In regards to eating meat

[drifting pages]

There was a time in my life, where i was a true believer in Catholicism and surprise!
I developed the "i am saved but so many are lost/confused/uninformed, i need to help them" mentality and no matter how truly i wanted to do good i came as a preacher and holier then you.

Yea fail...

But now i can look back and know. I also know what other "i am savior/instrument of salvation or idea" pass through and some of the similarities with other belief systems.

[Shemaya]

There was a time in my life, where i was a true believer in Catholicism and surprise!
I developed the "i am saved but so many are lost/confused/uninformed, i need to help them" mentality and no matter how truly i wanted to do good i came as a preacher and holier then you.

Yea fail...

But now i can look back and know. I also know what other "i am savior/instrument of salvation or idea" pass through and some of the similarities with other belief systems.

Got your point totally, drifting pages. I have seen that too....if you think about it on an energetic level, it's the same energy. Different form, but same energy.

[Tenet Nosce]

I was just curious whether you feel the same sense of indignation at the people who said it was ok for "everyone" to keep eating hamburgers, as you did at yossarian for expressing his enthusiasm for his new diet at the time.

I feel the same sense of indignation toward any "one-size-fits-all" approach to diet.

Since you seem to have so much indignation towards the vegan diet, I'm also curious whether you are involved in any activism to educate people about the many hundreds (thousands?) of fad diets out there, many of which 'could' be dangerous for 'some' people.

I work with people on an individual basis. But yes- actually I did make quite an effort in the past to educate groups about fad dieting. It didn't seem to have much of an impact... which is why I am specifically interested as to what is going on inside a person's mind who jumps from one fad diet to another, each with the same amount of zealous fervor as the last.

As for defending others, sorry, but no I don't like to see people getting singled out. Yossarian bared his soul and shared with us how difficult it's been for him. I feel immense respect and admiration for him for coming forward like that.

You're interpreting a tone to my words which isn't there. This isn't the first time you have done this. Yes- yossarian was brave enough to come forward. And since he seems willing to speak on the subject, I am genuinely curious to know if he has any insight as to what was going on in his mind as he was broadcasting to the world dietary advice which could be potentially lethal.

I think it's confrontational, what you said to him.

You are inserting yourself in between our conversation, before yossarian even had a chance to reply for himself. Confrontation is one thing- this is after all a web forum. Casting yourself as yossarian's defender without his asking for it or his permission, is much more than that- it is actually a disservice to yossarian, and depolarizing to you. What it communicates is that you don't feel that yossarian is capable enough to "defend" himself- as if there was anything to defend in the first place. There was no "attack" made, but for what you created in your mind.

What you said to me too, for that matter, but I can let it slide off me.

It was confrontational. What is wrong with that? Is confrontation only allowed by you when posting animal slaughterhouse videos? Sorry... but I thought you could handle a little confrontation since you seem comfortable dishing it out.

Again- you misinterpret my tone and put intentions in my mind which are not there. I called BS because I believe that you are fully capable of "understanding" where others are coming from on this issue, and yet you don't. After three years of discussion with other intelligent people on the issue. Don't know what to say about that- I guess I view you as more capable of understanding than you view yourself.

I don't like seeing it done to others, especially right after they bared their soul.

That is about you, not them. Yossarian is a grown adult. If he feels my post was a violence to him, then he can speak for himself. You have no place in judging on other people's behalf what is acceptable to them.

It's just mean.

That's your subjective interpretation. I intended no harm. Yossarian and I have had other conversations which you are not privy to. He expressed to me a certain struggle he has been feeling, and I am attempting to be of service in the resolution of that.

[drifting pages]

Tenet what are you hoping to achieve with your "confrontation" ?

[Monica]

You're interpreting a tone to my words which isn't there. This isn't the first time you have done this.

Tone isn't necessary when words are strong.

Casting yourself as yossarian's defender without his asking for it or his permission, is much more than that- it is actually a disservice to yossarian, and depolarizing to you.

This is getting beyond absurd, Tenet.

What it communicates is that you don't feel that yossarian is capable enough to "defend" himself- as if there was anything to defend in the first place. There was no "attack" made, but for what you created in your mind.

Nice "throw it back at the other person" technique.

It was confrontational. What is wrong with that?

It's not nice.

Is confrontation only allowed by you when posting animal slaughterhouse videos?

Confrontation means confronting another person directly, in a personal way.

Posting videos about the meat industry isn't confrontational at all, because that's what this thread is about. We all post videos all the time, and they aren't directed at anyone personally. Nothing confrontational about that.

Sorry... but I thought you could handle a little confrontation since you seem comfortable dishing it out.

sigh

Intellectual discussion isn't confrontation.

Even heated debate isn't confrontation.

I didn't expect this from you, Tenet.

I called BS because I believe that you are fully capable of "understanding" where others are coming from on this issue, and yet you don't.

I find your entire "BS" post highly offensive, and you continue. I have never addressed you personally in this thread. For you to do that to me, and then to yossarian, is offensive. You have made a philosophical discussion into something personal.

That is about you, not them.

Actually, this thread isn't about me at all. It's about meat. For you to make the thread about me, is derailing.

Yossarian is a grown adult. If he is feels my post was a violence to him, then he can speak for himself. You have no place in judging on other people's behalf what is acceptable to them.

Now you're getting aggressive. Take a chill pill, Tenet. You sound really butthurt.

[Tenet Nosce]

Now you're getting aggressive. Take a chill pill, Tenet. You sound really butthurt.

Wow... that's really precious! So now you've taken it upon yourself to also tell me what my own emotional state is. You're right, this conversation is absurd. Thanks for the laugh.

[Monica]

Now you're getting aggressive. Take a chill pill, Tenet. You sound really butthurt.

Wow... that's really precious! So now you've taken it upon yourself to also tell me what my own emotional state is. You're right, this conversation is absurd. Thanks for the laugh.

I'm not laughing, Tenet.

[Tenet Nosce]

I'm not laughing, Tenet.

Then I suggest you seek the love in the moment. I will do the same. Peace.

[yossarian]

Thanks for clarifying, and my apologies if I misrepresented your views. I see now you were recommending a high-fruit raw vegan diet. However, my reaction to them hasn't changed. Instead of simply sharing what worked for you, or rather what you thought was working for you, the reply you gave way back in the beginning of the thread implies that you are speaking from some sort of expertise. It is matter-of-fact.

You are criticizing people who promote unsubstantiated theories. I think that's appropriate.

But you're also presenting your own opinion as something infallible. There are many many many unsubstantiated theories in your writing. If my behaviour makes you so angry it's probably because you're just like me.

You are passing off your own diet views as absolute truth. You are saying "Everyone needs something different! There is no best diet!" and promoting this claim as an absolute, unquestionable truth. You don't present evidence, you just write passionately on the topic and make assertions, similar to how I did it back in 2009.

And there are certain elements of it which I thought were (and still think are) potentially harmful advice. In particular- where you claim that 25 grams of protein is all the body needs to function in a day.

Prove it--or you're just doing what I was doing--making assertions.

Do you know that an obese person could get severely ill, or even die from eating that little protein, for any extended period of time? Especially if they were exercising hard to try and lose weight.

Are you trying to make me feel guilty? On what moral principle are you condemning me? Being wrong? Having the courage of my convictions? Being a fanatic? Being an extremist true believer?

I'm completely fallible and I'm in the habit of arguing vigorously to support my position. I actually am not convinced that I am wrong about the vegan modification to the paleolithic diet. Having said that, I'm not an expert and after going down that rabbit hole I decided I didn't want to anymore and was going to specialize in a different field.

Did that factor into your post anywhere? Or were you just parroting what you heard from a food guru as if it were "God's Word" on diet?

Pretty much.

We've got people like DW out there speaking authoritatively on a subject that is completely beyond his scope and expertise. Source field theories and Disclosure are his purview... but telling everybody how to eat? I don't think so, and especially when every other blog post talks about some or another illness he perhaps should think twice about whether he has been fed some BS about diet, and is now spreading that BS around to his "followers".

