Diet Guidance from Channelings?

[anagogy]

Concerning Ra, Q'uo & Co, as Jade pointed out articulately already, they have to make sure not to infringe on anyone's free will, so giving specific information would be impossible for them (even telling Carla what to eat and avoid probably cost them some polarity).

I've heard this idea espoused by members before, but to be honest, it doesn't really hold up to logical scrutiny for Ra to supposedly respect free will in such a bizarre way. After-all, consider the time when Don asked if the starving individuals in Africa should be allowed to keep starving since, you know, to his perceptions, a blue ray understanding hypothetically implied that at some level they chose that. Ra immediately corrected him, and said the proper course of action is that they should be fed. Ra didn't 'respect his free will chosen idea' and refuse to give him alternate information since he already had ideas about it, rather, they immediately gave the opposite answer Don expected and asked about.

If you think about it, that would be kind of an absurd stipulation if they weren't allowed to correct the distorted ideas of the channeling participants. In fact, the channeling would be immediately rendered null, void, and pointless by such an edict before it even began because if anybody had an prior opinion about anything, Ra wouldn't be able to speak about it. 

I don't mean to come across as daft, but wouldn't that just be silly?

There were also a few examples in the Ra material, where free will abridging information was offered by Ra with a concession towards some loss of polarity, because apparently they felt the information was more important than respecting the law of confusion (law of free will). So frankly, this idea that Ra secretly wanted to advocate a vegan diet, but didn't want to alter the groups, (or if you like, specifically Carla's) free will decision to eat meat, seems highly improbable to me.

So when you actually take all these logical factors into account, you are left with only a few plausible explanations: Either: 
1) Carla's physiology was soooooo different from us "normie" humans that meat was good for her but not the rest of humanity, 
2) meat eating isn't as much against the cosmos as vegans have convinced themselves of, or 
3) it is against the unity of the cosmos, but Ra didn't think it important enough to correct them on it.

I'm not just saying this to be contrarian, I'm genuinely curious how you people reconcile that, because I don't think you can really escape these conclusions if you think about this critically: 

option 1) I've never bought -- it always seemed more of a rationalization that people whose dietary ideology reviles and forbade any mention of animal products in the Ra material, and served as a means by which to lawyer themselves out of any offhanded mention of such protein being conceivably related to such a profane notion that it constituted any part in the 'proper care of the body complex'. 
option 3) doesn't make sense either considering the other times they just went ahead and supplied information contrary to the groups currently held (and already free will chosen ideas -- of which correction of false ideas is a natural part of the student/teacher relationship), and so of course I'm a proponent of 
option 2) because it seems frankly apparent to me from my time on this planet, that all life feeds on life, and always has, and I think it is very very natural to the earth (but that isn't to say it can't and hasn't become disproportionately parasitical -- e.g. factory farming). I'm not saying that veganism isn't 'higher vibrational' by the way -- perhaps it is for all I know.  (though I think there is a lot of species-ism that goes on (i.e. "plants don't cry when you kill them therefore it is better to eat them than the organisms that have evolved mobility" -- but then again, different, and lacking vocal cords and muscles, doesn't mean it has less consciousness). My concern is more centered around inclinations toward thinking one particular behavior/diet is the 'right one' and all others should be shunned because they are somehow 'wrong' -- whatever that means. I just think that concept is extremely distorted, and anytime I see any intimation of it (which I am sensing in this thread), I feel called to address it.

Also, when you think about "pre-veil" conditions, I have an extremely hard time imagining or believing that all the animal kingdom was not eating each other, even then. Again, I think it is entirely natural for animals to eat other animals -- and that includes the human animal. I mean do you think that wolves weren't eating flesh in those times? That bugs weren't eating other bugs? That all beings were partaking of plants? Did you know there are planets where there are mobile plant beings (beings such as this have been sighted in certain ET contact accounts)?  I'm sorry, but I don't believe life works that way (the way that says plants are the only morally correct food, and anything else is negatively polarizing). Eating flesh is part of the circle of life. Flesh comes in many forms -- plant and otherwise.

I only bring all this up because the rationalizations don't personally make sense to me, and never have, though I think if someone easily thrives on a vegan diet and are happy with themselves I think that is great (just as I think someone who is happy on a ketogenic diet is just fine as well). I would just be careful of falling into the trap of thinking that is what everyone is 'supposed' to do (that sort of thinking is always dangerous and inevitably leads to judgment in my opinion, despite good intentions otherwise). 

As an aside, I also have a hard time taking any Q'uo channelings as anything more than 'interesting ideas to consider' because of the sheer number of times those particular channelings have contradicted themselves. I don't care enough to dredge up all of them (one could do a search on these forums for it, there have been a few scintillating discussions about it), but there are ALOT (I chalk that up to it being 'conscious channeling' rather than any kind of deliberate obfuscation -- one of the reasons I generally steer clear of such conscious channeling -- too much distortion) That's not to say Ra never contradicted themselves either. But this is just me personally, I know many others here hold Q'uo on the same level as the Ra channelings, which I've never really understood, but each to their own.

Having said all that, Haleakala, if you are still watching this thread, I can tell you anecdotally, and personally, that I have seen people thrive on all diets: carnivorous, vegan, omnivorous, and I have seen people not thrive on all sorts and different diets (sickly vegans and omnivores alike). I think people make too much of diet to be honest. I think you can find vibrational alignment with any diet. I think the important thing is finding what is right for you, individually. Don't fall prey to the group think of any particular subculture, living out the reality of their belief systems. Everybody is focusing evidence of their beliefs into being to the same degree as their purity of faith.

The nature of reality is such that no diet is the "The One True Diet" and I believe that is by design, lest someone reduce 'rightness' to something black and white. That would present an extremely pallid and shallow experiential nexus for incarnational catalyst. That would not be representative of the Logos I have come to know.

Follow your heart, All is Well.