05 Feb 11
Originally posted by vishvahetuThere is a logical inconsistency in your argument about meat. 10,000 years ago, well into the modern brain period, that was about all humans ate. Obviously they ate fruit and berries and such that they could gather but animals like Bison and Buffalo provided more than meat, it provided winter coats, housing material for their tents and such, bones for fishing hooks, needles and the like. Even the bones were used to build housing. Yet they had fully modern brains, therefore subject to your laws of reincarnation. If meat eating was deemed an offence punishable by being reincarnated into a cow or elephant or buffalo, there would be no humans around to have risen out of that position.
Humans can digest meat so lets kill the animals.....dont think so.
You are bringing the topic down to a level of logical argument.
Its logical for this....so lets do that.
Its logical for that....so lets do this.
Anything to support error.
Its dishonesty.
The fact there are humans now is saying eating meat is not such a reincarnation downgrade offense. So your whining about meat eaters is being dishonest at the core.
06 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouse🙂 What a fun problem. If we look at the evolutionary chain, then it might appear that carnivores only thrive when they have plenty of prey, so logically they must come later. Assuming they have been produced through reincarnation, then some herbivores must be reincarnated as carnivores. By the same logic it is pretty hard to see how more than a tiny proportion of carnivores get reincarnated as herbivores: the numbers don't work.
There is a logical inconsistency in your argument about meat. 10,000 years ago, well into the modern brain period, that was about all humans ate. Obviously they ate fruit and berries and such that they could gather but animals like Bison and Buffalo provided more than meat, it provided winter coats, housing material for their tents and such, bones for fishi ...[text shortened]... incarnation downgrade offense. So your whining about meat eaters is being dishonest at the core.
I don't agree that meat was "about all humans ate;" if anything, we are not at all evolved to eat the amount of meat we consume today and this is unsustainable anyway.
Nor do I agree with a childishly simple model of reincarnation such that we are punished for eating meat by getting reborn as prey.
There is sense in a concept of Karma such that it is not healthy physically or "spiritually" to misuse animals. The evidence that animals have feelings and emotions not dissimilar to our own is pretty strong and a morally mature adult would surely feel revolted by the process behind mass meat consumption. I don't think we can go on much longer allowing our industrialised food industry to produce meat as it is doing. If the moral arguments fail to stop us, the diseases will one way or another and we will be reincarnated as piles of decaying carrion - not dissimilar to the food itself.
06 Feb 11
So I'm thinking: christians and others dont mind eating meat, but abhor smoking. (divegeester😉 )
Now I've already mentioned that I dont find a problem woth meat eating, as long as there is a connection.
"Thank you lord Shiva for the animal that gave its life for my meal"
In my way of thinking, you stop hurting others first, then you stop hurting yourself.
Whats worse, me smoking 5 or 6 cigarettes a day or eating meat the way it has been done in this culture-with no reverence for the animals that were systematically slaughtered for my meal?
06 Feb 11
Originally posted by sonhouseThere are cultures that have a heavy meat diet as you say, but there are many who do not.
There is a logical inconsistency in your argument about meat. 10,000 years ago, well into the modern brain period, that was about all humans ate. Obviously they ate fruit and berries and such that they could gather but animals like Bison and Buffalo provided more than meat, it provided winter coats, housing material for their tents and such, bones for fishi ...[text shortened]... incarnation downgrade offense. So your whining about meat eaters is being dishonest at the core.
Anyhow, you do not have the greater perspective on this.
There are unlimited universes and unlimited planets, and souls are taking birth from other planets and universes, and also souls from this earth are coming from the lower species up to take human form.
Also when a person takes birth in the form of a cow, they are at the top of the animal species cycle, and they soon shall take human form.
There are many animal forms that are close to the top of the re-incarnation cycle.
At this time 10.000 yrs ago, India had a majority of non meat eating persons and they have a large population.
The further you go back in time, the more advanced and the more spiritual persons are, and the less animal killing there is.
You have it back the front and believe that the further you go back in time, the more primitive you will find the people.....it is not so.
In cultures that live in primitive conditions and hunt for their food, their karma is not the same as the modern man opening computerized slaughter houses for profit.
The hunter/gatherer from way back, is not a sinful person because he does not have the same choices as modern man.
Modern man does have choices, and with choices comes responsibility to choose with compassion.
