A Friendly Conversation: Exploring Omnivorous vs. Vegetarian Diet

[Monica]

The pic below brought to mind this past dialog:

Tenet Nosce Wrote:
But the fact is- we don't know. We don't know how "the animals" feel about this situation because they haven't spoken to us.

Actually, yes they have. They do every single day. Every single one of them.

(Oceania alert!)

Here is a very clear example. Watch carefully, from 1:29 to 1:49. Can you spare 20 seconds of your time to watch this?

Observe the body language. Oh, that's not 'speaking'? Ok, then watch and listen very carefully starting at 1:39. You can HEAR the cow speaking to us, very clearly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDXvm8Vwb...re=related

Tenet Nosce Wrote:
And as far as I am aware, there is not a single example of any entity from beyond the veil that has channeled a message on behalf of the animals imploring us to stop eating them.

Hmmm...I wonder if any entity from beyond the veil has channeled a message on behalf of the starving children telling us to feed them?

Wait! I got it! Maybe the reason there isn't any is...because....it's so flippin obvious! It's not necessary for those entities to tell us, because starving children are just so obviously in need of...food!

We've all seen the pictures of starving children, right? They're so skinny you can see their bones...big protruding belly...Do we really need some discarnate entity to tell us these children need food?

from http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...6#pid79986

Now look at the picture below and tell me it isn't torture.

[indolering]

Good post, Monica.

But please, no more pictures of torture - I can't handle it. Knowing that s*** exists is bad enough - seeing it is just too much....

[Spaced]

For food this week I bought nothing but fruits, veggies and raw nuts. I want to see if I can stick with this for a while.

So far I'm feeling great

[ocean50]

Observe the body language. Oh, that's not 'speaking'? Ok, then watch and listen very carefully starting at 1:39. You can HEAR the cow speaking to us, very clearly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDXvm8Vwb...re=related

That video clip is horrifying Monica. Every time I see anything like that it absolutely breaks my heart. I still have not been able to bring myself to watch the earthlings video.

[BrownEye]

Those videos are designed to increase the drive in the heart chakra.

Not a good thing to watch if the heart chakra is already in overdrive.

[Oldern]

Honestly, I do not know what to do at this point. I keep running into walls with those around me that refuse to look at their food eating habits, and I do not see a way around it other than bringing it up again and again - that would create even more resistance towards the subject.

I guess the only way to do this is really the peaceful one for me: keep exercising, stay in better and better shape and be an example of how one can stay fit even without meat. (Also, donate, but to whom? I cant donate to lessen the pain and restriction on those poor animals.)

[BrownEye]

I have found that what they call individual needs/individual metabolism seems to be individual choice. Meaning that needs are connected to the portions of DNA they have chosen to activate. This would explain why I do not fit the type O sterotype.

---

Honestly, I do not know what to do at this point. I keep running into walls with those around me that refuse to look at their food eating habits, and I do not see a way around it other than bringing it up again and again - that would create even more resistance towards the subject.

I guess the only way to do this is really the peaceful one for me: keep exercising, stay in better and better shape and be an example of how one can stay fit even without meat. (Also, donate, but to whom? I cant donate to lessen the pain and restriction on those poor animals.)

When i asked for a way to prove the power of food i was shown kinesiology three times in one day. After i tried it i found that these same people were unable to lie using this system, even when commanded to speak a lie. It was easy from there to connect "truth" to diet for these acquaintances.

[ocean50]

Honestly, I do not know what to do at this point. I keep running into walls with those around me that refuse to look at their food eating habits, and I do not see a way around it other than bringing it up again and again - that would create even more resistance towards the subject.

I guess the only way to do this is really the peaceful one for me: keep exercising, stay in better and better shape and be an example of how one can stay fit even without meat. (Also, donate, but to whom? I cant donate to lessen the pain and restriction on those poor animals.)

I fully understand Oldern. All we can really do is be the change ourselves. I feel it's a personal decision, and some people just aren't ready to accept certain things. I've found lately, that people have been quite intrigued and receptive to vegetarianism. When I tell them why, (health, cruelty, oneness, etc) I can see them thinking about it. They must come to the decision for themselves. I firmly believe if everyone watched just even one youtube clip on factory farming, etc, they would all kinda freak out. Ignorance is truly bliss at times.

Those videos are designed to increase the drive in the heart chakra.

Not a good thing to watch if the heart chakra is already in overdrive.

Interesting Pickle. I've never thought of that. Maybe I'm in overdrive, because I got tears in my eyes just watching that video clip. That's not typical of me.

[Monica]

Maybe I'm in overdrive, because I got tears in my eyes just watching that video clip.

I can't watch the footage. I get physically sick and get a bad headache, and the images haunt me for the rest of the day.

But I fully support showing the footage freely. It's REAL so why hide it? Those who think it's 'ok' shouldn't have any problem seeing it.

[Diana]

Honestly, I do not know what to do at this point. I keep running into walls with those around me that refuse to look at their food eating habits, and I do not see a way around it other than bringing it up again and again - that would create even more resistance towards the subject.

I guess the only way to do this is really the peaceful one for me: keep exercising, stay in better and better shape and be an example of how one can stay fit even without meat. (Also, donate, but to whom? I cant donate to lessen the pain and restriction on those poor animals.)

It is difficult. I have watched two sisters bring up their children eating garbage. No amount of gentle encouragement ever made a bit of difference to them regarding their responsibility as parents to feed their children healthy food--let alone be accountable to the suffering of animals.

What I have done is set the example as you say. I stay in shape, I eat well and vegetarian, and my nephews and niece know that. I look younger than my age (I am the oldest sister yet everyone always thinks I'm the youngest). They know I am a person who has convictions and integrity. I have taken them to shelters to donate food and clothes, and at Christmas I donate on behalf of my family and friends instead of buying gifts.

I have traditionally donated to no-kill shelters such as Best Friends, and to PETA, and The Greater Good Network.

If anyone has other suggestions of where to donate for the kinder treatment of animals, I'd love to hear.