How does channelled material have any more credibility than anyone? On one hand you want credibility and proof and stuff, and on the other hand you take Ra at his word that Karma exists.

To my view- this type of activity carries orders of magnitude more karmic weight than does meat eating.

Prove karma exists. You can't. You're pushing your beliefs on others and your beliefs have no basis in observable fact.

I understand you have changed your views since then, and have re-incorporated meat eating. As I said back in that other post- I am actually curious to understand what goes on in a person's mind when they are so sure about one thing, and later come back around to the opposite. Are you so sure about your diet now, as you were then?

I haven't changed my views. I dropped my views. I decided I was no longer interested in being a food pioneer and was going to just stick to convention, like the ancient skeptics. I still believe the paleolithic diet is the most healthy diet, for everyone! And if you modify the paleolithic diet to be vegan by finding substitutes for the nutrition derived from meat, you can have a vegan paleolithic diet!

How do you feel now about having broadcasted to the world that raw vegan was the "best way" and that nobody should eat apples?

It was a point of view. I was speaking passionately on something I had studied and tried out. At the time my blood sugar was probably through the roof from all the fruit I was eating. From my own perspective my behaviour then appears fanatical and extremist. But I basically express myself in a sensationalist, extremist way most of the time.

I don't strive to be a perfect human being. I actually think that is foolish. I strive to accept myself, flaws included. All I can do is be myself and take others into consideration. I'm semi-comfortable being wrong, although I'm still not convinced that I was.

Let's assume that I was completely wrong and my advice would have killed people. Let's assume that my advice was similar to telling someone they should drink antifreeze. According to the Law of One, what is wrong with this?

The Law of One says that there are no mistakes. It's an amoral teaching. So what are you raging against and why? How do you know that your form of service to humanity (telling them that fruitarianism is always wrong) is better than my form of service to humanity (telling people to drink antifreeze)?

How do you even define service? Doesn't the LOO define service in completely subjective terms anyway? Service is doing whatever an individual thinks service is, so service is completely subjective and you're incapable of knowing whether I'm serving someone or not and vice versa.

You seem to be morally outraged. I suspect this is because you're emotionally still a Christian. You still believe there is right and wrong and that you can tell the difference between the two. You believe that the purpose of your life is to serve others--but it's impossible to figure out how to do that because you can never really tell what is real service. Maybe being told to drink antifreeze is precisely what that person needed to grow.

I want to analyze this from a moral perspective in terms of the LOO. How do you know it's bad karma if you can't even judge what is STO and STS? Ra says this isn't the density of knowing. Why do you even bother?

[drifting pages]

Yossarian, i think you raise some good points, i don't refer to this in an accusatory or derogatory way to Tenet.

Like Karma and channeling, religion and diets.... Absolute value or truth and so forth.

[yossarian]

When it comes to the diet issue, I still see no reason to trust you (Tenet) over the many books I've read on the topic and my personal experience. I've known lots of extremely healthy raw food vegans. I know this is a major controversy and I'm comfortable with taking a side. Most of your refutations I've heard refutations for. Bottom line is that there's a controversy, a difference of opinion. My views on raw food veganism were not conventional. Your views on "listen to your body" are also not conventional. We both have/had extreme views and both views have incomplete evidence. They are both theories waiting for better confirmation. They're both pioneering. You have the mental complex distortion indicating that my views will kill people. I have a mental complex distortion indicating that your views will kill people (listen to your body for most people means eating cake and cheetos for breakfast).

Ultimately, I don't really want to spend a lot of energy trying to resolve the "what to eat" question and I do want to leave it to the science experts. Hence, me dropping out of this debate. However! I'm happy to let my previous arguments stand. If they are refuted, so be it. Let people decide on their own. I was presenting a point of view, let it stand or fall on its own merits.

There are people who blindly obey crazy people on message boards. My moral position is that those people are responsible for their own health even if I make a passionate argument telling them to drink antifreeze. Maybe people like me should be locked up. If you lobbied the government to criminalize the promotion of fad diets I might support you. But I think your fad diet would probably get the axe as well. How do you respond to Gary Taubes? You seem strangely confident for someone who is theoretically attached to observable facts. The field is nutrition is nothing if not controversial.

[3DMonkey]

For what it's worth, yossarian, It seems that Tenet's perspective allows you, and anybody, to develop your own diet for yourself.

[drifting pages]

"The field is nutrition is nothing if not controversial."

Yep it sits close to the fields of morality, religion and politics.

[yossarian]

For what it's worth, yossarian, It seems that Tenet's perspective allows you, and anybody, to develop your own diet for yourself.

Except for fruitarianism?

[drifting pages]

I think what Tenet is saying is that all diets are ok on a personal bases but if someone comes and says that there is an absolute value in diet for everybody they are wrong.

I dunno i partially agree but i wouldn't confront anyone about it, then again i did sort of confront views in the bisexuality 4D thread(cause of the transgender/homosexual Ra explanation). So there, who am i to talk ?

Still talking lol

I think being all inclusive of everything is a propriety of existence, to say some views are wrong feels off to me. Yet this same view is included. Sooo yea go along.

[Tenet Nosce]

Firstly, thanks for your reply. And I hope you didn't see my post as offensive as it has been made out to be. I saw an opportunity to converse and genuinely thought you would have something valuable to contribute to me from the conversation.

But you're also presenting your own opinion as something infallible.

I don't believe my opinion is infallible. I do believe it is clearly supported by research. We are not talking about one or two studies, we are talking about entire fields of science which didn't even exist before, such as nutrigenomics. Perhaps you are not aware of this.

There are many many many unsubstantiated theories in your writing.

What is theory is not presented as fact. If it appears that way, it is unintentional. I attempt to be cognizant of delineating my own personal hypotheses by saying things like What if...? or Maybe... though I am sure I am not perfect at it.

If my behaviour makes you so angry it's probably because you're just like me.

Yes. Your behavior reminds me exactly of a memory I feel from the time of Atlantis when I charismatically and self-righteously led people down a path that led to great destruction.

You are passing off your own diet views as absolute truth. You are saying "Everyone needs something different! There is no best diet!" and promoting this claim as an absolute, unquestionable truth.
You don't present evidence, you just write passionately on the topic and make assertions, similar to how I did it back in 2009.

This is akin to saying that I am attempting to pass geology off as absolute truth, and demanding proof that geology exists. Yes, geology exists, and there are entire textbooks written upon the subject.

I've made no claims about who should eat what. I don't believe we have the answers to that. And I am even skeptical that those answers will ever come from science. But what we do know is that the same foods are metabolized by different bodies in different ways. Yes, I think that is a fact. If you really want me to post links to textbooks with pages of medical references, I will be happy to do that.

And there are certain elements of it which I thought were (and still think are) potentially harmful advice. In particular- where you claim that 25 grams of protein is all the body needs to function in a day.

Prove it--or you're just doing what I was doing--making assertions.

It is a fundamental fact of human physiology that the human body requires a minimum of 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram body weight daily to support its total metabolic function. This information is easily verified by measuring the amount of nitrogen that comes out in your urine. The concept of nitrogen balance is fundamental to any kind of understanding about how not only the human body, but any sort of life works. You can easily find this information from countless sources available on the Internet. It is generally accepted as common knowledge among physicians, nurses, and dieticians. Even the vast majority of "alternative" ones.

Are you trying to make me feel guilty?

No, absolutely not.

On what moral principle are you condemning me?

I'm not condemning you to anything. I think you have learned something that I want to know about, and so I am asking you pointed questions about it.

Being a fanatic?

Yes, I want to understand more of what it is like to be a fanatic. It appears that you have had success balancing this issue within yourself, and I would like you to share your wisdom with me about it. I feel it is my honor/responsibility to offer balance to the energy of fanaticism in the world, and I wish to be more empowered to do that through understanding the process by which a fanatic arrives at balance.

