In regards to eating meat

[BrownEye]

Sustainable grass-fed beef systems are often self-contained systems with minimal inputs. I know of a farm here with literally no inputs for their cows. They graze on pastures their entire life, and any hay that is needed comes from the farm itself, all harvested with bio-diesel equipment.

This is not a problem at all, for a local operation. The problem is the larger operations IMO.

Also, as far as eating plants from larger operations, there is not much of what I would call "life" in a GMO plant. It is not life sustaining, so it must be lacking an iingredient of "being".

---

But for someone who is aware, and chooses to not care, then yeah, I'd say that is depolarizing.

My favorite quote from the big book of war.......

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

---

Ra said that our lessons at this time involve the balance between love and wisdom.

I love animals.
And i'm wise enough to know we are ruining our ability to live life to the fullest.

[_X7]

Perhaps you could be more specific on what you consider an "ad hominem attack" in this thread. I don't think you're being very clear.

Deeper research extending from the talking points within this long thread will reveal these attacks. By "food harmonizers" i meant the health food and wellness movements in general, (the many diverse group efforts to achieve health through diet primarily). Health researchers and health promoters have been too often ridiculed. I refer to overt and covert smearing of wellness-research as one example of ad hominem attack.

The research and claims of the health movement deserve rational cross examination without smear campaigns. Seekers of natural health encounter detours in the many smears. These detours can or should sharpen STO wits. Providing that one's attention span is not derailed first.

I have wondered if some sort of chart or interactive spread sheet could provide better cross examination on health food information, (of authentic food science). There are seemingly endless disputations and infinite ramifications. At some point, search engines empowered with key word phrases will serve satisfactorily. Health food study is a very long term endeavor. So are the cumulative effects of specific diets. So is nutritional science, (apparently uncovering new observations, through new research).

[@ndy]

I also look at polarization differently. It is not how much experience has been gained, but how attracted to one side of polarity an individual is. Polarity describes positive and negative, one attracts, one repels. One way to see the physical effect of this in nature might be that we "attract" on one end of the body, and "repel" on the opposite end. It would appear that the physical mechanics are the same concept of the flow characteristics of polarities.





Polarity can be applied to the force underlying emotion that we see on this thread. Too much of the positive can cause a "push". Too much negative would be "gratification". Acceptance is a hard area to remain in.

A magnet is the simplest physical manifestation of this concept of polarity. Look at how the magnet functions, how everything functions in this way.

Balance should be the key to movement through density, and I have a sneaking suspicion that "harvest" is something based on emotional polarity of imbalance. If higher densities tend to feed on lower densities we may actually be preparing a feast for these higher densities as the planet moves towards extremes in global emotion, which we see happeneing in the news. (Not that this is a negative thing in any way, it would only be emotions that are taken.)

This makes lots of sense to me, thank you.

Oddly I also had a dream this summer about being a food source

Me and other humans were 'kept' by entity’s who fed from us - they would periodically remove and drain us a bit.
The relationship was symbiotic, amicable and very transparent.
There was respect between us and them - they needed us and in return we were treated and kept well.
Oddly I didn't mind being a food source at all.... and on awaking I was struck by how I'd actually though being kept as a food source we seemed to have more freedom than many people living on earth currently.

- Meby I want to go back to being a carrot

[βαθμιαίος]

Are you proposing that an entity who has graduated to 4D STO would be capable of eating an animal alive, inflicting torture on that animal, overcoming the animal's will to live by overpowering it and eating its body parts...while it's still alive??

You added the part about torture, but other than that, yes, that's what I'm suggesting. It seems that you are horrified by the idea of eating an oyster alive but have no problem with eating alfalfa sprouts alive.

I disagree. Cows, pigs, and chickens haven't given their bodies. Their bodies were forcibly taken.

It's stealing. There is no gift giving there.

Again I would remind you of the Ra quote that everything in manifestation is offering itself. If harvesting cows, pigs, and chickens is forcible taking then so must be harvesting lettuce, carrots, and celery.

As Austin noted, it does, actually. A product that relies on the petroleum industry for transportation over long distances is less sustainable than one grown in one's own backyard.

Not according to the dictionary definition.

Go back and re-read the dictionary definition, keeping in mind that petroleum is a non-renewable (non-sustainable) resource. Without petroleum, how is the blue-green algae from Klamath lake getting to people who want to eat it?

Not caring about the suffering of others...lusting for the taste of plant flesh...Just what are the reasons for eating plants, especially those raised in factory farms?

That's not a fair response. You know that vegetarians do care...that's why we aren't eating animals. It's inaccurate and unfair to accuse vegetarians of not caring.