[ocean50]

The ASPCA is another one. http://www.aspca.org/
Interesting how eating healthy and vegetarian easily goes with staying in shape. I personally look forward to a workout and a great veggie meal after. My body just rejoices.

[Steppingfeet]

"One language dies every 14 days. By the next century nearly half of the roughly 7,000 languages spoken on Earth will likely disappear, as communities abandon native tongues in favor of English, Mandarin, or Spanish. What is lost when a language goes silent?"

With this a National Geographic article opens from the July 2012 issue containing windows into a smattering of languages around the world which have relatively few remaining native speakers.

In the section about the Republic of Tuva, a small steppe district in the Russian Federation between Russia and Mongolia, the following section discusses the Tuvan word for a particular means of slaughtering an animal that encapsulates the sacred connection between the human and the animal.

VANISHING VOICES

When I ask university students in Kyzyl what Tuvan words are untranslatable into English or Russian, they suggest khööomei, because the singing is so connected with the Tuvan environment that only a native can understand it, and also khoj özeeri, the Tuvan method of killing a sheep.

If slaughtering can be seen as part of humans’ closeness to animals, khoj özeeri represents an unusually intimate version. Reaching through an incision in the sheep’s hide, the slaughterer severs a vital artery with his fingers, allowing the animal to quickly slip away without alarm, so peacefully that one must check its eyes to see if it is dead.

In the language of the Tuvan people, khoj özeeri means not only slaughter but also kindness, humaneness, a ceremony by which a family can kill, skin, and butcher a sheep, salting its hide and preparing its meat and making sausage with the saved blood and cleansed entrails so neatly that the whole thing can be accomplished in two hours (as the Mongushes [the family interviewed for the article] did this morning) in one’s good clothes without spilling a drop of blood.

Khoj özeeri implies a relationship to animals that is also a measure of a people’s character. As one of the students explained, “If a Tuvan killed an animal the way they do in other places” – by means of a gun or a knife – “they’d be arrested for brutality.”

To the avowed vegetarian, no form of animal slaughter is permissible, no matter how painless and no matter with what respect the animal is regarded. Nevertheless, in my world view what’s mentioned in this NatGeo article offers a needed alternative to current factory farms, and presents a model I support and am comfortable with given my understanding of the principles of the Law of One.

Thought I’d share.

[Tenet Nosce]

The pic below brought to mind this past dialog:

Tenet Nosce Wrote:
But the fact is- we don't know. We don't know how "the animals" feel about this situation because they haven't spoken to us.

Actually, yes they have. They do every single day. Every single one of them.

(Oceania alert!)

Here is a very clear example. Watch carefully, from 1:29 to 1:49. Can you spare 20 seconds of your time to watch this?

Observe the body language. Oh, that's not 'speaking'? Ok, then watch and listen very carefully starting at 1:39. You can HEAR the cow speaking to us, very clearly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDXvm8Vwb...re=related

Tenet Nosce Wrote:
And as far as I am aware, there is not a single example of any entity from beyond the veil that has channeled a message on behalf of the animals imploring us to stop eating them.

Hmmm...I wonder if any entity from beyond the veil has channeled a message on behalf of the starving children telling us to feed them?

Wait! I got it! Maybe the reason there isn't any is...because....it's so flippin obvious! It's not necessary for those entities to tell us, because starving children are just so obviously in need of...food!

We've all seen the pictures of starving children, right? They're so skinny you can see their bones...big protruding belly...Do we really need some discarnate entity to tell us these children need food?

Now now, I wasn't talking about non-verbal communication! I was specifically referring to verbal channeled messages from animal spirits, and/or their caretakers.

Your point about "it's so flippin obvious" is well-taken, but as I recall, that's not the conversation we were having at the time. I believe my general train of thought was more having to do with if not eating meat was important for 3D graduation. To which I concluded "not" or else we would have heard about the importance of this in channeled messages.

[Monica]

To the avowed vegetarian, no form of animal slaughter is permissible, no matter how painless and no matter with what respect the animal is regarded.

Since I am one of those 'avowed vegetarians' you are speaking for, I will respond and tell you it's not accurate.

Most vegetarians I know all agree that such a slaughter as you just described, when done out of absolute necessity, is acceptable.

The key here is necessity.

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.

I don't know of a single vegetarian who would have any issues with primitive peoples killing animals for survival. I don't know of a single vegetarian who would begrudge the Native Americans their reverent and thankful way of killing the deer or the bison, out of necessity.

However, I don't know of a single vegetarian who would approve of any killing of any animal, no matter how it's done, when it's not necessary.

In modern times, it's simply no longer necessary to kill animals for food.

That is the difference.

Nevertheless, in my world view what’s mentioned in this NatGeo article offers a needed alternative to current factory farms, and presents a model I support and am comfortable with given my understanding of the principles of the Law of One.

One cannot expect the employees of any farm, or even the farmer himself, to extend love to the animal they are killing for profit. Our own Austin does so, and there are undoubtedly others, but not on a wide scale. The idea of replacing factory farms with such 'conscious' killing, while maintaining the current rate of meat consumption, isn't practical. Not by a long shot.

If you are truly comfortable with such killing, then the only way to ensure it's done like that is to do it yourself.

Doing the killing yourself would ensure full responsibility for the death of the entity.

I have a question for you: If it were feasible (which I don't think it is, but just IF), then why is this method preferable to just avoiding meat?

---

Your point about "it's so flippin obvious" is well-taken

but as I recall, that's not the conversation we were having at the time. I believe my general train of thought was more having to do with if not eating meat was important for 3D graduation.

We already know from Ra the criteria for graduation. We know that it's the overall love/compassion/service to others that matters, and eating meat or not eating meat is but one of many considerations. As I've previously said in this discussion, my main question regarding polarizing is: Was the person given an opportunity to feel compassion, and if so, how did s/he respond? It seems to me that diet per se has nothing to do with polarization/graduation, but our response to the opportunity to feel compassion has quite a lot to do with polarizing/graduation.

