Humans have choices.

Originally posted by FMF
Because they do not share your belief system and have no spiritual objection to eating meat. Therefore they do not agree with you when you assert that eating meat is wrong. Therefore it is not dishonesty if they assert that their beliefs are different from yours. Therefore they are not lying when they tell you that they do not believe there is a spiritual reason ...[text shortened]... ubscribing to dishonesty[/i], they are simply subscribing to a different belief system from you.

Yes...the belief system that wrong has now become right....its nonsense.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Yes...the belief system that wrong has now become right....its nonsense.

I have never disputed that we disagree. You, for some reason, think that your belief system applies to me. Well, except in so much as you are entitled to believe whatever you want about me or about anything else, your belief system does not apply to me from my point of view. I do not subscribe to your belief system so your pronouncements on what is "wrong" and what is "right" and what is "nonsense" - being subjective terms referring to your own opinions - are neither relevant nor credible to me.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Why have you not described what is really going on accurately.

You said that I judge people if they do not hold to my views, but that is not the truth.

The actual truth is..... I inform people, that supporting error is dishonest if and only if, they are aware that it is false.

If someone doesn't know something is false, then I do not accuse the ...[text shortened]... cruelty is not wrong is dishonest, and you are clearly aware of this, and so is everyone else.

I'll give you my HONEST take on this list, but bear in mind, it is only to help you change, not to encourage your negative ways.

1. Animal slaughter is not cruel in many situations. When the world is properly fed, then we may move onto refining our tastes in food. I would suggest feeding the starving millions is way more important than what to feed them with, for now.

2. Form a linear point of view, this is exactly how it seems, so people that subscribe to this belief are not on the wrong track at all.

3. Living animals do have souls. Agreed. (But the notion of a 'soul' is still very much up for debate,(on this forum anyway), but if humans have them, I'll have to agree that animals have them too.)

4. There is no hell, onlt purgatory

4(a?). The only true authority comes from within and is complete only when a complete 180* "about face" has been achieved by the adept against precisely the "truths" (s)he has been championing.

5. Yes, "spiritual energy" is invisible. Agreed.

6. Life has a purpose, though process(es) involved with bringing that life about can seem accidental. What did Burroughs say? That there are no accidents? you dig?

7. Genesis is only one way to describe Genesis. Even then , one must have a proper interpretation.

8. I believe I've read more eastern/hindu writings on this subject matter than christian ones.

9. Obviously a truism. Perhaps with proper oreintation and cross-refrencing biblical words can be interpretted in the right way, but on the surface there is no way you could say every word in the bible is true and perfect. Agreed.

10. This teaching seems unimportant to me during this incarnation for some reason 😉

12. Well put. Still we mustn't dismiss science just because it doesn't explain everything. We need those sciency guys and gals to keep us honest.

13. From a linear point of view, thats exactly how it seems. So it is actually an honest point of view. It might need refinement, but thats basically how we got here. Our physical bits anyway.

14. Universal truths are more like guidelines. You and the christian theists seem to make out like there is only two ways to go- my way or the highway.
Of course life is much more complex than putting things into one of two categories.

15. Agreed.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I'll give you my HONEST take on this list, but bear in mind, it is only to help you change, not to encourage your negative ways.

1. Animal slaughter is not cruel in many situations. When the world is properly fed, then we may move onto refining our tastes in food. I would suggest feeding the starving millions is way more important than what to feed t ...[text shortened]... is much more complex than putting things into one of two categories.

15. Agreed.

Thankyou for actually reading my post and taking the time to respond in the lengthy manner in which you did.....it shows you have a genuineness about you that many do not have.

That's all I ever expect from anyone, to be as honest as they can and keep the discussion going forward instead of backwards by rejecting whimsically everything that's put before them.

You did not agree with everything I presented, but that's perfectly fine, because you at least offered an intelligent thoughtful response.

I will respond to one point you made...

You said animal slaughter is not cruel in the situation when it feeds many starving people, but are you aware that 100 acres of land can feed many many more people (probably 500% more) if you use that land to grow grains and fruits and vegetables, instead of using that land for the production of beef

I am sure there is not one person in this forum that would disagree with me on that.

So the circumstances you outlined for feeding starving people are not actually valid, because feeding starving people or not, slaughter houses cause fear to the animals and that is still suffering.......but your intentions for presenting it are still honoured.

To not cause distress to an animal when you want to kill it, could be achieved if there was more thought put into the method used.

But beyond killing in a humane way......killing in itself is detrimental to spiritual development, because it destroys the qualities of mercy, compassion, non violence and spirituality.

The atheists do not care for these spiritual qualities, so leave the killing of everything that moves to them, because they are taking birth again and returning to this material world anyway, for all their other negative activities.

But for the persons who are living the spiritual life, killing is out of the question, for they are always aware of everything that is detrimental to their spiritual development.

Universal truths are not the same as universal beliefs, because beliefs may change from one day to the next.

But truths cannot be changed......you can reject them and deny them if you wish, and not live by them if you wish, but you can never say they are not true, because truth today is the truth tomorrow to eternity.

Vedic truth tells us that every living being, must become diseased, grow old and die, and this truth cannot be changed......you can deny it and reject it, but you cannot say it is not true, because it is truth and will always remain the truth, for all persons and for all time.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Thankyou for actually reading my post and taking the time to respond in the lengthy manner in which you did.....it shows you have a genuineness about you that many do not have.

That's all I ever expect from anyone, to be as honest as they can and keep the discussion going forward instead of backwards by rejecting whimsically everything that's put befor ...[text shortened]... true, because it is truth and will always remain the truth, for all persons and for all time.

Are there any circumstances under which you would consider eating a human?

