In regards to eating meat

[BrownEye]

that change happened quite fast. there is nothing barring that from happening again.

Interesting thought there. If we are to look at our current state of awareness, and what we know will come to be, what do we actively choose to be and become?

---

Here are a couple exceprts from old posts that I found interesting.

The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm of human evolution, says Sussman, "It developed from a basic Judeo-Christian ideology of man being inherently evil, aggressive and a natural killer. In fact, when you really examine the fossil and living non-human primate evidence, that is just not the case."
Sussman's research is based on studying the fossil evidence dating back nearly seven million years. "Most theories on Man the Hunter fail to incorporate this key fossil evidence," Sussman says. "We wanted evidence, not just theory. We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls, bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them." ...
But what Sussman and Hart discovered is that Australopithecus afarensis was not dentally pre-adapted to eat meat. "It didn't have the sharp shearing blades necessary to retain and cut such foods," Sussman says. "These early humans simply couldn't eat meat. If they couldn't eat meat, why would they hunt?"

There is no question that humans are capable of digesting meat. But just because we can digest animals does not mean we're supposed to, or that it will be good for us. We can digest cardboard. But that doesn't mean we should.
If the evidence shows that our anatomy favors the digestion of plant foods, and we're healthier when we eat less animal foods, what do we make of the fact that we're capable of eating animals? It's simple: We have the ability to eat a wide variety of foods as a survival mechanism. The fact that we can eat just about anything, including meat, is very handy, from a biological point of view. But the fact that we're able to doesn't mean that we're optimized for it. The evidence for this is that our biology is similar to that of other herbivores, and the more animal foods we incorporate into our diets, the more our health suffers. In fact, it is rather specious to claim that humans are natural meat-eaters considering how poorly we fare when we do so.

Intestinal Toxemia
Intestinal toxemia is poisoning (infection) by decomposition products absorbed from the digestive tract. The toxins are exogenous--of outside origin.
Toxins resulting from protein decomposition (putrefaction) are more virulent than those resulting from carbohydrate decomposition (fermentation). As a rule, decomposition of animal proteins (meat and eggs) produce more virulent toxins than plant proteins.http://chestofbooks.com/health/natural-cure/The-Hygienic-System-Orthopathy/Intestinal-Toxemia.html

[Monica]

Well then it seems like you understand exactly where I am coming from.

Tenet, I'd like to add that yes, I really do understand where you're coming from, in regards to your health practice. Even though we disagree philosophically, on a practical level, we really aren't so different. The main difference I see is that, since I do feel so strongly about the animals (just as you and I both do about war), then I am always on the lookout for an opportunity to offer that info, whereas you (presumably) aren't.

However, I rarely offer it unless I see some sort of an indication that the person is ready to hear it. I don't just go up to people and tell them to quit eating dead animals! That would be absurd and wouldn't do any good anyway. But if they ask me for dietary recommendations, of course I tell them what I know. Or if I otherwise get some sort of opening, I offer them as much as I think they might be ready for. Then it's up to them as to what they do with that info.

Since I deal with people with health challenges every day, I encounter plenty of opportunities to gently plant the seeds about a plant-based diet. My approach depends on the person. But I'm certain that if you saw me in action, you wouldn't think of me as a 'zealot.'

Since my business is medical-grade water ionizer machines (producing alkaline, antioxidant water), what often happens is that, after drinking the water, people just naturally start improving their diet! I've known several people who became vegetarians after drinking the water, with zero prompting from me! And others who started eating salads, whereas they never liked salads before, or started cutting back on meat, for no apparent reason. The taste buds changes as the body chemistry changes.

So my job is actually really easy. Most people won't change their diets. But it's easy for them to just change their water. All I have to do is educate them on the water, and the water does the rest. It's very gratifying to watch the unexpected changes unfold.

Ironically, many of my animal-rights-activist friends would probably say I'm not vocal enough. But I am when it's appropriate. Sometimes being outspoken is called for, just like you said you do on the war and religion issues. And sometimes it's not. Just like on the war and religion issues. I wouldn't dream of knocking on my Christian friends' doors and telling them they're wrong! But when it comes up in conversation...it's fair game. That's where discernment comes in. It's a delicate balancing act, to find that balance between speaking up for our convictions, while respecting the rights of others. It gets even more difficult when victims are involved.

To complicate matters even further, there isn't a consensus as to whether victims are even involved! To me, it's obvious that victims are involved. Animals shriek in pain and terror! They struggle to escape the executioner. They are victims.

Astoundingly, not everyone agrees that they are victims. Not even here on a Law of One forum.

Can you understand that I am just as astounded by this, as you are that you had to explain why war is wrong? As you said...on a Law of One forum. Even if you don't agree with me, I hope that you can understand the comparison.

That's why such topics are considered volatile. I can think of other volatile topics that, blessedly, haven't yet come up. Sparks will fly if they ever do! Even on a Law of One forum...

Anyway, my point is that, what I do in practice, and what you do in practice, aren't up for debate or analysis. We each do the best we can, hopefully, in our particular circumstances. But there is a clear distinction between the discussion of concepts/ideals and application of those concepts/ideals.

Obviously, one would hope that we all strive to apply our ideals as best we can. But that is for each of us to ascertain for ourselves.

---

this planet's nature was changed before. there were dinosaurs, and the ecosystem was much more vile and rabid. now, it seems quite tame compared to that period. and that change happened quite fast. there is nothing barring that from happening again.