Also, graduation isn't the same as staying on the planet to help it heal. One school of thought is that some of us have taken on the task of helping clean and heal the planet. It could be that many people are eligible for graduation but whose vibrations aren't in harmony with the increased frequencies of the planet. It could be that some of those gravitating towards vegetarian/raw vegan diets feel such a pull because it's important for them, in order to accomplish their missions.

This is speculation of course, but might explain the recent trend towards vegetarianism and even raw vegan, which would have seemed quite radical a few decades, even 1 decade, ago.

To which I concluded "not" or else we would have heard about the importance of this in channeled messages.

Ra told us that compassion/love/forgiveness are all important for polarizing. Simple extrapolation from that would indicate that declining an opportunity to feel compassion and make more compassionate choices, and instead choosing to satisfy self's desires, might have an impact on polarizing.

Ra also did say to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, and used the term animal products instead of meat (when asked about general guidelines, in contrast to guidelines specifically about Carla), and in light of Ra's inclination to avoid infringement, I'd say that's a very important clue. That word necessary is what makes it a very clear-cut guideline, in my opinion.

As for other channeled sources, the absence of the topic doesn't mean much, because all channeled sources have some degree of distortion. Ie., if the channel eats meat, s/he is likely to color the info somewhat. And being that most people, whether channels or not, do eat meat, well there ya go.

Here is one who does address the issue, and states that the ET's recommend "moving away from the heavy meats" and heading in the direction of raw vegan:

http://transformationenergetics.com/2012...nal-world/

(Thanks to Diana for this link)

[Steppingfeet]

Since I am one of those 'avowed vegetarians' you are speaking for, I will respond and tell you it's not accurate.

Most vegetarians I know all agree that such a slaughter as you just described, when done out of absolute necessity, is acceptable.

The key here is necessity.

Ah, I see. A finer point I hadn't considered. Thank you for the clarification.

Edit: The Tuvans quoted in the NatGeo article are not primitive, though. By your parameters, they eat meat not out of necessity, but choice. (Or, due to limitations of resources and money, perhaps both necessity and choice, I'm not sure.)

At any rate, I understood that no form of animal slaughter is acceptable to the vegetarian, no matter how painless for the animal; and acknowledged such in my post. What I didn't think about was that the vegetarian would add an asterisk saying, "unless it is necessary for survival".

However, I don't know of a single vegetarian who would approve of any killing of any animal, no matter how it's done, when it's not necessary.

Will henceforth be amended to include that caveat in my thinking.

One cannot expect the employees of any farm, or even the farmer himself, to extend love to the animal they are killing for profit. Our own Austin does so, and there are undoubtedly others, but not on a wide scale. The idea of replacing factory farms with such 'conscious' killing, while maintaining the current rate of meat consumption, isn't practical. Not by a long shot.

I wouldn't argue that it's in our best interest to continue consuming meat at our current meat-crazy levels.

Choosing to eat meat from sources that humanely raise and slaughter the animals has significantly reduced my meat consumption.

If you are truly comfortable with such killing, then the only way to ensure it's done like that is to do it yourself.

No thank you. I'm comfortable with using the toilet but have no desire to be a plumber.

Doing the killing yourself would ensure full responsibility for the death of the entity.

Indeed. A lot of things done by myself would ensure that they were done to my particular standard on the matter. But in an interdependent complex society, we rely on sources we trust to produce that which we need or desire. Whether it's my kitchen table, or the seatbelts in my car, or the clothing I wear, or the foodstuffs I consume.

I have a question for you: If it were feasible (which I don't think it is, but just IF), then why is this method preferable to just avoiding meat?

Why are you interested in knowing my reasons for retaining meat as a part of my diet?

GLB

[Monica]

At any rate, I understood that no form of animal slaughter is acceptable to the vegetarian, no matter how painless for the animal; and acknowledged such in my post. What I didn't think about was that the vegetarian would add an asterisk saying, "unless it is necessary for survival".

Right. An easy way to remember it is to liken it to a common view about killing in general, such as "killing humans is always wrong except for in cases of self-defense."

It's the same, except, in the case of animals, necessity might be defined as self-defense (being chased by a tiger) or survival (as with primitive cultures).

If you are truly comfortable with such killing, then the only way to ensure it's done like that is to do it yourself.

No thank you. I'm comfortable with using the toilet but have no desire to be a plumber.

A plumbing problem doesn't involve the taking of a life.

Indeed. A lot of things done by myself would ensure that they were done to my particular standard on the matter. But in an interdependent complex society, we rely on sources we trust to produce that which we need or desire. Whether it's my kitchen table, or the seatbelts in my car, or the clothing I wear, or the foodstuffs I consume.

Right. But meat 'foodstuffs' involve the taking of the lives of beings who feel pain and emotions.

Why are you interested in knowing my reasons for retaining meat as a part of my diet?

I'm not. That's not what I asked. My question was a general one, out of sheer curiosity, and it was asked in the context of your idea of replacing factory farming with 'love-based' killing. I said I didn't think that idea was feasible on a wide scale, but if it were feasible, why would that be preferable to just avoiding meat altogether? I said nothing about your personal choices.

Meat hasn't been part of my life for 30 years. It's really no big deal to avoid it, and it's even easier now, with all the veggie options at even fast food restaurants.

So I was just curious: With veggie options freely available, that didn't cause the death of an animal, why go to all the trouble of trying to find 'humanely slaughtered' meat? Seems like a lot of hassle to me, with dubious results, so I was just wondering why, in general, meat-eaters go to such great lengths. It seems a lot easier to just quit eating animals.

[Patrick]

What if nothing is wrong and the Creator is free to experience the Creation/Creator in anyway it wishes to ?

What would such a Creation look like, especially from the perspective of veiled 3d ?

[Monica]

What if nothing is wrong and the Creator is free to experience the Creation/Creator in anyway it wishes to ?

What would such a Creation look like, especially from the perspective of veiled 3d ?

From the Creator's perspective, nothing is wrong.

But try telling that to the animals who are suffering (or to humans that are suffering).

