In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

I thought I had acknowledged that you were providing good rational explanations for your opinion, but I guess I forgot to put that in my post. You don't have to continue to explain these things (to me, anyways), I'm sure you're very tired of it by now!

OK thanks! And thank you for the respectful discussion. It's refreshing to be able to discuss differing viewpoints respectfully without getting buttons pushed, as so often happens with such a volatile and emotionally charged topic.

Your opinion is based on rational explanations, but is also coupled with strong speculations.

I acknowledged that.

Despite your well-explained speculations, I can't and won't accept the idea that plants were "created" or "designed" to be eaten.

Why not? Something had to be created or designed to nourish us! And being that everything is alive, then no matter what it was that was designed or created to sustain us, it would have to have some sort of lifeforce in it.

To reject the notion that something was created/designed to sustain us, would be to accept the notion that no thought at all was given to this issue by the Logos. Our bipedal vehicles were designed. Our opposable thumbs were designed. Surely a bit of thought was given to our digestive systems. The planet was terraformed, in preparation for souls' evolution thru 3D. Was diet not taken into consideration?

If something was created/designed to be consumed by us, it seems logical that it would be plant life, for the reasons I listed above.

(I'd be interested in a point-by-point rebuttal to my list of reasons, if anyone wants to tackle that.)

It seems to me that design is very much a part of the equation!

Speculating this because of their inherent properties, whether it be their self-regenerative qualities or healing properties after consumed, isn't a valid view in my eyes. It is a good argument for why we should eat them for our benefit, but I don't feel comfortable saying that they exist this way too be eaten.

You might feel differently after reading The Botany of Desire.

Furthermore, I didn't say that plants exist for the sole purpose of feeding us. I am proposing a mutually beneficial arrangement, as outlined in the book. I am proposing that the lifeforce of plants merge with ours. Not so with animals, because they already have individuated souls. That's why they incarnate in bodies that are mobile. It makes sense if you think about it.

And just because something is easier to slaughter, does that mean is was designed to be slaughtered?

It's not about being 'easier to slaughter.' It's about design.

Do you consider mowing your lawn a slaughter?

1. killing or butchering of cattle, sheep, etc., especially for food.
2. the brutal or violent killing of a person.
3. the killing of great numbers of people or animals indiscriminately; carnage: the slaughter of war.

Consider the Earth as a living entity. Our bodies are much like the Earth's; we are composed of 70-80% water, like the Earth. Our bodies have peaks and valleys, and rivers...and hair...just like the Earth.

It seems not only reasonable, but obvious, that plants are the hair of the Earth.

Is it slaughter when you get a haircut? Is it a brutal carnage when blades of grass are cut?

If this were a consideration of the Logos while it was "designing" life to whatever extent it really has control, we should be able to sustain ourselves on 1D material without having to slaughter any 2D beings. The Logos could easily design all 2D and 3D life to sustain off of 1D material (wouldn't that be a wonderful existence!).

Then we'd be having this same conversation, wondering about the sentience of 1D life.

Where our opinion differs, and where your arguments fail to sway me, is that I feel it is much more important to pay respect and be grateful for the entity which was slaughtered to sustain your life than to discern which entity to slaughter.

Where do you draw the line? That argument could be used to justify abusing other humans, then giving thanks for their involuntary 'service.' An example would be slavery. Rather than 'discerning' whether to utilize human slaves, one could just oppress them, then thank them and feel fine about it.

Why not discern? We do, after all, have the capability to discern. We discern that we shouldn't kill other humans, right? (well hopefully, some do anyway.) So why not discern that we shouldn't kill entities that are very close to being human? I don't think that's asking too much of us. It's doable.

A vegetarian who does not appreciate the plants giving their life for their existence isn't better than a meat-eater doing the same in my eyes.

I agree that vegetarians should appreciate the plants, but I disagree that it's the same as the meat-eaters. Appreciating the animal that was slaughtered doesn't excuse the slaughter.

(I realize that the reason we're disagreeing always goes back to the question of whether plants are also being slaughtered. So we go round and round on that one. Again, I sure would love for someone to address my list of points.)

My parents never gave me a single hug my entire childhood. My dad was emotionally abusive. My parents didn't appreciate me. I was just another mouth to feed. But I would never say that they were 'the same' as parents who horribly beat their kids, or sexually abuse their kids, or even kill their kids. Not being appreciated isn't on the same level as being abused or killed.

I understand it is a specific statement aimed at Carla in that specific circumstance, but Ra it's still Ra suggesting someone eat meat (to increase vital energy, no less), I was wondering what your take was.

Ra never dictated what anyone should do, in respect to free will. Carla tried various diets in an effort to correct her physical ailments, but to my knowledge she never had a strong conviction about being a vegetarian. I could be wrong about this, but the subject came up once on the radio show, and I think she would have mentioned that to me, had that been the case, especially knowing that I am a vegetarian. This leads me to believe that Ra simply accepted Carla's diet at the time, and offered suggestions that were in alignment with what was 'normal' for Carla. It would have been out of character for Ra to recommend huge, sweeping changes when Carla didn't specifically ask for that particular type of advice.

Had Don asked a different question, such as, "What is the optimal diet for 3D entities to aspire to, for maximum efficiency regarding spiritual evolution, in preparation for harvest to 4D STO?" then the answer would surely have been very different (had Ra chosen to answer it at all).

These quotes must also be taken in context, along with other quotes. Notice the part in bold:

84.2 Questioner: In the last session you mentioned the least distorted complex protein for the instrument since its body complex was capable of greatly increased distortion. Would you define the protein of which you spoke and in which direction is the increased distortion, towards health or ill-health?
Ra: I am Ra. We were, in the cautionary statement about complex protein, referring to the distortions of the animal protein which has been slaughtered and preservatives added in order to maintain the acceptability to your peoples of this non-living, physical material.

My interpretation is that this seems to imply that "non-living material" isn't really 'acceptable' to Ra, but Ra acknowledges that it's normal for 3D entities (on this planet anyway!), though they have to first disguise it to deem it "acceptable."

Although the 'caveman' diet has gained in popularity recently, most humans still are repulsed by the thought of eating a bloody animal. The carcass must be disguised, cooked, flavored, or preserved, to deem it 'acceptable.' Not so with plant foods. They are naturally attractive.

I don't see how this simple observation can be deemed insignificant.

And I don't think Ra was referring only to the preservatives. Else, why did they use the word "slaughtered"?

I have always perceived this quote as showing a bit of repulsion from Ra, like they were choosing their words even more carefully than usual, in order to remain neutral and not violate free will.

Notice also this quote, which is often used to justify meat-eating:

40.14 Questioner: In dietary matters, what would be the foods that one would include and what would be the foods that one would exclude in a general way for the greatest care of one’s bodily complex?
Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, we underline and emphasize that this information is not to be understood literally but as a link or psychological nudge for the body and the mind and spirit. Thus it is the care and respect for the self that is the true thing of importance. In this light we may iterate the basic information given for this instrument’s diet. The vegetables, the fruits, the grains, and to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, the animal products.

This quote has been discussed in this thread extensively. For now, my point is that, in both cases where meat was mentioned, Ra seemed to attach a caution to it. It would have been uncharacteristic for Ra to bluntly say, "don't eat dead animals" because that was left up to the individual to discern.