Prove karma exists. You can't. You're pushing your beliefs on others and your beliefs have no basis in observable fact.

I could give a rat's hiney whether or not you believe in karma. If you said, hey TN- I don't care about any of that karma baloney, then I would stop writing about it to you.

From my own perspective my behaviour then appears fanatical and extremist. But I basically express myself in a sensationalist, extremist way most of the time.

Why?

I don't strive to be a perfect human being. I actually think that is foolish. I strive to accept myself, flaws included.

Yes- that sounds like a balanced approach to me.

According to the Law of One, what is wrong with this?

Nothing is wrong with it. Unless you, yourself, care about the impact your words and actions have on others, and whether or not there was an intended result. I am perhaps speaking under the assumption that you do care... but if you don't that is fine with me too.

The Law of One says that there are no mistakes. It's an amoral teaching. So what are you raging against and why? How do you know that your form of service to humanity (telling them that fruitarianism is always wrong) is better than my form of service to humanity (telling people to drink antifreeze)?

I'm not raging, and I don't think my service is "better than" yours. It is really quite puzzling to me how others see so much anger and judgement when there is little, but that is a side issue at this point. For now, I'm just trying to understand the fanatic thing.

Look- yes I feel some anger and judgement. But most of it is directed at me, not you. Perhaps you are picking up on that.

But for people to sit there and say I am "raging"... what do you want me to say about that? It just isn't true. If I were emotionally "raging" right now, I wouldn't even be able to type on this keyboard. I assure you that I am quite calmly sitting in my chair.

How do you even define service? Doesn't the LOO define service in completely subjective terms anyway? Service is doing whatever an individual thinks service is, so service is completely subjective and you're incapable of knowing whether I'm serving someone or not and vice versa.

Service is seeking to know who you are, and attempting to be that. We are always serving others, and ourselves, in one way or another. That is my opinion on the matter.

You seem to be morally outraged.

What is your view on the morality of your actions?

I suspect this is because you're emotionally still a Christian.

Not sure what you mean by this.

You still believe there is right and wrong and that you can tell the difference between the two.

No, I believe right and wrong are relative to one's intention.

You believe that the purpose of your life is to serve others--but it's impossible to figure out how to do that because you can never really tell what is real service.

I believe that I am serving at all times. The question is, what am I serving?

Maybe being told to drink antifreeze is precisely what that person needed to grow.

I'm willing to consider that possibility.

I want to analyze this from a moral perspective in terms of the LOO. How do you know it's bad karma if you can't even judge what is STO and STS?

From my own experience.

Ra says this isn't the density of knowing.

You are right about that.

Why do you even bother?

I'm not really sure. Why do you?

Thanks again for the conversation, it has been enlightening.

[yossarian]

I think what Tenet is saying is that all diets are ok on a personal bases but if someone comes and says that there is an absolute value in diet for everybody they are wrong.

I dunno i partially agree but i wouldn't confront anyone about it, then again i did sort of confront views in the bisexuality 4D thread(cause of the transgender/homosexual Ra explanation). So there, who am i to talk ?

Still talking lol

I think being all inclusive of everything is a propriety of existence, to say some views are wrong feels off to me. Yet this same view is included. Sooo yea go along.

Making any assertion at all is also an assertion that the opposite view is untrue.

example:

1. A is B

2. A is not B

How can we find a way to say both of these are true? We can't. All statements that say "something is true" are at the same time saying their opposite is false.

Sometimes it seems like people just want to avoid taking a stand but it's impossible. Even when you try to avoid taking a stand, you're still taking a stand that taking a stand should be avoided.

[drifting pages]

But since to me the fundament is consciousness:
Everything is nothing and nothing is everything.
And i see no problem in saying that.

Therefore all paradoxes begin and end at the same point.

[Tenet Nosce]

For what it's worth, yossarian, It seems that Tenet's perspective allows you, and anybody, to develop your own diet for yourself.

Except for fruitarianism?

If you like, you may show me a combination of fruit to eat that provides all of the 22 nutrients required for the body to function on a biochemical basis. If I had an example of this, I would begin promoting frutarianism myself.

Vegan is one thing. That can be done correctly in multiple ways. I've don't believe I've ever said a peep against veganism- only against the promotion of it without the knowledge necessary to employ it in a healthy way.

[yossarian]

I don't believe my opinion is infallible. I do believe it is clearly supported by research. We are not talking about one or two studies, we are talking about entire fields of science which didn't even exist before, such as nutrigenomics. Perhaps you are not aware of this.

You're presenting it as infallible. I didn't believe I was infallible when I presented my opinion back in 2009 either. I believed I was just making my case and spreading my beliefs, which I believed was an acceptable thing to do.

What is theory is not presented as fact. If it appears that way, it is unintentional. I attempt to be cognizant of delineating my own personal hypotheses by saying things like What if...? or Maybe... though I am sure I am not perfect at it.

So again you're claiming that you have knowledge of universal facts that are unquestionable. What's the difference between us? That you're right and I'm wrong? You're a fanatic too, just maybe a fanatic who happens to be correct. The emotional orientation seems to be the same.

Yes. Your behavior reminds me exactly of a memory I feel from the time of Atlantis when I charismatically and self-righteously led people down a path that led to great destruction.

You feel the memory? You don't remember the memory?

You are passing off your own diet views as absolute truth. You are saying "Everyone needs something different! There is no best diet!" and promoting this claim as an absolute, unquestionable truth.
You don't present evidence, you just write passionately on the topic and make assertions, similar to how I did it back in 2009.

This is akin to saying that I am attempting to pass geology off as absolute truth, and demanding proof that geology exists. Yes, geology exists, and there are entire textbooks written upon the subject.

You're just making an assertion and you have confidence that you're right. How is that any different from the behaviour of anyone?

I've made no claims about who should eat what. I don't believe we have the answers to that. And I am even skeptical that those answers will ever come from science. But what we do know is that the same foods are metabolized by different bodies in different ways. Yes, I think that is a fact. If you really want me to post links to textbooks with pages of medical references, I will be happy to do that.

You're splitting hairs. Sure, some people are lactose intolerant and others are not. But these are tiny details. Overall, humans are more similar than they are different. There are some pretty widespread general rules. Don't eat rocks. Don't drink saltwater. By figuring out the general rules through statistics scientists can discover a generally best "average diet". This is what people mean when they talk about the best diet. Every diet always makes provision for stuff people differ on. Some people always throw up when they eat eggs. Some people can't eat gluten. But overall there are trends and I still believe there is a general template of an ideal diet that applies to everyone.

Saying no one should be a fruitarian is a claim about who should eat what. Saying there is no best diet is also a claim about who should eat what, just now it's a claim that what people should eat is something different for each person. Maybe you're right, but I'm trying to make the point that you're just expressing your own views. Maybe your views are better than mine but it doesn't seem like you're attacking my views but rather attacking the fact I said anything at all.

On what moral principle are you condemning me? Being a fanatic?

Yes, I want to understand more of what it is like to be a fanatic. It appears that you have had success balancing this issue within yourself, and I would like you to share your wisdom with me about it. I feel it is my honor/responsibility to offer balance to the energy of fanaticism in the world, and I wish to be more empowered to do that through understanding the process by which a fanatic arrives at balance.

I'm still a fanatic just not about food.

I tend to agree with the psychologists who say that fanaticism is basically a hurt or lost child desperately searching for someone to love them. They take this early childhood drama and project it out onto the world. Their extremism is not rooted intellectually but rather emotionally. Fanatics are neurotics desperately trying to compensate for a sense of inferiority, unworthiness, or lack. They go to extremes because their emotional needs have not been met through normal channels.

I was experimenting with all kinds of diets and I felt better on this diet than I ever had before. It was like a drug. I felt airy and euphoric and extremely energetic. It was an altered state of consciousness. Maybe I was dying and that is what dying feels like. I had read all kinds of books debating and discussing nutritional issues and the paleolithic diet made the most sense to me. The veganism modification was a moral position.

