following.

We plod along, doing what's familiar because of, in part, the principle of least action. Way-showers always buck the system, then things change. It may seem we need meat because our bodies have evolved that way, but does it have to continue? And, since you are all on this site, I imagine you are all trying to evolve consciously, then, why not make the choice to evolve past the taking of animal life? The body (and its instinctual cravings) will follow the mind/spirit.

[Meerie]

Moderator Note: The following posts were split from Olio > Raw food and oral allergy syndrome

This is part of the reason why I don't believe vegetarianism is right for everybody. *ducks for cover*

Hehe.... I wonder why you would feel the need to duck for cover ?
I also like that following part a lot, I percieve them similarly as you. Apparently fanatism is what makes quite a few people tick:
"Almost invariably, if you push a raw foodist on their logic you will find that underlying a seemingly scientific facade is lurking some sort of quasi-religious fervor and a fundamentalist mindset that refuses to acknowledge shades of gray. A true scientist would calmly explain the facts to you, and not become offended if you questioned said facts and/or produced counterevidence. Try to keep in mind that raving testimonials are nice, but have no bearing in a scientific discussion. Also the fact that one or two dudes happen to have built abs of steel on a raw food diet does NOT mean that it is right for everybody."

By the way it is good to see you back, @ndy! haven't seen you around for quite some time.

[Monica]

This is part of the reason why I don't believe vegetarianism is right for everybody. *ducks for cover*

Hehe.... I wonder why you would feel the need to duck for cover ?
I also like that following part a lot, I percieve them similarly as you. Apparently fanatism is what makes quite a few people tick:
"Almost invariably, if you push a raw foodist on their logic you will find that underlying a seemingly scientific facade is lurking some sort of quasi-religious fervor and a fundamentalist mindset that refuses to acknowledge shades of gray. A true scientist would calmly explain the facts to you, and not become offended if you questioned said facts and/or produced counterevidence. Try to keep in mind that raving testimonials are nice, but have no bearing in a scientific discussion. Also the fact that one or two dudes happen to have built abs of steel on a raw food diet does NOT mean that it is right for everybody."

I don't understand your advice, someone asked for raw food advice and you only come in to hack on raw foodists?

Exactly what I was thinking. Sounds like there's some prejudice entering the conversation. There was no need to bring up fanaticism or what some people perceive as fanaticism. @ndy didn't even say anything about being a vegetarian or a total raw vegan. He just wants to be able to eat raw fruits and veggies. We vegans have just as much right to offer our opinions as everyone else, and he can choose which advice he wishes to use. Why does the conversation have to turn into a vegan-bashing?

It's fine to disagree about diet. But to seize every mention of vegetarianism to bring up fanaticism, equating every raw vegan with religious fervor, is prejudiced and disrespectful.

Are Pickle's and my stories "raving" testimonials?

[Tenet Nosce]

Exactly what I was thinking. Sounds like there's some prejudice entering the conversation. There was no need to bring up fanaticism or what some people perceive as fanaticism. @ndy didn't even say anything about being a vegetarian or a total raw vegan. He just wants to be able to eat raw fruits and veggies. We vegans have just as much right to offer our opinions as everyone else, and he can choose which advice he wishes to use. Why does the conversation have to turn into a vegan-bashing?

I'm sorry, but where was the "bashing" part of the post?

It's fine to disagree about diet. But to seize every mention of vegetarianism to bring up fanaticism, equating every raw vegan with religious fervor, is prejudiced and disrespectful.

Prejudiced how? And disrespectful to whom? I have a right to my own opinion, and I believe that people have a right to hear that opinion.

Are Pickle's and my stories "raving" testimonials?

Why do you and Pickle seem to think that I am talking about you when I am not? We've established over and over again that I do not think you are "fanatics" or "zealots" or whatever you think I am calling you. I think you and Pickle are two fine, dandy, intelligent, and interesting individuals. At least as far as one could surmise through some Internet conversations. Please, stop taking it personally. I am not talking about you.

I mean, really, based on our conversation yesterday, you must really think I am some kind of psychopath or something.

If I am responding directly to somebody's post I will use the quote function. Making a post in a thread does not necessarily mean I have read the whole thing. Sometimes, I may even change my mind or get a new idea, so it is good to pay attention to the timestamps. I may even go back and edit a previous post after I have come to new information. Sometimes I write a post to nobody in particular, but instead thinking of a "future" person reading the thread for the first time. Sometimes I am happy, sometimes I am sad, sometimes I am drinking wine.

Folks, a forum like this IS 4D. Viewing it from a 3D linear time standpoint is folly.

