Bring4th

(08-22-2012, 06:46 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-22-2012, 04:20 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]In my opinion, the issue is the sacredness of life, not about choice in diet. Life is the underlying principle, and what one eats flows from one's depth of understanding of, and inner-connectedness to, all life.

I can see the connection you make, but I don’t believe that one necessarily and invariably follows the other.

If that were true, ones diet (an indirect way of seeing ones respect of life because certain diets involve killing whereas others do not) would be an objective measure to segregate (in a non-pejorative sense) the advanced entity from the non-advanced. Isn’t that an unavoidable (if unintended) implication of what you’re positing? Vegetarians would have a greater “depth of understanding” and meat eater a lesser “depth of understanding”. But countless examples could be located to nullify both that rule, including the classic and commonly evoked vegetarian Hitler.

A good point. I feel the thinking may be too linear. Someone may be vegetarian simply for health/diet reasons, and this intention would have nothing to do with being connected to other life, as it is (self)centered on only one life.

As far as advanced states of being, the problem which keeps cropping up here in regards to eating, is the compartmentalization of that one aspect. One can't say a vegetarian is more advanced whatever the reasons for being so, without taking the whole person/being into consideration. So I see no efficacy or purpose in making those sorts of judgments.

I stand by what I wrote, that eating flows from the level of awareness and interconnectedness one has attained with the all (which necessarily awakens compassion at a certain point and beyond). If there is no interconnectedness, one eats anything; no blame here, just an observation that this individual has not awakened beyond a self-centered or 2D state. There are infinite degrees between that and being 100% aware and respectful of all life.

(08-22-2012, 06:46 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-22-2012, 04:20 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]Questions regarding this line of thinking (not directed toward any individual, rather to the philosophy):

1. How is "needless/excessive suffering" defined?

2. What does "relatively natural" mean? (Natural for an animal is in the wild, on its own, in the environment it evolved in.)

In response to both questions, and admitting that I’m no expert on these things, in general I would say that an animal which is not beaten or treated with cruelty, which is given the types of food it naturally desires and not force fed food is wasn’t designed to digest, which is given an environment that attempts to approximate its natural environment (hence the word “releative”) including not being crowded into tiny spaces, being able to see the sunlight, being able to move relatively freely within certain bounds, not being injected with growth hormones and who knows what else, and a slaughtering process that is not alarming, is quick, and painless.

Much love, GLB

I agree that your above description is a giant step forward from where we are generally now. I would throw a party on Pluto if the world changed so. In the meantime every single farmer (like Austin) who farms conscientiously is a ray of light in a dark world.

I still think meat is not necessary at all, and I would like to see humans return their freedom, and their habitats to the animals.

Meanwhile...

About 126 billion pounds of food is wasted every year in the US alone.

http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/22/40-...port-says/


Really I don't care what people eat, but I simply do not understand why some people are still not able to eat. I know that there is love in children dying of hunger. Possibly this very short and difficult incarnation balances a ton of karma for them very rapidly?


That said, I would be interested in discussing if/how meat eating is affecting this state of affairs?

Patrick, to me it all comes down to capitalism. There is way more than enough food to go around, the problem is that land use is decided by what makes the most money, and farmers grow crops for profit, not to feed people. The money is in meat, and to raise livestock requires a lot of land, not just for the animals but for all the crops they eat too. The capitalist system is what not only allows but encourages practices like factory farming, genetic manipulation, hormone injections, genetically engineered crops that drain the nutrients out of the soil, etc etc.

Compounding this is the culture of consumerism. Us westerners demand CHOICE! we want supermarkets FILLED with things to choose from, naturally most of it is just going to get passed over.

I feel however that our society is moving into a position where we will be able to move forward from this system, thank goodness!

(08-23-2012, 09:56 AM)Spaced Wrote: [ -> ]...
I feel however that our society is moving into a position where we will be able to move forward from this system, thank goodness!

Yes I can feel this too. It's probably because time/space Earth is now standing in green ray. Green ray will probably take decades to completely infuse space/time Earth.

