Vegetarianism makes you a better person?

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

Does being vegeierian make you a better person in WHICH SENSE..??..a "spiritual sense"..??.. and better than WHOM..?...Who gets to JUDGE this standard of "betterness" - vegetarians or meat eaters..?????

Turn it around - ask then Does eating meat eating make you somehow a WORSE person..??..If so how..?...Why...?.....

Really there can only ever be ONE judge to set such standards - the one that DESIGNED the body we inhabit - and indeed the body we inhabit is DESIGNED TO EAT MEAT - and it was that very design adaptation itself that caused us to have this "superiority" over other life forms here in the first place...

So the answer then logically is YES eating meat DOES make you a better person for first it actually gave us our superior foothold thus making us "better" than all the other forms - and second of course by actually eating meat we are actually "fulfilling our potential" and putting our bodies to the correct usage that it was DESIGNED for !!! In other words eating meat is FULLY IN ACCORD with CREATORS INTENT - if it was a spiritual "no no" then for sure the body would be PROHIBITED from the activity and it would not even be possible..Obvious really...

BSM;

BTW do you know where your 'defile' quote comes from?

I can tell you that it comes from the gospel of Thomas ORIGINALLY - as does indeed ALL scripture that you may find in the bible new testamant is based WHOLLY and completely on the ORIGINAL gospels the disciples wrote - but look closely - NO BIBLE SCRIPTURE is the ORIGINAL teaching - ALL bible scripture is a TWISTING of His original truth which then renders it of course, wholly UN trustworthy in terms of legitimate spiritual truth..Does any here really trust CHRIST then..?...If they do then understand clearly HE HIMSELF ATE MEAT no problems at all - even advised US to do the same - and HE ALONE is the "superior spirit" that KNOWS THE CREATOR FULLY

A contentious point for some perhaps but it needs stating clearly - SOME ANIMALS are ONLY HERE to be food for us and others - and this again is by DESIGN Folks...

George;

I have heard from people I respect that , yes, there are subtle vibrations associated with food that effects moods and emotions and that vegetarianism is best. Even any food handled by a angry low spiritual level person causes harm.

This is essentially true - but nowhere near as important as some would assuume...YES the "vibration and EMOTIONAL energy" associated with the food and its preperation CAN HAVE SOME INFLUENCE - BUT - once the individual is AWARE of the influence - is CAPABLE of understanding that SUBTLE influence of Self - for such awareness requires a good degree of Self understanding - and once the individual has reached a stage where they are capable of their subtle Self awareness then the MIND itself already and quite naturally has begun to negate any ill affects....we are ALWAYS a Self created Being Folks - MIND affects EVERYTHING for everything literally is created BY MIND....

This is why learned wise and spiritually authentic people BLESS their food before they consume it (relevant to the issue of that which defiles us mentioned above) - so that their INTENT and force of Will cause the food to be spiritually,energetically compatable... For someone such as Christ - with THAT level of Divine mastery, and and all food would be acceptable - nothing could possibly harm the body at all as the MIND had full control over every aspect of physical Self.... Therefore just as He advises - have no concerns at all for the PHYSICAL situation or circumstance - the body cannot be defiled if the DIVINE is Present - so just as He says seek this inner guide ALWAYS and CONTINUALLY - but - you can indeed defile that Presence when the mouth speaks things that are NOT TRUE or in accord WITH that Presence of MIND