I basically still believe the same things and I'm doing a form of the paleolithic diet today, just not a vegan paleolithic diet. I decided the meat component of the paleolithic diet is pretty hard to substitute with vegan alternatives and not worth the hassle.

Prove karma exists. You can't. You're pushing your beliefs on others and your beliefs have no basis in observable fact.

I could give a rat's hiney whether or not you believe in karma. If you said, hey TN- I don't care about any of that karma baloney, then I would stop writing about it to you.

My point was that you're pushing the existence of karma with your statement, just like how I was pushing the benefits of the vegan paleolithic diet with my statements. What matters is not how you feel about the statement when you make the statement, but rather what you're saying. How I feel about my diet is not what got your attention. What got your attention is how I talked about it.

From my own perspective my behaviour then appears fanatical and extremist. But I basically express myself in a sensationalist, extremist way most of the time.

Why?

Entertainment, excitement, and to get attention. Only extremists and sensationalists are listened to. Dry people are boring and have no influence. I guess I've learned that a sensationalist style is persuasive. If you want your writing to actually affect anyone you have to write passionately.

You seem to be morally outraged.

What is your view on the morality of your actions?

Emotionally I think it's wrong for me to promote views on a field where I don't have an education. My 2009 self was confident he was making accurate statements. I still basically agree with my 2009 self, based on a whole bunch of books I've read, but I have no motivation now to try and convince anyone or spread my beliefs.

You believe that the purpose of your life is to serve others--but it's impossible to figure out how to do that because you can never really tell what is real service.

I believe that I am serving at all times. The question is, what am I serving?

Shouldn't that be "who"?

I want to analyze this from a moral perspective in terms of the LOO. How do you know it's bad karma if you can't even judge what is STO and STS?

From my own experience.

You're sort of missing my point. My point is just that everyone presents their views based on their best knowledge and experience and what else can you expect? I presented my views which were based on my experience and knowledge. If they're wrong, hopefully you managed to sway people away from them. Why can't my views stand of their own merit? Why do you have to denounce the fact that I expressed my views at all?

Why do you even bother?

I'm not really sure. Why do you?

I think I'm searching for some kind of meaning to life or some kind of genuine truth.

---

For what it's worth, yossarian, It seems that Tenet's perspective allows you, and anybody, to develop your own diet for yourself.

Except for fruitarianism?

If you like, you may show me a combination of fruit to eat that provides all of the 22 nutrients required for the body to function on a biochemical basis. If I had an example of this, I would begin promoting frutarianism myself.

Vegan is one thing. That can be done correctly in multiple ways. I've don't believe I've ever said a peep against veganism- only against the promotion of it without the knowledge necessary to employ it in a healthy way.

For the record I'm not a fruitarian and never was. I was making a point, not actually supporting fruitarianism.

But you have now shown that you aren't as tolerant as you say you are. You don't support ALL diets. Just the ones you agree with. You support people selecting from a few different diets that you have pre-approved. This makes you intolerant toward many prominent diets like fruitarianism, breathatarianism, sungazing, etc.

[BrownEye]

You feel the memory? You don't remember the memory?

Man this has my eyes watering LoL!

[Tenet Nosce]

You're presenting it as infallible. I didn't believe I was infallible when I presented my opinion back in 2009 either. I believed I was just making my case and spreading my beliefs, which I believed was an acceptable thing to do.

There is an entire field of science called nutrigenomics which is the "study of the effects of foods and food constituents on gene expression." There is no debate about "whether or not" food affects gene expression. It is true. How, exactly, food affects gene expression is debatable and fairly unknown.

So again you're claiming that you have knowledge of universal facts that are unquestionable.

Yes, nutrigenomics exists. Just like geology exists. Or physics exists. Or genetics exists. They exist in this reality. Are you saying these are debatable statements? That these sciences might not exist?

What's the difference between us?

The difference is in which of the infinite variety of qualities we are choosing to express in this moment. We each carry all of them within us.

That you're right and I'm wrong?

Right and wrong are only relative to a purpose.

Do you have a purpose to have a healthy body? If so, then it is right for me to tell you that you need a minimum of 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram body weight, and it is wrong for me to tell you that your body requires less than it actually does.

If you don't have a purpose to have a healthy body, then it would not be right for me to tell you anything about protein, one way or another.

You're a fanatic too, just maybe a fanatic who happens to be correct. The emotional orientation seems to be the same.

Then, what is the difference between a fanatic who happens to be correct, a fanatic who happens to be incorrect, and a fanatic who blows up children with bombs? Do all three have the same emotional orientation? If so, what causes only one of them to be violent?

You feel the memory? You don't remember the memory?

Yes, the memory is in the format of a feeling. I could translate it into words in order to fashion a story out of it, but the truth is- I don't have any facts about that. Something about giving technology to people without the underlying information necessary to prevent abuse of the technology, and watching them destroy themselves with it.

You're just making an assertion and you have confidence that you're right. How is that any different from the behaviour of anyone?

Yes, you're right. I assert that nutrigenomics exists, which is the study of how foods interact with DNA in the human body. I have confidence that I'm right, and how it is different from some others is that I am stating a fact which I independently verified, and which is true.

You're splitting hairs. Sure, some people are lactose intolerant and others are not. But these are tiny details.

No, I don't think that I am splitting hairs. It is much more than lactose intolerance. It has to do with how your DNA is expressed. That is pretty significant. If you are interested to know how to support DNA expression in your body, I would highly recommend reading up on nutrigenomics. I'm sure you will love it!

But overall there are trends and I still believe there is a general template of an ideal diet that applies to everyone.

So- you're telling me that the way life on earth is set up is such that every person requires the exact same foods to be healthy? Wouldn't that be kind of odd?

Saying no one should be a fruitarian is a claim about who should eat what.

It is saying that the human body requires at least 23 different vitamins and minerals in order to function on a biochemical basis, and if you are interested in your body functioning correctly, then it is right for you to ensure that you are getting all 23 of these vitamins and minerals from your food sources, which cannot be done with fruit alone without ingesting extreme excess of sugar.

If one does not truly care about having a healthy body, then it is not wrong of them to ignore basic biochemistry in their food choices.

Saying there is no best diet is also a claim about who should eat what, just now it's a claim that what people should eat is something different for each person. Maybe you're right, but I'm trying to make the point that you're just expressing your own views. Maybe your views are better than mine but it doesn't seem like you're attacking my views but rather attacking the fact I said anything at all.

There is no attack. Only the observation that your words have made a major impact to the 100+ pages which constitute this thread. For all I know we are all much better off now for you having said whatever you said back in 2009. You are responsible for your own words, as am I, and there is no way for us to know in this moment what that impact is.

Personally, I believe that to the degree we are both being authentic to our values in this moment, is to the degree it will have a positive impact. Whether you or I agree is kind of a side item. But ultimately- I don't know.

I tend to agree with the psychologists who say that fanaticism is basically a hurt or lost child desperately searching for someone to love them. They take this early childhood drama and project it out onto the world. Their extremism is not rooted intellectually but rather emotionally. Fanatics are neurotics desperately trying to compensate for a sense of inferiority, unworthiness, or lack. They go to extremes because their emotional needs have not been met through normal channels.

Do you suppose that fanatics want to be fanatics? In other words, is that a genuine expression of who they are? Do you believe there is a way to heal this?

I was experimenting with all kinds of diets and I felt better on this diet than I ever had before. It was like a drug. I felt airy and euphoric and extremely energetic. It was an altered state of consciousness. Maybe I was dying and that is what dying feels like.

Thanks for sharing that. It is very helpful to me.

I had read all kinds of books debating and discussing nutritional issues and the paleolithic diet made the most sense to me.

Yes, I agree that overall the paleolithic diet makes a lot of sense. There are many connections to nutrigenomics there which I am sure you would find fascinating.