Most people can easily walk into the supermarket and obtain any fruit, grain, or vegetable to their hearts desire.
The point is, persons following true religion become sensitive to the life all around them and with compassion they choose to not eat meat.
False religion does not bring the follower to that sensitive platform of spirituality, and they remain incompassionate.
True religion develops in the person all good qualities.... compassion, mercy, non violence, love, sensitivity, respect, kindness and so on.
False religion does not develop these qualities in a natural way.
06 Feb 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelI wonder what you mean when you incorporate the modern factory farming meat industry into your "culture?" Is it actually the case that traditional farming (up to recent times) had "no reverence" for its animals? Read James Herriott.
So I'm thinking: christians and others dont mind eating meat, but abhor smoking. (divegeester😉 )
Now I've already mentioned that I dont find a problem woth meat eating, as long as there is a connection.
"Thank you lord Shiva for the animal that gave its life for my meal"
In my way of thinking, you stop hurting others first, then you stop hurti ...[text shortened]... culture-with no reverence for the animals that were systematically slaughtered for my meal?
06 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganPeople dont have much reverence for their neighbours.
I wonder what you mean when you incorporate the modern factory farming meat industry into your "culture?" Is it actually the case that traditional farming (up to recent times) had "no reverence" for its animals? Read James Herriott.
Just last night I saw the most beautiful , husky-like dog abandoned at the bottle-o.
I just wanted to take home right there and then....
I dont know mate, I just try to call a spade a spade, and if I dont know, I wont bulls**t you.
06 Feb 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelWhat's a bottle O? Is that like what we call the 'animal pound' here in the US? A place where animals are put to either be given to a family or to be put to death.
People dont have much reverence for their neighbours.
Just last night I saw the most beautiful , husky-like dog abandoned at the bottle-o.
I just wanted to take home right there and then....
I dont know mate, I just try to call a spade a spade, and if I dont know, I wont bulls**t you.
06 Feb 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelTry and understand this very important point....
I can agree loosely with your basic tenets,ie. the soul is immortal (pleas dont ask me what the soul is. it is the 'force of animation'. you dont need to know more), and that THE WAY in which we treat animals is wrong.
But many posters have queried you on these two points, so lets just plod through.
Oh and stop calling people "dishonest". Like FMF said, your are misusing that word.
If I am talking with someone and having a discussion about lets say the eternal soul, and the other person interrupts the flow of the conversation by saying something incorrect, I would have to at that point correct the mistake for the sake of the conversation going forward....do you follow?
So in this forum many persons are saying many things that are incorrect, and I am constantly pulling them up to make the correction.....do you follow?
Now what is happening is....that persons are saying something incorrect, and when I pull them up to make the correction, they refuse to be corrected.
Now how can I continue with the conversation and proceed forward with incorrect statements going unchecked...I cannot and it would be impossible to continue....do you see?
Now where the dishonesty comes into the whole thing is....their refusal to be corrected which puts an end to the conversation, and when I try to continue after making the correction....they still continue to reject.
So this constant rejection is the dishonesty I talk of, and they are dishonest by continually holding onto their falsity....they do not want to be corrected.
So now you understand why I say someone,s dishonest.....
And I must say they are dishonest, to bring their attention to the fact, that what they are doing is unacceptable.
Imagine a teacher at school, allowing all manner of spelling mistakes and mathematical mistakes going unchecked....it would be chaos.
The mistakes are NOT dishonest.....but the refusal to correct the mistake is dishonest.
06 Feb 11
3 edits
Originally posted by karoly aczelI never used the word "abhor" and you are extrapolating a single comment (and a personal opinion of myself) about smoking to generalise about a global community of Christians, you should not do this. I do not (of course!) represent the majority of Christians and I'm sure my view of Christianity and especially the so called temporal Christian church would not sit well with the mainstream.
So I'm thinking: christians and others dont mind eating meat, but abhor smoking. (divegeester😉 )
Now I've already mentioned that I dont find a problem woth meat eating, as long as there is a connection.
"Thank you lord Shiva for the animal that gave its life for my meal"
In my way of thinking, you stop hurting others first, then you stop hurti ...[text shortened]... culture-with no reverence for the animals that were systematically slaughtered for my meal?