Very good point! I see no reason why Earth couldn't shift to a vegetarian planet, eventually, with humans leading the way. I read recently about a raw vegan who is feeding her dog a raw vegan diet. And the dog is thriving! I was amazed by this. I didn't think it was possible but she's doing it.

I wonder if the 4D vibrations are affecting the 2D entities...?

[AnthroHeart]

Monica, what's you're view on mice. We've had a number of them get into our home, chew up walls and clothing and leave a lot of mess. We had to lay down poison for them.

I googled the spiritual implications of killing them, and found that in Islam it's ok to do so, and recommended: http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/2896

- Thomas

[BrownEye]

If you put out poison, how do you deal with the resulting smell?

I have live traps that I used until I found the spot they were getting into the house and sealed it up. I used to keep them in a big jar for the kids to look at for an hour and then take them to the park and release them next to the pond.

---

I read recently about a raw vegan who is feeding her dog a raw vegan diet. And the dog is thriving! I was amazed by this. I didn't think it was possible but she's doing it.

I have heard of many doing this, and don't really agree with it, I have reason to question whether it is safe for a natural predator.

On the other hand, if I found that it was perfectly healthy, there are some pretty deep implications that come to mind.

I will ask about this.

[3DMonkey]

This is another reason I think it's pointless to talk about whether we should eat carrots. If we can't even get people to acknowledge the suffering of cows, who shriek in pain, what hope do we have of them feeling compassion for carrots?

Monica, you repeatedly say this isn't about what someone else should or shouldn't do.

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...2#pid46412

With respect, you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

---

pretty basic second density behavior, based on what ? observations from THIS planet's ecosystem ? bad sample.

2nd density was told to be an octave of consciousness with its own polarities. this means, whatever this ecosystem is manifesting, is at a certain point in overall polarity balance. and from what it seems, it seems to be rather on the negative. this is not so different in 3d either, the traits of the 2d in planet seems to be carrying over to 3d.

THIS planet is positive.

[Monica]

Monica, what's you're view on mice. We've had a number of them get into our home, chew up walls and clothing and leave a lot of mess.

We never had a mouse problem until recently. I always assumed it was because we always had lots of cats, but no.... Recently, ever since we've had a garden, we've had mice. I've also seen some rats in the garden eating the tomatoes, but thankfully, no rats in the house!

I noticed the cats playing with something, but too late - it was already dead. I figured they might as well eat it, since they'd already killed it, but nooooooo...all they wanted to do was play with it! Ugh.

A few days later, the cats caught another one, but this time I rescued it and set it free outside. This happened a couple more times, but of course it was pointless, since they just kept coming right back in. It's bad enough they cats catch the mice, but they aren't even the least bit interested in eating them! Now what do you make of that? Either my cats are too fat and well-fed, or...Could it be possible they are losing their taste for bloody carcasses? Hmmm...

Even my outdoor cats won't eat the mice they kill. They just leave them on our doorstep. (Ugh.) It's like, they still have the predator instinct, but no longer have the taste for bloody raw meat.

This was all in the last couple of weeks, so your timing is uncanny! We just got a humane mouse trap. It's just a box. You put in the bait and catch the critter, then set it free...far, far away! We live on the edge of town, so we plan to set the trap and then set the mice free in the woods a mile or so down the road.

Easy and cruelty-free solution!

http://www.havahart.com/

We got ours at the local hardware store.

I googled the spiritual implications of killing them, and found that in Islam it's ok to do so, and recommended:

That's rather curious - why scorpions but not mosquitoes and cockroaches? Mice are a nuisance but not exactly life-threatening like rabid dogs.

If those are the only 5 critters that Islam says it's ok to kill, then I wonder why Muslims aren't vegetarians.

At any rate, I personally don't consider the Koran, the Bible, or any other religious text to be authoritative. I guess if there were a Bubonic plague and mice and rats were carrying the plague, it could be justified.

But we don't have a plague right now...and we do have humane mousetraps!

[3DMonkey]

Traps are for CONTROL

[Monica]

With respect, you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Not sure why you think that, but you are entitled to your opinion.

THIS planet is positive.

This planet is having a very difficult birth to STO positive. I wouldn't say it has been positive up until now, and it's still not positive now. How can it be positive with all the violence still happening?

---

Traps are for CONTROL

Oh good grief, Monkey. You'd rather we kill them?

[3DMonkey]

You can kill whatever you want as far as I am concerned.

---

I accept that.

[Monica]

I have heard of many doing this, and don't really agree with it, I have reason to question whether it is safe for a natural predator.

Yes, I felt the very same way. I always thought it wasn't fair to require an obviously carnivorous animal to be a vegetarian. But I know vegans whose dogs are glowing! I tried the vegetarian dog food but my dogs turned their noses up at it. But they also turned their noses up at the raw meat dog food! How interesting!

What's more, my 2 older dogs have zero interest in fruits and veggies. But, my 2 younger dogs both love fruits and veggies! They gobble them up! What do you think of that? I can't help but wonder if maybe they are evolving right before my very eyes!

So I was very surprised and heartened to read Ani's story about her raw vegan dog. She says she had to teach him how to eat fruit! Amazing! He was a stray - skin and bones, mangy, and very sick - when she got him. And now he has a glowing coat, bright eyes, and boundless energy! She says people stop her on the street to tell her what an extraordinarily beautiful dog she has! You can read her story in her book, Ani's Raw Food Essentials by Ani Phyo, page 301.

On the other hand, if I found that it was perfectly healthy, there are some pretty deep implications that come to mind.

Yeah, no kidding!

I will ask about this.

Please let me know what you find out! Ask about cats, too!