In modern plain English then - eat anything you like and do whatever you please with your body - the physical is not he concern here but the SPIRITUAL TRUTH is all that matters He says...Once you have that truth then NOTHING can affect you any more - NOTHING that you do in body can "defile" YOU in the spirit. once you hold this Self aware truth..The only "danger" He mentions - is He says to then find that inner truth but IGNORE It - or change it - or present it falsely - THIS is what defiles you truly He says... No matter WHAT your body does the MIND is in control ( will be in control with His teaching and truth)...ALWAYS a SELF created Being - you may "poison" or defile the mortal body lots of ways - but the Divine mind (once attained) cannot be affected by ANYTHING....The only harm you can do your Soul is to DENY its truth (self created being) - this is the "sin against the holy ghost" that can never be forgiven - so if we REALLY want to be "better" people then the only choice is to do as Christ advised - come to know thy Self fully and completely - find that eternal inner truth and cleave to ITS guidance always...Nothing you do to your body after that can affect that truth an no matter what you can NOT defile your Soul - but to deny its truth is a great shame that may bring harm in LIFE as we defile our eternal truth and present the Self falsely...Always - ALWAYS - His truth is about MIND an d Self perception - spoken clearly for those with ears to hear...

 

[Valjean]

What is a better person?

And this is the $64,000 question. Hard to respond to this thread without some concepts of the OP's meaning.

We are about as much a natural predator as we are a natural peanut butter and jelly sandwich eater. We aren't living in tribal societies and what would be the most economical for them isn't what is the most economical for us. Trying to argue this is like trying to argue the superiority of the paleo diet. Their diet was based on availability, not 'best suited' or 'most ethical.' Our availability means it would be silly to ignore that meat is unnecessary for the vast majority of modern humans to stay healthy.

Agreed, but, on the other hand, whilst our culture has evolved, our physiology has not. The paleo diet, as I understand it, is based more on physiology than culture.

Well eating an animal is not exactly an act of compassion!!

I'll agree that animal agriculture is pretty much the antithesis of compassion, but I don't see carnivory as ineluctably cruel.

If you killed a deer on the road, would there be any cruelty or disrespect in eating it?
If your dog dies (of natural causes), and your family eats it, is this not a beautiful act of love and communion?

 

[Revoltingest]

Really? I did not know you ate ribs, jerky, burgers, wings or drumsticks.

I eat so many different things
eyeballs, snouts & duck Peking.
This list will grow,
but eat no crow,
although I might snack on their wings!

 

[Tumah]

I eat so many different things.
And the list grows!

I thought it was just bacon, ham and sometimes pork.

Who knew you had such depth?!

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought it was just bacon, ham and sometimes pork.
Who knew you had such depth?!

And I added a few more in the edited post!

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Keep denying that.

It changes nothing.

Humans are omnivorous.

We are collectively predators.

Candy coating isn't going to change any of it.

Humans are omnivores, so are pigs. In fact pigs are the closest non-primate analogue to humans in terms of gastrointestinal physiology. Pigs rarely eat meat, and it's usually in the form of insects, and although they can process meat they don't need it to be healthy, but will eat it opportunistic for survival. Humans are the same, we don't need meat and ate it opportunistically when it was available and efficient to do do. But again, trying to model our behavior off ancestors and claiming justification is no better than the aforementioned trying to justify misogyny or homophobia that way. Any way you look at it, it's a bad argument. And restating repetitively won't make it better
You aren't a predator.
You don't need meat.
You are trying to justify eating meat by invoking something not applicable to discussions of modern humans and meta ethics.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Not sure I follow. If it were necessary for my survival, absolutely.

Exactly. So why not extend that to other, non-human animals?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Agreed, but, on the other hand, whilst our culture has evolved, our physiology has not. The paleo diet, as I understand it, is based more on physiology than culture.

I have a lot I could say about the paleo diet but I don't want to derail the thread too much haha. Basically my and a lot of nutritionist problem with the paleo diet is that it isn't about physiology. It's about idealizing the paleolithic man's diet as being 'most natural' while ignoring that our physiology has indeed changed, such as lactose persistence from generations of milk farming. And ignoring that the paleolithic man didn't eat the same thing as what they're pushing. They ate mostly grass bulbs, roots, shoots and supplemented with arthropods and gastropods, and the occasional fish or rodent (much like most primates.) And this was a diet of availability, not optimization. That they did eat it didn't mean they evolved in such a way as it was the most healthy. As I said earlier, all research so far has indicated vegetarians are generally more healthy. Though there's probably more to that than just the bad parts of eating meat, such as the good parts of being nutritionally aware.

