Guest guest Posted May 1, 2001 Report Share Posted May 1, 2001 in support of: "God accidently made us omnivorous" Almost all food chains start from the conversion of minerals with the help of the suns energy into organic molecules. On land it is the plants which do this job. And in the sea it is the plankton. Without natures food chains life on this world would not exist in the forms that it does. Human beings cannot eat raw earth and convert it into the requirements of the body. Nor can humans digest grass! However humans can eat the animals which can digest the grass. If everybody decided to become a vegetarian, there would be problems of getting an adequate food supply. In fact we would then compete with the grass eating animals as we would have to convert all grassland into horticultural land! [Wouldn't this be more cruel to the grass eating animals?] [Which cow would you rather be: living on a lush green field in the west and dying a quick death or roaming the streets of Bombay half starved and destined to die a lingering painful death due to old age and disease? Why don't these people reserve special grasslands for them?] I respect others abhorrence for eating meat, however it is a very 'natural' thing to do. Animal farming and mistreatment of animals are two different things. I would very much object to anyone who uses cruel animal farming methods, however I wouldn't mind even eating human meat if the circumstances were such [for example the case of the Andes survivors - where they had to eat the meat of humans who had already died of the cold, etc.]. We blame the scientists for ignoring God and religion, however we fall into the same trap by ignoring scientific facts and trying to make blanket religious statements. ________________________________ Love makes the heart laugh. I wish you Love. CyberDervish `````````````````````````````````````````````` Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2001 Report Share Posted May 1, 2001 , CyberDervish <swork@a...> wrote: > in support of: "God accidently made us omnivorous" > > Almost all food chains start from the conversion of minerals with the help > of the suns energy into organic molecules. On land it is the plants which > do this job. And in the sea it is the plankton. > > Without natures food chains life on this world would not exist in the forms > that it does. Human beings cannot eat raw earth and convert it into the > requirements of the body. Nor can humans digest grass! However humans can > eat the animals which can digest the grass. If everybody decided to become > a vegetarian, there would be problems of getting an adequate food supply. > In fact we would then compete with the grass eating animals as we would > have to convert all grassland into horticultural land! [Wouldn't this be > more cruel to the grass eating animals?] > > [Which cow would you rather be: living on a lush green field in the west > and dying a quick death or roaming the streets of Bombay half starved and > destined to die a lingering painful death due to old age and disease? Why > don't these people reserve special grasslands for them?] > > I respect others abhorrence for eating meat, however it is a very 'natural' > thing to do. Animal farming and mistreatment of animals are two different > things. I would very much object to anyone who uses cruel animal farming > methods, however I wouldn't mind even eating human meat if the > circumstances were such [for example the case of the Andes survivors - > where they had to eat the meat of humans who had already died of the cold, > etc.]. > > We blame the scientists for ignoring God and religion, however we fall into > the same trap by ignoring scientific facts and trying to make blanket > religious statements. > > ________________________________ > Love makes the heart laugh. > I wish you Love. > CyberDervish Namaste All, We are not biologically meat eaters, our system is akin to the gorilla's who are herbivores. Our teeth are not predators and our bowels are long for vegetable food. Meat eaters have short bowels so the food can be expelled quickly, so it doesn't sit and fester in the bowels, causing cancer as it does in humans. The point of not eating meat has to do with compassion not health anyway......ONS Tony. > `````````````````````````````````````````````` Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2001 Report Share Posted May 1, 2001 In response to CyberDevish's recent comments on eating meat... This is the first message I've posted in this room, and I'll start by saying that I have never been able to find a single "honest" justification for the human consumption of animal tissue. It is NOT a natural, "normal" or instinctive act of the human species to play the role of predator. Unlike the animals of the safari and jungle, capable of running about and chasing after this or that, be it a leaf, a smaller animal or a fluttering insect, just hours after their birth, humans take a