Helping people become aware about the concept of money is indeed where I focus my energies. Money being the root of all "evil" is not too far off, but since there is no "evil" and nothing is ever "wrong"...

(08-23-2012, 09:56 AM)Spaced Wrote: [ -> ]Patrick, to me it all comes down to capitalism. There is way more than enough food to go around, the problem is that land use is decided by what makes the most money, and farmers grow crops for profit, not to feed people. The money is in meat, and to raise livestock requires a lot of land, not just for the animals but for all the crops they eat too. The capitalist system is what not only allows but encourages practices like factory farming, genetic manipulation, hormone injections, genetically engineered crops that drain the nutrients out of the soil, etc etc.

Compounding this is the culture of consumerism. Us westerners demand CHOICE! we want supermarkets FILLED with things to choose from, naturally most of it is just going to get passed over.

I feel however that our society is moving into a position where we will be able to move forward from this system, thank goodness!

Not sure if meat is all that money. It is subsidized by govt. If govt pays to have it promoted, pays to have the consumer prices kept down, do we want to know if there is a reason for this?

The other subsidized foods are easy to understand. GMO that is genetically modifying us.

---

(08-23-2012, 09:32 AM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ]Meanwhile...

About 126 billion pounds of food is wasted every year in the US alone.

http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/22/40-...port-says/


Really I don't care what people eat, but I simply do not understand why some people are still not able to eat. I know that there is love in children dying of hunger. Possibly this very short and difficult incarnation balances a ton of karma for them very rapidly?

There is a store near me that sells a small amount of organic produce. More than double the price, and some is quadruple the price, of organics elsewhere. The store does not sell any of it, and it all goes to the trash after it has wilted.

Why does food get tossed? Mostly because it does not bring the inflated prices applied to it. I have no idea why two stores will have such hugely different prices, but one store will add to the amount of waste in the statistics.

Then there is the food that goes bad during shipment. Another store I know of chooses to order kale from half the country away instead of just purchasing fresh from a local farmer. The price is slightly better local. So it makes no sense.

It makes no sense from an STO point of view.

(08-20-2012, 06:09 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]We already know from Ra the criteria for graduation. We know that it's the overall love/compassion/service to others that matters, and eating meat or not eating meat is but one of many considerations. As I've previously said in this discussion, my main question regarding polarizing is: Was the person given an opportunity to feel compassion, and if so, how did s/he respond? It seems to me that diet per se has nothing to do with polarization/graduation, but our response to the opportunity to feel compassion has quite a lot to do with polarizing/graduation.

I'd say that's a fair assessment! The core notion which I have taken issue with [generally speaking, not something you have personally promoted] is that food choices somehow drive spiritual growth.

In my opinion, there is a spiritual pitfall or trap which occurs when a person is just starting to awaken. All of a sudden they are inundated by all these "guides, gurus, lightworkers, etc." who are all too happy to start expounding all these "rules and regulations" that one must supposedly follow in order to spiritually grow. It's like- no sooner does a person get a taste of true freedom then all the vultures descend and start pecking out their eyes!

Now I know that pitfalls are part of the journey. And they also create opportunities for others to come in and offer gentle reassurance to the spiritual newborns that all of these rules and regulations are hogwash. Of course, the gentle reassurance often gets drowned out by the screeching and squawking of those who feel the need to recruit others onto their "one true" spiritual path.

In my experience and belief, spiritual growth works from the inside out. Like a flower which blooms. Any approach that promotes an outside in strategy- whether following a certain diet, saying certain prayers, enacting certain rituals, dressing a particular way, or whatever, is the wrong approach. And by "wrong" I mean it doesn't create the intended outcome of enlightenment. All it does is confuse people and create an even larger glut of half-awakened "gurus" telling other people what to do. All of these things are perfectly valid as expressions of spirituality, but are not the cause of it.

My reaction to these people is much like that I described in the protein thread. They don't know what they are talking about. People who think spiritual growth has anything to do with "outside in" methodologies are simply mistaken. Their hearts might be in the right place, so to speak, but they are just plain incorrect in their beliefs. Growth happens from the inside out. That's just the way it is. There aren't too many things in life that I would make such a strong absolute statement about, but this is one of them.