---

You can kill whatever you want as far as I am concerned.

---

I accept that.

So let me get this straight: You don't care if I kill a mouse, but if I set it free in the woods, I'm controlling it?

[BrownEye]

Traps are for CONTROL

No its "the law". When they trespass on my property they are breaking the law and will be incarcerated before being deported.

[3DMonkey]

You can kill whatever you want as far as I am concerned.

---

I accept that.

So let me get this straight: You don't care if I kill a mouse, but if I set it free in the woods, I'm controlling it?

You don't think it is control? I accept whatever it is you do to a mouse, unless you want to put it in my bed while I'm asleep, then I might slip into some control tactics myself

[Monica]

You don't think it is control?

No I don't think it's control. It's showing respect for the mouse's right to life, while also showing respect to my right to a mouseless house.

[BrownEye]

I will ask about this.

Please let me know what you find out! Ask about cats, too!

Ok it was obvious that dogs can live on fruit and veggies. We all got yes.
But the moment I went to ask about cats the image of their teeth popped into my head. We all got a no for cats.

So the concept I was gonna look into is a no go LoL.

---

Another thing I thought of, dogs have molars, so obviously they can exist on an identical diet as man, while a man does not have the sort of "canines" to rend flesh. So..............dunno.

mouseless house.

That sounds like a sales pitch for new fangled housing.

[Monica]

Ok it was obvious that dogs can live on fruit and veggies. We all got yes.
But the moment I went to ask about cats the image of their teeth popped into my head. We all got a no for cats.

Interesting but not surprising.

So the concept I was gonna look into is a no go LoL.

Now I'm curious.

Another thing I thought of, dogs have molars, so obviously they can exist on an identical diet as man, while a man does not have the sort of "canines" to rend flesh. So..............dunno.

Do cats have molars?

That sounds like a sales pitch for new fangled housing.

Or an ad for Modest Mouse.

[BrownEye]

Yeah a cat has less molars than a dog, and don't seem to have any flat spots for grinding.

Cat with almost nonexistent molar.



A dog......



Even a horse has canines LoL!

[Tenet Nosce]

I'm sorry, this is going to be a totally sideways move, but by some "coincidence" I just watched an episode of Family Ties on Netflix in which the character roles almost exactly mimic some of the personality dynamics in this thread. Just a little bizarre, that's all. :exclamation:

Bring4th_Monica, all I can say is that it seems you and I have some strange Hall of Mirrors thing going on here. It appeared to me that you mistakenly felt that my original post was aimed at you, as I said it was not. You and I were apparently typing our posts out simultaneously, and somehow something that I said struck a chord within you somewhere. But I wasn't even writing toward you. Looking back, I can see how it might have looked that way, but it was not at all the case.

Your post went up at 12:07, Pickle's at 1:07, mine at 1:26. I had been composing it the entire time. The only person's view I refer to in the post is yossarian's. You, my dear, felt compelled to stand up and defend yossarian's view, and I concluded that you must feel that his view is an extension of your own. That's how we got embroiled in this kind of non-argument, where apparently we don't actually disagree at all. So it really does appear to me that you took something personal and kind of came at me. I can acknowledge that it may appear the exact opposite way to you, but that doesn't mean I will agree with you.

My posting here is almost entirely a reaction to yossarian's claim about the BEST diet that I believe would actually make some of my patients' conditions worse. I attempted to speak about it in a way that didn't divulge any details of my personal or professional life, but I did not seem able to communicate what I was trying to say, as evidenced by your repeated declaration that you had no idea where I was coming from. So I tried to bring in a personal, medically-related angle to illustrate some of the more subtle complexities of considering whether or not a particular belief about meat-eating is "STS" or "STO".

I believe that eating large amounts of fruit would make many people's conditions considerably more severe, so I get a little angry when somebody is telling others what to do with their health when they clearly don't know what they're talking about, and are blinded by absolutism and zealotry. Because veganism has killed people, and for better or for worse, there are people out there looking to this very thread for guidance on what and how to eat. You can't wax philosophical about dietary choices without making it practical. Eating is about as practical as it gets. So if one's philosophical principles of ethics are under threat of breaking down the moment they eat a snack, well, then maybe there is something wrong with their principles, and not the snack.

So I guess it's just a matter of who feels the need to protect what. Just like PFC JoeBob who feels duty bound to leave his family to protect the Afghani village. I suppose we all have a little Savior in us.

You say what about the animals? I say what about the animals? You and I are humans debating about human behavior. We have no clue what the animals are "thinking". Are you kidding me? I can't figure out what most humans are thinking. I don't know- I suppose the Universe has something totally unpredictable in store for us and them. I didn't set up the game such that some animals eat other animals, some animals won't eat humans (your cat, by the way, probably would ), most humans eat animals, but most humans do not eat other humans. There just seems to be a natural delineation there in the way the Divine Logos created the rules to physical life, and I don't see any reason to make it wrong or "unspiritual". I'm trusting that it is all working just fine, as intended, and does not require intervention on my part. War, on the other hand, is not a rule of physical life, although some might make it out to be.

I love my two cats, and I share my meat with them. That's "STO" enough for me. I think I know where my "harvestability" and "polarity" lie, so therefore anything I am doing must be sufficient enough to make the grade. Beyond that, I am not so sure. I will remain agnostic until my perception affords me the ability to accurately discern.