The veganism modification was a moral position.

I basically still believe the same things and I'm doing a form of the paleolithic diet today, just not a vegan paleolithic diet. I decided the meat component of the paleolithic diet is pretty hard to substitute with vegan alternatives and not worth the hassle.

So you have changed your moral position since then? How so?

What matters is not how you feel about the statement when you make the statement, but rather what you're saying.

So, if I were feeling angry and judgmental toward you with those earlier statements, it doesn't matter?

How I feel about my diet is not what got your attention. What got your attention is how I talked about it.

Yes, I would agree with that statement.

Entertainment, excitement, and to get attention. Only extremists and sensationalists are listened to. Dry people are boring and have no influence. I guess I've learned that a sensationalist style is persuasive. If you want your writing to actually affect anyone you have to write passionately.

So then, it is more important to you that people are affected, and not so much how they are affected?

Emotionally I think it's wrong for me to promote views on a field where I don't have an education. My 2009 self was confident he was making accurate statements. I still basically agree with my 2009 self, based on a whole bunch of books I've read, but I have no motivation now to try and convince anyone or spread my beliefs.

Thanks for sharing that information.

I believe that I am serving at all times. The question is, what am I serving?

Shouldn't that be "who"?

The "who" is a given, in my opinion.

Why can't my views stand of their own merit? Why do you have to denounce the fact that I expressed my views at all?

Perhaps you don't realize that I wrote a reply to you long ago. Here is the post. http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...1#pid46231

Clearly, you weren't around to answer it at the time, or just chose not to, is totally fine, in my opinion. It is when others began to reply on your behalf that confusion has ensued- and continues to ensue.

I think I'm searching for some kind of meaning to life or some kind of genuine truth.

Do you know that this truth and meaning is something to be found within you?

[Diana]

Yes, nutrigenomics exists. Just like geology exists. Or physics exists. Or genetics exists. They exist in this reality. Are you saying these are debatable statements? That these sciences might not exist?

These branches of science may exist, but that tells us nothing.

Newtonian physics exists. We use the formulae, the equations, the measurements, but we now know the basic premise is bunk: the universe is not static consisting of bits of solid matter.

Tenet, if you know anything about science you will know that we KNOW very little. Even when talking about biology, we DO NOT understand metabolism. It is very, very complex.

[yossarian]

I did read your criticisms a long time ago. It sounds like you know more about nutrition than me. Maybe the sources I've read that said 25g of plant protein is sufficient were wrong. I'm glad to be corrected by the experts. I don't know enough to prove it one way or the other. I've always been a practitioner not a researcher. Back in the day I decided to drop my diet experimentation but my beliefs are still paleolithic. The 25g of plant protein thing came from some experts I had read. Maybe they were wrong. Good thing you're here to protect people.

If you're actually a scientific expert and not promoting your own fad diet called "listen to your body" then that's great. I think scientific experts with proven credentials should be given special responsibilities and extra credibility.

Shrug. That's my position.

Yes, nutrigenomics exists. Just like geology exists. Or physics exists. Or genetics exists. They exist in this reality. Are you saying these are debatable statements? That these sciences might not exist?

Are scientific facts unquestionable truth? I dont think so.

No, I was saying it's controversial. The nutrition field is extremely controversial and many of your statements, as far as I know, are considered extremely contentious. I'm not a professional in this area but my info has come from professionals. Maybe you're right and there is no controversy. But that's just science anyway. It's still legit and valuable to criticize science even if you're wrong.

The difference is in which of the infinite variety of qualities we are choosing to express in this moment. We each carry all of them within us.

So is this one a scientific fact or just your opinion? You didn't say which. Some people might be confused.

Right and wrong are only relative to a purpose.

Do you have a purpose to have a healthy body? If so, then it is right for me to tell you that you need a minimum of 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram body weight, and it is wrong for me to tell you that your body requires less than it actually does.

I thought your moral philosophy was based on intention?

Then, what is the difference between a fanatic who happens to be correct, a fanatic who happens to be incorrect, and a fanatic who blows up children with bombs? Do all three have the same emotional orientation? If so, what causes only one of them to be violent?

Beliefs and values.

But what are we even talking about?

Yes, you're right. I assert that nutrigenomics exists, which is the study of how foods interact with DNA in the human body. I have confidence that I'm right, and how it is different from some others is that I am stating a fact which I independently verified, and which is true.

But you see in 2009 I believed the same thing. I could say this:

"I assert that raw veganism is the best diet. I have confidence that I'm right, and how it is different from some others is that I am stating a fact which I independently verified, and which is true."

So what's the difference?

But overall there are trends and I still believe there is a general template of an ideal diet that applies to everyone.

So- you're telling me that the way life on earth is set up is such that every person requires the exact same foods to be healthy? Wouldn't that be kind of odd?

Is your official argument that it would be "too odd" to be true?

Doesn't seem odd to me. Humans are a species who evolved for a specific environment. Most species all eat the same food.

It is saying that the human body requires at least 23 different vitamins and minerals in order to function on a biochemical basis, and if you are interested in your body functioning correctly, then it is right for you to ensure that you are getting all 23 of these vitamins and minerals from your food sources, which cannot be done with fruit alone without ingesting extreme excess of sugar.

If one does not truly care about having a healthy body, then it is not wrong of them to ignore basic biochemistry in their food choices.

So your fanaticism is about these 23 vitamins and minerals then. The purpose of my rhetoric was to try to point out to you that you are asserting that something is unquestionably true. This is similar to what I was doing. The only difference between us is that I was wrong and you are right (hypothetically :p).

Saying there is no best diet is also a claim about who should eat what, just now it's a claim that what people should eat is something different for each person. Maybe you're right, but I'm trying to make the point that you're just expressing your own views. Maybe your views are better than mine but it doesn't seem like you're attacking my views but rather attacking the fact I said anything at all.

There is no attack. Only the observation that your words have made a major impact to the 100+ pages which constitute this thread. For all I know we are all much better off now for you having said whatever you said back in 2009. You are responsible for your own words, as am I, and there is no way for us to know in this moment what that impact is.

Personally, I believe that to the degree we are both being authentic to our values in this moment, is to the degree it will have a positive impact. Whether you or I agree is kind of a side item. But ultimately- I don't know.

I haven't read the thread. What impact did my words have? You really think advocating for my diet on an internet forum has damaged humanity?

If your arguments are so strong I'm sure you handily defeated my words and everybody saw how right you were.

I tend to agree with the psychologists who say that fanaticism is basically a hurt or lost child desperately searching for someone to love them. They take this early childhood drama and project it out onto the world. Their extremism is not rooted intellectually but rather emotionally. Fanatics are neurotics desperately trying to compensate for a sense of inferiority, unworthiness, or lack. They go to extremes because their emotional needs have not been met through normal channels.

Do you suppose that fanatics want to be fanatics? In other words, is that a genuine expression of who they are? Do you believe there is a way to heal this?

You're all over the map.

I do absolutely believe that fanatics are genuinely expressing themselves. I believe all expressions are genuine. I do not believe that non-genuine expressions exist. This is one of my fundamental psychological views. Fanatics can change over time like anyone and this change is also a genuine expression.

The veganism modification was a moral position.

I basically still believe the same things and I'm doing a form of the paleolithic diet today, just not a vegan paleolithic diet. I decided the meat component of the paleolithic diet is pretty hard to substitute with vegan alternatives and not worth the hassle.

So you have changed your moral position since then? How so?

Why do I constantly feel like a baseball being coaxed onto the T-ball stand?

I have changed my moral position slightly. I've decided that ensuring the health of the human body is more important than preserving the lives of animals. I still think it's wrong to kill animals but I also think the value of a thriving human life outweighs the life of an animal. Until conventional science recommends veganism and social norms make it practical, therefore, I'm gonna be conventional.