All that spiritual "rules and regulations" do is create guilt and self-hatred and endless bickering among different groups following different sets of rules. And all of that is certainly not, as you say, love and forgiveness.

Now that all being said, I have indeed found in my own experience what I always suspected I would find. As I continue to unfold and progress in my spiritual growth, I have found that certain foods carry less appeal and/or just don't seem to sit right in my system. Meat is one of those items which has taken a dramatic fall. I just don't want it as much anymore.

Though on the other hand, I still eat some meat, and won't turn it down if it is served to me. I certainly don't sweat the potential "depolarizing" effect, if it exists.

But perhaps surprisingly, meat was not the first thing to start falling off. In fact, it was grains and sugar. Again, I still eat all of these, but to a fraction of a degree as, say, 20 years ago.

Yes, I do feel more compassion for the animals. Also for people in general. But for the most part, my experiences of compassion are more profound when toward somebody (could even be an animal) that is in my direct awareness. Most poignant have been those experiences of compassion which have been directed at my self.

Maybe one day I will grow to feel deep compassion for people halfway around the world whom I never met, or for a chicken in a factory farm a thousand miles away. But I'm just not there yet. And I just don't feel that is a necessity for progress at the stage of the game we are currently playing.

---

(08-23-2012, 10:59 AM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]Not sure if meat is all that money. It is subsidized by govt. If govt pays to have it promoted, pays to have the consumer prices kept down, do we want to know if there is a reason for this?

Technically speaking, the govt subsidizes grains, which are then fed to the animals, and also directly to humans. This causes health problems for everybody. Good for the pharmaceutical business though!

Quote:There is a store near me that sells a small amount of organic produce. More than double the price, and some is quadruple the price, of organics elsewhere. The store does not sell any of it, and it all goes to the trash after it has wilted.

Wow! That's pretty bad! Around here, some of the organic produce is even the same price as conventional in big chain grocery stores.

(08-27-2012, 12:35 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]...
Growth happens from the inside out. That's just the way it is. There aren't too many things in life that I would make such a strong absolute statement about, but this is one of them.
...

IMHO it is indeed so. That's why I say that the awakening is the first effect of 4d in space/time.

---

Around here "organic" produce are not even organic. At least not as much as people believe they are.

I agree whole-heartedly with your post Tenet Nosce, especially this part:

(08-27-2012, 12:35 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ][. . .]
Now that all being said, I have indeed found in my own experience what I always suspected I would find. As I continue to unfold and progress in my spiritual growth, I have found that certain foods carry less appeal and/or just don't seem to sit right in my system. Meat is one of those items which has taken a dramatic fall. I just don't want it as much anymore.

Though on the other hand, I still eat some meat, and won't turn it down if it is served to me. I certainly don't sweat the potential "depolarizing" effect, if it exists.

But perhaps surprisingly, meat was not the first thing to start falling off. In fact, it was grains and sugar. Again, I still eat all of these, but to a fraction of a degree as, say, 20 years ago.

I am currently experiencing this same process, which has been going on since my 'awakening' a few months ago. I used to not be able to imagine a meal without some meat on the plate but now I just find I'm not that interested in it. Same with bread and sugary stuff like soda, which I used to love. It isn't even a real conscious switch so much as just complete disinterest in those things. Besides, my body feels way better eating fruits and veggies and seeds and leafy greens, and my grocery bills seem cheaper too (this is thanks in part to an INCREDIBLE grocery store run by a Hindu family near my home, everything there is so cheap and good!)

(08-27-2012, 12:35 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say that's a fair assessment! The core notion which I have taken issue with [generally speaking, not something you have personally promoted] is that food choices somehow drive spiritual growth.

I don't think food choices drive spiritual growth. I'd say they do have an effect, just as any other choice has an effect. Whether we choose to smile at the cashier...whether we choose to forgive someone...whether we choose food that caused suffering vs food that didn't...all choices contribute to the net result but no one single choice determines it.