It's fair to say about meat-eaters but not about plant-eaters? Do you really think everyone who eats meat doesn't care about the suffering of others and lusts for animal flesh?

The phrase "lusts for ... flesh" has a very old-time religion, bible-banger-y feel about it, don't you think? Maybe a little moralistic?

+ Native Americans were/are 3D, not 4D.

Right, spiritually advanced and presumably harvestable to 4D, at least some of them. The question was if 4D+ could eat living animals. I think it's possible that 4D descendants of Native Americans, with their reverence for life and their awareness of our interconnection with all living things, could.

---

As far as I can see in either direction is corn.

I'm with you on the downsides of grain-fed beef. But grass-fed beef is healthy for both humans and the environment. Properly managed, it requires no tillage, no fertilizer, no pesticide, causes no erosion, and creates an ecosystem teeming with life -- fertile soil, healthy plants, abundant birds and wildlife.

[Aaron]

Perhaps we're drawing too sharp a delineation between self and other-self when it comes to humans and animals.

The soul is infinite and eternal... In a dream experience that I shared here, I experienced being some sort of cow. (although it seemed to be on a different planet, and I don't think that portion of myself was/is/will be raised for slaughter)

What if, as part of the karmic debt for consuming the bodies of animals, it is a possibility for the soul to choose to incarnate as said animal, and experience being eaten?

Eaten by the self... eaten by other-selves... At the level of the soul, it's all the same. So the circle is closed. :p Suddenly we're not eating "animals" anymore. It's not "us" the humans and "them" the animals. It's literally self eating other-self, and your reaction to it here is what allows for the lessons.

[BrownEye]

It seems that you are horrified by the idea of eating an oyster alive but have no problem with eating alfalfa sprouts alive.

Maybe she doesn't want things to squirm around in her mouth.

[Bring4th_Austin]

What if, as part of the karmic debt for consuming the bodies of animals, it is a possibility for the soul to choose to incarnate as said animal, and experience being eaten?

I'm glad someone brought this up. I would be happy to incarnate as one of the animals I raise and eat. Sometimes I wish I WERE them.

[Aaron]

Because you're OK with killing plants to eat them but you think compassion for animals requires not killing them.

I know this isn't directed at me, but...

Having compassion for an entity requires not killing it, because then there would be no entity to have compassion towards. "Compassionately killing" is like "fear based love". The love and compassion is there, but not in its full potential, being largely blocked/distorted.

[Bring4th_Austin]

Because you're OK with killing plants to eat them but you think compassion for animals requires not killing them.

I know this isn't directed at me, but...

Having compassion for an entity requires not killing it, because then there would be no entity to have compassion towards. "Compassionately killing" is like "fear based love". The love and compassion is there, but not in its full potential, being largely blocked/distorted.

Same thing for plants.



(I know it's been said a million times before, but as much as we have discussed it, nothing has persuaded me that killing plants is more compassionate than killing animals.

Nor the thousands upon millions of bugs and weeds that are killed to cultivate plants.)

[βαθμιαίος]

Having compassion for an entity requires not killing it, because then there would be no entity to have compassion towards. "Compassionately killing" is like "fear based love". The love and compassion is there, but not in its full potential, being largely blocked/distorted.

We were discussion the conundrum that unless we eat only fruit and leaves, we're killing something -- even nuts, seeds, and grains. So my question was about why it was OK to kill plants but not animals, given that we feel compassion for both.

---

Edit: Austin beat me to it!

[Aaron]

Because you're OK with killing plants to eat them but you think compassion for animals requires not killing them.

I know this isn't directed at me, but...

Having compassion for an entity requires not killing it, because then there would be no entity to have compassion towards. "Compassionately killing" is like "fear based love". The love and compassion is there, but not in its full potential, being largely blocked/distorted.

Same thing for plants.



(I know it's been said a million times before, but as much as we have discussed it, nothing has persuaded me that killing plants is more compassionate than killing animals.

Nor the thousands upon millions of bugs and weeds that are killed to cultivate plants.)

And I think that was exactly βαθμιαίος's point.

Edit: and I read Austin's post before I read yours, T

[Diana]

Perhaps you could be more specific on what you consider an "ad hominem attack" in this thread. I don't think you're being very clear.

Deeper research extending from the talking points within this long thread will reveal these attacks. By "food harmonizers" i meant the health food and wellness movements in general, (the many diverse group efforts to achieve health through diet primarily). Health researchers and health promoters have been too often ridiculed. I refer to overt and covert smearing of wellness-research as one example of ad hominem attack.

The research and claims of the health movement deserve rational cross examination without smear campaigns. Seekers of natural health encounter detours in the many smears. These detours can or should sharpen STO wits. Providing that one's attention span is not derailed first.