[Patrick]

I tell it to myself when I am suffering. When I am told that I am lazy, fat and ugly. I seek the love in that moment. I do not believe the finding of that love is important or even possible while in 3d. It is the seeking that matters IMHO. Accepting that the moment/situation has love and is born out of love is what is important. There is even love in the situation where children die of hunger. But, we are not in a density of knowing.

[Steppingfeet]

Indeed. A lot of things done by myself would ensure that they were done to my particular standard on the matter. But in an interdependent complex society, we rely on sources we trust to produce that which we need or desire. Whether it's my kitchen table, or the seatbelts in my car, or the clothing I wear, or the foodstuffs I consume.

Right. But meat 'foodstuffs' involve the taking of the lives of beings who feel pain and emotions.

I understand that.

Why are you interested in knowing my reasons for retaining meat as a part of my diet?

I'm not. That's not what I asked. My question was a general one, out of sheer curiosity, and it was asked in the context of your idea of replacing factory farming with 'love-based' killing. I said I didn't think that idea was feasible on a wide scale, but if it were feasible, why would that be preferable to just avoiding meat altogether? I said nothing about your personal choices.

Meat hasn't been part of my life for 30 years. It's really no big deal to avoid it, and it's even easier now, with all the veggie options at even fast food restaurants.

So I was just curious: With veggie options freely available, that didn't cause the death of an animal, why go to all the trouble of trying to find 'humanely slaughtered' meat? Seems like a lot of hassle to me, with dubious results, so I was just wondering why, in general, meat-eaters go to such great lengths. It seems a lot easier to just quit eating animals.

And in order to answer your question, I would have to explain why I keep meat in my diet rather than, as you suggest, eliminating it altogether. Allow me to illustrate.

"Gary, why would you prefer this, what I am calling, "love-based killing" over avoiding meat entirely? It seems easier just to avoid meat than to go to the trouble of finding what you call humanely raised meat."

In order to answer, I would have to say, "Well Monica, I prefer inclusion of ethically raised and slaughtered meat in my diet over total abstention because _______." Or, "It is worth the trouble to eat humanely raised meat because _______."

And no matter what my reasons, you would, if in the mood for further conversation, seek to counter or negate any reason I might offer. In your valid perception, eating animal body complex is a categorical non-necessity and absolute moral wrong and thusly cannot, no matter the reasoning, be justified. (Excepting cases of self-defense or survival.)

You would, if interested in the energy investiture, put forth great, solid, well-researched and well-informed reasons to substantiate your point of view as the ascendent. I would acknowledge them and their validity, but I would remain unmoved because I see things differently, though I respect and commend the compassion you feel for other portions of the Creator.

In your question above, you say, "So I was just curious: With veggie options freely available, that didn't cause the death of an animal..."

Your question doesn't quite acknowledge what I had already put forth. The National Geographic article I quoted makes clear that I don't desire to avoid the death of the animal for food. I just desire to support a more humane system that reflects my own ethics; ethics that were given the catalyst to evolve thanks in part to this thread.

The crux of my whole position is that it is okay, acceptable, and ethical to eat animal meat *provided* the animal is able to live a relatively natural life and does not needlessly/excessively suffer in the process of death. You think otherwise, and that's fine, but those two points of view aren't going to be reconciled any time soon.

Much love, GLB

[Monica]

And in order to answer your question, I would have to explain why I keep meat in my diet rather than, as you suggest, eliminating it altogether.

You seem to have taken the question personally, when it wasn't intended that way. This is a discussion. As I said, my question was a general, philosophical question in the context of discussion.

If you choose not to answer, that's fine. But any answer needn't be based on your own personal choices. If you have been keeping up with these threads over the past 3 years, then you'll know that I have consistently avoided discussing anyone's personal choices, preferring instead to stick to philosophical ideas and concepts.

And no matter what my reasons, you would, if in the mood for further conversation, seek to counter or negate any reason I might offer.

No, actually I wouldn't. In that scenario, in which you offered your reasons for your own personal choices, rather than discussing in general terms as I had requested, I'd ignore those comments, as I've consistently done each and every time others did that.

It's not my place to judge, invalidate, or shoot down others' choices. I haven't done that in these threads so I wouldn't do it to you.

If, however, you avoided discussing your own personal choices and instead continued an impersonal, general discussion, then of course I'd likely respond to your comments. (Which of course is acceptable, being that this is, after all, a discussion.)

Do you see the difference?

In your valid perception, eating animal body complex is a categorical non-necessity and absolute moral wrong and thusly cannot, no matter the reasoning, be justified. (Excepting cases of self-defense or survival.)

This is accurate, with the added note that there might be some rare, unusual cases of medical need due to extreme conditions, which I'd classify under 'survival.'

You would, if interested in the energy investiture, put forth great, solid reasons to substantiate your point of view as the ascendent.

I'm a little uncomfortable with your choice of term ascendent as though we're having a competition.

I would acknowledge them and their validity, but I would remain unmoved because I see things differently

OK, your mind is made up. I get that. But you seem to think I have a mission to change you. I don't. So, I don't really understand why you are explaining to me why your mind is made up. shrug It's just a "friendly conversation" after all.

Your question doesn't quite acknowledge what I had already put forth. The National Geographic article I quoted makes clear that I don't desire to avoid the death of the animal for food. I just desire to support a more humane system that reflects my own ethics; ethics that were given the catalyst to evolve thanks in part to this thread.

Then that is the source of our miscommunication, because I'm not really interested in what you personally desire. No offense, but I'm simply not interested in that. As I've stated many times in these discussions, I'm interested only in philosophical discussion, not in analyzing other people's choices.

The crux of my whole position is that it is okay, acceptable, and ethical to eat animal meat *provided* the animal is able to live a relatively natural life and does not needlessly/excessively suffer in the process of death.

In a strictly philosophical context, if you care to answer, I ask this: I noticed you chose the term "eat animal meat" rather than "kill an animal." This indicates to me a disconnect between killing an animal and eating an animal.

I have zero interest in what people eat. My interest is only in the topic of killing.

So, again philosophically, are you saying that it's "ok, acceptable and ethical" to kill a higher 2D entity who can think, feel pain and emotions, when it's totally unnecessary, but just to satisfy a personal desire?