Having said that, many people have experienced a lighter, more aware consciousness when they started eating more plant foods instead of animals. So I would say that our choice of foods most certainly does affect our consciousness. But junk foods can drag down the consciousness too, not just meat. And some people's consciousness is so high that they manage to escape those effects, just as some people smoke 2 packs of cigs a day and somehow avoid ever getting lung cancer. There are no absolutes, but only generalities.

(08-27-2012, 12:35 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]In my opinion, there is a spiritual pitfall or trap which occurs when a person is just starting to awaken. All of a sudden they are inundated by all these "guides, gurus, lightworkers, etc." who are all too happy to start expounding all these "rules and regulations" that one must supposedly follow in order to spiritually grow. It's like- no sooner does a person get a taste of true freedom then all the vultures descend and start pecking out their eyes!

Very true!

(08-27-2012, 12:35 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]Now I know that pitfalls are part of the journey. And they also create opportunities for others to come in and offer gentle reassurance to the spiritual newborns that all of these rules and regulations are hogwash.

The actions/prohibitions themselves might have substance, but what makes them hogwash is that they're presented as rules and regulations.

(08-27-2012, 12:35 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]Of course, the gentle reassurance often gets drowned out by the screeching and squawking of those who feel the need to recruit others onto their "one true" spiritual path.

Yeah. All newly awakened must face the challenge of finding that sweet spot of gently offering info/assistance to others, without cramming it down their throats...and to be open to the cues of others, so they can discern whether the other person is even interested at all.

(08-27-2012, 12:35 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]In my experience and belief, spiritual growth works from the inside out.

I think it's both. If it were internal only, then what would be the point of interacting with other-selves at all? We do all affect one another.

Also, if we are all mirroring and projecting onto one another, what is really inside and what is outside? Inside/outside loses its meaning when we recognize the holographic nature of the universe.

(08-27-2012, 12:35 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]Like a flower which blooms. Any approach that promotes an outside in strategy- whether following a certain diet, saying certain prayers, enacting certain rituals, dressing a particular way, or whatever, is the wrong approach. And by "wrong" I mean it doesn't create the intended outcome of enlightenment. All it does is confuse people and create an even larger glut of half-awakened "gurus" telling other people what to do. All of these things are perfectly valid as expressions of spirituality, but are not the cause of it.

Ah, but who's to say that some people might not get wonderful spiritual growth from such experiences? It is all catalyst, after all. Such an approach might not be appealing to you or me, but clearly is appealing to many other people. I don't think we can really say that approach isn't right for them.

(08-27-2012, 12:35 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]All that spiritual "rules and regulations" do is create guilt and self-hatred and endless bickering among different groups following different sets of rules. And all of that is certainly not, as you say, love and forgiveness.

Well I agree with that. People who want rules tend to join a religion.

Quote: I don't think food choices drive spiritual growth. I'd say they do have an effect, just as any other choice has an effect.

My wifes challenge is her self sabotage. Her pessimism is usually offset by my optimism. Her personal negativity amplified to where she was radiating some field that repelled me. I had had enough of it. I checked and her root and sacral were shut down. I told her to get with the program and balance on a daily basis, and take it seriously.

When asking my guides about this i found that one way to keep the root or sacral functioning is to eat red and orange veggies. So while it may not directly act on chakra blockages, it will obviously have an effect on how we deal with catalyst. I have thought about it and my diet "colors" do seem parallel to my chakra states. Pretty simple insight for me. Of course it would help if a person knows how to gauge their systems status.

(08-27-2012, 09:41 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]The actions/prohibitions themselves might have substance, but what makes them hogwash is that they're presented as rules and regulations.

Right!

Quote:I think it's both. If it were internal only, then what would be the point of interacting with other-selves at all? We do all affect one another.

Also, if we are all mirroring and projecting onto one another, what is really inside and what is outside? Inside/outside loses its meaning when we recognize the holographic nature of the universe.