If trapped in the wilderness and starving would you feed meat from a human dead of natural causes to those unknowing gentle humans trapped with you if it would extend their lives?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
That's all I ever expect from anyone, to be as honest as they can and keep the discussion going forward instead of backwards by rejecting whimsically everything that's put before them.

You are misusing the word "whimsically ", vishvahetu.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Are there any circumstances under which you would consider eating a human?

If trapped in the wilderness and starving would you feed meat from a human dead of natural causes to those unknowing gentle humans trapped with you if it would extend their lives?

This actually happened and they made a movie about it, and persons did eat the dead passengers....

Anyway, if I was in that situation I would let the others decide for themselves what they wanted to eat or not eat.

I myself would not do it because I have no fear of death, and if my time on earth was come, I would accept it.

One has to have the higher perspective, and I am aware of the continuance of life and I fully understand that I have died many times before, and so I shall be born many times to come.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
But truths cannot be changed......you can reject them and deny them if you wish, and not live by them if you wish, but you can never say they are not true, because truth today is the truth tomorrow to eternity.

I have actually read your post and I am taking the time to respond in a lengthy manner in order to demonstrate my genuineness and my good faith as a fellow member of this discussion board.

'Eating meat is wrong' is not an objective "truth", it is - instead - one of your beliefs. For you to declare that what you believe is "true" is one thing, but to constantly insist that disagreement with you is "dishonest" is simply a mistake on your part - in terms of the meaning of words and in terms of the degree to which you believe the sheer intensity of your sincerity and certainty can alter the reality that other people perceive.

"Vedic truth [...] is truth and will always remain the truth, for all persons and for all time".

This is palpably not so, vishvahetu. I can think of at least one person for whom what you call "Vedic truth" is not held as "true". That's me. There are clearly others apart from me. So your reference to "all persons" is somewhat of a philosophical overreach, to put it mildly. "Vedic teachings" are a belief system. I - for example - do not recognize or submit to "Vedic authority" and do not recognize or submit to its exhortation to not eat meat.

So, although you believe 'eating meat is wrong' is a "truth [that] cannot be changed [and applies to] all persons", quite clearly it is not a "truth" for me and for the thousands of millions of other meat eaters like me who do not share your belief system but have spiritual belief systems that differ from yours.

The statement 'Some spiritual people eat meat' is clearly "true". And the statement 'Some spiritual people do not eat meat' is also clearly "true". You should direct your assertions about what is "right" and "wrong" and "true" and "false" at people who recognize or submit to "Vedic authority".

If people who submit to "Vedic authority" do "right" and "wrong" things, regardless of their subscription and submission, and say "true" and "false" things according to that belief system, regardless of their subscription and submission, then you are clearly - as a fervent religionist - in a position to berate them for their failure to conform and obey the "authority" you subscribe and submit to.

Originally posted by FMF
I have actually read your post and I am taking the time to respond in a lengthy manner in order to demonstrate my genuineness and my good faith as a fellow member of this discussion board.

'Eating meat is wrong' is not an objective "truth", it is - instead - one of your beliefs. For you to declare that what you believe is "true" is one thing, but to constant ...[text shortened]... authority" you subscribe and submit to.

You have evaded the point.

The point is this ......to cause suffering to animals is wrong.

Now use that in your response instead of using "eating meat is wrong" like you have done.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Now use that in your response instead of using "eating meat is wrong" like you have done.

According to my belief system eating meat is not wrong. I condone the slaughter of animals for human consumption. I believe that animals are a legitimate foodstuff. I do not condone cruelty to animals.

Originally posted by FMF
According to my belief system eating meat is not wrong. I condone the slaughter of animals for human consumption. I believe that animals are a legitimate foodstuff. I do not condone cruelty to animals.

I understand what you have said, and that you do not condone animal cruelty, but to finish this long draw out talk we have been having, could you answer one last thing.

Is your eating of meat and the consequence increase of demand because of it, indirectly causing suffering to animals that are killed in the slaughter houses.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
I understand what you have said, and that you do not condone animal cruelty, but to finish this long draw out talk we have been having, could you answer one last thing.

Is your eating of meat and the consequence increase of demand because of it, indirectly causing suffering to animals that are killed in the slaughter houses.

I eat meat, vishvahetu. So I support killing animals. Killing them. And then eating them. So your quibbling about whatever your definition of "suffering" is, is moot. I agree with the animals being killed. I don't like the suffering that my wife underwent to give birth to my two children either. It does not mean I am against having children. I am also not against eating meat. The animals get killed. That is how we are able to get meat from them. I understand that your belief system cannot abide these facts of life. And I believe that you are honest and sincere when you say that you do not condone the slaughter of animals and the subsequent eating of the meat that this facilitates. I have said over and over again that I do not condone unnecessary suffering because I do not condone "cruelty". Clear?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
To not cause distress to an animal when you want to kill it, could be achieved if there was more thought put into the method used.

Something we can agree on.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Mammals have almost the same sentient feelings as humans, having them feel pain and fear and suffering and stress, practically on the same level as humans.

Mammals nurse their offspring and give milk to their young.

Mammals are warm blooded as humans.

Mammals exhibit choice and freewill because the consciousness is much more developed than plant ...[text shortened]... rity of the Vedas, inform us that there is no wrong in the cultivation and harvesting of plants.

Killing animals is low class and barbaric in its nature.

What if an animal is suffering pain from a terminal disease and you relieve its pain by 'putting it down'? Is that barbaric in nature? Or is leaving the animal to suffer barbaric in nature?

Originally posted by dj2becker
What if an animal is suffering pain from a terminal disease and you relieve its pain by 'putting it down'? Is that barbaric in nature? Or is leaving the animal to suffer barbaric in nature?

Would your decision change if it was a human? If so, why?