In regards to eating meat

[Bring4th_Austin]

I thought I had acknowledged that you were providing good rational explanations for your opinion, but I guess I forgot to put that in my post. You don't have to continue to explain these things (to me, anyways), I'm sure you're very tired of it by now!

OK thanks! And thank you for the respectful discussion. It's refreshing to be able to discuss differing viewpoints respectfully without getting buttons pushed, as so often happens with such a volatile and emotionally charged topic.

Likewise. People on my side of the discussion who get emotional or frustrated probably have not done much contemplation about the spiritual implications of eating meat, or eating period.

Despite your well-explained speculations, I can't and won't accept the idea that plants were "created" or "designed" to be eaten.

Why not? Something had to be created or designed to nourish us! And being that everything is alive, then no matter what it was that was designed or created to sustain us, it would have to have some sort of lifeforce in it.

I believe, rather than having food designed for us in that sense, the atmosphere was designed in which we, as living/evolving beings, were tasked with the objective of surviving. Some beings evolved to sustain off of provided 1D elements, some like us (unfortunately) evolved to sustain off of other 2D beings.

Like I said, if the Logos had this sense of control, why would it not give us a design which allowed us to sustain on 1D?

Also, to specifically answer the question of "Why not?", I personally don't feel it's appropriate to dub the easiest and most convenient things in life as designed to be that way. This could be applied to other situations which might not seem so spiritually sound.

To reject the notion that something was created/designed to sustain us, would be to accept the notion that no thought at all was given to this issue by the Logos. Our bipedal vehicles were designed. Our opposable thumbs were designed. Surely a bit of thought was given to our digestive systems. The planet was terraformed, in preparation for souls' evolution thru 3D. Was diet not taken into consideration?

I believe it would be a speculation and opinion to say that it was, and it's my personal opinion that the situation is closer to what I described above.

(I'd be interested in a point-by-point rebuttal to my list of reasons, if anyone wants to tackle that.)

I'm guessing you mean the reasons numbered 1-6? I'll give it a shot, although I'm not sure "rebuttal" would be the right term, rather that share why I don't share that opinion.

1. Most plants are lower 2D, whereas animals are, presumably, higher 2D. Is this a justification for killing plants but not animals? No, not any more than it's a justification for killing animals instead of humans. Rather, I see it only as an argument to not kill animals, not an argument to kill plants. In fact, my entire premise all along hasn't been that it's 'ok' to kill plants! (which is what some people apparently perceive from me, much to my dismay.) Rather, my premise has been that, since we must eat something, it's more reasonable to eat plants (which we're not sure about) than animals (which we are sure about).

Let's bump this concept up a density. Would you consider the murder of a more spiritually aware human more of a crime than the murder of a less spiritually aware person? Now, of course, not an argument for killing lesser aware humans, but do you feel that knowingly killing someone who is spiritually aware carries more spiritual implication than killing someone who isn't?

2. Plant entities inhabit bodies which are inviting to humans. The smell, appearance, and taste of fresh, living plants are generally pleasant, whereas the smell, appearance and taste of freshly killed animals is repulsive to most humans. Is this conclusive? No. Does it prove anything? No. But surely one can see that it's reasonable to factor this obvious fact into the equation. (Since we are, after all, stranded here behind a veil and must use our wits to figure it all out.)

I think this is a personal opinion rather than a concept that can be applied to all humans. I have family in Texas that can't stand vegetables and would prefer to eat their steaks right off of the cow. I think what one considers pleasant and unpleasant is more based upon psychological conditioning than inherent design. I have no problem with the opinion that this might be designed, but I definitely don't share it.

3. Animals can fly, swim or run away from predators. Plants can't. Does this prove anything? No. But I contend that it would have been exceedingly cruel for the Logos to equip plants with fully functioning pain receptors and sentience, but no ability to be mobile. Our Logos has been accused of some cruel things (like fleas on wolves and the whole carnivorous animal design), but this would top the list. It's bad enough that a deer is killed by the lion, but at least the deer has a fighting chance to run away. Not so for the hapless plants. It would be beyond cruel, if plants felt as much fear and pain as the deer, but couldn't run away. If that lettuce plant feels intense torture every time a gorilla tears off a leaf and chews it. That would be so heinous, that it would lead me to believe we are existing in a totally STS world!

And what of the squirrel I watched get eaten alive by a hawk? It was a very gruesome sight and I guarantee you that squirrel suffered much, does it get no consideration from the Logos? Why would the Logos allow the evolution of carnivores if it were so sensitive to the suffering? This is the concept behind "non-violent slaughter" which must be understood. When we process a chicken or a goat, the animal does not know it's going to be killed. Dr. Temple Grandin, advocate for animal rights as well as autism awareness, has put forth a lot of evidence behind the fear and anxiety felt by animals on their way to be slaughtered, and humane slaughter facilities work with her evidence to reduce anxiety, reduce fear, and promote humane treatment of animals. Animals suffer less being processed in a truly humane facility than they would being eaten in nature. Do we know if a plant suffers when being killed? No...but we can also be sure that the animal does not suffer either.
Also, I don't personally contend that plants can feel physical pain, but I have no doubt they can feel spiritual and mental pain.