My point with including the bit about the paleolithic diet was more the part with what ancestors did =/= best suited for body, society, meta ethics, etc.

 

[roger1440]

Well eating an animal is not exactly an act of compassion!!

Neither is washing dishes

 

[Twilight Hue]

Humans are omnivores, so are pigs. In fact pigs are the closest non-primate analogue to humans in terms of gastrointestinal physiology. Pigs rarely eat meat, and it's usually in the form of insects, and although they can process meat they don't need it to be healthy, but will eat it opportunistic for survival. Humans are the same, we don't need meat and ate it opportunistically when it was available and efficient to do do. But again, trying to model our behavior off ancestors and claiming justification is no better than the aforementioned trying to justify misogyny or homophobia that way. Any way you look at it, it's a bad argument. And restating repetitively won't make it better
You aren't a predator.
You don't need meat.
You are trying to justify eating meat by invoking something not applicable to discussions of modern humans and meta ethics.

Meat or animal products are essential for. maintaining proper brain health. Even today. No getting around it weither directly or indirectly.

We have canines evolved to eat meat. Your own mouth is proof.

You might forgo meat but certain nutrients are a product of animals that you must ingest. No exceptions.

Collectively we are predatory animals that still fulfill that role so yes, we all are preditors in varying degrees.

You can still deny the hard facts. Up to you.


Incidentally, pigs can be carnivorous as well.

 

[Twilight Hue]

@ADigitalArtist

You might like this one while the banter ensues. *grin*

True story.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hogs-eat-their-farmer-in-oregon/

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Meat or animal products are essential for. maintaining proper brain health. Even today. No getting around it weither directly or indirectly.

No it isn't. Once again studies indicate vegetarians are healthier, not less healthier. There is no evidence that vegetarians suffer from any sort of cognitive disorder or cognitive capability compared to those who eat meat.

We have canines evolved to eat meat. Your own mouth is proof.

First of all, canines do not indicate diet. The largest canine-to-skull ratio in animals today all belong to vegetarians, the largest primate canines belongs to the gelada baboon which primarily eats grass.

Second of all, this is like saying that 'I have huge fists, that must mean I was meant to and should beat people up with them.' It's falsely attributing the trait, then using another naturalist fallacy to excuse the behavior.

You might forgo meat but certain nutrients are a product of animals that you must ingest. No exceptions.

No they aren't. The closest thing is vitamin b12 and that's not produced by other animals either. It's a production of gut fermentation in animals which can be replicated outside animals. All essential vitamins and proteins can be easily reached in a vegetarian diet.

Collectively we are predatory animals that still fulfill that role so yes, we all are preditors in varying degrees.

No, we aren't. This is like saying that we are collectively tribal because our ancestors were tribal and there still exists some populations which are tribal today. Predator is a behavior, not an innate trait. And, again, saying that we used to hunt to supplement our food is not an argument for continuing to do so. Any more than we used to force women into limited domestic roles.

You can still deny the hard facts. Up to you.

You've presented very little by way of hard fact.

Incidentally, pigs can be carnivorous as well.

You can't be both carnivorous and omnivorous. They are independent categories of classification. Eating meat doesn't make you a carnivore, any more than eating vegetables makes you a herbivore. We are omnivores because our body can make use of both meats and vegetation, But lack specific herbivorous and carnivorous specializations in our digestive system, the same is true of pigs. Like pigs, however, we do not need meat to survive or be healthy. And the vast majority of meat pigs and early humans consumed were gastropods and arthropods. Bugs.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

@ADigitalArtist

You might like this one while the banter ensues. *grin*

True story.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hogs-eat-their-farmer-in-oregon/

I already heard about this story, living in Oregon and all. Like I said, an opportunistic feeding doesn't make you a carnivore, which is a seperate classification. Most animals occasionally opportunistically eat meat when survival calls for it. But deer are still herbivores despite this: http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/researchers-document-deer-eating-birds

 

[Twilight Hue]

No it isn't. Once again studies indicate vegetarians are healthier, not less healthier. There is no evidence that vegetarians suffer from any sort of cognitive disorder or cognitive capability compared to those who eat meat.