[3DMonkey]

I heard no comment about you two. Direspectful? Wow. "Its not personal"

[Monica]

I'm sorry, but where was the "bashing" part of the post?

It's fine to disagree about diet. But to seize every mention of vegetarianism to bring up fanaticism, equating every raw vegan with religious fervor, is prejudiced and disrespectful.

Prejudiced how? And disrespectful to whom? I have a right to my own opinion, and I believe that people have a right to hear that opinion.

Yes, you do have the right to your own opinion.

As I was reading your post on the Allergies thread, I was thinking, "This is really good info...Tenet is providing another angle that is equally valid" and was going to "like" the post, even though I disagreed with parts of it, because it was so well presented, until I got to this part:

Raw foodists will swear up and down that the foods themselves contain all the enzymes necessary to digest them, and tend to get all worked up in a tizzy when somebody says otherwise. The fact of the matter is they don't really know what they are talking about. They will make all sorts of technical-sounding arguments that somewhat overlook basic human physiology, and typically refer to an 80 year old study on leukocytosis. These claims are part true and part mumbo-jumbo.

Almost invariably, if you push a raw foodist on their logic you will find that underlying a seemingly scientific facade is lurking some sort of quasi-religious fervor and a fundamentalist mindset that refuses to acknowledge shades of gray. A true scientist would calmly explain the facts to you, and not become offended if you questioned said facts and/or produced counterevidence. Try to keep in mind that raving testimonials are nice, but have no bearing in a scientific discussion.

The parts in bold are inflammatory and prejudiced. This has nothing to do with the fact that I happen to be in the group of people you are referring to. I would find it just as inflammatory, and just as unacceptable, if you had said:

Christians will swear up and down that ... and tend to get all worked up in a tizzy when somebody says otherwise. The fact of the matter is they don't really know what they are talking about.

Almost invariably, if you push a Christian on their logic you will find that underlying a seemingly scientific facade is lurking some sort of quasi-religious fervor and a fundamentalist mindset that refuses to acknowledge shades of gray.

or

Asians will swear up and down that ... and tend to get all worked up in a tizzy when somebody says otherwise. The fact of the matter is they don't really know what they are talking about.

Almost invariably, if you push an Asian on their logic you will find that underlying a seemingly scientific facade is lurking some sort of quasi-religious fervor and a fundamentalist mindset that refuses to acknowledge shades of gray.

With Christian or Asian substituted, do you see the obvious prejudice now?

This isn't because I happen to be an aspiring raw vegan. It would be the same, if you had made such comments regarding Christians, Asians, or any other subculture.

Why do you and Pickle seem to think that I am talking about you when I am not? We've established over and over again that I do not think you are "fanatics" or "zealots" or whatever you think I am calling you. I think you and Pickle are two fine, dandy, intelligent, and interesting individuals. At least as far as one could surmise through some Internet conversations. Please, stop taking it personally. I am not talking about you.

It might help to use qualifiers such as "some raw vegans" rather than blanket terms like "raw vegans do this or that" and "raw vegans are this or that and "almost invariably raw vegans" which imply all or nearly all raw vegans are being addressed by your statement. I'm not taking it personally. Whether I am a raw vegan or not, it is a blanket statement. It would be the same if the comment were made about Christians, Asians, or any other group. Using qualifiers can negate the broad sweeping generalization.

I mean, really, based on our conversation yesterday, you must really think I am some kind of psychopath or something.

Um, no, actually I think you're a very intelligent, articulate person and I enjoy dialoging with you! I'm not sure which conversation you're referring to. (Now who's taking it personally? )

I'm simply requesting that generalizations not be used regarding any group of people.

[BrownEye]

This is very interesting. A person asked for help with raw foods. While it is perfecctly understandable for those with experience working with others health to offer their knowledge, it is up to the person seeking help to decide what he does about his own health.

Why are those offering help fighting with each other instead of focusing on the person seeking help?

And why are others thinking this thread is "fresh meat" for pointless debate having nothing to do with help?

[Monica]

This is part of the reason why I don't believe vegetarianism is right for everybody. *ducks for cover*

Hehe.... I wonder why you would feel the need to duck for cover ?

I wonder that too. No one's going to attack anyone just for expressing an opinion. The above statement "I don't believe vegetarianism is right for everybody" is perfectly valid and acceptable.

I also like that following part a lot, I percieve them similarly as you.

"Them"? Can you clarify what you mean by "them"? Whom are you referring to?

[Derek]

This is SUCH a complicated subject. Arguments are valid on both sides. This is actually one of the best discussions Ive ever read on the subject. Thanks guys

[Meerie]

I also like that following part a lot, I percieve them similarly as you.