It's simply unfathomable! Sure, it's a convenient argument, but I contend that it's an argument of justification, rather than standing on its own merit. Rather than face the cruelty of killing animals, it's more convenient to accuse vegetarians of being cruel to plants.

When there is no suffering either way, what's the difference? Slaughter is slaughter. We work to prevent suffering, both for plants and for animals.

It appears logical on the surface, but just a bit of rational thought shows the illogic of stranding untold vast numbers of plants, all completely helpless, defenseless victims of stampeding cattle, grazing cattle, and pretty much all life on this planet. Plant life is everywhere. Plants are being trampled everywhere. Plants are being pulled, cut, and chewed everywhere, constantly. And they can't do a damn thing about it. If there is a hell, then that must be it! To reincarnate as a plant! What kind of obscene torture is that? It's bad enough that the deer is slaughtered by the lion, but at least it actually dies. Not so for the hapless plant, who is denied death, but instead can regenerate its lost limbs again and again...who must endure the torment of having its limbs chewed again and again and again and again... If this is true, then this planet is sicker and more demented than I thought.

Like I said, I don't contend that plants feel physical pain. But I still see no difference in slaughtering a plant to sustain yourself. You're ending its life just as an animal's life is ended. And again, to emphasize the "non-violent" slaughter, the animal doesn't suffer. It is an instant and painless death, no anxiety, no fear. Look up Temple Grandin if you wish to know more about humane slaughter. (I know, I know, "how can slaughter be humane?" I ask the same thing about plant slaughter.)

4. In order for an animal to be eaten, it must be killed. Once it's killed, it's a done deal.

Same for many vegetables and plants, though not all.

It ain't coming back. Plants, on the other hand, are able to regenerate. What is the purpose of this design? Is it only to inflict pain? Or is it possible that the design has a purpose: to feed higher 2D and 3D entities with a constant supply of nutritious food. I invite you to ponder that radical thought for just a minute. What if it's really true? What if we were never supposed to eat animals at all, but were supposed to figure it out on our own, that we can be healthier and happier by consuming living foods...living foods that don't die when harvested, but continue to give of themselves...continue to give of the Mother energy pulsing thru them. If so, if you can entertain the idea for just a minute, then you can see that it's quite an ingenious design. Cut and come again...wow, how efficient!

As I said before, cut and come again is good, but not all vegetables, especially not all vegetables necessary for a vegetarian to have a balanced diet, can be that way. And what happens when the lettuce and spinach start bolting? How many gardeners do not uproot it? And why would we be greedy enough to cut broccoli to begin with, the part we eat is supposed to turn to flowers and allow it to reproduce. We're interrupting its natural life cycle by greedily chopping off its head for our own consumption.

5. Animal 'foods' have been proven to contribute to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and other chronic diseases. The research overwhelmingly proves that plant-derived nutrients combat those very same diseases! What's more, there are phytonutrients in plants that aren't even all identified yet. Many studies with synthetic or isolated vitamins fail to show any results, but when those same vitamins are found in natural, raw plant foods along with conutrients, they are effective! Advanced stage cancer patients have been healed by drinking carrot juice. Native peoples had the knowledge of how to use plants as medicine. Take a look at the Chinese herbal pharmacopia - it's extremely extensive! They even understand how certain herbs affect our emotions! Bottom line is that plants heal. Animal 'foods' cause death. Death begets death. Life begets life. Plants are alive and they facilitate healing. Doesn't that tell us something? In this crucially important time, so close to the Harvest, when so many people are poisoned by all the chemicals humans have dumped on the planet...so many are getting cancer and other diseases...PLANTS are our greatest ally! Even if you believe in allopathic medicine, most drugs are derived from plants! Isn't this a clue? It would be incongruent for plants to have such powerful healing abilities, while writhing in agony. That just flat doesn't make sense! Right now, there is a beautiful movement towards sustainable living...healing the Earth...cleaning up the mess...reducing or eliminating cruelty and violence...ALL of this hinges on transitioning to a plant-based diet! If eating plants were just as cruel as eating animals, then our Logos has a very sick sense of humor!

You'll get no argument out of me that eating meat every meal every day is unhealthy, and that eating vegetables is incredibly healthy. But I feel there is more to be looked at in the perspective of how our meat is raised, treated, and manufactured rather than meat itself. Any food treated the way the mass meat industry treats meat is going to be unhealthy for you. The availability of grass-fed, naturally and sustainably raised, fresh meat was very slim until recently, and if you have any studies about these types of meats eaten in moderation (~3 times a week), I would be very interested in seeing them.