Again, not directed at you personally. This is a philosophical question.

[Patrick]

Monica, are you saying that if we desire meat we should overcome this desire ?

[Monica]

Monica, are you saying that if we desire meat we should overcome this desire ?

I generally avoid telling others what I think they "should" do.

I will limit my response to the suggestion that differentiating between need and desire might be a good place to start.

[BrownEye]

My wife had made some sweet treats for the kids years ago. For fun she had put a face on the cookies and boy was my daughter pissed. This was before she was speaking yet. She handed the dish back indignantly and would not eat anything until my wife had removed the face. Is it odd to refuse to eat anything with a face on it?

She pretty much lives on fruit now. It has bothered me as to how she focuses on fruit, but after a reading done on her it seems to be a preprogrammed trait that is focused on health at a very young age. I still try to sneak greens and supplements into her food.

[Patrick]

...differentiating between need and desire...

This is indeed quite a challenge.

[Diana]

To the avowed vegetarian, no form of animal slaughter is permissible, no matter how painless and no matter with what respect the animal is regarded.

Since I am one of those 'avowed vegetarians' you are speaking for, I will respond and tell you it's not accurate.

Most vegetarians I know all agree that such a slaughter as you just described, when done out of absolute necessity, is acceptable.

The key here is necessity.

I agree with Monica, as a spiritual being, not as a vegetarian. Yes, I am vegetarian, but I am vegetarian because I respect life, all life. One could just as easily call me a "respecter of life" rather than "vegetarian."

In my opinion, the issue is the sacredness of life, not about choice in diet. Life is the underlying principle, and what one eats flows from one's depth of understanding of, and inner-connectedness to, all life.

---

My wife had made some sweet treats for the kids years ago. For fun she had put a face on the cookies and boy was my daughter pissed. This was before she was speaking yet. She handed the dish back indignantly and would not eat anything until my wife had removed the face. Is it odd to refuse to eat anything with a face on it?

She pretty much lives on fruit now. It has bothered me as to how she focuses on fruit, but after a reading done on her it seems to be a preprogrammed trait that is focused on health at a very young age. I still try to sneak greens and supplements into her food.

Your daughter seems the quintessential "crystal" child, born with so much already in place.

---

The crux of my whole position is that it is okay, acceptable, and ethical to eat animal meat *provided* the animal is able to live a relatively natural life and does not needlessly/excessively suffer in the process of death.

Questions regarding this line of thinking (not directed toward any individual, rather to the philosophy):

1. How is "needless/excessive suffering" defined?

2. What does "relatively natural" mean? (Natural for an animal is in the wild, on its own, in the environment it evolved in.)

3. Can one ever say it is "ethical" to take the life of an animal for food, considering it is not necessary?

[Steppingfeet]

And no matter what my reasons, you would, if in the mood for further conversation, seek to counter or negate any reason I might offer.

No, actually I wouldn't. In that scenario, in which you offered your reasons for your own personal choices, rather than discussing in general terms as I had requested, I'd ignore those comments, as I've consistently done each and every time others did that.

It's not my place to judge, invalidate, or shoot down others' choices. I haven't done that in these threads so I wouldn't do it to you.

If, however, you avoided discussing your own personal choices and instead continued an impersonal, general discussion, then of course I'd likely respond to your comments. (Which of course is acceptable, being that this is, after all, a discussion.)

So if I list reasons a, b, and c regarding why I choose to eat meat, then, according to what you say above, the discussion stops, yes? Because you're up against the barrier of personal decision and you're committed to ignoring that arena.

In your thinking, even if unexpressed, you would disagree with the logic and rationale behind my thinking, but you wouldn’t contend with my personal choice? You wouldn’t express your disagreements?

In actuality, everything I’ve posted thus far in the recent past stems from my personal choice. I’m posting about how I see this situation and the decisions I make accordingly. How, then, does that affect your position and orientation?

This is accurate, with the added note that there might be some rare, unusual cases of medical need due to extreme conditions, which I'd classify under 'survival.'

So in this statistically small category that, according to your understanding, *requires* animal protein in order to survive, through what means would you propose they acquire said animal protein?

I'm a little uncomfortable with your choice of term ascendent as though we're having a competition.

In my opinion, it’s inherent in your position. The sheer momentum and energy and passion and conviction you have behind your thoughts speak to the certainty you have regarding the superiority of this particular way of thinking. And that’s fine. I have plenty of modes of thought and activity that I think are superior to other modes of thought and activity, and that will come through in conversations I have with others, though I will of course strive to respect the choices and thoughts of others, as you likewise attempt to do when conversing with the omnivore.

OK, your mind is made up. I get that. But you seem to think I have a mission to change you. I don't. So, I don't really understand why you are explaining to me why your mind is made up. shrug It's just a "friendly conversation" after all.

Because, there’s a pushing, assertive, challenging nature to your discussion in this arena. I don’t perceive that you approach this with pure inquisitiveness, or pure interest in an other’s point of view, or pure discussion for the sake of discussion – like one might discuss their favorite music, or share past experiences.

Your mind is totally and wholly committed to one proposition, and you, naturally and understandably, hope for real-world change. This is reflected in the way you relate on this issue, as I perceive it. Not knocking you for this, just helping to explain why I emphasize that it comes down to committed, generally mutually exclusive positions that won’t find a middle ground except to say, “I see/understand why you’ve made your choice, and accept/love you as you are without desire to change you.”

It’s a tough balancing and juggling act you have in this regard. On one hand, you love people and seek to live/exemplify love, knowing that love asks that all beings be accepted for who they are as they are without need or desire to change them. On the other hand, that act of acceptance involves accepting ways you consider unnecessary and brutal; ways that potentially and in actuality harm other beings. So what do you do?

Then that is the source of our miscommunication, because I'm not really interested in what you personally desire. No offense, but I'm simply not interested in that. As I've stated many times in these discussions, I'm interested only in philosophical discussion, not in analyzing other people's choices.