"Them"? Can you clarify what you mean by "them"? Whom are you referring to?

All those who claim raw vegan is the ONLY valid way of eating. The fundamentalists that TN seems to refer to.

[Monica]

All those who claim raw vegan is the ONLY valid way of eating. The fundamentalists that TN seems to refer to.

Can you see how such a statement is reminiscent of whites saying about blacks: "They are all like that...they belong to gangs...they drop out of school and become criminals." Who is 'they'? A blanket statement is being applied to an entire group of people.

I know lots of raw vegans and they aren't zealots at all. They are just offering and sharing what has worked for them, in a spirit of helping others. If they've had a really positive experience and really believe in it, what's wrong with sharing it?

Would it be STO if they had a cure for the big dreaded diseases but didn't share it?

I invite you to rethink your disdain for vegan 'zealots' and reframe. See it from their point of view. They want to help others. They see rampant suffering with epidemic diseases, and they have what appears to be a solution.

I ask this: If they didn't share what they know, would that be STS?

I see a lot of disdain for vegans because they are passionate about the positive changes they've experienced. I see very little understanding of what drives them: caring for other humans, the animals and the planet.

Maybe if an effort was made to view the situation from their point of view, there wouldn't be so much resentment of them.

[Meerie]

I did not want to hurt you by that statement, Monica. I just do not like when some one refers to ONE way of doing things as being a cure for all. Be it in the way of food, or whatever else comes up.
I am sure you have the best intentions.
I am surprised you seem to think my statement refers to you anyway.

[Monica]

I did not want to hurt you by that statement, Monica. I just do not like when some one refers to ONE way of doing things as being a cure for all. Be it in the way of food, or whatever else comes up.
I am sure you have the best intentions.
I am surprised you seem to think my statement refers to you anyway.

I know it didn't refer to me. And I know Tenet wasn't referring to me (or to Pickle either). I would react the same way if the comment was made about blacks, and I'm not black. It's not about me. It's about lumping everyone together with blanket statements. It's about not understanding their motivations, and just resenting them, when they are trying to do something positive for others and for the planet.

[Meerie]

But sweetie, I wasn't lumping everyone together with blanket statements! I was just referring to a group of people who see their way of doing things as the only right way to do. And there are fundamentalists in every walk of life, christian fundamentalists, muslim fundamentalists, there are even BMW fundamentalists (yes BMW! who despise everyone who drives a different car, lol)
I am sure there are vegans out there, who have no problem sitting together and sharing a meal with meat-eaters and who would not feel the need to proselytize because they respect the others free will.
I was not referring to all vegans per se. Only that part that really fundamentalist about it. The part that would smash a butchers window and destroy the interior and smear their walls in red with the words "killer". Yes it has happened here. I do not think you would agree with their way, would you?
If you read again the statement by TN that I quoted, it is about FUNDAMENTALIST vegans. Not vegans per se.

[Monica]

But sweetie, I wasn't lumping everyone together with blanket statements! I was just referring to a group of people who see their way of doing things as the only right way to do. And there are fundamentalists in every walk of life, christian fundamentalists, muslim fundamentalists, there are even BMW fundamentalists (yes BMW! who despise everyone who drives a different car, lol)
I am sure there are vegans out there, who have no problem sitting together and sharing a meal with meat-eaters and who would not feel the need to proselytize because they respect the others free will.
I was not referring to all vegans per se. Only that part that really fundamentalist about it. The part that would smash a butchers window and destroy the interior and smear their walls in red with the words "killer". Yes it has happened here. I do not think you would agree with their way, would you?
If you read again the statement by TN that I quoted, it is about FUNDAMENTALIST vegans. Not vegans per se.

Those who care about animals cannot just "respect the free will" of meat-eaters, any more than you could have dinner with a rapist and "respect his free will to rape women." That is the part the meat-eaters are missing in this conversation. It's not like respecting the free will to be a Christian or Buddhist. Would you be able to resist dropping little hints that maybe rape was bad, if you were having dinner with a rapist?

That is the part the meat-eaters are missing. They don't understand that the vegans are championing the oppressed. If they could understand this, they wouldn't feel so resentful; they would feel compassionate.

At any rate, there was no need to bring this up, in this thread. The thread was about allergies. We already have a thread about meat eating. There was no reason to mention vegan "zealots". It didn't add anything to the conversation. It was all needless. Which led me to conclude that there is an agenda to bash vegans at every turn. Why not just focus on the topic, which is allergies? Why the need to even bring up the "vegan zealots"?

It seems that there is zealotry about zealots!

[Meerie]

ohoh... meat eaters and rapists.
I am out of here now. Wish you well!