In comparison, I used to think that preserving the lives of animals trumped any minor health concerns and practical concerns. I also thought that the risk to the body was worth it to preserve the lives of animals. So my values have shifted and my morals along with them.

Entertainment, excitement, and to get attention. Only extremists and sensationalists are listened to. Dry people are boring and have no influence. I guess I've learned that a sensationalist style is persuasive. If you want your writing to actually affect anyone you have to write passionately.

So then, it is more important to you that people are affected, and not so much how they are affected?

I believed I was doing a service to humanity, just like you believe you are. You believe you are redressing a karmic imbalance.

What use is your knowledge if you can't convince anyone? If no one will read your arguments? I absolutely think being persuasive is important and part of that is being entertaining and getting people's attention. I believe I have a multitude of psychodynamics inside of me, some conflicting.

So basically I care about both of those.

I hope my participation in this cross-examination counts as service to humanity.

I think I'm searching for some kind of meaning to life or some kind of genuine truth.

Do you know that this truth and meaning is something to be found within you?

I think this is a bigoted statement that devalues the creation. Also you didn't mention whether this is "opinion" or "fact."

[Diana]

1) physical health
Certainly, when speaking of physical health alone, it seems reasonable to follow what the body needs, assuming that the body is healthy enough to give clear signals. There is, however, in general, evidence that certain foods promote better health and cause less harm.

Those studies were conducted out of the assumption that there is a "one true way" to begin with. There is an unspoken premise that all bodies are the same, and that it makes sense to generalize based on a research finding. This is despite mountains of other evidence which clearly indicate that every body is different.

I was not referring to any studies. Do we need studies to tell us that natural, fresh whole foods are healthier than processed, steroid- and antibiotic-laden foods?

2) sustainability
The health of ecosystems, all life, and the Earth itself are aspects to consider when deciding what to grow and eat, and how to do it.

That's all very nice to take into consideration. And yet- the fact of the matter is- we don't really know how it all fits together. In truth- we have little idea how all of these things come together to impact "all life" or "the planet"- but that doesn't seem to stop people from presenting theories as facts.

I find the bolded sentence above extraordinary. I agree that presenting "facts" about something we don't understand is a lame way to proceed. For instance, it does not really matter if global warming is real or not; why should that make us, or stop us from, being good stewards of the planet?

How about some common sense? You don't cut down the rain forest, destroying countless species, to graze cattle for one, two years, then sell the meat to MacDonald's. Can we agree on that?

3) treatment of other-selves
"In regards to eating meat," which is the subject of this thread. Our animal brothers and sisters.

Again, that is an interesting discussion. 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. 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.

If the animals were so "offended" by humans eating them, then why would the Creator have chosen to fashion us out of an omnivorous species? And no, I don't buy into the whole "because we are being tested" argument. That sounds like some "Christian" mumbo-jumbo to me. The Creator doesn't "trick" us.

Again, the bolded text I find extraordinary. No animals are offended. They want to LIVE. They don't want to be KILLED. That much I can guarantee, from the instinct for survival. Is it illogical to assume that they don't want to live an entire life of suffering and enslavement, to then be slaughtered?

The "Creator" is your belief, not mine. The rest of the paragraph belongs on a site where they spout Christian or monotheistic nonsense.

4) spiritual implications
This aspect is complex.

To the contrary- this is the most simple of them all. The spirit cannot be damaged, but for the possible exception of a nuclear blast, and even that is repairable. It is pure, pristine, and inviolable. All "spiritual growth" is the result of a progressive understanding of the inviolable nature of spirit.

So, just do anything, who cares, it'll all work out in the end? Seems very passive, if not unaccountable, and irresponsible, to me. Why are you on this site? (If you are not interested in actively growing or evolving.)

[Monica]

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

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?

If the animals were so "offended" by humans eating them, then why would the Creator have chosen to fashion us out of an omnivorous species?

"If humans were so "offended" by other humans killing them, then why would the Creator have chosen to fashion us out of a warring species?"

Sadly, Tenet, it seems to me you've missed the whole point of the Law of One, as pertaining to 4D harvestability. Because 'everything works out in the end' doesn't mean it doesn't matter what we do now.

There is a reason for suffering, yes.

To teach us compassion.

That's the ticket to 4D - compassion.

To ignore compassion, is to miss the whole point of being veiled in the first place.

And no, I don't buy into the whole "because we are being tested" argument. That sounds like some "Christian" mumbo-jumbo to me. The Creator doesn't "trick" us.

Funny, it is your statement that sounds like "Christian mumbo-jumbo" to me.

If the animals were so "offended" by humans eating them, then why would the Creator have chosen to fashion us out of an omnivorous species?

reminds me of

If God didn't want us to eat animals, then why did he tell Adam and Eve to take dominion over the Earth?

and

If man was meant to fly God would have given us wings

[Ankh]

Tenet Nosce and yossarian, I enjoyed and appreciated your contributions to this thread, which, as I saw it at least, was made in an honest and open minded way.

I also want to thank you, Tenet, for the discussion you and I and others had in that Law of One channeling thread. I am not saying it in the spirit of "oh thanks for these catalysts, "brother"", but I sincerely mean it. I enjoy honest discussions where people are open to the topic which is dicussed. That discussion brought me much wider understanding and perspective, and hopefully much more balanced view on the topic discussed. Every time views and understandings are challenged in an intelligent and openminded way, I appreciate participating in it, if I have something to say, or just reading about it.

[Tenet Nosce]

Tenet, if you know anything about science you will know that we KNOW very little. Even when talking about biology, we DO NOT understand metabolism. It is very, very complex.

What we know is that the (1) body requires at least 23 different vitamins and minerals for its metabolism, and (2) different foods containing these 23 vitamins and minerals are used by different bodies in different ways. That's about all we know "for sure". Beyond that is anybody's guess.

The hypothesis is that in order to truly know what one's body needs in terms of specific food choices, one must learn communicate with their body. I recognize that is a theory and not a proven fact.

However, I sincerely wonder what all the resistance I see here in this thread is to that. So I ask about it, rather than assuming I know what is going on in another person's mind. Then- I get resistance to the asking as well. I will leave it up to you to discern why that is.

---

If you're actually a scientific expert and not promoting your own fad diet called "listen to your body" then that's great. I think scientific experts with proven credentials should be given special responsibilities and extra credibility.

Yes, I am an expert. And no, I don't have my own fad diet book out there and I'm not trying to promote anything other than to suggest: listen to your body.

I am interested to know if people have success with this... or not. Perhaps some others reading in the background would like to share their experiences on this.

Shrug. That's my position.

Great! My position is that "scientific experts with proven credentials" have a responsibility to communicate the whole truth- insofar as science has been able to discern- and not leave certain parts out due to personal agendas and/or marketing schemes.

In my view, you as a layperson can say whatever you like. I do believe it would be better with a little caveat at the beginning. But otherwise, there is no issue I have with you sharing your opinions and experience.

For guru-types who "have a thousand little copycats who follow them around, do everything they say, obey blindly, trust them blindly, laugh at every bad joke, worship their images, buy all their products, send them all their money" as you so eloquently put it in another thread... I believe that is a different scenario.

The difference is in which of the infinite variety of qualities we are choosing to express in this moment. We each carry all of them within us.

So is this one a scientific fact or just your opinion? You didn't say which. Some people might be confused.

Opinion. Do you disagree?

So what's the difference?

Beliefs and values. I was not writing in an "altered state of consciousness" brought on by too much sugar. Also, I was not writing out of a desire for "entertainment, excitement, and to get attention."

Is your official argument that it would be "too odd" to be true?

No, that is just a sidebar postulate.

Doesn't seem odd to me. Humans are a species who evolved for a specific environment. Most species all eat the same food.

As a species- the "specific environment" is the entire planet earth. As far as I'm aware, there is no other species found in such a wide variety of niches within the ecosystem- with the exception of domesticated animals. I think this has something to do with us being omnivores.