Look, I care about the animals and the rainforest and the ecosystem. But the way humanity deals with these things is a reflection of how we deal with ourselves, and not the other way around. If I were to hunt a deer, and consume its raw bleeding flesh ripe with fear from the chase, it would still be food for my body. I would not be too concerned about the spiritual residue of fear, if it exists, because if it exists, then I can easily overcome it with my own vibration of love and gratitude. Maybe that is my "purpose". :idea:

What I -do- know is that when a lion takes down a gazelle, they will eat the organ meats first, and leave the muscle tissue for the scavengers. I take this to be a cue that the lion instinctively knows where the nutrients are, and goes for that. Most people find the organ meats to be the most repulsive part of the animal, and eat only muscle tissue. (Charred to Kingdom Come, I might add. Hmm.. now where did that behavior originate?) Many humans believe that pizza is nutritious because it contains "All Four Food Groups". Some humans apparently think that their belief in nutritious pizza will magically "make it so" because they "create their own reality". So where do we go from here, in midsummer '11?

As for philosophical dispositions toward life, to each their own. Personally, what I've found is that when I try to strive for some unattainable ideal, it just makes me feel inadequate and out of control. I know that no matter what I do, I will never be good enough. This is why I believe people feel they need gurus and saviors. To fill that artificial gap between themselves and the ideal they have chosen to uphold. Their belief system requires a mystical being to "intercede" on their behalf in order to account for their inherent inability to live up to the ideal. And this does make us hypocrites because that's how Universe works. It shows us that we are not just one thing, but all things.

I am not pointing fingers at hypocrites . I do believe there is a way to move forward in all areas of life that does not require us to take up a personal cause and have a light-saber fight, and then have to defend ourselves against the inevitable claims of hypocrisy. Several times you have referred to my comments in another thread about war and drawing a comparison of your chosen cause to my chosen cause. War is not my chosen cause. I do not have a chosen cause. I feel confident in my ability to choose for myself a purpose in a moment as it is given. All I tried to offer in that thread was that plotting war might have been part of the reason Ra mentioned that Patton was not harvestable.

All I did was try to make a simple comment when somebody else swooped in with their Project Bluebeam Kit, and I argued back loudly. As I am somewhat prone to do when somebody is attempting to project their personal hell onto my otherwise peaceful life. Military my ass.

You jumped in, cheering me all the way. Which was very nice, but I didn't ask for any defense. I came over to this thread. Read the first two posts. Basically said I think yossarian is full of it and here is why, and you rushed in like the White Knight to defend his honor. Ohhhkay then.

Sorry I derailed your thread, it wasn't intentional.

Oh, and cats definitely are meat eaters. Folks, please don't try to make a vegan out of your best feline friend, their precious little animal soul will be just fine. Trust me. I would actually consider forcing a vegan diet on a cat to BE an act of animal cruelty.

[_X7]

This thread provides sufficient material for several useful threads. I say well done, to all! Several of my concerns are the pollution of water and air and the loss of rain forests to sustain "profitable growth" of meat markets....(To further complicate the dialog).

The original post seemingly sought dialog which might prove helpful, for balancing the polarity found in modern diets and cultures. I can agree with values in both sides of this specific dietary-polarity-issue. I just wanted to add that perhaps the polarity is best understood in the bigger picture of creature-lifestyling. Is a harmonious lifestyle possible on a primitive planet? Is an allegedly intelligent or spiritual creature able to harmonize a planetary life style? Or even to improve a planetary lifestyle? Or to 'best' the STS distortions with STO distortions? Can a civilization invent harmonious lifestyles or perhaps renovate rickety lifestyles? Which sorts of polarities and balances shall master better days ahead? I wonder.

[Monica]

Yeah a cat has less molars than a dog, and don't seem to have any flat spots for grinding.

Wow, very revealing! I had always assumed dogs and cats had basically the same type of anatomy, since they both have sharp fangs.

[BrownEye]

Yeah a cat has less molars than a dog, and don't seem to have any flat spots for grinding.

Wow, very revealing! I had always assumed dogs and cats had basically the same type of anatomy, since they both have sharp fangs.

A chimp has some huge canines, which along with their strength would allow them to rend apart flesh whether food or enemy.

We are quite a bit different with an almost non existent set of canines. Their function is more for keeping the row of teeth in order like a fencepost than any real mechanical advantage for chewing or eating. If I was to have mine pulled it would make no real difference in ability to chew food. It would only make the bridge of teeth a little weaker.

[Monica]

It appeared to me that you mistakenly felt that my original post was aimed at you, as I said it was not. You and I were apparently typing our posts out simultaneously, and somehow something that I said struck a chord within you somewhere. But I wasn't even writing toward you. Looking back, I can see how it might have looked that way, but it was not at all the case.

Your post went up at 12:07, Pickle's at 1:07, mine at 1:26. I had been composing it the entire time. The only person's view I refer to in the post is yossarian's. You, my dear, felt compelled to stand up and defend yossarian's view, and I concluded that you must feel that his view is an extension of your own.

Thank you, Tenet, for taking the time to explain! Your explanation sheds a lot of light on it. :idea:

This is a verrrrry long thread, with a lot of depth, that has been spanning many months. A lot of the original players aren't even around any more! I haven't seen Yossarian around lately, and even though you did mention him in your initial post, I had actually forgotten that you had initially responded to him, and didn't realize that your subsequent posts were still directed at him.

Thus, when you said stuff about vegans being zealots, naturally I thought you were directing those comments to the vegetarians/vegans who were currently participating in the discussion! (Me and a few others.)

Furthermore, I thought your comments were in response to the current discussion, and I didn't know whether you had ever read the whole thread (which is why I invited you to do so).