First of all, canines do not indicate diet. The largest canine-to-skull ratio in animals today all belong to vegetarians, the largest primate canines belongs to the gelada baboon which primarily eats grass.

Second of all, this is like saying that 'I have huge fists, that must mean I was meant to and should beat people up with them.' It's falsely attributing the trait, then using another naturalist fallacy to excuse the behavior.


No they aren't. The closest thing is vitamin b12 and that's not produced by other animals either. It's a production of gut fermentation in animals which can be replicated outside animals. All essential vitamins and proteins can be easily reached in a vegetarian diet.


No, we aren't. This is like saying that we are collectively tribal because our ancestors were tribal and there still exists some populations which are tribal today. Predator is a behavior, not an innate trait. And, again, saying that we used to hunt to supplement our food is not an argument for continuing to do so. Any more than we used to force women into limited domestic roles.


You've presented very little by way of hard fact.


You can't be both carnivorous and omnivorous. They are independent categories of classification. Eating meat doesn't make you a carnivore, any more than eating vegetables makes you a herbivore. We are omnivores because our body can make use of both meats and vegetation, But lack specific herbivorous and carnivorous specializations in our digestive system, the same is true of pigs. Like pigs, however, we do not need meat to survive or be healthy. And the vast majority of meat pigs and early humans consumed were gastropods and arthropods. Bugs.

Baboons hunt small game like antelope on a fairly regular basis in addition to their plant diet.

Vitamin b12 cannot be replicated in the quanties required to sustain a population without the inclusion of meat consumption. It's not possible. Meat or animal products are still nessessary and most efficient for b12. You won't do very well without it.

The facts are presented pretty well as it stands.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Addum source on Babbon dietary habits.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/703/Baboons-Food-foraging-habits.html

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Baboons hunt small game like antelope on a fairly regular basis in addition to their plant diet.

Vitamin b12 cannot be replicated in the quanties required to sustain a population without the inclusion of meat consumption. It's not possible. Meat or animal products are still nessessary and most efficient for b12. You won't do very well without it.

The facts are presented pretty well as it stands.

As some bears are carnivores (Such as polar bears), others omnivores (Such as brown bears), and some are herbivores (Such as panda), but the baboon I specifically mentioned with the largest tooth to head ratio doesn't hunt at all, and live on grass like I mentioned.

And no, we don't need meat for vitamin b12 production at all. You need fermentation tanks which we already have.

 

[Twilight Hue]

As some bears are carnivores (Such as polar bears), others omnivores (Such as brown bears), and some are herbivores (Such as panda), but the baboon I specifically mentioned with the largest tooth to head ratio doesn't hunt at all, and live on grass like I mentioned.

And no, we don't need meat for vitamin b12 production at all. You need fermentation tanks which we already have.

No. You cannot make enough b12 to sustain any population lol.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

No. You cannot make enough b12 to sustain any population lol.

Evidence?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Evidence?

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scrip...I=Cyanocobalamin (Vitamin B12) Injection&st=c

 

[ADigitalArtist]

No. You cannot make enough b12 to sustain any population lol.

I should also point out that farmed animals get b12 supplements too, since there isnt a strong enough supply in pastures, all manufactured from the same fermentation colonies that vegans eat in fortified cereals.

I say vegan specifically because b12 is in eggs and milk so lacto-ovo vegetarians get it just fine without the need for supplementation. Making the discussion somewhat moot.

Still, if you can provide evidence of the need for meat where no one else has I'd love to hear it.