I have pointed out through clear Biblical scripture that vegetarianism is not required by God and that in fact 'eating whatever is put before you' is what is encouraged, but 'we' are to be careful not to bruise the conscience of another Christian through our personal freedom from the law gained through Christ. Vegetarianism may be of use in the modern world, to help some people stay healthy if they have a low tolerance for meat; I am not against it per-se but there is evidence that not eating meat can cause physical issues.
I am not pro-slaughter and find the thought of killing an animal awful - but I choose not to be a vegetarian and that is my choice within the free world - my advice to Christians would be not to be vegetarian for spiritual reasons as there is no value in it whatsoever. Better to be moderate and eat a balanced diet and take regular exercise...in short, keep some perspective.
06 Feb 11
Originally posted by divegeesterThis is the sought of falsity that I am talking about.
I never used the word "abhor" and you are extrapolating a single comment (and a personal opinion of myself) about smoking to generalise about a global community of Christians, you should not do this. I do not (of course!) represent the majority of Christians and I'm sure my view of Christianity and especially the so called temporal Christian church woul ...[text shortened]... rate and eat a balanced diet and take regular exercise...in short, keep some perspective.
The false teachings of the Bible, tells the followers that animal slaughter is ok and not to be cruel to animals has no spiritual value whatsoever,
Absolute nonsense and a very dangerous belief.
06 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetuKilling other animals is just what animals do - to this end we are also animals; it's just that 'most of us' have better reasoning skills than other animals. In the grand scheme of things this is not an important difference.
This is the sought of falsity that I am talking about.
The false teachings of the Bible, tells the followers that animal slaughter is ok and not to be cruel to animals has no spiritual value whatsoever,
Absolute nonsense and a very dangerous belief.
I wouldn't hold it against a tiger for trying to eat me - to it I am food - similarly, to me, chickens and cows are food. Yes being killed probably hurts
never experienced it
, and it's rubbish we don't have chicken trees or beef trees and such but I'll be damned if I'm going to live out the rest of my short existence living on sprouts just to appease some supposed ever present but never seen 'universal intelligence'.06 Feb 11
Originally posted by AgergForget what scripture says, forget God, forget the Vedas..........but cruelty to animals is still wrong and low class.
Killing other animals is just what animals do - to this end we are also animals; it's just that 'most of us' have better reasoning skills than other animals. In the grand scheme of things this is not an important difference.
I wouldn't hold it against a tiger for trying to eat me - to it I am food - similarly, to me, chickens and cows are food. Yes being ki ...[text shortened]... ts just to appease some supposed ever present but never seen 'universal intelligence'.
06 Feb 11
Originally posted by vishvahetuQuote VishaAnyhow, you do not have the greater perspective on this.
Forget what scripture says, forget God, forget the Vedas..........but cruelty to animals is still wrong and low class.
How ignorant, ignoramous and ignoble are you going to slip to???
Quote cruelty to animals is still wrong and low class.
In which class is this, of animals?
You stated bacteria has a soul, and then said it doesn't matter on the lower scale, as they have no 'feelings.'
Please tell me your level of when an animal is worthy of a soul or not, and give me a class distinction of when an animal feels or not?
I lower myself to you, in order to beg you for an answer!
-m.
06 Feb 11
Originally posted by mikelomLower forms of life have different levels sentient feelings.
[b]Quote VishaAnyhow, you do not have the greater perspective on this.
How ignorant, ignoramous and ignoble are you going to slip to???
Quote cruelty to animals is still wrong and low class.
In which class is this, of animals?
You stated bacteria has a soul, and then said it doesn't matter on the lower scale, as they have no 'feelings ...[text shortened]... n an animal feels or not?
I lower myself to you, in order to beg you for an answer!
-m.[/b]
Cows have similar levels of sentient feelings as do humans.
Bugs have very low sentient feelings.
Microbes have no sentient feelings.
I said that bacteria do not suffer and feel pain as higher life forms, but they still have the soul within.
It does not matter if the lower form has very low sentient feelings or not, because the soul is absolutely necessary for something to be living.
There is no such thing as any animal not having a soul.
This is the test......if something is alive, it has a soul.
All forms feel sensation to some degree.
Sentient living forms can be described as this, from top to bottom
humans
mammals
birds
reptiles
amphibians
insects and fish
microbes bacteria
plants.
Why does someone having a different perspective than another, classify them ignorant, ignoramus and ignoble.
How are you coming to your conclusion about this.