long period of time-- years in fact, -- just to master the act of balancing on their own two feet. If we had been meant to live in the wild, ie, emerge from the womb and be taught to kill, then left to fend for ourselves just days or weeks afterwards, we would possess dew claws, fangs and talons. Our talents do not lie in such a violent and utterly desperate exploration of survival but in our intellectual means, by which I refer to the invention of tools, agriculture and so on. Our ancestors were capable of crafting tools which allowed them to do a great many things they were incapable of doing before. They were able to create such tools due to an innate intelligence. It was their primitive minds' manner of thinking, on the other hand, which led them to mock or "mimick" the behaviour of other animals, which they saw taking place all about them. After all, it would "seem" the custom; when in Rome... Furthermore, there are no health benefits of eating meat. Proteins and iron can be obtained from other sources. A vegetarian diet is far more compatible with the human composition. (to be cont.) TESKOBOY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2001 Report Share Posted May 2, 2001 Tony O'Clery wrote: We are not biologically meat eaters, our system is akin to the gorilla's who are herbivores. Our teeth are not predators and our bowels are long for vegetable food. Meat eaters have short bowels so the food can be expelled quickly, so it doesn't sit and fester in the bowels, causing cancer as it does in humans. Bull. Total bull. See http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-4c.shtml Vague claims about an ancient frugivorous primate ancestor First, those who make such claims may refer to some vague, ancient, frugivorous primate ancestor, implying that such an ancestor somehow proves humans are natural fruitarians. There are two major problems with this: The reference to an ancient frugivorous ancestor is so vague that it is meaningless. True, there were ancient frugivorous primates. However, the reference mixes up the diverse categories of primates, hominoids, and humans such that no meaningful statements can be made. Another problem here is that--as has been discussed earlier--the type of fruits eaten by earlier frugivorous apes included tougher and more fibrous fruits considerably different in character than the highly bred and far sweeter varieties developed for commercial production in modern times. Humans have been eating meat since the dawn of the Homo genus. Humans appeared with the advent of a brand-new genus (Homo) ~2.5 million years ago. Humans evolved on the savanna-- a very different environment from the forest home of the great apes. From the very inception of our genus, humans have been eating animal foods. There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support this point. (Some of the evidence is discussed in this and the preceding section; also see Part 1 of the Paleolithic Diet vs. Vegetarianism interview series, available on this site, for additional information and citations.) The diet of some vague prehistoric frugivore that may or may not be an ancestor is irrelevant in light of the status of humans as a new genus with a different diet (i.e., eating more animal foods) and evolving in a different environmental niche. In contrast to the extensive fossil record evidence of meat in the evolutionary diet, there is virtually no credible scientific evidence of a strict fruitarian or veg*n diet by our prehistoric human (and australopithecine) ancestors. No fruitarian, or even vegan, hunter-gatherer societies have ever been found. Further, there is no evidence to indicate there ever existed, in the past, a fruitarian (or veg*n) hunter-gatherer society. Even in the tropical rainforest, hunter-gatherers eat meat. (The Ache of Paraguay in the Amazon rainforest, one of the best-studied of all hunter-gatherer tribes, are a prime example with an average of over 50% meat consumption throughout the year, ranging from 47-77% depending on the season [Hill, Hawkes, Hurtado, and Kaplan 1984].) There is no evidence of any fruitarian societies, and--more to the point--the extensive anecdotal evidence (virtually the only evidence available) on modern attempts at (strict) fruitarianism indicates that it may work for a short while but almost always fails in the long run. (Even the fruitarian extremist "experts" often fail to follow the diet strictly, in the long term.) If you still believe in Santa Claus at this point follow the link and read the rest... http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-4c.shtml The point of not eating meat has to do with compassion not health anyway......ONS Tony. > `````````````````````````````````````````````` Not so for many people who don't have a problem with eating animals but choose not to (or moderate) for the health benefits. A better question would be what does *talking* 'bout eating or not eating animals have to do with compassion? David (compassionate carnivore) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2001 Report Share Posted May 2, 2001 , David Bozzi <david.bozzi@n...