Add to that, the cross-posting, and that explain a lot.

That's how we got embroiled in this kind of non-argument, where apparently we don't actually disagree at all.

We don't disagree about how to deal with people on a daily basis, but we do disagree philosophically.

So it really does appear to me that you took something personal and kind of came at me. I can acknowledge that it may appear the exact opposite way to you, but that doesn't mean I will agree with you.

Yes, I felt offended by the links to the vegan 'zealots' and your use of such strong words as zealot to describe those who choose to not eat animals, because, to me, that is akin to showing an example of a rapist who happens to be black, implying that all black men are rapists!

Add to that, my not realizing you were responding to yossarian, and even had I realized it, since my views are very similar to yossarian's, it still seemed that the other current veg. participants and I were being lumped in with zealots.

Add to that, unbeknownst to you (apparently) a couple of other people, earlier in the thread, referred to us as extremists. Not for feeding our kids a deficient diet...not for living on fruit only (and I don't even see why that's extreme anyway)...not for trying to make meat illegal, or anything like that...but just for not eating meat!

It took many, many heated exchanges to get that one worked out! And then, just when I thought we were having a respectful conversation, up pops the word zealot!

Can you see why it might have, er, pushed my buttons a bit?

Especially since, apparently, you missed many months' worth of detailed conversation, and thus missed the progress we had already made. It seemed to me that, oh no, here we go again, back to the tired old argument of "vegetarians are too extreme and want to step on my air hose" again.

My posting here is almost entirely a reaction to yossarian's claim about the BEST diet

Thank you for that clarification! That is the crux of the misunderstanding. Other than your initial post, and even that I forgot about, I thought your comments were all directed to me and the other couple of vegetarians currently participating in the thread.

A lot of ground has been covered. Yossarian hasn't been involved in this discussion for many months.

that I believe would actually make some of my patients' conditions worse.

I've attended several Functional Medicine and Chiropractic seminars, attended by chiropractors, homeopaths and naturopaths. I was struck by the overwhelming trend towards more meat and less fruit. Perhaps because some of these classes were hosted by a supplement company that sells glandular extracts? I was actually quite appalled. Regardless of one's stance on meat, I cannot fathom why it has suddenly become popular to disparage fruit. Fruit is Nature's gift to us. No entities were killed. It is a sign of a sick society that it cannot eat fruit.

I already agreed with you that promoting a raw vegan diet to your patients/clients is probably not practical. This discussion forum is, well, rather advanced. The Law of One is advanced stuff. So is the raw vegan diet.

I attempted to speak about it in a way that didn't divulge any details of my personal or professional life, but I did not seem able to communicate what I was trying to say, as evidenced by your repeated declaration that you had no idea where I was coming from.

A few of your statements sounded cryptic to me and I asked for clarification. Now I know why, if you were trying to convey ideas without divulging your profession. (Although, I don't see how that would have mattered, had I known your profession earlier.)

So I tried to bring in a personal, medically-related angle to illustrate some of the more subtle complexities of considering whether or not a particular belief about meat-eating is "STS" or "STO".

If fruits and veggies were obviously unhealthy, or if meat were needed in the human diet, that might complicate matters. But even the most mainstream medical sources all now acknowledge that meat isn't needed in the human diet, and that even a vegan diet is adequate, provided some basic guidelines are followed. The days of doubt about a veg. diet are long gone.

I realize there are many practitioners, like the ones who follow the advice of that glandular supplement company, who believe humans should eat meat, but that is based on their own particular theories. Undoubtedly there are vegans who are deficient (just as there are meat-eaters who are deficient, or sick...) but it can no longer be said that a vegan diet is inherently deficient or inadequate for most humans.

I believe that eating large amounts of fruit would make many people's conditions considerably more severe,

I assume you are referring to those with Candida conditions? If so, some raw vegan proponents claim that the Candida clears up after the body is detoxed, and excess fats removed from the diet. Something about the insulin receptors being coated with fat...

Dr. Cousens subscribes to a different school of thought. (Yes, there are variations of raw vegan.) He recommends that those with Candida avoid fruit for a few weeks, while on a raw vegan diet with a higher fat ratio. Then, after the body is cleansed of the Candida overgrowth, the person may enjoy lots of fruit.

(For what it's worth. )

[quote='Tenet Nosce' pid='46506' dateline='1310276024']
so I get a little angry when somebody is telling others what to do with their health when they clearly don't know what they're talking about, and are blinded by absolutism and zealotry. Because veganism has killed people,

Whoa, hold on! Just how many people has veganism killed?

Now, how many people has a meat-centered diet killed?

Have you done the math?

and for better or for worse, there are people out there looking to this very thread for guidance on what and how to eat.

This is spiritual website, and a very specific spiritual website at that. Do you really believe people who are very sick, are going to rely solely on a Law of One website for nutritional guidance?

You can't wax philosophical about dietary choices without making it practical.

Sure we can. This is a spiritual website, intended for Law of One students. We're not obligated to babysit everyone about anything, most especially diet of all things! There are tons of other websites that specialize in dietary advice, and in fact, it's a jungle out there! All anyone has to do is google diet and they'll get thousands of hits! They already have to discern for themselves, because there are thousands of diets and they're all different!

And even if we did have an obligation to 'make it practical' then just which diet do you propose we recommend to the hapless passerby who happens to stumble upon our website? How could we possibly decide what is "practical" when we can't even agree on whether killing animals is in alignment with our core principles?

