04-30-2012, 11:30 AM
(04-30-2012, 11:03 AM)Diana Wrote:(04-30-2012, 10:28 AM)Valtor Wrote: So then Fruitarianism would be the only compassionate way of eating ?
No. Vegetable plants produce "fruit" as well. If you take an ear of corn off the plant, the plant doesn't die. When you take a zucchini off the plant, the plant doesn't die. The plants eventually die, but not as a result of removing the "fruit."...
There are many definitions of Fruitarianism. I included all those produce as being fruits. A zucchini is a fruit and so is a cucumber.
(04-30-2012, 11:03 AM)Diana Wrote:(04-30-2012, 10:45 AM)Valtor Wrote: Here is what I believe.
The plants and the animals that we eat have agreed to this service out of love for us even before incarnating, maybe not individually but their collective consciousness did. How we treat food while it is still "alive" should indeed matter.
This is a nice comfort for those eating meat...
It is yes. And I truly believe it. It's all a question of intent.
(04-30-2012, 11:03 AM)Diana Wrote: ...I can equally posit that the animals have agreed to help us learn compassion by allowing humans to treat them abominably. Does this mean we should continue treating them abominably?
It's a catalyst like everything else. Like wanderers coming here out of love for us knowing how they'll be treated by the Elites and the rest of our insanity.
(04-30-2012, 11:03 AM)Diana Wrote: Humans do not need to eat meat. So what then does a possible agreement to service mean from the animal kingdom to be food for us? That they are willing to do this service so we can eat things that taste good?
Does that make any sense?
We may not need to eat meat, but our modern society is not currently able to provide us with all the nutrients that our body needs without meat.