[Monica]

ohoh... meat eaters and rapists.
I am out of here now. Wish you well!

It's just an analogy, nothing more. I've gone to great lengths to explain why meat-eaters are NOT the same as rapists! You know this. I am simply trying to make a point, and I don't know how else to make it. Those who continue to label vegans as "zealots" and insist that they "respect the free will of others to eat animals" continue to miss the point, which is that vegans are trying to help oppressed entities.

If you were trying to help oppressed humans, you would speak up, wouldn't you?

Why, then, does it bother you that vegans speak up?

Again, I'm NOT comparing meat-eaters to rapists!!! So please don't go there. I'm comparing the tactics, that's all. The tactics. Someone championing the oppressed animals, will behave similarly to someone championing oppressed humans. That is the only point I'm trying to make. I am trying to elicit some compassion for what you and Tenet consider "zealots". I'm trying to put it in terms you can relate to...I'm trying to find some common ground.

I feel that vegans, as a group, are misunderstood. They're being unfairly labeled and categorized, with very little effort to understand why they are the way they are. And yes, it seems to me that there is a prejudice here, with jabs being made towards them every time there is an opportunity to do so.

This was a thread about allergies. Allergies! Vegetarianism, much less raw vegan, wasn't even brought up by the original poster! There was no need to start attacking vegans.

[kia]

But sweetie, I wasn't lumping everyone together with blanket statements! I was just referring to a group of people who see their way of doing things as the only right way to do. And there are fundamentalists in every walk of life, christian fundamentalists, muslim fundamentalists, there are even BMW fundamentalists (yes BMW! who despise everyone who drives a different car, lol)
I am sure there are vegans out there, who have no problem sitting together and sharing a meal with meat-eaters and who would not feel the need to proselytize because they respect the others free will.
I was not referring to all vegans per se. Only that part that really fundamentalist about it. The part that would smash a butchers window and destroy the interior and smear their walls in red with the words "killer". Yes it has happened here. I do not think you would agree with their way, would you?
If you read again the statement by TN that I quoted, it is about FUNDAMENTALIST vegans. Not vegans per se.

Those who care about animals cannot just "respect the free will" of meat-eaters, any more than you could have dinner with a rapist and "respect his free will to rape women." That is the part the meat-eaters are missing in this conversation. It's not like respecting the free will to be a Christian or Buddhist. Would you be able to resist dropping little hints that maybe rape was bad, if you were having dinner with a rapist?

That is the part the meat-eaters are missing. They don't understand that the vegans are championing the oppressed. If they could understand this, they wouldn't feel so resentful; they would feel compassionate.

At any rate, there was no need to bring this up, in this thread. The thread was about allergies. We already have a thread about meat eating. There was no reason to mention vegan "zealots". It didn't add anything to the conversation. It was all needless. Which led me to conclude that there is an agenda to bash vegans at every turn. Why not just focus on the topic, which is allergies? Why the need to even bring up the "vegan zealots"?

It seems that there is zealotry about zealots!

You analogy is very hurtful and disrespectful. Them?? The meat eaters, you just generalized..

Its quite incredible that a student of the LOO comes out with this sort of comments of not accepting the free will of others...do I have to cuote again what Ra says about eating meat?? I hope not

I wish you well too

[3DMonkey]

@Diana
What if we didn't kill the animal but still ate it? What if we have a pet lion that we take out to a herd and have it bring home meat for our tribe? Is this an acceptable method?
It should be a compromise for all.

[BrownEye]

The part that would smash a butchers window and destroy the interior and smear their walls in red with the words "killer". Yes it has happened here. I do not think you would agree with their way, would you?

I wonder how this helps the poster that was asking for help with raw foods? The person was trying to take steps forward, not backwards.

[Confused]

The girls are fighting again!!

[3DMonkey]

The part that would smash a butchers window and destroy the interior and smear their walls in red with the words "killer". Yes it has happened here. I do not think you would agree with their way, would you?

I wonder how this helps the poster that was asking for help with raw foods? The person was trying to take steps forward, not backwards.

Now we are ridiculing persons for their choice of comments? What is the point in that?

[Diana]

@Diana
What if we didn't kill the animal but still ate it? What if we have a pet lion that we take out to a herd and have it bring home meat for our tribe? Is this an acceptable method?
It should be a compromise for all.

That's like saying that you are the mafia boss and your hired killer wacked someone on your orders . (Just a joke, 3-D Monkey. I like your posts by the way).

Honestly, I am always trying to strike a balance between letting everyone walk their own path, and saying, okay, change already, our planet is in trouble.