The Law of One isn't a religion. And this website is for serious study of the Law of One. We're aren't responsible for giving dietary advice. Maybe you are, in your line of work. But you can't apply your own responsibilities to those of a spiritually-oriented discussion forum.

Eating is about as practical as it gets. So if one's philosophical principles of ethics are under threat of breaking down the moment they eat a snack, well, then maybe there is something wrong with their principles, and not the snack.

I don't know any vegetarians whose principles break down whenever they eat a snack. I've been a vegetarian for 30 years. I have a 23-year-old son who has never had a bite of meat in his life. We've had lots of snacks, with nary a problem.

So I guess it's just a matter of who feels the need to protect what. Just like PFC JoeBob who feels duty bound to protect the Afghani village. I suppose we all have a little Savior in us.

By all means, if you feel inclined to speak up on behalf of your convictions, then you are free to do so! But please understand that others do the same. Others whose views are different from yours. That doesn't make them zealots any more than it makes you one.

I think the word zealot is a lot like the word liberal. It is often aimed at anyone whose views are different from one's own.

You say what about the animals? I say what about the animals? You and I are humans debating about human behavior. We have no clue what the animals are "thinking". Are you kidding me? I can't figure out what most humans are thinking. I don't know- I suppose the Universe has something totally unpredictable in store for us and them. I didn't set up the game such that some animals eat other animals, some animals won't eat humans (your cat, by the way, probably would ), most humans eat animals, but most humans do not eat other humans. There just seems to be a natural delineation there in the way the Divine Logos created the rules to physical life, and I don't see any reason to make it wrong or "unspiritual". I'm trusting that it is all working just fine, as intended, and does not require intervention on my part.

Ah, I see another area of miscommunication illuminated! :idea:

There seems to be 2 schools of thought here on this forum, that I have observed:

1. The Logos designed this planetary system this way and who am I to question it? (Variation of the Christian version: "God said it. I believe it. That settles it.")

2. We are Wanderers, from higher densities, and might have had a bit of say in the design of this planetary system. According to Ra, this planet is unusual in many respects. We're wondering if maybe one of the reasons we incarnated here was to observe the effects of this experiment firsthand. And we have concluded that the experiment involving a heavy veil and lots of suffering has been taken a bit too far. We intend to report back to the Logos our findings, and thus prevent future creations from having to endure so much suffering on such a widespread level. Furthermore, we intend to do what we can to minimize the suffering while we're here, and plant seeds of change among the humans and among our pets, so that, by the time they graduate (to 4D or 3D respectively) perhaps they can inhabit a reality that is different...that has less violence and less suffering.

These 2 different outlooks have been discussed on this thread and in others. As I said, this is a very long thread. It's not just about which diet is the 'healthiest.' It is about questioning the very design of this planet. Some of us subscribe to #2 and are doing just that.

It's ok if you don't agree. But at least now you know where we're coming from.

War, on the other hand, is not a rule of physical life, although some might make it out to be.

I guess we all have our buttons, eh? You just said you get angry when people talk about diet in an absolutist way. (I'm using more politically correct lingo, heh.) Well, I guess my buttons get pushed when I perceive double standards.

Animals eating animals is unquestionably a way of physical life, at this point. Although, as unity100 has pointed out, that 'way of Nature' has changed before, so there's no reason to think it can't change again. But at this particular nexus, yes, animals kill and eat one another.

However, if one is going to argue that eating animals is a way of life for humans, then it logically follows that war is too.

Because, humans have been killing other humans (war) as long as they've been killing animals.

In fact, some historians have found a correlation between meat-eating and war. Matriarchial, vegetarian societies were peaceful. So there is actually a connection between humans eating animals, and humans waging war against other humans.

But to say that humans eating animals is 'natural' and humans killing other humans isn't, is simply not accurate. Both are historically rampant.

Conversely, if we can hope to eliminate war, then we can just as reasonably hope to eliminate the slaughter of animals by humans. We might not be able to do anything about animals killing other animals, but we surely can do something about humans killing animals.

This is the reason I was suggesting analogies between your views on war, and my views on animal slaughter. Not to 'get back at you' or anything juvenile like that, but to convey what I considered to be a very important point.

I think I know where my "harvestability" and "polarity" lie, so therefore anything I am doing must be sufficient enough to make the grade. Beyond that, I am not so sure. I will remain agnostic until my perception affords me the ability to accurately discern.

This isn't about you personally, or about anyone personally.

If I were to hunt a deer, and consume its raw bleeding flesh ripe with fear from the chase, it would still be food for my body. I would not be too concerned about the spiritual residue of fear, if it exists, because if it exists, then I can easily overcome it with my own vibration of love and gratitude. Maybe that is my "purpose". :idea:

Well, if that's what you want to do. But it sure seems inefficient to me, to have to exert so much effort overcoming those fear vibrations, when eating a karma-free diet would free up all that energy for something else.

And, again, overcoming those fear vibrations serves only you. It does nothing for the deer.

What I -do- know is that when a lion takes down a gazelle, they will eat the organ meats first, and leave the muscle tissue for the scavengers. I take this to be a cue that the lion instinctively knows where the nutrients are, and goes for that.

Respectfully, I consider this irrelevant, for the simple reason that the human anatomy is drastically different from that of a lion.

Most people find the organ meats to be the most repulsive part of the animal, and eat only muscle tissue.

Or maybe it's a natural evolution....humans no longer salivate when presented with a bloody carcass...next step might be eating muscle meat instead of organ meat...next step might be eggs instead of meat...next step might be raw milk...next step might be vegetarian...

