11-18-2011, 04:41 PM
(11-18-2011, 11:09 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: You added the part about torture, but other than that, yes, that's what I'm suggesting. It seems that you are horrified by the idea of eating an oyster alive but have no problem with eating alfalfa sprouts alive.
That's right. Because that oyster obviously doesn't want to be eaten. It's a being who makes it very clear that it wants to escape. As I've elaborated, I consider alfalfa sprouts, lettuce leaves, etc. all extensions of a being, rather than individual beings. I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever that each little sprout has individuated. Quite the contrary.
Thus, consuming sprouts is consuming the milk of the Mother...Gaia grows plants across her entire body, to nurture and nourish her offspring. Her bounty - plants - are designed to nourish the evolving animal life - cows and humans alike.
This seems very obvious to me. I can't prove it. It just seems so obvious. To me, this entire argument about eating plants vs. animals seems like such a stretch...one must go to such great lengths to even begin to compare the two.
Sometimes, the obvious answer is the correct one.
(11-18-2011, 11:09 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Again I would remind you of the Ra quote that everything in manifestation is offering itself. If harvesting cows, pigs, and chickens is forcible taking then so must be harvesting lettuce, carrots, and celery.
Not if what I just said is true.
Honestly, how can anyone call brutally slaughtering a cow 'harvesting'?
Plants are 'harvested' when they ready and ripe. It's the natural life cycle. A cow isn't ready or ripe for death.
(11-18-2011, 11:09 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Go back and re-read the dictionary definition, keeping in mind that petroleum is a non-renewable (non-sustainable) resource. Without petroleum, how is the blue-green algae from Klamath lake getting to people who want to eat it?
I don't deny that transport is needed for exotic superfoods. But the pros outweigh the cons. People are getting healed by eating bluegreen algae. Children overcoming attention problems, depression, etc. It's a valuable resource that should be shared with the world, not hoarded by the locals!
Meat, on the other hand, takes way more than it gives. The meat industry (referring to factory farming here, not Austin's type of farm) causes so much damage to the environment and to people's health, that it really can't be justified.
(11-18-2011, 11:09 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: It's fair to say about meat-eaters but not about plant-eaters? Do you really think everyone who eats meat doesn't care about the suffering of others and lusts for animal flesh?
The vast majority, yes. If they cared more about the animals than about satisfying the taste for meat, then why not just quit eating meat?
If a vegetarian quits eating plants, s/he will starve. But a meat-eater can quit eating meat and thrive.
Whether plants feel pain is quite debatable. The evidence says they don't, because they lack pain receptors. It's possible they still do, despite no pain receptors, but that's a very big IF.
There is no doubt whether animals feel pain and whether they want to be eaten. They don't.
It makes no sense to say, "But maybe plants feel pain too" as a justification for continuing to inflict pain, suffering and death upon beings who unmistakably and obviously, irrefutably do feel pain and irrefutably don't want to be killed.
(11-18-2011, 11:09 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: The phrase "lusts for ... flesh" has a very old-time religion, bible-banger-y feel about it, don't you think? Maybe a little moralistic?
I chose the word that best described my intended point.
I enjoy the taste of a fresh salad. But I don't crave it. As Pickle said, you won't find vegans bingeing out on carrots!
People have to often make themselves eat their veggies, because they are 'good for them.'
But even though everyone knows greasy hamburgers and fries are absolutely bad for their health, they still eat them anyway. Why? Because they crave those foods...to the point of eating them anyway even when they are obese or have heart disease and they know the food is making them worse. The word lust is appropriate here. It's more like a drug than sustenance.
It goes back to the fact that some sort of plant food is necessary for us to survive. Even those who eat meat must eat plants also, in order to get necessary nutrients.
But it's not necessary to eat animals.
Therefore, I don't get the point of the meat-eaters continuing to tell us "you are doing the same thing by eating plants." It really just seems like a defensive mechanism.
The bottom line is that humans must eat some sort of plants to be healthy. They don't have to eat animals. So no matter how you slice it, it's not a level playing field here.
(11-18-2011, 11:09 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Right, spiritually advanced and presumably harvestable to 4D, at least some of them. The question was if 4D+ could eat living animals. I think it's possible that 4D descendants of Native Americans, with their reverence for life and their awareness of our interconnection with all living things, could.
You are missing the part about the deer being already dead when they ate that 'fresh' bloody heart.
So that doesn't qualify as living food. For it to be living, the animal must still be alive as it is being eaten.
I don't believe any harvestable human could do that to an animal. The Native Americans were more merciful than that! They killed their prey swiftly and compassionately. They didn't drag it out, torturing it in some elongated death ritual, in order to eat it alive. The very thought of that is barbaric.
I know you aren't barbaric, so I can only assume that you are thinking of a recently killed animal as still being alive. But it isn't. Either it's dead or it's alive. Ra said living foods. That means alive, not recently killed. Only plants, bugs and oyster qualify for that.
Primitive people ate a lot of bugs. Do you really think that's what Ra meant by living foods? That we have that to look forward to? ugh I don't think I would enjoy 4D at all if I have to learn to eat Klingon Gagh!