I would say the point of the mirror is to realize that changes on the outside occur as a reflection of changes on the inside, and to realize that attempting to control the outside to affect the inside is futile. Certainly- a critical lesson!

Yes, we affect one another. But I would suggest that the effects are still primarily a result of an internal response. For example, if I show compassion toward you, I grow because I have experienced myself as compassionate. Whether or not you respond positively to the compassion, or even respond at all, has no bearing on the growth potential which I experience.

Similarly, in your interactions with me, your growth is determined by your response to me. I could be acting compassionately toward you, or be a total ass. What is important for your spiritual growth is how you experience yourself in responding to me.

Quote:Ah, but who's to say that some people might not get wonderful spiritual growth from such experiences? It is all catalyst, after all.

Well sure, we grow from experience! But in order to do so, the experience must be internalized, which means on some level we need to recognize the place on the inside which matches up with the external experience. Otherwise it just rolls off our backs... you know like people who have the same experience over and over again but don't seem to learn anything or gain any wisdom from it.

Quote:Such an approach might not be appealing to you or me, but clearly is appealing to many other people. I don't think we can really say that approach isn't right for them.

I would suggest that the appeal of that approach has do to with the false promise that it is possible to change oneself, without actually doing the internal work. Anybody can try a new diet or wardrobe, but spiritual growth is work. Real work. And some people just aren't cut out for it. They want the "quick fix" or the "magic pill" or the "special rules" to follow. They want the ETs to land or the Ascended Masters to appear and magically put everything right in their lives. One day they will come around, and ultimately nothing is lost. But I don't think it will happen unless or until one is willing to do the work on oneself.

Catalyst is simply catalyst. The soul is the substrate in the alchemical reaction which occurs. Without that, nothing happens.

I do agree with you that it isn't our place to say what is right for another. But this is the place to share our fallible opinions on the subject! Who knows- I've been wrong before. But I have yet to see an actual living example of somebody who effected a real, lasting change in themselves... without actually changing themselves.

On the other hand, I have witnessed many people attempt to alter the outer world in order to change their experience of themselves, and failed. I will concede that perhaps it is a necessary step along the way, in order to firmly learn what does and doesn't work. I mean- the only reason I know is because I tried it myself and failed!

"People often say that humans have always eaten animals, as if this is a justification for continuing the practice. According to this logic, we should not try to prevent people from murdering other people, since this has also been done since the earliest of times."

Isaac Bashevis Singer

I understand this a feeling or knowing to which words are hard to find for me. So a veiled answer is the best I can share, as I want to say something.

We are all on different lenghts on the road, what is good to me may not be good to you. Once you see the "realities" what I have seen, then how you choose to live from that moment on is what matters.

I guess if you have not come to the same conclusion as I have then its ok. If you think eating meat is ok, then it is. I think the only "right" way is to go with what you're believes are at the moment. At the same time be flexible enough to allow them to change, if you are "illuminated" by someway.

As we are right now, with the Law of One.

(08-27-2012, 11:58 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]When asking my guides about this i found that one way to keep the root or sacral functioning is to eat red and orange veggies. So while it may not directly act on chakra blockages, it will obviously have an effect on how we deal with catalyst. I have thought about it and my diet "colors" do seem parallel to my chakra states. Pretty simple insight for me. Of course it would help if a person knows how to gauge their systems status.

All things are apparently connected according to most sources, including modern physics. I can remember back through the years, even the colors I was compelled to wear seem significant. I can recall going through a yellow phase in the eighties and I look normally look awful in yellow; but I was drawn to it then and it looked great on me during that time. I also go through food phases, and music phases. I just go along with these tendencies, knowing they are in sync with some adjustments.

(09-18-2012, 11:36 AM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-27-2012, 11:58 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]When asking my guides about this i found that one way to keep the root or sacral functioning is to eat red and orange veggies. So while it may not directly act on chakra blockages, it will obviously have an effect on how we deal with catalyst. I have thought about it and my diet "colors" do seem parallel to my chakra states. Pretty simple insight for me. Of course it would help if a person knows how to gauge their systems status.