> wrote: > Tony O'Clery wrote: > > > We are not biologically meat eaters, our system is akin to the > > gorilla's who are herbivores. Our teeth are not predators and our > > bowels are long for vegetable food. Meat eaters have short bowels so > > the food can be expelled quickly, so it doesn't sit and fester in the > > bowels, causing cancer as it does in humans. > > Bull. Total bull. > > See > http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-4c.shtml > ---Namaste - -------------------------------- > > Vague claims about an ancient frugivorous primate ancestor > > First, those who make such claims may refer to some vague, ancient, frugivorous primate ancestor, implying that such an > ancestor somehow proves humans are natural fruitarians. There are two major problems with this: > > The reference to an ancient frugivorous ancestor is so vague that it is meaningless. True, there were ancient > frugivorous primates. However, the reference mixes up the diverse categories of primates, hominoids, and humans such > that no meaningful statements can be made. Another problem here is that--as has been discussed earlier--the type of > fruits eaten by earlier frugivorous apes included tougher and more fibrous fruits considerably different in character than > the highly bred and far sweeter varieties developed for commercial production in modern times. > > Humans have been eating meat since the dawn of the Homo genus. Humans appeared with the advent of a brand-new > genus (Homo) ~2.5 million years ago. Humans evolved on the savanna-- a very different environment from the forest > home of the great apes. From the very inception of our genus, humans have been eating animal foods. There is > overwhelming scientific evidence to support this point. (Some of the evidence is discussed in this and the preceding > section; also see Part 1 of the Paleolithic Diet vs. Vegetarianism interview series, available on this site, for additional > information and citations.) The diet of some vague prehistoric frugivore that may or may not be an ancestor is irrelevant > in light of the status of humans as a new genus with a different diet (i.e., eating more animal foods) and evolving in a > different environmental niche. > > In contrast to the extensive fossil record evidence of meat in the evolutionary diet, there is virtually no credible scientific > evidence of a strict fruitarian or veg*n diet by our prehistoric human (and australopithecine) ancestors. > > No fruitarian, or even vegan, hunter-gatherer societies have ever been found. Further, there is no evidence to indicate > there ever existed, in the past, a fruitarian (or veg*n) hunter-gatherer society. Even in the tropical rainforest, hunter-gatherers > eat meat. (The Ache of Paraguay in the Amazon rainforest, one of the best-studied of all hunter-gatherer tribes, are a prime > example with an average of over 50% meat consumption throughout the year, ranging from 47-77% depending on the season > [Hill, Hawkes, Hurtado, and Kaplan 1984].) There is no evidence of any fruitarian societies, and--more to the point--the > extensive anecdotal evidence (virtually the only evidence available) on modern attempts at (strict) fruitarianism indicates that it > may work for a short while but almost always fails in the long run. (Even the fruitarian extremist "experts" often fail to follow the > diet strictly, in the long term.) Namaste, Ahhh the wisdom of the universities. Man has been on the planet probably 10 million years according to Cayce. 20 million if you count hominids. There were intelligent 'created',descents, as in genesis 6, or in Bhagavata 3. Yes there were many types of hominid other than Adamic man. That is part of my point. 2 million years ago is still not that far away. All this blurb doesn't alter my original position that it is compassion that the vegetarian has. He doesn't need to rationalise animal and primitive behaviour. If your awareness sheath isn't developed then you probably behave like a primitive carnivore, thats the stage you are at....There is no liberation without compassion, it is probably impossible.....ONS Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2001 Report Share Posted May 2, 2001 >A better question would be what does *talking* >'bout eating or not eating animals >have to do with compassion? > >David >(compassionate carnivore) Hi David, The composition of food has an effect on the being. Fasting and food intake can alter the character temporarily. What form does your compassion take? Lobster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2001 Report Share Posted May 2, 2001 Lobster wrote: > The composition of food > has an effect on the being. > Fasting and food intake > can alter the character > temporarily. > What form does your compassion take? For one, since converting to cannibalism I will only eat vegetarians. David (compassionate, organic cannibalist) NetZero Platinum No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month! http://www.netzero.