(01-30-2018, 06:55 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: We've had this discussion before, anagogy. Plants don't have to die for their edible parts to be harvested. Many ARE harvested at the end of their lifecycle, but a tomato plant can live in my garden for many months and feed me every day without dying. You say that an animal "can" feed one person for many months, but this is NOT how 99.999% of humans eat. We take the choice cuts and grind the rest into dog food. So while in "theory" it might be "more ethical" to eat animals, in practice it is definitely not.
It takes 30 of those precious plant calories to convert into 1 animal flesh calorie. How again is there less death with the animal slaughter method?
Why take responsibility for the second density beings ingested by the animals? Let them eat what they need to eat, you eat what you need to eat. The heart of the matter is this misconception that death is this horrible thing to be avoided at all costs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Death is a part of life. Dogs gotta eat too. I'm not going to argue on behalf of agriculture. Obviously, there is room for improvement there. But many of those 2nd density entities wouldn't even evolve as fast as they do without those bodies to incarnate into giving them more experiences (even if you believe those experiences are not desirable), which agriculture is largely responsible for. The heart of this misconception is looking at beings that feed on other animals as some kind of "lesser being" in need of "evolvement". I think that is just plain wrong. It is just another of the myriad of ways of making yourself feel superior based on some outer judgment. It is just a case of metaphorically looking at caterpillars and being angry that they're not all butterflies.
I don't think either choice is "more ethical". I don't think you can wittle down the nuances of every particular manifestation to this one ideal solution.
But I also don't have hours to spend posting refutations of this theory based on research (and you wouldn't believe them even if I did, so it would be a waste of both of our time). You can find evidence for almost anything if you look for it, regardless of what is actually true (unless we talking about strictly controlled physics experiments).
I mostly came into this thread, to correct the distorted interpretation of Ra quotes, which were being warped to facilitate an agenda. But please, believe as you like. I have no attachment to changing anyone's perspective. I learned the folly of expecting conversations to change peoples mind a long time ago. It defies the metaphysics that generate that reality.
(01-30-2018, 04:18 PM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: I guess I just sustain faith that this is how we bridge gaps, is that we communicate with each other, as openly and honestly as possible. I'm open to changing my mind. I'm not open to eating animals again, but I'm totally open to being offered a different understanding of the Ra material than the one that I am admittedly biased to.
I sincerely doubt that, but you can state whatever you want (everybody will say something like this in these kind of threads, but I rarely see any evidence of such). So if you mean it, great, but there is no need to state it. It means very little to me. Actions speak louder than words.
Thanks for the discussion, regardless.