Many humans believe that pizza is nutritious because it contains "All Four Food Groups". Some humans apparently think that their belief in nutritious pizza will magically "make it so" because they "create their own reality".

Why not? How is that any different from "vibrating above the fear hormones and transforming them"?

If fear hormones can be transformed into love, then why not transform sticky, gluey cheese into nutrients?

So where do we go from here, in midsummer '11?

Well, apparently a lot of people, even on this forum, think that we can just continue eating junk, continue slaughtering animals with no regard for their suffering, and then someday we will just goo poof and suddenly be in 4D, sipping nectar.

I find that absurd. I do subscribe to the idea that we create our own reality, to some extent anyway. If we want to be in 4D sipping nectar or consuming only living foods, then we need to start now, working towards that. That is my opinion.

As for philosophical dispositions toward life, to each their own. Personally, what I've found is that when I try to strive for some unattainable ideal, it just makes me feel more inadequate and out of control.

Then why not strive for an attainable ideal, instead of an unattainable ideal?

Truly, I don't see how eliminating, or at least reducing, meat is unattainable. Lots of people do it.

I know that no matter what I do, I will never be good enough.

That sounds like a psychological issue. According to the Law of One, we are each already 'good enough' and beautiful where we're at. We don't displease the Creator. We only displease ourselves, if we fail to meet the goals we set ourselves.

This is why I believe people feel they need gurus and saviors. To fill that artificial gap between themselves and the ideal they have chosen to uphold.

Yup. It removes the responsibility from them. "I am worthless without Jesus."

And this does make us hypocrites because that's how Universe works. It shows us that we are not just one thing, but all things.

Um...I don't quite follow that.

I am not pointing fingers at hypocrites. I do believe there is a way to move forward in all areas of life that does not require us to take up a personal cause and have a light-saber fight, and then have to defend ourselves against the inevitable claims of hypocrisy.

We all have different personalities and dispositions. Some people have taken on a mission to be in the public spotlight, while others work quietly behind the scenes. Some are out there on Greenpeace boats, confronting the whalers, while others are quietly meditating for world peace on mountaintops. Some just quietly donate to charities, but are unwilling to spend any actual time, but then refer to the activists on the front lines as extremists. Meanwhile, the activists think the quiet ones are lazy and apathetic. When in actuality, each is doing according to their nature and abilities. It's all good. We just each have to do what we feel guided to do.

Several times you have referred to my comments in another thread about war and drawing a comparison of your chosen cause to my chosen cause. War is not my chosen cause. I do not have a chosen cause. I feel confident in my ability to choose for myself a purpose in a moment as it is given. All I tried to offer in that thread was that plotting war might have been part of the reason Ra mentioned that Patton was not harvestable.

I addressed this earlier in this post. I will add here, that your comments were very strong in that other thread. It was much more than a mere 'mention.' I was very impressed, actually, by your clarity and articulation on that issue. I hoped we might find some common ground, which is why I referenced that other issue which we agreed on.

All I did was try to make a simple comment when somebody else swooped in with their Project Bluebeam Kit, and I argued back loudly. As I am somewhat prone to do when somebody is attempting to project their personal hell onto my otherwise peaceful life. Military my a$$.

I hope that, by now, you can understand that some of argue back loudly, when others attempt to project their personal hells onto the peaceful lives of those we care about (the animals).

You jumped in, cheering me all the way. Which was very nice, but I didn't ask for any defense.

I wasn't trying to defend you. I could see you didn't need defending. I simply agreed with you, and expressed that.

I came over to this thread. Read the first two posts. Basically said I think yossarian is full of it and here is why, and you rushed in like the White Knight to defend his honor.

I didn't "rush in." I've been participating in this thread consistently, for well over a year now.

[Raman]

[...]
THIS planet is positive.

It is not. It is a 3d planet that will be 4d positive activated.

Moreover, it is still a 3d planet and more than that the Harvest will be MIXED.

Agreed that + will be more than -. Nonetheless, it is mixed which brings another point:

How does this galactic logos deals with a mixed harvest? Especially with nuclear devices present and governments run by the so called neg elite?

How a second density that is not compatible with 4d pos is dealt with?

In a mixed harvest, are both sides honored? Since a positive one would be peaceful and transitional like Venus was, no (-) harvest occurred.

This one...some of the harvestables will be negative and again, economic social systems are mostly STS.

Can we take all this with a hint of humor and not worry too much whatever happens? After all...we don't really die...But now more than ever we know the work to be done since we are conscious of at least part of it...

No need to fear anything...just enjoy the show...

[BrownEye]

in fact, there is no such thing as 'people'. in the material we are looking into, there is the concept of 'entity'. and, entities are comprised of mind/body/spirit complexes. moreover, we are told that all entities ranging from the first cell, to the central sun of this galaxy shining at the center to the 7d mind/body spirit complex totality leaving this existence have the same blueprint. (of 7 chakra containing energetic system).

This is something that interests me since it applies to a project I have been experimenting with, using "synthetic" chakras.



This also is of interest I think. A tree can make the jump to a dog? Or am I reading this wrong? So a dog is 3D?

38.8 Questioner: I was wondering if that particular social memory complex from the Sirius star evolved from trees?

Ra: I am Ra. This approaches correctness. Those second-density vegetation forms which graduated into third-density upon this planet bearing the name of Dog were close to the tree as you know it.

I thought everyone had assumed that animals were 2D?

[Monica]

A chimp has some huge canines, which along with their strength would allow them to rend apart flesh whether food or enemy.

