(05-13-2011, 12:43 AM)Meerie Wrote: Can we try to not dismiss a Q'uo channeling as "tainted" and influenced by the meat-eating entity who channeled, just because it does not support vegetarianism as exclusively as we think it should?
You are aware that channeled material is not 100% accurate? Book 5 being as low as 81%? So, you have to ask yourself just what is that 19% saying anyways?
Quote:The vegetarian way. Almost as if there should be no free will on the subject.If you happened to get stranded on a cannibalistic portion of the planet I think you just might suddenly wish you were surrounded by vegetarians. Because suddenly your life will mean something. Too bad we think animals have no life, or at the very least, no free will.
Quote:I just believe there is no "one diet benefits all".That's true, there are body types that have slightly differing needs. It still doesn't extend to killing outside of need/geographic location. Killing just because you can still makes you a killer. Hunting for sustenance because there is no vegetation in the locale is survival, and possibly the only way to perpetuate your DNA.
Killing is a luxury to us, easy to see when we spend more money on feeding the animals than we do feeding the people. The amount of feed going into the cow would feed us better than the cow by itself. We kill to eat because we can, not because we need to.
The issue is not to save a person from their own personal choices in stupidity, but rather to simply stop them from advancing the mass killing/suffering agenda. The benefit of suffering/catalyst/choice does not work for the animal kingdom.