Ashim, you are insistent upon turning this into a discussion about my sig. That wasn't the topic of this discussion. I am entitled to express my own views in my sig, just like everyone else here. But since you and others insist on talking about it, then ok, fine.
Not necessarily. Jesus didn't. It was his followers, and political leaders, who created the doctrine, out of a combination of various ancient texts, of which his story was only a small part.
Had there been more room in the sig, I might have said 'The human body' but I maxed it out, so I used the word 'humans' and being that we're talking about a component of diet, I thought it would be obvious that I was referring to the human body; ie. physically.
Yes, it is an absolute, proven by science. There are no nutrients in dead animals that aren't also found in plants. Even B12 can be synthesized in the human gut, given the right bacteria, though it is more appealing to most people to take a supplement instead.
It is also a fact that animals suffer when confined, they suffer when they are raped by humans doing artificial insemination, they suffer when their babies are taken away, they suffer when their balls are cut off without anesthesia, they suffer when their horns or beaks are cut off without anesthesia, they suffer when they are confined in tiny crates, unable to move around, they suffer when they are electrically prodded to move down the chute to their death, while smelling the fear and blood of the numerous animals who went before them, they suffer when their throats are slit and they bleed to death, they suffer when they are dropped into boiling water to scald their feathers while still alive, and they suffer as they die. They suffer physically, and they suffer emotionally.
This too is fact. How do we know? Because animals have pain receptors and a nervous system. Thus we know for a fact that they suffer physically. It is simple physiology.
We also know that they suffer emotionally. How do we know this? Because animal behaviorists have conducted numerous tests proving that cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, and even fish are all capable of thought, have memory, and experience a gamut of emotions similar to those experienced by a human child. This includes grief, fear, stress, terror, and even compassion towards others. (The compassion part is unlike some humans.)
So yes, these are all scientific facts. My own personal views have nothing to do with it. They are simply facts. What you do with those facts is up to you.
The last part of my sig - Knowingly doing so is STS - isn't fact. It is opinion. My opinion. It is my sig; thus it contains my opinion.
Expressing my own opinion doesn't create a religious dogma. Now if x number of people read my sig and decided that they agreed with me, and decided to create The Church of Monica, well, that would be really stupid, in my opinion, but hey, anyone could do that with anyone's views. Ten people could single out all of your posts and create a doctrine called The Church of Ashim.
We both know that this is highly unlikely. To suggest that someone will create a religious dogma out of my sig is just silly.
It is simple logic. Since it is a fact that the human body doesn't need meat, then it logically follows that eating meat is unnecessary. If it's unnecessary, then it's self-serving. It is also a fact that animals suffer. Thus, since it's a fact that eating meat is unnecessary and it's a fact that animals suffer, then it logically follows that knowingly, unnecessarily doing something that causes the suffering of other-selves is an STS act.
Why? Because, in my understanding of the Law of One, that is the very definition of STS. Not talking about simply taking care of oneself, but about polarizing in the direction of STS. Serving self with disregard towards other-selves, or worse, at the expense of other selves or while causing harm to other-selves, is polarizing in the direction of STS.
Does this make the person STS? No, of course not. Why? Because that is determined by the sum total of one's polarity, of which this action is only a part. How big a part is it? That depends on the person and circumstances, and is not for any of us to determine.
I suspect that if I had that in my sig, very few people would object.
What if I said "Eating tomatoes is STS"? Would anyone object to that?
I chose my words very carefully. I was careful to add qualifiers: humans, unnecessary, knowingly. This should make it clear that I'm not talking about wolves or lions in the wild.
Nor am I 'branding' any person, but an action. And even then, not even the action by itself, but the unnecessary, conscious action.
Ok so just to be sure I'm understanding you correctly: Are you saying you're not concerned about the Law of One being made into a religion, despite its following of thousands and myriad support groups, this forum, etc., but you are concerned that someone might read a single sentence in some unknown, unimportant member of this forum and make that into a religion? Despite the fact that millions of vegetarians already believe as I do, someone would choose my particular statement to make into a religion?
(02-15-2015, 04:37 AM)Ashim Wrote: A religion starts with its founder creating doctrine. This is to be followed in order for the thoughtform to gain in spiritual mass.
Not necessarily. Jesus didn't. It was his followers, and political leaders, who created the doctrine, out of a combination of various ancient texts, of which his story was only a small part.
(02-15-2015, 04:37 AM)Ashim Wrote: Let's look at Monica's sig again:
"Humans don't need meat. Eating meat causes unnecessary suffering of other-selves. Knowingly doing so is STS. "
"Humans don't need meat" is an absolute. It is an idea that we are presumably expected to believe, although the concept would be next to impossible to prove. Is the need refered to physical, spiritual, or both?