Oh wow!!! Ya know, I've never bothered to look up chimp teeth before, and I am stunned!

Look at this!

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http...photos.php%

Those are FANGS! Yes, FANGS! Just like dogs and cats!

Now compare those to human teeth. NO comparison!

We are quite a bit different with an almost non existent set of canines. Their function is more for keeping the row of teeth in order like a fencepost than any real mechanical advantage for chewing or eating. If I was to have mine pulled it would make no real difference in ability to chew food. It would only make the bridge of teeth a little weaker.

Yeah, I am always a little annoyed whenever people say, "Humans were meant to eat meat too, because we have canine teeth too." Yeah, right. We have the vestiges of canine teeth only. They are dulled. They're not sharp at all. They're not fangs!

[Raman]

This also is of interest I think. A tree can make the jump to a dog? Or am I reading this wrong? So a dog is 3D?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius

...[...]Sirius is also known colloquially as the "Dog Star", reflecting its prominence in its constellation, Canis Major (Greater Dog).[11] The heliacal rising of Sirius marked the flooding of the Nile in Ancient Egypt and the "dog days" of summer for the ancient Greeks, while to the Polynesians it marked winter and was an important star for navigation around the Pacific Ocean.[...]

[Tenet Nosce]

I will interpret your 4:20 post as a peace offering.

RE: zealotry. I mean that in the sense of taking an absolutist stance on a philosophical principle by declaring something to be inherently wrong. That's it. So my apologies to you (and Pickle, too!) if the word was taken in a different light. I don't know of another word to use.

But I never called you a zealot. And Pickle called himself a zealot.

EDIT: On Zealotry

OK I gotta go feed the cats and change their litter box since, in my caring for them, they would be completely helpless if left out in nature.

[Raman]

OK I gotta go feed the cats and change their litter box since, in my caring for them, they would be completely helpless if left out in nature.

Most probably thanks to your care they would be able to graduate to 3d, hopefully however, in a nicer planet...

[Monica]

I will interpret your 4:20 post as a peace offering.

Haha, I didn't even notice that!

Peace!

RE: zealotry. I mean that in the sense of taking an absolutist stance on a philosophical principle by declaring something to be inherently wrong. That's it. So my apologies to you (and Pickle, too!) if the word was taken in a different light. I don't know of another word to use.

But I never called you a zealot. And Pickle called himself a zealot.

Well I guess we're all zealots then!

OK I gotta go feed the cats and change their litter box since, in my caring for them, they would be completely helpless if left out in nature.

Yeah, no kidding! My cats don't even know what to do with the birds and mice they kill. They play with them but almost never eat them. So I guess they'd have a very hard time in the wild. And the dogs? Wouldn't have a chance.

---

This also is of interest I think. A tree can make the jump to a dog? Or am I reading this wrong? So a dog is 3D?

My understanding is that once a 2D being begins to develop the spirit portion of the mind/body/spirit complex, ie. begins to develop self-awareness, it's now an entity, and may choose whatever physical vehicle suits its needs, whether that be more lifetimes as a dog or tree, or whatever, until eventually it is ready to incarnate into a 3D vehicle, which, on this planet, is either human or dolphin.

On Sirius, the 3D entities evolved directly from trees. I don't recall Ra indicating what sort of bodies the 3D entities had, or whether there were any animals on that planet, or just vegetation.

I thought everyone had assumed that animals were 2D?

That is my understanding. But plants are also 2D. 2D is a very long density. And on Sirius, 2D trees evolved directly to 3D. That happens sometimes here too, but the difference is, apparently, that no animals evolved to 3D, on Sirius, maybe because it didn't have any animals?

[zenmaster]

On Sirius, the 3D entities evolved directly from trees. I don't recall Ra indicating what sort of bodies the 3D entities had, or whether there were any animals on that planet, or just vegetation.

Hickson described their body characteristics, a couple of hours after being taken aboard. I'm wondering if earth will be working with them after 'harvest'.

[βαθμιαίος]

Basic on this planet anyway. Is it standard on other planets?

Interesting question. My guess is yes, on other planets created by our sub-Logos and our galactic Logos. It's fundamental enough to our illusion that I doubt it was something done only on earth. This quote from Ra about tarot card four seems relevant, since it deals with our archetypical mind: "All things in manifestation may be seen in one way or another to be offering themselves in order that transformations may take place upon the level appropriate to the action." I understand that to mean that grass, carrots, cows, zebras, and humans are all offering ourselves for possible transformation. As for distant logoi in other galaxies, who knows? It's a big universe out there!

Have you read The Starseed Transmission by Ken Carey? (I believe it was that one, but it might have been one of his other books.) In it, the source says that what we call survival of the fittest is actually flourishment of the most cooperative. I think that's an important insight. The predator/prey relationship is symbiotic; the zebra needs the lion just as much as the lion needs the zebra.

Similarly, humans and their domestic animals have a symbiotic relationship that has evolved over millennia. In fact, cows, chickens, and others no longer exist in the wild. I'm not sure if you'll find this compelling or not, but if humans stop raising and eating cattle, the number of cattle on the planet is likely to decline drastically.

Research done by Allen Savory and others in southern Africa and the American southwest has shown that grasslands and other environments attain their optimal health only in the presence of large herds of herbivores and their predators. Many ranchers and farmers (including myself in a very small way) are attempting to improve their land by managing their animals in such a way as to mimic the behavior of wild herds. I believe that restoring the great herds and their predators, such as the bison and the wolves, will go a long way towards healing the earth and will, in fact, be one of the early focuses of fourth density here.