So your fanaticism is about these 23 vitamins and minerals then. The purpose of my rhetoric was to try to point out to you that you are asserting that something is unquestionably true. This is similar to what I was doing. The only difference between us is that I was wrong and you are right (hypothetically :p).

If you want to call me a fanatic for stating a basic fact of biochemistry, that is fine with me. If you actually have an argument why this basic fact is wrong, and/or some evidence to believe that it is wrong, please do share.

I haven't read the thread. What impact did my words have? You really think advocating for my diet on an internet forum has damaged humanity?

Nor have you apparently read my previous post where I said "For all I know we are all much better off now for you having said whatever you said back in 2009."

I do absolutely believe that fanatics are genuinely expressing themselves. I believe all expressions are genuine. I do not believe that non-genuine expressions exist. This is one of my fundamental psychological views. Fanatics can change over time like anyone and this change is also a genuine expression.

Fair enough.

Why do I constantly feel like a baseball being coaxed onto the T-ball stand?

I don't know. Perhaps it has something to do with being mistrustful of others due to being taken advantage of by guru-types in the past. But I wouldn't really know.

I have changed my moral position slightly. I've decided that ensuring the health of the human body is more important than preserving the lives of animals. I still think it's wrong to kill animals but I also think the value of a thriving human life outweighs the life of an animal. Until conventional science recommends veganism and social norms make it practical, therefore, I'm gonna be conventional.

In comparison, I used to think that preserving the lives of animals trumped any minor health concerns and practical concerns. I also thought that the risk to the body was worth it to preserve the lives of animals. So my values have shifted and my morals along with them.

Thanks for sharing that.

I believed I was doing a service to humanity, just like you believe you are. You believe you are redressing a karmic imbalance.

So... you do want to help others? But you don't care if your methodology is actually effective in helping them or not?

I hope my participation in this cross-examination counts as service to humanity.

At the least, it is a great service to me. Thank you.

I think this is a bigoted statement that devalues the creation. Also you didn't mention whether this is "opinion" or "fact."

Bigoted? That's an interesting view. I will go within and contemplate that one.

[Monica]

What we know is that the (1) body requires

Which body? The 3D body, the dual activated body, or the 4D body?

And, is there any difference between the bodies developed for those incarnating here from Mars, vs those from Maldek, vs those from other planets? other than color and facial characteristics?

For example, I know bodies of African descent have certain predispositions to lactose intolerance. Then there is that theory about blood type.

at least 23 different vitamins and minerals for its metabolism

You do mean absorbed, right? As opposed to taken in/consume?

Yes, I am an expert.

Oh, that settles it then. Because of course everyone here knows that we must believe the experts.

The only problem is: Which expert?

So, now that we know someone with a naturopathic degree from an accredited school is an expert, what do we do with that minor little detail: other 'experts' (MDs) don't even respect 'your' type of expert?

See, they claim to be experts too!

So whom do we believe? Which experts do we trust?

Different 'experts' disagree. Look at how many different diets are being touted, all backed up by some 'expert.'

Come to think of it, Dr. John McDougall says it's virtually impossible to not get enough protein on a starch-based, vegetarian diet, provided sufficient calories are consumed. He's an expert too. He's an MD.

And then there's Dr. Gabriel Cousens. He says anyone who WANTS to be a healthy raw vegan CAN, but some have an easier time than others, and those who find it challenging, CAN succeed if they add several tablespoons of superfoods to their dietary protocol. Yeah yeah that might be too much hassle for some people, but it CAN be done, if they want to. He claims a nearly 100% success rate, with those who do this and genuinely stick with it. Lo and behold, the cravings for meat vanish when they add bee pollen and green superfoods (bluegreen algae, spirulina, chlorella, etc.) to their diet. He says we're evolving, and if we want to evolve, we need rocket fuel for our new bodies. He also says that many people CAN be healthy eating meat - physically healthy that is. But for those who consider ethics and spirituality to be also important, they can most definitely be healthy without meat. No question about it. What I like about him is that he acknowledges the challenges some people face, and has found solutions to them. Why? How did he do that? Because he has some 40+ years of experience, and studying the raw vegan diet is his specialty. He doesn't just have book knowledge, but clinical experience with thousands of people. Not to mention he is absolutely brilliant. He ran circles around Dr. Mercola and Dr. Mercola sounded like a kindergartner by comparison, in their 'great meatout' debate. In fact Dr. Mercola really couldn't counter anything Dr. Cousens said, because he backed everything up with actual studies and irrefutable data.

And by the way, Dr. Cousens is an MD. So he is an expert too.

Dr. Atkins was an 'expert' and an MD. He promoted a heavy protein, heavy fat diet, and he died from a heart attack, or is that just a rumor?

Then there's that woman who wrote Nourishing Traditions, that famous book advocating that we go back to caveman days and eat tons of organ meats, butter, and lots and lots of fat. Not to be confused with the Paleo diet, because it's cooked, not raw. She claims to be an 'expert' too, though I don't recall her name, much less her credentials. Has anyone ever noticed how leathery and pasty her skin is? I don't normally nitpick physical appearance, but I can't help but notice an odd pasty or leathery look in the skin of those advocating heavy meat consumption. Dr. Mercola's skin has it too - very leathery. Compare that to the glowing skin and bright, bright eyes of many of the vegetarians, and even more so with the raw vegans. Observing the skin and eyes of someone touting some diet is akin to noticing whether someone is overweight or not, if they are touting a weight loss plan. It's allowable.

All experts, all of them. And now we can add Dr. Tenet to the list. So tell me, which expert do we believe?

And no, I don't have my own fad diet book out there and I'm not trying to promote anything other than to suggest: listen to your body.

Maybe it's because you have me on ignore, or maybe you just missed it, but I don't think you ever responded when I asked how in the world people can listen to their body when they're addicted to sugar, caffeine, etc. or are toxic due to the chemicals in foods? not to mention a slowed down digestion due to heavy meats rotting in their intestines all day, or an inflamed bowel due to gluten intolerance or some other food allergy likely brought about by the atrocious SAD diet that is the norm.

I think I said something like "that's like telling a smoker to listen to his body when it asks for a cigarette" and yes I 'get' that they need to ask what is the nature of the addiction, but where I disagree is that you're saying to do this, in order to decide what to eat. That smoker's body is going to tell him to smoke a cigarette.

But the analogy seems to have been lost on you, because rather than respond to it, you went off into the benefits of tobacco.

Now there's the protein issue. You say a fruitarian diet might be 'dangerous' and challenged yossarian's statements on protein intake, as though there were an epidemic of protein deficiency.

There isn't.

There is, however, an epidemic of diseases stemming from too much protein and too much fat, both of which - incidentally - are found in animal foods.

Since you are well-studied, you surely are aware that osteoporosis and bone loss in general are directly correlated to protein consumption. The higher the protein, the greater the loss of calcium from the bones.

So it seems to me, given the epidemic of osteoporosis crippling women all over the world, you might consider being more concerned about too much protein than fretting about the exceedingly rare fruitarian who doesn't eat enough to satisfy caloric requirements due to ignorance or stupidity.

I forgot what you said was the 'official' protein requirement, but again, do you mean absorbed or consumed?

And who decided this, and based on what? Based on animal studies? Based on human studies? Have the 'experts' taken into consideration that the people used in those studies were likely those on a heavy meat-and-junk-food diet? Have any 'experts' done a study on the protein requirements of raw vegans who do a lot of juicing, soaked nuts and seeds, and green smoothies?

Greens aren't normally considered protein foods. By 'protein' your so-called experts are referring to meat, eggs, etc., right? They aren't really counting the salad, are they?

and yet, have they ever wondered how gorillas get so big and strong?

Yes, it's from protein. You are correct that protein builds muscle. No argument there. But...Guess what? Gorillas get most of their protein from....green leaves.

During certain times of the year, when fruits are not available, protein-rich leaves dominate the gorilla’s diet, the report found. About 31 percent of the total energy intake is protein during these times.

from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/scienc...rilla.html

31 percent! Wow, that's higher than what you said earlier. But gorillas are stronger, have more muscle mass than we do. And they get it from greens.