All things are apparently connected according to most sources, including modern physics. I can remember back through the years, even the colors I was compelled to wear seem significant. I can recall going through a yellow phase in the eighties and I look normally look awful in yellow; but I was drawn to it then and it looked great on me during that time. I also go through food phases, and music phases. I just go along with these tendencies, knowing they are in sync with some adjustments.

Funny, I had a similar experience, but in my late teens. At that time, yellow was my favorite color, but I looked awful in it because of being blonde. Later, I didn't like yellow, but now I find myself coming back to it again.

This conversation prompted me to realize I was neglecting yellow in my diet. So I just started adding yellow bell peppers to my juice cocktail. I now try to make sure I have all the colors represented by raw fruits and veggies.

Certain color produce affect certain organs. For example, kidneys are affected by purple-black fruits like blackberries. This isn't even esoteric but backed up by some recent studies which find certain nutrients in the same color fruit are good for xyz organ. I think this is a valuable clue!

An easy way to make up for any lack is to eat edible flowers. Missing pink today? Gather some petals from the rose bush in your front yard. Need yellow? See if you have any dandelions in your yard. (Make sure there hasn't been any pesticides sprayed.)

(09-18-2012, 11:36 AM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]I can remember back through the years, even the colors I was compelled to wear seem significant.

I figured out the color effect some time ago. Whatever your predominant aura color is, get a boost if your clothing matches.

This does not mean that the color of the clothing matches, it means that the aura of the color will match your aura color.

In my instance darker blue colors put out a yellow aura that matched my yellow aura of that time.

(09-19-2012, 01:39 AM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]In my instance darker blue colors put out a yellow aura that matched my yellow aura of that time.

That's very interesting. How did you determine that?

It sounds like an RGB effect--when I add blue to an object in Illustrator set up for RGB (rather than CMYK) it gives me yellow color. Blue and yellow are opposite on the color wheel, so it must have to do with what's being reflected. Just thinking out loud here.

What is your experience, as a vegetarian (or vegan), in being in a relationship with an omnivore? If tensions were created by the differing diets, how was it handled?

All the greater catalysts in my current incarnation seems to relate to diet in one form or another.

Thank you in advance for your time.

(09-27-2012, 12:19 PM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ]What is your experience, as a vegetarian (or vegan), in being in a relationship with an omnivore? If tensions were created by the differing diets, how was it handled?

All the greater catalysts in my current incarnation seems to relate to diet in one form or another.

Thank you in advance for your time.

When I became a vegetarian, my girlfriend was still eating meat for a few months. By now, she has dropped it as well, but not because I persuaded her or anything like that, it was simply a natural attraction to what is the least violent way to live.

But: while she was eating meat, I did not comment it, or made it feel like I am superior. Cause I am not. A vegetarian is not superior to a meat eater. That feeling causes many people who would otherwise consider dropping meat eating to simply continue that practice, out of spite and as a natural reaction to conflicts.

So from a vegetarians side: do not be bothered with your partner's eating habits, do not create unnecessary conflicts because of this. If she does not tolerate your eating habits, then the vegetarian can only do one thing: stay calm!

Thank you Oldern. So you did not mind the other still eating meat, how about if the situation is reversed and the other is the one affected by you not eating meat ? Other than "stay calm!"

(09-27-2012, 12:59 PM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you Oldern. So you did not mind the other still eating meat, how about if the situation is reversed and the other is the one affected by you not eating meat ? Other than "stay calm!"

We would have to go into specifics in order to determine what is causing the problems, if there are any. Are you the vegetarian in the question, and your partner the meat eater, or is it the opposite? And what seems to be causing the issue? The one eating meat feeling that the vegetarian will eat unhealthy without meat? Or that it might* cost more and that might introduce financial issues? Or the added time to cooking two types of food on meals? Or the hassle with it? It needs to be analyzed carefully, but most likely it usually boils down to someone not being comfortable with the partner not "abiding" by his/her rules - no matter how rational or reasonable those rules or habits are.