I began my recent participation in this thread stating that which I personally desire, sharing an excerpt from an article that captured that which I personally desire, reflecting my personal thoughts on the matter, and giving my personal thoughts an avenue of expression.

I didn’t remove the person from the equation, and I don’t understand how you believe you’re doing that. I grasp that you wish to respect the choices of others. In my years of working with you, you never attempted to change me or even hinted that I should make a change. But I don’t believe that your position in this discussion is as removed, impersonal, and philosophical as you say, or would sincerely like to believe, it is.

In a strictly philosophical context, if you care to answer, I ask this: I noticed you chose the term "eat animal meat" rather than "kill an animal." This indicates to me a disconnect between killing an animal and eating an animal.

I have zero interest in what people eat. My interest is only in the topic of killing.

Understood that you’re interest is on the topic of killing, not eating, per se, and that, I would add, you are only interested in the topic of eating insofar as it precipitates and perpetuates a system of killing.

That said, you ask me regarding how I mentioned “eating” animal meat without making the connection to the obvious necessity of the animal’s death. In fact, I had made exactly that connection earlier in the post you replied to when I said, “The National Geographic article I quoted makes clear that I don't desire to avoid the death of the animal for food.”

I understand that the two go hand in hand: eating meat involves accepting the slaughtering of an animal, and when it finally dawned on me that what I eat helps to contribute to gross animal suffering, I changed my eating habits to reduce that suffering.

Also, your question is very personal. I’m not criticizing you for that or implying that we shouldn’t be having personal discussions, I’m just pointing out that just because you put the word “philosophical” before “context” doesn’t somehow change the bare bones of the fact that you’re asking me if my choice to “eat animal meat” is being consciously connected with the fact that that choice involves killing an animal.

Philosophy allows me to see the rightness of your own point of view, and the possibility of mutually exclusive points of view both being right, and the larger picture within which we are playing our roles on this Earth stage as unknowing seekers – but you’re tackling subject matter that is very personal to both you and myself. We can expand our vision to include the philosophical perspective and find that there’s ample room for love no matter our divergent opinions, but again, there is an inextricable, deeply personal element to this equation that isn’t easily removed.

So, again philosophically, are you saying that it's "ok, acceptable and ethical" to kill a higher 2D entity who can think, feel pain and emotions, when it's totally unnecessary, but just to satisfy a personal desire?

That’s a difficult question to answer because to do so I would have to agree with your terms, especially the last two components: “totally unnecessary” and “personal desire”, neither of which I entirely agree with, though certainly there applicability in many cases.

We could have a philosophical or a practical discussion regarding the necessity/non-necessity of meat-eating, and whether it’s eaten as a mere result of personal desire, and you could make some really awesome arguments to support both contentions, but inevitably personal opinion would have to be invoked on both sides, which is why I mentioned earlier that our opinions won’t be reconciled.

---

I agree with Monica, as a spiritual being, not as a vegetarian. Yes, I am vegetarian, but I am vegetarian because I respect life, all life. One could just as easily call me a "respecter of life" rather than "vegetarian."

Well put.

In my opinion, the issue is the sacredness of life, not about choice in diet. Life is the underlying principle, and what one eats flows from one's depth of understanding of, and inner-connectedness to, all life.

I can see the connection you make, but I don’t believe that one necessarily and invariably follows the other.

If that were true, ones diet (an indirect way of seeing ones respect of life because certain diets involve killing whereas others do not) would be an objective measure to segregate (in a non-pejorative sense) the advanced entity from the non-advanced. Isn’t that an unavoidable (if unintended) implication of what you’re positing? Vegetarians would have a greater “depth of understanding” and meat eater a lesser “depth of understanding”. But countless examples could be located to nullify both that rule, including the classic and commonly evoked vegetarian Hitler.

Certainly depth of understanding of the interconnectedness of life may lead to changes in diet and changes in the relationship between third and second-density beings. No doubt. But what one eats is not an objective measure of depth of understanding, just one among many possible indicators.

The crux of my whole position is that it is okay, acceptable, and ethical to eat animal meat *provided* the animal is able to live a relatively natural life and does not needlessly/excessively suffer in the process of death.

Questions regarding this line of thinking (not directed toward any individual, rather to the philosophy):

1. How is "needless/excessive suffering" defined?

2. What does "relatively natural" mean? (Natural for an animal is in the wild, on its own, in the environment it evolved in.)

In response to both questions, and admitting that I’m no expert on these things, in general I would say that an animal which is not beaten or treated with cruelty, which is given the types of food it naturally desires and not force fed food is wasn’t designed to digest, which is given an environment that attempts to approximate its natural environment (hence the word “releative”) including not being crowded into tiny spaces, being able to see the sunlight, being able to move relatively freely within certain bounds, not being injected with growth hormones and who knows what else, and a slaughtering process that is not alarming, is quick, and painless.

Much love, GLB

[Bring4th_Austin]

So I was just curious: With veggie options freely available, that didn't cause the death of an animal, why go to all the trouble of trying to find 'humanely slaughtered' meat? Seems like a lot of hassle to me, with dubious results, so I was just wondering why, in general, meat-eaters go to such great lengths. It seems a lot easier to just quit eating animals.

But try telling that to the animals who are suffering (or to humans that are suffering).

Responsibly grown produce takes just as much effort to find as humanely raised meat. If you're unaware of the source of your vegetables (and a quip on the grocery store shelf doesn't count), then you have no clue exactly what sort of suffering is caused by it's production. How do they deal with pests/varmints? (For wholesale producers, varmints are probably poisoned and die suffering.) What sort of animals are harmed and displaced by the production? (And not just insects, but the millions of living beings which might have previously called an acre of monoculture home.) What sort of harm is done to the local and surrounding ecosystems causing suffering? What sort of harm is done to the greater ecosystem? What sort of labor do they use? (For wholesale producers, most likely underpaid immigrant workers working and living in conditions I wouldn't consider "humane".) Also, just as importantly for me, what is their intent in growing the food? I believe fully that our intent will affect the "emotions" of a plant...if a lettuce plant is viciously uprooted from the ground by a disgruntled worker, having only been placed there for the sole reason of profit, do you think that lettuce plant lived a happy life? These are a small fraction of considerations given to food production which could cause suffering on some level.