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2001 Report Share Posted May 2, 2001 On Wed, 02 May 2001 04:54:56 -0000 "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery writes: > , David Bozzi <david.bozzi@n...> wrote: > > Tony O'Clery wrote: > > [snip] > > Namaste, > > Ahhh the wisdom of the universities. Man has been on the planet > probably 10 million years according to Cayce. You discount science and erect *Edgar Cayce* as a credible contradictory authority, qualifying it with "probably?" Well, that's enough for me, I'm certainly convinced! :-) [snip] http://come.to/realization http://www.atman.net/realization http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm ______________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2001 Report Share Posted May 2, 2001 On 5/2/01 at 4:54 AM Tony O'Clery wrote: [...] ºNamaste, [...] º ºAll this blurb doesn't alter my original position that it is ºcompassion that the vegetarian has. He doesn't need to rationalise ºanimal and primitive behaviour. If your awareness sheath isn't ºdeveloped then you probably behave like a primitive carnivore, thats ºthe stage you are at....There is no liberation without compassion, it ºis probably impossible.....ONS Tony. Hi Tony. I have known vegetarians who were maltreating their bodies to such an extent that even compared to "primitive carnivores" as you call them, their bodies were more dead than alive. With a mind as dark as the clouded sky on a moonless night... Aware only of "I and my ethical whims" <laugh> Not to mention those ethical vegetarians having cats but depriving the 'beloved pets' from fresh meat. With a mind as dark as the clouded sky on a moonless night... Aware only of "I and my whimsy ethics" <laugh> And did I forget to mention those many city dwellers, for whom meat is no more than a box from the supermarket? BTW, how come you still aren't liberated? Perhaps you're lacking in compassion for the consumers of fried carrion <laugh> Joy and laughter, Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2001 Report Share Posted May 2, 2001 , Bruce Morgen <editor@j...> wrote: > > On Wed, 02 May 2001 04:54:56 -0000 "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> > writes: > > , David Bozzi <david.bozzi@n...> wrote: > > > Tony O'Clery wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > Namaste, > > > > Ahhh the wisdom of the universities. Man has been on the planet > > probably 10 million years according to Cayce. > > You discount science and erect > *Edgar Cayce* as a credible > contradictory authority, > qualifying it with "probably?" Namaste, I'm not trying to write a university paper, most science is nescience. It changes all the time that is its nature....To me, Cayce, at 95% accuraccy that is better than modern science even.....ONS Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2001 Report Share Posted May 2, 2001 Tony O'Clery wrote: Ahhh the wisdom of the universities. Man has been on the planet probably 10 million years according to Cayce. 20 million if you count hominids. There were intelligent 'created',descents, as in genesis 6, or in Bhagavata 3. Yes there were many types of hominid other than Adamic man. That is part of my point. 2 million years ago is still not that far away. All this blurb doesn't alter my original position that it is compassion that the vegetarian has. He doesn't need to rationalise animal and primitive behaviour. If your awareness sheath isn't developed then you probably behave like a primitive carnivore, thats the stage you are at....There is no liberation without compassion, it is probably impossible..... My motive for supplying evidence, ['blurb' to you] had nothing to do with altering someone's position. I was simply hungary and decided to make an omelete. [CRACK!] Of course I did not write that 'blurb'. I simply quoted it as I am quite unoriginal. In maintaining consistency with my unoriginality I will now quote what someone else on this list said before: Daniel Berkow wrote: If what I say is off-base for you, please disregard. While I don't buy some of what you're saying as historical information, I accept that if it's true for you, and important to you, so it is. To me, it's not an important point or worth further energy to debate. The inquiry "Who am I?" also known as "What is the nature of reality?" seems to the point, David (unoriginal, quoting, monkey) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2001 Report Share Posted May 2, 2001 , "jb" <janb@a...