I'm still very much omnivore. I'm simply exploring how a change to vegan would affect my relationship and I already know that it would really affect it. So I'm looking for feedback from people who already went through this.

In my case, we both like cooking and it would be more an issue in the area of us not being able to share the same meal and the likes.

In my case my wife had always worried about my health. Beyond that, she tolerated what I did. It wasn't until my health began to go downhill that I moved my focus to what I ate. After coming across a logical description made by an anesthesiologist I paid more attention to what a human "should" eat, and that aligned me with my wife. She was fairly irritated that I would change my habits because of what a doctor said instead of what she had been trying to tell me for 20 years.

(09-27-2012, 12:19 PM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ]What is your experience, as a vegetarian (or vegan), in being in a relationship with an omnivore? If tensions were created by the differing diets, how was it handled?

My husband was a meat-eater when we met but liked the idea of going veg. He also thought it was really cool that I was veg, but didn't want to make a commitment to it himself. He readily agreed to eat vegetarian at home, so there would never be the smell of meat cooking in our house, and I wouldn't have to deal with meat in the frig, etc. He went thru a phase where he made himself tuna sandwiches, but that didn't last long. That's the only time he ever brought meat into the house, and it wasn't a big deal since it was out of a can. So no issues there.

He only ate meat at restaurants or social gatherings. I didn't want to kiss him when he had meat on his lips, and he understood that too, though he forgot a couple of times. Ha, that was about the worst thing that ever happened to us regarding being a 'mixed marriage'! I felt very blessed.

He finally did go totally veg, so we're cool. I guess it's really a compatibility issue. I never made being veg a requirement, but I'm really not sure how I would have handled living with a meat-eater, to be honest. I've eternally appreciative of my hubby's respect of my lifestyle. I mean, he avoided meat at home for 27 years!!! It was just never that big a deal to him. I really appreciate that our relationship was more important to him than eating meat. He never made it an issue. He always agreed with my views on it even though he wasn't at the same place as I was. I think that was the key for us.

(09-27-2012, 12:19 PM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ]All the greater catalysts in my current incarnation seems to relate to diet in one form or another.

Interesting. I had a lot of diet catalysts too (though I wouldn't say they were the strongest ones). I had a very unusual eating disorder as a child. I've always wondered what the significance of that was.

---

(09-27-2012, 01:24 PM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ]In my case, we both like cooking and it would be more an issue in the area of us not being able to share the same meal and the likes.

Well, the meat-eater has the advantage because a meat-eater can eat a vegetarian meal! Whereas a vegetarian can't eat a meat meal! so it seems pragmatic for the meat-eater to be willing to explore some veg meals with his/her beloved. Why not? It could even be more fun to explore new recipes!

Do you share all your meals? If you only share some of them, then maybe she would be willing to make the shared meals veg, and eat meat at the 'non' shared meals.

Thank you Monica, that's very interesting.

We do not share all of our meals per se, but we do share our leftovers. So it's like if we shared all our meals.

Being an Aquarius, she does like to try new things and be different from the "norm". So it's not impossible that she might embrace, with time, a new diet.

I started talking about trying to make spaghetti sauce with lentils instead of beef and she liked the idea. She also like it when I use tofu instead of meat in sautées.

In any case, I figure that eating less meat cannot hurt. Most available meat is so high in Omega 6 and way too low in Omega 3. So I have to take Omega 3 capsules to maintain proper health and that's just one example.

Just a quick bump to the thread to note that, since my previous posts, I have actually read two channelings with refer to the eating of animals:

24 Sep 12 Matthew's Message

Quote:16. Those are among the first changes because the current status is intolerable for the affected peoples. The plight of many millions of animals—endangered species and animals that become part of your diet—is another situation that will be addressed in earnest.

07 Oct 12 Arcturian Group Message

Quote:There is soon to come a time when the hunting and eating of animals will be obsolete and considered very primitive.

Both of these messages appear to support my view which is, as we continue to evolve, something will make the issue of meat eating a moot point. Whether it is a simple falling away of the desire, some new technology, or both. But that being said, it doesn't appear that adopting a vegetarian lifestyle is a prerequisite to make it to the next stage, either from a health or a compassion standpoint.