Every being must do what they deem best to do. I personally don't think taking life is evolved at all--any life. But I must eat at this point, and I explained earlier in this thread the basic reasons I choose plant life.

It would be a very good thing for humans to evolve past the greed, fear, corruption, and selfishness that have brought this planet to the brink of destruction. The taking of animal life for food is one step toward healing this place (not just for humans, but for the animal life, the earth--enormous amounts of pesticides are used for the animal crops).

I really hope this statement doesn't offend anyone on this site, but there is a saying that "we all do our best given our circumstances." I disagree, and it's based on my own life, and my own observations. I don't think anyone I've ever known has done his or her best. Basically we humans are lazy. We think, at least unconsciously, that we have all the time ahead to accomplish what we want to do, so today, we'll just think about it. The old story of the mother lifting the car to save a child is a good example. When faced with something like death, we can act immediately and accomplish amazing things.

Harsh words, I know. But I think we are very powerful beings. We can make the changes needed to shift out of this destructive phase, and with a full commitment, it will be easier.

[zenmaster]

Which would you rather have, a lazy vegetarian population or an omnivorous diligent population?

[3DMonkey]

I'm lazy. Definitely. Until I obsess about something and I need to accomplish it to get it out of my mind. If I start, I don't stop until my body gives out. So, I usually put off until tomorrow what I don't have to do today.

---

It's my own version of live today like it was my last.

[Monica]

You analogy is very hurtful and disrespectful. Them?? The meat eaters, you just generalized..

Its quite incredible that a student of the LOO comes out with this sort of comments of not accepting the free will of others...do I have to cuote again what Ra says about eating meat?? I hope not

I wish you well too

(sigh)

I used the term intentionally, in an attempt to show how frequent references to "vegan zealots" popping up in various threads that aren't even about that topic, is disrespectful and hurtful to an entire class of people, just as frequent derogatory references to blacks, Christians, or any other sub-group would be disrespectful and hurtful.

Students of the Law of One aren't required to choose hurting others. Vegans consider eating meat to be hurting others. Accepting others doesn't mean we have to support their choices, or that we can't work to reduce suffering and oppression of other beings by speaking up to those who don't grasp that they are unwittingly supporting that suffering!

We have an entire thread devoted to that topic. That's the whole point. Discussion about eating animals or not eating animals should be kept confined to that thread. Discussion about zealotry, whether it's Christian zealotry or vegan zealotry or any other kind of zealotry, should be kept confined in its own thread, not scattered about in other threads, because then it just comes across an hurtful jabbing.

My comment was an attempt to communicate, not a jab. I perceived the previous references as unnecessary jabs, which were hurtful and disrespectful not to anyone personally, but an entire group of people. THAT is what I was trying to point out.

Ra's quote about meat has been discussed. It doesn't support the eating of meat except in Carla's specific case. It is inconclusive and thus can't be made into a doctrine that meat is ok or not ok. Those who wish to interpret that quote as justification for eating animals are free to do so, but it isn't an absolute doctrine.

I will be moving these off-topic posts to another thread, so that this thread can get back on-topic. After I do that, I would appreciate it if opinions about veganism can be left out of this discussion, and stick to just the topic.

[Diana]

Which would you rather have, a lazy vegetarian population or an omnivorous diligent population?

I don't accept the choice. I am an optimist and always shoot for the best option, not a compromise.

[BrownEye]

The old story of the mother lifting the car to save a child is a good example. When faced with something like death, we can act immediately and accomplish amazing things.

Harsh words, I know. But I think we are very powerful beings. We can make the changes needed to shift out of this destructive phase, and with a full commitment, it will be easier.

I use this story a lot. We have something inside us that goes unrealized.

The last few nights I have peeked in on my daughter before I head to bed, and see a yellow/white aura emanating about a foot outwards from her head. I wasn't positive about this until my wife mentioned it also. My wife had woke up in the night and saw a whole body aura coming from my daughter, who is 7 years old. This appeared after I removed an energy blockage she had. Now, one thing I will point out, she mostly thrives on fruit. We have a very hard time getting her to eat anything but fruit, and have to make smoothies and "nicecreams" to hide nuts and veggies from her. I am curious whether this glow will calm down or if it is a result of a wide range of changes including the sun.

While looking into her aura thing, I find that my immediate family is dual activated, and that many folks will be "forced" to activate. I had read a while back that someone after a NDE described how humanity will soon be offered a choice to evolve, and what I found last night appears to match what this person said. I also found that this "forced" change will have taken place within the next 5 years. Food for thought I guess.

[zenmaster]

I don't accept the choice. I am an optimist and always shoot for the best option, not a compromise.