I know that most vegetarians feel that it is more ethical to slaughter a plant rather than an animal, and that's where the philosophy departs from my own beliefs; there will be disagreement there that is beyond recourse. But the argument that finding ethically raised meat is wasted effort when there's plenty of vegetarian options available I do not buy at all. It takes just as much effort to be sure that the vegetables you're eating were grown without unnecessary harm to living beings, directly through production or indirectly through influence on the ecosystem, as it does to find meat that is humanely raised.

[BrownEye]

I understand that the two go hand in hand: eating meat involves accepting the slaughtering of an animal, and when it finally dawned on me that what I eat helps to contribute to gross animal suffering, I changed my eating habits to reduce that suffering.

This is an awesome statement. Brought a tear to my eye. Not the "conversion" concept but the awareness shift.

[Monica]

So if I list reasons a, b, and c regarding why I choose to eat meat, then, according to what you say above, the discussion stops, yes? Because you're up against the barrier of personal decision and you're committed to ignoring that arena.

In your thinking, even if unexpressed, you would disagree with the logic and rationale behind my thinking, but you wouldn’t contend with my personal choice? You wouldn’t express your disagreements?

I shall try to explain. Throughout this marathon discussion, several people have explicitly asked me for approval of their personal choices to reduce meat, or only eat 'red' meat, or whatever. A few seemed to be seeking praise for reducing or eliminating meat. Others have defended their choices to continue to eat meat, with extensive rationale, also seeking approval.

This put me in an awkward position of being their judge. I decline. It's not my place to judge anyone's choices. It works both ways. If I'm to not judge those who eat meat, then I must not praise those who don't, either. Because both are judging.

Therefore, very early on in this conversation, I chose to adopt a very strict policy of not ever getting involved in assessing anyone's personal choice. I prefer to avoid that altogether, because, you see, regardless of how I respond, I'd still be accused of judging. I don't want to judge you or anyone else. I'm very perplexed that you are persisting in asking me to after I've declined.

So, yes, I have and will continue to ignore any comments that appear defensive of one's own personal choices, or seem to be seeking approval from me. It's unfair to expect me to respond to such, and I won't participate.

The discussion needn't stop, just as it didn't stop when it happened many times before. We can continue an impersonal, philosophical discussion.

you're up against the barrier of personal decision

If what you're really getting at here, with this statement, is to try to point out to me that an other-self's "personal decision" trumps any causes I might believe in (such as championing the oppressed) then we're back to a topic that has already been exhaustively discussed: One person's freedom ends where another's begins. The only reason it's even contentious at all is because there is disagreement as to whether a higher 2D entity, who feels pain and emotion and can think, should be classified as a 'self.' Ie. if this were a human, there would be no debate. No one would ever question those who are championing humans who are being needlessly killed! The only reason we're going round and round is because it's mere animals who are being needlessly killed.

It's the same reason the abortion debate goes round and round. Pro-lifers think the unborn baby is a 'self' and the pro-choicers think it isn't.

Being that we're Law of One students, my interest is in exploring why other Law of One students don't consider higher 2D beings to be other-selves, not judging the personal decisions of those who obviously think they're not.

I consider the former to be a very important topic, being that our task is to love other-selves, and millions of possible other-selves are being tortured and killed on a daily basis, all because of a desire for the taste of animal flesh. No matter how you slice it, needlessly killing an other-self, no matter how "painlessly," would never be acceptable to an STO entity, if that other-self were human.

My interest, then, isn't in your personal reasons and justifications, for I'd rather not tread there into the land of judging you, but in exploring how and why what seems like an obvious "other-self" isn't deemed so by other Law of One students.

In actuality, everything I’ve posted thus far in the recent past stems from my personal choice. I’m posting about how I see this situation and the decisions I make accordingly. How, then, does that affect your position and orientation?

It doesn't.

So in this statistically small category that, according to your understanding, *requires* animal protein in order to survive, through what means would you propose they acquire said animal protein?

That's easy. Free-range eggs and raw milk from grazing cows or goats.

That wasn't sufficient for primitive peoples because they also needed the hides for clothing. Their situation was different.

In my opinion, it’s inherent in your position. The sheer momentum and energy and passion and conviction you have behind your thoughts speak to the certainty you have regarding the superiority of this particular way of thinking. And that’s fine. I have plenty of modes of thought and activity that I think are superior to other modes of thought and activity, and that will come through in conversations I have with others, though I will of course strive to respect the choices and thoughts of others, as you likewise attempt to do when conversing with the omnivore.
...
Because, there’s a pushing, assertive, challenging nature to your discussion in this arena. I don’t perceive that you approach this with pure inquisitiveness, or pure interest in an other’s point of view, or pure discussion for the sake of discussion – like one might discuss their favorite music, or share past experiences.

Your mind is totally and wholly committed to one proposition, and you, naturally and understandably, hope for real-world change. This is reflected in the way you relate on this issue, as I perceive it. Not knocking you for this, just helping to explain why I emphasize that it comes down to committed, generally mutually exclusive positions that won’t find a middle ground except to say, “I see/understand why you’ve made your choice, and accept/love you as you are without desire to change you.”

It’s a tough balancing and juggling act you have in this regard. On one hand, you love people and seek to live/exemplify love, knowing that love asks that all beings be accepted for who they are as they are without need or desire to change them. On the other hand, that act of acceptance involves accepting ways you consider unnecessary and brutal; ways that potentially and in actuality harm other beings. So what do you do?

I see the same pattern as what happened before: when the conversation reached a certain point, people switched from intellectual discussion to analyzing individuals. I won't participate in that.

Then that is the source of our miscommunication, because I'm not really interested in what you personally desire. No offense, but I'm simply not interested in that. As I've stated many times in these discussions, I'm interested only in philosophical discussion, not in analyzing other people's choices.

I began my recent participation in this thread stating that which I personally desire, sharing an excerpt from an article that captured that which I personally desire, reflecting my personal thoughts on the matter, and giving my personal thoughts an avenue of expression.