I think maybe the reason I'm wearying of this discussion is that I keep posting stuff, and no one replies to it. My words just float away like dust in the wind. Then the same arguments come back again, but I'm told I'M the one not listening. Hmmm...

Here, maybe this time you might want to check this out, and respond? Because it's only about a minute or so, and truly is amazing!

Raw Vegan Bodybuilders

Watch just the trailer. I have the dvd set and yes, these guys are for real. They're gorilla men, living on fruit, nuts, seeds, and veggies, including huge amounts of greens.

Is this practical for most average people? No. But then, neither is the standard heavy-meat bodybuilder diet. But these vegan bodybuilders don't get the lactic acid buildup or the injuries their meat-eating counterparts do.

So...seeking common ground here...we agree that a certain amount of protein is required for muscle growth. However, I think these examples of the gorillas and the bodybuilders prove that it's not only possible, but optimal - in terms of better health - to get those protein requirements from a vegan, and even a raw vegan diet.

And I should point out that this thread isn't even about a vegan diet, much less a raw vegan diet! Most of the objections are about veganism and raw veganism. Well, as an aspiring raw vegan, even I am quick to point out that I consider the raw vegan diet pretty hardcore and would never dream of suggesting it unless the person is heading in that direction. So I want to differentiate between the idea that we're advocating a raw vegan diet. We're not. We're just suggesting that most people don't need meat. There is a huge range in between....like simply eating eggs and dairy instead of meat.

Getting back to protein: Ok we've ascertained that those wishing to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger need more protein. But what about the rest of us? You said 'the' human body needs how much protein?

I already asked you which body. Now I will ask: at which stage.

Consider the newborn baby. This is the time of the most accelerated growth, in the lifespan of a human. If ever there was the need for the most protein, it's when we're babies, right?

Well get this: Human breast milk actually has very little protein!

1. Milk is "a natural" only for baby calves. Calves have fours stomachs and double their body weight in 47 days. Human babies have only one stomach and a much slower rate of growth. It takes human babies 180 days or so to double their weight, so they don't need nearly as much protein as calves. Cows' milk is 15% protein (it has 15% of its calories as protein); human breast milk is 5 % protein. Much of the rationale for believing that cows' milk is an ideal food for human babies was based on research done with rats early in this century. The milk of mother rats is 49% protein and baby rats double their weight in just 4 days. This is yet another example of the difficulties we create for ourselves by trying to imitate rats.
...
3. Decades of meat and dairy propaganda have made Americans the world's most outrageous protein gluttons. The most frequent question vegetarians hear is, "Where do you get your protein?" The answer is, "Where do horses, cows, gorillas, elephants, and giraffes get their protein?" Corpse-milk-egg protein is secondhand protein, inferior in quality to plant protein. And all plants, even lettuce, have protein....
...
5. Question: Where do people who don't drink milk get their calcium?

Answer: Where do cows get their calcium?

6. Question: Who needs the excess calcium that experts recommend?

Answer: The people who sell milk, cheese, and other high prestige and expensive sources of calcium. Raising the amount of calcium you eat by X amount raises their income by X amount.
...
8. Calcium deficiency usually does not arise from too little calcium but from too much protein. Dr. John Scharffenberg writes:

A very high calcium intake is necessary in the United States diet because a high-protein diet increases excretion of calcium. In one study, men 18-20 years of age were given protein ranging from 48-141 gm. daily. The higher levels of protein doubled the urinary excretion of calcium when both calcium and phosphorus intake were held constant.... A diet high in meat with its high protein content will therefore increase urinary excretion of calcium.... Vegetarians have significantly greater bone density than omnivores; thus vegetarians appear to be less prone to osteoporosis.

9, The dairy industry has spent millions funding a variety of research schemes aimed at proving that milk is good for us. Meanwhile, what is probably the most extensive epidemiological study ever undertaken in the field of nutrition found, decisively, that the opposite is true.

In 1983 a joint British-Chinese-American study known as the "Study of Diet, Nutrition and Disease in the People's Republic of China" was begun for the purpose of studying the relationship between selenium and other nutrients and death rates from all forms of cancer. Because of its scope and the unique opportunity it offered, the study was expanded to examine many other health issues. It took exhaustive data--367 items per person were followed--on the lifestyle nutritional intake, and health status of 6,500 adults, half men, half women, spread throughout mainland China, over a six-year period. I want to emphasize that this was not an American-style survey in which "researchers" phoned a lot of people and asked them what they had for supper last night. It involved urine and blood analyses, extensive questionnaires, measurements of foods consumed, and detailed examination of a broad spectrum of data that would have been impossible before the age of computers.
...the earliest reports have been shocking, although not unexpected by many...Specifically, Dr. Campbell told the Times that the Chinese study found an average daily calcium intake of of 544 mg. in China, almost none of this from animal products, and "there was basically no osteoporosis in China." In the U. S., by contrast, where there is an average calcium intake of 1,143 mg per day, mostly from dairy products, "osteoporosis is a major public health problem."

The most interesting findings of the China study, however. surface in the area of dietary fat and cholesterol and their relation to disease. U. S. studies have always failed to ask the real questions about animal vs. non-animal diets. Typically, they compare lean meat vs. choice cuts, or skim milk vs. whole milk, so the results fail to address the real impact of animal foods on humans. The China study takes a much broader view and allows comparison of a large base of plant eaters vs. animal eaters. The clear-cut conclusion is that for real-world human beings the greatest single influence on degenerative diseases such as cancer. diabetes. and coronary heart disease seems to be the amount of protein. particularly animal protein. in the diet. Here are some eye-opening facts from the China study as explained by...

from http://www.purewatergazette.net/milksucks.htm

So yes, I understand you are an 'expert' Tenet Nosce. I question experts, because data can be skewed, established conclusions can change, and, most importantly, experts don't all agree.

[Diana]

Tenet, if you know anything about science you will know that we KNOW very little. Even when talking about biology, we DO NOT understand metabolism. It is very, very complex.

What we know is that the (1) body requires at least 23 different vitamins and minerals for its metabolism, and (2) different foods containing these 23 vitamins and minerals are used by different bodies in different ways. That's about all we know "for sure". Beyond that is anybody's guess.

The hypothesis is that in order to truly know what one's body needs in terms of specific food choices, one must learn communicate with their body. I recognize that is a theory and not a proven fact.

However, I sincerely wonder what all the resistance I see here in this thread is to that. So I ask about it, rather than assuming I know what is going on in another person's mind. Then- I get resistance to the asking as well. I will leave it up to you to discern why that is.

I agree that listening to the body is efficacious, and I also respect your expertise and education. But, that is not the end of the story. What you are getting is not necessarily resistance, but other viewpoints.

Listening to the body is all well and good if one is clear, rational, not addicted (this is big: consider sugar, and comfort food, as we are nearly all stressed to a certain extent in this world), and not laden with imbalances from abusing the body. Perhaps a person who was really messed up physically could listen accurately if they were really intuitive and could discern a mind message from a true body message. (That would be a good book for you to write: how to discern what your body needs by listening correctly. )

There are more issues involving the eating of meat: spiritual aspects such as the animals being other-selves, and the ways in which the "food" affects all of our "bodies" (for instance, the fear in the meat from the slaughter). Someone mentioned that animals eat animals; that would be a 2D. We humans are learning compassion in 3D for graduating to 4D according to Ra. The spiritual implications are many.

---

I would like to mention (and I am repeating myself from an earlier post in the thread), that I know a man who was a WWF wrestler (or one of those famous wrestling entertainment associations) some years ago. He is now in his forties. He is still a body-builder whose strength makes the whole gym stop and gape. He has been a raw-food vegetarian for something like 20 years. He is one of the healthiest persons I've ever known. I will add that he has been meditating for 15 years as well.