Had there been more room in the sig, I might have said 'The human body' but I maxed it out, so I used the word 'humans' and being that we're talking about a component of diet, I thought it would be obvious that I was referring to the human body; ie. physically.
Yes, it is an absolute, proven by science. There are no nutrients in dead animals that aren't also found in plants. Even B12 can be synthesized in the human gut, given the right bacteria, though it is more appealing to most people to take a supplement instead.
It is also a fact that animals suffer when confined, they suffer when they are raped by humans doing artificial insemination, they suffer when their babies are taken away, they suffer when their balls are cut off without anesthesia, they suffer when their horns or beaks are cut off without anesthesia, they suffer when they are confined in tiny crates, unable to move around, they suffer when they are electrically prodded to move down the chute to their death, while smelling the fear and blood of the numerous animals who went before them, they suffer when their throats are slit and they bleed to death, they suffer when they are dropped into boiling water to scald their feathers while still alive, and they suffer as they die. They suffer physically, and they suffer emotionally.
This too is fact. How do we know? Because animals have pain receptors and a nervous system. Thus we know for a fact that they suffer physically. It is simple physiology.
We also know that they suffer emotionally. How do we know this? Because animal behaviorists have conducted numerous tests proving that cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, and even fish are all capable of thought, have memory, and experience a gamut of emotions similar to those experienced by a human child. This includes grief, fear, stress, terror, and even compassion towards others. (The compassion part is unlike some humans.)
So yes, these are all scientific facts. My own personal views have nothing to do with it. They are simply facts. What you do with those facts is up to you.
The last part of my sig - Knowingly doing so is STS - isn't fact. It is opinion. My opinion. It is my sig; thus it contains my opinion.
Expressing my own opinion doesn't create a religious dogma. Now if x number of people read my sig and decided that they agreed with me, and decided to create The Church of Monica, well, that would be really stupid, in my opinion, but hey, anyone could do that with anyone's views. Ten people could single out all of your posts and create a doctrine called The Church of Ashim.
We both know that this is highly unlikely. To suggest that someone will create a religious dogma out of my sig is just silly.
(02-15-2015, 04:37 AM)Ashim Wrote: "Eating meat causes unnecessary suffering of other selves." OK, who is the judge of necessity? Monica?
It is simple logic. Since it is a fact that the human body doesn't need meat, then it logically follows that eating meat is unnecessary. If it's unnecessary, then it's self-serving. It is also a fact that animals suffer. Thus, since it's a fact that eating meat is unnecessary and it's a fact that animals suffer, then it logically follows that knowingly, unnecessarily doing something that causes the suffering of other-selves is an STS act.
Why? Because, in my understanding of the Law of One, that is the very definition of STS. Not talking about simply taking care of oneself, but about polarizing in the direction of STS. Serving self with disregard towards other-selves, or worse, at the expense of other selves or while causing harm to other-selves, is polarizing in the direction of STS.
Does this make the person STS? No, of course not. Why? Because that is determined by the sum total of one's polarity, of which this action is only a part. How big a part is it? That depends on the person and circumstances, and is not for any of us to determine.
(02-15-2015, 04:37 AM)Ashim Wrote: "Drug taking causes unnecessary suffering of other selves". Well this could be seen as 'true'. For example the theft, muggings, shootings that are drug related, not to mention the social fallout within families and communities.
I suspect that if I had that in my sig, very few people would object.
What if I said "Eating tomatoes is STS"? Would anyone object to that?
(02-15-2015, 04:37 AM)Ashim Wrote: "Knowingly doing so is STS." It is not defined here if the action of eating meat or just being a carnivore in general warrants the STS branding.
I chose my words very carefully. I was careful to add qualifiers: humans, unnecessary, knowingly. This should make it clear that I'm not talking about wolves or lions in the wild.
Nor am I 'branding' any person, but an action. And even then, not even the action by itself, but the unnecessary, conscious action.
(02-15-2015, 04:37 AM)Ashim Wrote: The danger here is that someone could take this literally.
That's how a religion takes hold as a meme.
Ok so just to be sure I'm understanding you correctly: Are you saying you're not concerned about the Law of One being made into a religion, despite its following of thousands and myriad support groups, this forum, etc., but you are concerned that someone might read a single sentence in some unknown, unimportant member of this forum and make that into a religion? Despite the fact that millions of vegetarians already believe as I do, someone would choose my particular statement to make into a religion?