I can say that very, very little red meat has entered our home in this past year. I don't really miss it at all. We had been getting one whole organically-raised chicken a week, but it now appears we are losing the taste for that as well. Wild-caught fish and other seafood is still on the table.

(10-08-2012, 06:52 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]...as we continue to evolve, something will make the issue of meat eating a moot point...

I think this is pretty clear for all, even meat eaters.

(10-08-2012, 06:52 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ]I can say that very, very little red meat has entered our home in this past year.

Ethically, why do you suppose people tend to give up 'red' meat first? Is there an implication that cows are more evolved than chickens? Or is it just because of health considerations? Ounce for ounce, chicken has as much cholesterol as beef (actually a bit more). I did it that way too, but only because a nutritionist told me to avoid red meat. Just wondering what your take is on that.

Quote:Food Cholesterol (mg)
Beef liver, cooked, 3 oz 331
Beef sweetbreads, cooked, 3 oz 250
Squid, cooked, 3 oz 227
Egg, whole, large 212
Shrimp, cooked, 3 oz 166
Ice cream, gourmet, 1 cup 90
Salmon, baked, 3.5 oz 87
Lamb chop, cooked, 3 oz 75
Chicken breast, cooked, 3 oz 72
Beef, round, cooked, 3 oz 71
Beef, sirloin, cooked, 3 oz 71
Pork chop, cooked, 3 oz 71
Chicken, dark meat, cooked, 3 oz 70
Beef, rib eye, cooked, 3 oz 65
Ham, regular, cooked, 3 oz 50
Tuna, water packed, drained, 3.5 oz 42
Milk, whole, 1 cup 33
Butter, 1 tbsp 31
Ice cream, light, 1 cup 31
Cheese, cheddar, 1 oz 30
Scallops, cooked, 3 oz 27
Hot dog, beef, 1 frank 24
Cheese, reduced fat, 1 oz 6
Yogurt, part skim, 1 cup 6

http://www.diet.com/g/dietary-cholesterol

Interesting how a so-called 'healthy' fish like salmon has more cholesterol than chicken or beef. And look how pig meat is actually lower. Yet pig meat has a reputation of being somehow 'worse' than cow meat, which is somehow 'worse' than chicken meat, which is somehow 'worse' than the so-called 'healthy' fish meat. Fish meat does have Omega-3s, which is good, but it also has the cholesterol.

(The obvious Note: Cholesterol isn't found in plant foods.)

I realize cholesterol isn't the only factor, but I'm wondering why people tend to avoid 'red' meat.

@Tenet Nosce:

I commend you for leading your family in a positive direction regarding diet.

I would add that I believe the primary reason people will shun the eating of animals is that as the planet's vibration increases, the awareness among men of the manner in which we regard sentient creatures will increase, and hence the mass slaughter of innocent creatures will diminish dramatically.

Quote:Ethically, why do you suppose people tend to give up 'red' meat first? Is there an implication that cows are more evolved than chickens? Or is it just because of health considerations? Ounce for ounce, chicken has as much cholesterol as beef (actually a bit more). I did it that way too, but only because a nutritionist told me to avoid red meat. Just wondering what your take is on that.

Honestly, Monica, I think it's utter nonsense. Allopathic physicians, on the whole are ignorant of diet, and to take their word on something like this seems foolhardy. You and I already know that eating animals is a filthy habit and that one exposes oneself to all the poisons within the animal, whereas plants are seldom carriers of toxins. Further, we have seen the result of cows being fed ground up cows and pigs and chickens: Mad Cow Disease.

Actually, having been a vegetarian for most of my adult life, I've lately become a supporter of awareness of GMO foods. I bought the recently released video, Genetic Roulette, by Jeffrey Smith, world's foremost authority on GMOs - I also donate to Jeff's organization, Institute For Responsible Technology for the excellent work they do. GMOs are a serious threat to our health and the stability of the planet.