I have wondered if some sort of chart or interactive spread sheet could provide better cross examination on health food information, (of authentic food science). There are seemingly endless disputations and infinite ramifications. At some point, search engines empowered with key word phrases will serve satisfactorily. Health food study is a very long term endeavor. So are the cumulative effects of specific diets. So is nutritional science, (apparently uncovering new observations, through new research).

All so true. And there are many possible problems in opposition to real inquiry--one being the meat and dairy industry.

And all this is not to mention the part of health beyond the physical. Empirical science always glosses over the subject of the placebo effect, which they must agree is real because of the data, as if it is an anomaly.

Ridicule seems to be part of evolution, as humans dislike change.

---

Because you're OK with killing plants to eat them but you think compassion for animals requires not killing them.

I know this isn't directed at me, but...

Having compassion for an entity requires not killing it, because then there would be no entity to have compassion towards. "Compassionately killing" is like "fear based love". The love and compassion is there, but not in its full potential, being largely blocked/distorted.

Thank your for your views. In regards to the full potential of love and compassion, eating plants seems to me a degree closer to that full potential, than eating animals is.

1. There is less fear in a plant than an animal when being taken for food (this hypothesis is based on the fact that seeds "need" to be eaten, and that you can trim a plant without killing it, but will kill the animal if trimming a leg).

2. I agree that humane animal farming, such as grass-fed beef, and especially, free range, is a huge step toward that potential, when compared to factory farming.

3. I still think eating plants is a step farther toward that potential, because of the fear being generated in the being who is giving its life force to be food.

[Monica]

We were discussion the conundrum that unless we eat only fruit and leaves, we're killing something -- even nuts, seeds, and grains. So my question was about why it was OK to kill plants but not animals, given that we feel compassion for both.

I've addressed this extensively in this thread and don't have time to repeat it. You will find my views if you read the rest of the thread.

[βαθμιαίος]

I've addressed this extensively in this thread and don't have time to repeat it. You will find my views if you read the rest of the thread.

It wasn't a question for you, just a reply to Aaron.

[BrownEye]

My opinion is that the design of a plant is to exist as an offering to all.

Also, my opinion of an animal is that it is designed to escape danger, as a way to acquire its needed experience.

[Bring4th_Austin]

Some plants have some pretty obvious defense mechanisms.

For instance, a healthy and natural kale plant will grow thick little hairs on both the stems and leaves. This is to prevent bugs from eating it.

[BrownEye]

Some plants have some pretty obvious defense mechanisms.

For instance, a healthy and natural kale plant will grow thick little hairs on both the stems and leaves. This is to prevent bugs from eating it.

Is this a natural method of selection? Say to allow for the chance of a mammal to eat, rather than the insects? It may be that the natural habitat would allow for the insects to get their sustenance from all the neighboring plants, while keeping an extra level of defense in order to keep sustenance available for another species that coexists in the same area. The word Flourish comes to mind.

I would assume that it would be hard for species overlap if everything was eaten by insects. While at the same time, if the insect predators are eliminated the insects would be able to overpopulate and eat everything, including all mammals/us.

[Monica]

My opinion is that the design of a plant is to exist as an offering to all.

Also, my opinion of an animal is that it is designed to escape danger, as a way to acquire its needed experience.

Exactly! Such a simple, rational answer. Just look at the design. Plants don't have pain receptors or any way to escape the predator. They regenerate when they lose leaves or even large parts of their bodies. Their taste and smell are enticing, as opposed to revolting like a bloody carcass.

These things count. They matter. They are indicative of design.

[3DMonkey]

My opinion is that the design of a plant is to exist as an offering to all.

Also, my opinion of an animal is that it is designed to escape danger, as a way to acquire its needed experience.

LOL. That animal was a plant in a previous life. When asked if it would like to return as a plant, it said "hell no, give a chance to run away".

Mmmmwwwwooooohahahaha, we have the plants where we want them :@

[BrownEye]

While at the same time, if the insect predators are eliminated the insects would be able to overpopulate and eat everything, including all mammals/us.

I just realized that it is possible to eat a 4D/5D entity. It would have to be a wanderer and we would have to take part in cannibalism.

---

And in the other context...........seeing as how we may have risen from minerals and plants, there is a picture of god (saturn i think) eating its children.

[Monica]

You added the part about torture, but other than that, yes, that's what I'm suggesting. It seems that you are horrified by the idea of eating an oyster alive but have no problem with eating alfalfa sprouts alive.