I didn’t remove the person from the equation, and I don’t understand how you believe you’re doing that. I grasp that you wish to respect the choices of others. In my years of working with you, you never attempted to change me or even hinted that I should make a change. But I don’t believe that your position in this discussion is as removed, impersonal, and philosophical as you say, or would sincerely like to believe, it is.

Why are you going off-topic into talking about me? I'm not participating in that. I'm only interested in the topic.

In a strictly philosophical context, if you care to answer, I ask this: I noticed you chose the term "eat animal meat" rather than "kill an animal." This indicates to me a disconnect between killing an animal and eating an animal.

I have zero interest in what people eat. My interest is only in the topic of killing.

Understood that you’re interest is on the topic of killing, not eating, per se, and that, I would add, you are only interested in the topic of eating insofar as it precipitates and perpetuates a system of killing.

That said, you ask me regarding how I mentioned “eating” animal meat without making the connection to the obvious necessity of the animal’s death. In fact, I had made exactly that connection earlier in the post you replied to when I said, “The National Geographic article I quoted makes clear that I don't desire to avoid the death of the animal for food.”

I understand that the two go hand in hand: eating meat involves accepting the slaughtering of an animal, and when it finally dawned on me that what I eat helps to contribute to gross animal suffering, I changed my eating habits to reduce that suffering.

Also, your question is very personal. I’m not criticizing you for that or implying that we shouldn’t be having personal discussions, I’m just pointing out that just because you put the word “philosophical” before “context” doesn’t somehow change the bare bones of the fact that you’re asking me if my choice to “eat animal meat” is being consciously connected with the fact that that choice involves killing an animal.

Gary, I never asked you any such thing. I never asked you anything about your personal choice at all!

What I said was this:

In a strictly philosophical context, if you care to answer, I ask this: I noticed you chose the term "eat animal meat" rather than "kill an animal." This indicates to me a disconnect between killing an animal and eating an animal.

I have zero interest in what people eat. My interest is only in the topic of killing.

So, again philosophically, are you saying that it's "ok, acceptable and ethical" to kill a higher 2D entity who can think, feel pain and emotions, when it's totally unnecessary, but just to satisfy a personal desire?

Again, not directed at you personally. This is a philosophical question.

I said "if you care to share" in the interest of continuing the discussion. If you'd rather not, that's fine.

So, again philosophically, are you saying that it's "ok, acceptable and ethical" to kill a higher 2D entity who can think, feel pain and emotions, when it's totally unnecessary, but just to satisfy a personal desire?

That’s a difficult question to answer because to do so I would have to agree with your terms, especially the last two components: “totally unnecessary” and “personal desire”, neither of which I entirely agree with, though certainly there applicability in many cases.

I thought the question was quite clear. Either it's necessary or it's not. Even the medical establishment agrees that meat isn't necessary. So it really boils down to 2 options:

1. The person disagrees with the scientific community about human need for meat, and believes that they do in fact need meat.

or

2. They recognize that they don't truly need meat, but choose to eat it anyway for whatever reason.

My question had to do with those in category #2, since those in category #1 obviously feel they need it so the question is moot for them.

We could have a philosophical or a practical discussion regarding the necessity/non-necessity of meat-eating, and whether it’s eaten as a mere result of personal desire, and you could make some really awesome arguments to support both contentions, but inevitably personal opinion would have to be invoked on both sides, which is why I mentioned earlier that our opinions won’t be reconciled.

I''m not seeking agreement. Are you?

including the classic and commonly evoked vegetarian Hitler.

Not all vegetarians care about animals. Many are vegetarians strictly for health reasons. Who knows what Hitler's reasons were, but I think we can safely assume it wasn't out of concern for animal suffering!

Perhaps we need a better term, such as "animal welfare activists" or something like that, to distinguish those who care about animals from those who are veg for other reasons.

For purposes of this discussion, I think we can safely say that the vocal vegetarians in these threads are so because of concern for the animals.

what one eats is not an objective measure of depth of understanding, just one among many possible indicators.

We've stated this many times. We've also stated that it's not about what one eats per se, but about one's response to the opportunity for compassion.

---

Responsibly grown produce takes just as much effort to find as humanely raised meat. If you're unaware of the source of your vegetables (and a quip on the grocery store shelf doesn't count), then you have no clue exactly what sort of suffering is caused by it's production. How do they deal with pests/varmints? (For wholesale producers, varmints are probably poisoned and die suffering.) What sort of animals are harmed and displaced by the production? (And not just insects, but the millions of living beings which might have previously called an acre of monoculture home.) What sort of harm is done to the local and surrounding ecosystems causing suffering? What sort of harm is done to the greater ecosystem? What sort of labor do they use? (For wholesale producers, most likely underpaid immigrant workers working and living in conditions I wouldn't consider "humane".) Also, just as importantly for me, what is their intent in growing the food? I believe fully that our intent will affect the "emotions" of a plant...if a lettuce plant is viciously uprooted from the ground by a disgruntled worker, having only been placed there for the sole reason of profit, do you think that lettuce plant lived a happy life? These are a small fraction of considerations given to food production which could cause suffering on some level.

All good points! I was thrilled to recently discover a local farmer's market. The farmer and his wife run the store and I often ask lots of questions about how their raise their produce. Thank you for suggesting to me awhile back that I search for a farmer's market!

I learned that not all farmer's markets are the same, however!

I know that most vegetarians feel that it is more ethical to slaughter a plant rather than an animal, and that's where the philosophy departs from my own beliefs; there will be disagreement there that is beyond recourse. But the argument that finding ethically raised meat is wasted effort when there's plenty of vegetarian options available I do not buy at all. It takes just as much effort to be sure that the vegetables you're eating were grown without unnecessary harm to living beings, directly through production or indirectly through influence on the ecosystem, as it does to find meat that is humanely raised.

I wouldn't say it's a wasted effort. It's a positive step in the continuum.

If it takes "just as much effort" then it seems to me that by eating both meat and produce, that effort is doubled, since those who eat animals do eat produce too.