> wrote: > On 5/2/01 at 4:54 AM Tony O'Clery wrote: > [...] > ºNamaste, > [...] > º > ºAll this blurb doesn't alter my original position that it is > ºcompassion that the vegetarian has. He doesn't need to rationalise > ºanimal and primitive behaviour. If your awareness sheath isn't > ºdeveloped then you probably behave like a primitive carnivore, thats > ºthe stage you are at....There is no liberation without compassion, it > ºis probably impossible.....ONS Tony. > > Hi Tony. > I have known vegetarians who were maltreating their bodies to such > an extent that even compared to "primitive carnivores" as you call them, > their bodies were more dead than alive. With a mind as dark as the clouded sky > on a moonless night... Aware only of "I and my ethical whims" <laugh> > > Not to mention those ethical vegetarians having cats but depriving the 'beloved > pets' from fresh meat. With a mind as dark as the clouded sky on a moonless night... > Aware only of "I and my whimsy ethics" <laugh> > And did I forget to mention those many city dwellers, for whom meat is > no more than a box from the supermarket? > > BTW, how come you still aren't liberated? > Perhaps you're lacking in compassion for the consumers > of fried carrion <laugh> > > Joy and laughter, > Jan Namaste, Compassion for the animal is more important than satisfying an ego desire of consuming dead flesh. It is important not, just not to interfere in the animals karma, but to rise above one's own egoistic addiction as well. Realising this and giving up the addiction helps in spiritual awareness. That was my original point and still is my point, notwithstanding scientific rationalisations of why a being's death and torture isn't important...I obviously am not getting through to you and your funny mates, but that is exactly my point. The raising of awareness....You may attack me as much as you want in your anger and derision, I'm Irish it is like water off a duck's back...ONS Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2001 Report Share Posted May 2, 2001 On 5/2/01 at 11:21 PM Tony O'Clery wrote: º ºNamaste, º ºCompassion for the animal is more important than satisfying an ego ºdesire of consuming dead flesh. Can you prove that? ºIt is important not, just not to ºinterfere in the animals karma, but to rise above one's own egoistic ºaddiction as well. Define "egoistic addiction" please. Is there something like "unselfish" addiction? ºRealising this and giving up the addiction helps ºin spiritual awareness. Are you suggesting a split between "worldly" and "spiritual" awareness? For those with unadulterated mind, there is just 'awareness'. º That was my original point and still is my ºpoint, notwithstanding scientific rationalisations of why a being's ºdeath and torture isn't important... Does that include the intestinal bacteria? And how about parasitic worms - just leave them there? Just a question... ºI obviously am not getting through ºto you and your funny mates, but that is exactly my point. Of course not - but could it be because you are lacking in "consistent reasoning"? Or expressing yourself in "fuzzy language"? The raising ºof awareness.... Raising above what - Mount Everest? Or raising above issues like "food"? You may attack me as much as you want in your anger ºand derision, I'm Irish it is like water off a duck's back...ONS Tony. Of course - you either are "right" or perceive "attack". The predictable conditioned mind, lacking in "consistent reasoning". More solid than "The Rock" (Alcatraz) and a seemingly safe place to guard "sacred cows". Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2001 Report Share Posted May 3, 2001 Dear What you say below is just your own belief, as is anything we state in such a way. I think the karma we make for ourselves by denouncing others as less spiritually advanced than ourselves is much greater than that of eating meat. Jan is a fruitarian, for heavens sake! He just accepts that 'other people' are doing what they do and realises the humour of trying to make ourselves our to be 'more advanced spiritually' whilst carrying on in such a way. You have stated several times you are not 'realised'. Maybe when you are you can then tell people what they should and should not do, decide what makes a person more spiritually advanced and so on; and will no doubt have lost the compulsion to do so. namaste, gill Allspirit Website: http://www.allspirit.co.uk Tony O'Clery <aoclery > Namaste, > > Compassion for the animal is more important than satisfying an ego > desire of consuming dead flesh. It is important not, just not to > interfere in the animals karma, but to rise above one's own egoistic > addiction as well. Realising this and giving up the addiction helps > in spiritual awareness. That was my original point and still is my > point, notwithstanding scientific rationalisations of why a being's > death and torture isn't important...I obviously am not getting through > to you and your funny mates, but that is exactly my point. The raising > of awareness....You may attack me as much as you want in your anger > and derision, I'm Irish it is like water off a duck's back...ONS Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.