In regards to eating meat

[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.)