That's right. Because that oyster obviously doesn't want to be eaten. It's a being who makes it very clear that it wants to escape. As I've elaborated, I consider alfalfa sprouts, lettuce leaves, etc. all extensions of a being, rather than individual beings. I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever that each little sprout has individuated. Quite the contrary.

Thus, consuming sprouts is consuming the milk of the Mother...Gaia grows plants across her entire body, to nurture and nourish her offspring. Her bounty - plants - are designed to nourish the evolving animal life - cows and humans alike.

This seems very obvious to me. I can't prove it. It just seems so obvious. To me, this entire argument about eating plants vs. animals seems like such a stretch...one must go to such great lengths to even begin to compare the two.

Sometimes, the obvious answer is the correct one.

Again I would remind you of the Ra quote that everything in manifestation is offering itself. If harvesting cows, pigs, and chickens is forcible taking then so must be harvesting lettuce, carrots, and celery.

Not if what I just said is true.

Honestly, how can anyone call brutally slaughtering a cow 'harvesting'?

Plants are 'harvested' when they ready and ripe. It's the natural life cycle. A cow isn't ready or ripe for death.

Go back and re-read the dictionary definition, keeping in mind that petroleum is a non-renewable (non-sustainable) resource. Without petroleum, how is the blue-green algae from Klamath lake getting to people who want to eat it?

I don't deny that transport is needed for exotic superfoods. But the pros outweigh the cons. People are getting healed by eating bluegreen algae. Children overcoming attention problems, depression, etc. It's a valuable resource that should be shared with the world, not hoarded by the locals!

Meat, on the other hand, takes way more than it gives. The meat industry (referring to factory farming here, not Austin's type of farm) causes so much damage to the environment and to people's health, that it really can't be justified.

It's fair to say about meat-eaters but not about plant-eaters? Do you really think everyone who eats meat doesn't care about the suffering of others and lusts for animal flesh?

The vast majority, yes. If they cared more about the animals than about satisfying the taste for meat, then why not just quit eating meat?

If a vegetarian quits eating plants, s/he will starve. But a meat-eater can quit eating meat and thrive.

Whether plants feel pain is quite debatable. The evidence says they don't, because they lack pain receptors. It's possible they still do, despite no pain receptors, but that's a very big IF.

There is no doubt whether animals feel pain and whether they want to be eaten. They don't.

It makes no sense to say, "But maybe plants feel pain too" as a justification for continuing to inflict pain, suffering and death upon beings who unmistakably and obviously, irrefutably do feel pain and irrefutably don't want to be killed.

The phrase "lusts for ... flesh" has a very old-time religion, bible-banger-y feel about it, don't you think? Maybe a little moralistic?

I chose the word that best described my intended point.

I enjoy the taste of a fresh salad. But I don't crave it. As Pickle said, you won't find vegans bingeing out on carrots!

People have to often make themselves eat their veggies, because they are 'good for them.'

But even though everyone knows greasy hamburgers and fries are absolutely bad for their health, they still eat them anyway. Why? Because they crave those foods...to the point of eating them anyway even when they are obese or have heart disease and they know the food is making them worse. The word lust is appropriate here. It's more like a drug than sustenance.

It goes back to the fact that some sort of plant food is necessary for us to survive. Even those who eat meat must eat plants also, in order to get necessary nutrients.

But it's not necessary to eat animals.

Therefore, I don't get the point of the meat-eaters continuing to tell us "you are doing the same thing by eating plants." It really just seems like a defensive mechanism.

The bottom line is that humans must eat some sort of plants to be healthy. They don't have to eat animals. So no matter how you slice it, it's not a level playing field here.

Right, spiritually advanced and presumably harvestable to 4D, at least some of them. The question was if 4D+ could eat living animals. I think it's possible that 4D descendants of Native Americans, with their reverence for life and their awareness of our interconnection with all living things, could.

You are missing the part about the deer being already dead when they ate that 'fresh' bloody heart.

So that doesn't qualify as living food. For it to be living, the animal must still be alive as it is being eaten.

I don't believe any harvestable human could do that to an animal. The Native Americans were more merciful than that! They killed their prey swiftly and compassionately. They didn't drag it out, torturing it in some elongated death ritual, in order to eat it alive. The very thought of that is barbaric.

I know you aren't barbaric, so I can only assume that you are thinking of a recently killed animal as still being alive. But it isn't. Either it's dead or it's alive. Ra said living foods. That means alive, not recently killed. Only plants, bugs and oyster qualify for that.

Primitive people ate a lot of bugs. Do you really think that's what Ra meant by living foods? That we have that to look forward to? ugh I don't think I would enjoy 4D at all if I have to learn to eat Klingon Gagh!