Not all plants are healthy either, some are poisonous and some can even kill you.

6. The plant population has the keys to healing not only our bodies, but the Earth as well. Is this some sort of sick joke? Or could it be that this really is what was intended? Earth changes? Grow your own food! Overpopulation? Feed many more people by switching to a vegetarian diet! Pollution? Plant more trees, algae and other plants! Plants truly do hold the key to not only surviving the Earth changes, but transitioning our bodies to light based instead of carbon based. I find this highly significant! It flies in the face of reason to think that I am torturing a sentient entity, when I am working to heal myself and others, and heal the planet. That just doesn't make any sense at all.

This sort of flies away from my argument. I was never necessarily contending that plants physically suffered, but that slaughtering a plant is akin to slaughtering an animal. Of course violent slaughter of an animal is notably different from violently slaughter of a plant (even though, as you admit, we don't know for sure to what degree the plant suffers). But we can control the suffering of the animal as well. It does not have to suffer in death.

Speculating this because of their inherent properties, whether it be their self-regenerative qualities or healing properties after consumed, isn't a valid view in my eyes. It is a good argument for why we should eat them for our benefit, but I don't feel comfortable saying that they exist this way too be eaten.

You might feel differently after reading The Botany of Desire.

If I manage to find some time I will read this, it does sound like an interesting book.

Furthermore, I didn't say that plants exist for the sole purpose of feeding us. I am proposing a mutually beneficial arrangement, as outlined in the book. I am proposing that the lifeforce of plants merge with ours. Not so with animals, because they already have individuated souls. That's why they incarnate in bodies that are mobile. It makes sense if you think about it.

I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that plants and animals exist in separate degrees of individuation. Maybe the book holds more for this discussion.

And just because something is easier to slaughter, does that mean is was designed to be slaughtered?

It's not about being 'easier to slaughter.' It's about design.

Do you consider mowing your lawn a slaughter?

It's funny you should mention that! Not necessarily, but ever since I was a small child I thought mowing the lawn was a very backwards thing to do. You plant all this seed, asking this grass to grow, and then you go and cut it down, stopping it from growing! I've always looked at yardwork as sort of a war...yard tools are the weapons, you prepare for battle and go out and wage war on nature by pulling weeds, killing bugs, and cutting off plants' limbs and appendages. I don't think its slaughter because you're not killing the grass, but I do consider pulling a weed slaughter. Why wouldn't you? You're killing a living being!

1. killing or butchering of cattle, sheep, etc., especially for food.
2. the brutal or violent killing of a person.
3. the killing of great numbers of people or animals indiscriminately; carnage: the slaughter of war.

This definition is biased towards animals. We can take number 1 and extend it to 2D beings, so "killing or butchering of cattle, sheep, beets, carrots, potatoes, etc. especially for food."

Consider the Earth as a living entity. Our bodies are much like the Earth's; we are composed of 70-80% water, like the Earth. Our bodies have peaks and valleys, and rivers...and hair...just like the Earth.

It seems not only reasonable, but obvious, that plants are the hair of the Earth.

Personally, I wouldn't consider our hair individual entities like I would plants.

If this were a consideration of the Logos while it was "designing" life to whatever extent it really has control, we should be able to sustain ourselves on 1D material without having to slaughter any 2D beings. The Logos could easily design all 2D and 3D life to sustain off of 1D material (wouldn't that be a wonderful existence!).

Then we'd be having this same conversation, wondering about the sentience of 1D life.

Possibly. I always thought the consumption of 1D wouldn't be such a dispute, because it persists through our consuming it, doesn't it?

Take water...we drink it, we process it, absorb it or pass it...it stays water no matter what.

Where our opinion differs, and where your arguments fail to sway me, is that I feel it is much more important to pay respect and be grateful for the entity which was slaughtered to sustain your life than to discern which entity to slaughter.

Where do you draw the line? That argument could be used to justify abusing other humans, then giving thanks for their involuntary 'service.' An example would be slavery. Rather than 'discerning' whether to utilize human slaves, one could just oppress them, then thank them and feel fine about it.

Again, let's extend the concept to this density as you are doing. More heinous to murder a less spiritually aware person?

Why not discern? We do, after all, have the capability to discern. We discern that we shouldn't kill other humans, right? (well hopefully, some do anyway.) So why not discern that we shouldn't kill entities that are very close to being human? I don't think that's asking too much of us. It's doable.

So why not discern that we shouldn't kill entities very close to being very close to being human? (Yes I typed that right :p) Either way we're taking their life for our own survival.

---

(I realize that the reason we're disagreeing always goes back to the question of whether plants are also being slaughtered. So we go round and round on that one.)

This may be where we have to agree to disagree, to avoid spending the rest of our lives typing!