In regards to eating meat

[Diana]

I am posting this simply as a viewpoint to consider.

A: You know the saying: Only through the shedding of blood is there remission of sins?

Q: (L) Yes.

A: And what about: Take eat, this is my body?

Q: (L) Yes.

A: And: Take, drink, this is my blood?

Q: (L) Yes. (Burma) So it sounds like they're saying that there's a hidden thing in the whole resurrection or salvation by the blood thing. That agriculture is evil and we could return by going on an animal-based diet?

A: No not exactly. When humankind "fell" into gross matter, a way was needed to return. This way simply is a manifestation of the natural laws. Consciousness must "eat" also. This is a natural function of the life giving nature of the environment in balance. The Earth is the Great Mother who gives her body, literally, in the form of creatures with a certain level of consciousness for the sustenance of her children of the cosmos. This is the original meaning of those sayings.

Q: (L) So, eating flesh also means eating consciousness which accumulates, I'm assuming is what is being implied here, or what feeds our consciousness so that it grows in step with our bodies? Is that close?

A: Close enough.

Q: (Ailen) And when you eat veggies you're basically eating a much lower level of consciousness. (L) Not only that, but in a sense you're rejecting the gift and you're not feeding consciousness. And that means that all eating of meat should be a sacrament.

A: Yes

Q: (Burma) With agriculture, you're not only rejecting the gift, you're turning around and beating up the Mother. (L) Well that sure puts a whole different light on the whole Cain and Abel thing! {Interesting that the original “vegetarian” was the first murderer, too.}

A: Yes.

I must say that this offends my intellect--no offense to TN and his disclaimer.

---

This was not an easy book to write. For many of you, it won’t be an easy book to read. . . .
. . . I want a full accounting, an accounting that goes way beyond what’s dead on your plate. I’m asking about everything that died in the process, everything that was killed to get that food onto your plate. That’s the more radical question, and it’s the only question that will produce the truth. How many rivers were dammed and drained, how many prairies plowed and forests pulled down, how much topsoil turned to dust and blown into ghosts? I want to know about all the species—not just the individuals, but the entire species—the chinook, the bison, the grasshopper sparrows, the grey wolves. And I want more than just the number of dead and gone. I want them back.

. . . Despite what you’ve been told, and despite the earnestness of the tellers, eating soybeans isn’t going to bring them back. Ninety-eight percent of the American prairie is gone, turned into a monocrop of annual grains. Plough cropping in Canada has destroyed 99 percent of the original humus. In fact, the disappearance of topsoil “rivals global warming as an environmental threat.” When the rainforest falls to beef, progressives are outraged, aware, ready to boycott. But our attachment to the vegetarian myth leaves us uneasy, silent, and ultimately immobilized when the culprit is wheat and the victim is the prairie. We embraced as an article of faith that vegetarianism was the way to salvation, for us, for the planet. How could it be destroying either?
. . .

And on and on with this entire quote. There are some good points here . . . for the ignorant masses (not meant derogatorily, rather describing people consuming unconsciously). I have never said that "vegetarians are right" and "meat-eaters wrong." (Not that I think this was directed at me.) But some of this--such as soybeans. I think we can all agree that any commercial farming which destroys habitat is not good. We need to evolve past destroying life (in my opinion). I don't know what other vegetarians are about because I don't see myself so much as a vegetarian, but as a respecter of life.

This is not about making somebody wrong (as the author seems to want to do in spite of caveats about good intentions). This is about discussing a topic that is integral to our evolution, a complex, many-faceted issue which deserves the best minds, hearts, and spirits trying to understand it.

---

But one post marked a turning point. A vegan flushed out his idea to keep animals from being killed—not by humans, but by other animals. Someone should build a fence down the middle of the Serengeti, and divide the predators from the prey. Killing is wrong and no animals should ever have to die, so the big cats and wild canines would go on one side, while the wildebeests and zebras would live on the other. He knew the carnivores would be okay because they didn’t need to be carnivores. That was a lie the meat industry told. He’d seen his dog eat grass: therefore, dogs could live on grass.

Okay, we are describing vegans with 2-digit IQs here.