[3DMonkey]

This seems very obvious to me. I can't prove it. It just seems so obvious. To me, this entire argument about eating plants vs. animals seems like such a stretch...one must go to such great lengths to even begin to compare the two.

Sometimes, the obvious answer is the correct one.

I don't think anyone doubts the love a vegetarian has for animals. But why do vegetarians doubt that someone could love a plant as much?

[Diana]

This seems very obvious to me. I can't prove it. It just seems so obvious. To me, this entire argument about eating plants vs. animals seems like such a stretch...one must go to such great lengths to even begin to compare the two.

Sometimes, the obvious answer is the correct one.

I don't think anyone doubts the love a vegetarian has for animals. But why do vegetarians doubt that someone could love a plant as much?

This vegetarian doesn't doubt it. But this point has nothing to do with why I think not eating meat is important.

And, to be honest Monkey, with the exception of a person such as yourself who is seeking higher consciousness, I doubt that the majority of meat-eaters make a choice to eat meat because they love plants.

[3DMonkey]

This seems very obvious to me. I can't prove it. It just seems so obvious. To me, this entire argument about eating plants vs. animals seems like such a stretch...one must go to such great lengths to even begin to compare the two.

Sometimes, the obvious answer is the correct one.

I don't think anyone doubts the love a vegetarian has for animals. But why do vegetarians doubt that someone could love a plant as much?

This vegetarian doesn't doubt it. But this point has nothing to do with why I think not eating meat is important.

And, to be honest Monkey, with the exception of a person such as yourself who is seeking higher consciousness, I doubt that the majority of meat-eaters make a choice to eat meat because they love plants.

EDIT: Do their choices matter?

[Namaste]

Man, this thread grows fast...

But seems to go nowhere!

I think I'll join in again.

By divine design, humans need to eat. We have to eat something.

1) Consumption is part of many plant's reproduction/survival system, and hence encouraged
2) Sending gratitude to the plant before consumption is proven to nullify any response
3) Animals have emotions (fear), and a nervous system (pain)
4) Animals will avoid being consumed at all costs

It's quite simple - we either eat something that offers itself to being eaten, or we eat something that fears being eaten. Or both! We get to choose.

Trying to justify one's self regarding the consumption of meat, by using plants as a counter argument, holds no valid ground. Let's be honest, it's ridiculous. Ridiculous to such a degree that the discussion has managed to escalate to the use of petrol :¬)

If someone wants to eat meat - eat it! That's an entirely valid choice. The perpetual and rather non-sensical parallels being drawn with regards to eating plants however, is fruitless (pun intended)!

Can we all hug and get on with it?

[Monica]

I doubt that the majority of meat-eaters make a choice to eat meat because they love plants.

Exactly. Whereas, the opposite can be true: Vegetarians who love both animals and plants might choose to quit eating meat, because that will actually save plants too, since more plants are killed by feeding the animals. It's more efficient to just eat the plants directly, then to feed a lot of plants to the animals, then eat the animals too.

I think the reason most people choose to eat meat is simple: They like it. (Aside from those rare medical exceptions.)

[3DMonkey]

Man, this thread grows fast...

But seems to go nowhere!

I think I'll join in again.

By divine design, humans need to eat. We have to eat something.

1) Consumption is part of many plant's reproduction/survival system, and hence encouraged
2) Sending gratitude to the plant before consumption is proven to nullify any response
3) Animals have emotions (fear), and a nervous system (pain)
4) Animals will avoid being consumed at all costs

It's quite simple - we either eat something that offers itself to being eaten, or we eat something that fears being eaten. Or both! We get to choose.

Trying to justify one's self regarding the consumption of meat, by using plants as a counter argument, holds no valid ground. Let's be honest, it's ridiculous. Ridiculous to such a degree that the discussion has managed to escalate to the use of petrol :¬)

If someone wants to eat meat - eat it! That's an entirely valid choice. The perpetual and rather non-sensical parallels being drawn with regards to eating plants however, is fruitless (pun intended)!

Can we all hug and get on with it?

I am genuinely offended by your statements.

[BrownEye]

(Aside from those rare medical exceptions.)

Another rare medical condition involves the need to ingest a relatives feces.

I think rare and need are key lol.

[3DMonkey]

Is that wrong?

[BrownEye]

Is that wrong?

Not in itself. But I can say that most cases they did something wrong to get into that position. Such as............diet. ingesting the wrong thing. These days taking antibiotics can kill off the flora in the gut, which can end up fatal. This happens as a result of lacking in that bacteria to begin with, because of...........diet. lol

Things can turn full circle, it is always best to be informed. We are attempting to inform. Although even informing is sts.