1. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    13 Feb '11 07:18
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    Hey, Iam not having this conversation.
    Well you raised the issue. You mentioned "the jungle" two or three times and linked it to why you believe people are - or aren't - "forced" to eat meat. I can't see anyone else explaining what you meant for you, so the onus is on you to explain what you mean. You raised "the jungle", not me. You raised it in direct response to my comment. Now I am asking you to explain your point.
  2. Lowlands paradise
    Joined
    25 Feb '09
    Moves
    14018
    13 Feb '11 11:49
    Originally posted by FMF
    So what if "they don't need to eat meat"? They need to eat food. So they eat food. Meat is food. People don't need to eat watercress but they eat it nevertheless. If someone has no personal reason to [b]not eat meat - whether it be political, health-related or spiritual - then there is no reason to not eat meat. Your raising the issue of "need" ...[text shortened]... ice to be a vegetarian. It is not relevant to a person who chooses not to be a vegetarian.[/b]
    If someone has no personal reason to [b]not eat meat - whether it be political, health-related or spiritual - then there is no reason to not eat meat.[/b]
    Some people reject eating meat for moral reasons.
    1. Science (and personal observation) tells us that mammals have an awareness of suffering.
    2. Our moral code invites us to avoid unnecessary suffering of beings who have an awareness of suffering.
    3. Meat consumption contributes to animal suffering.
    4. We shouldn't eat meat/slaughter mammals when we don't need to.
  3. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    13 Feb '11 11:54
    Originally posted by souverein
    Some people reject eating meat for [b]moral reasons.[/b]
    Yes. Perhaps 'moral' straddles my 'political' and 'spiritual' categories, in a way. I personally do not have a moral objection to eating meat even though the four points you mention make a strong case.
  4. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    16 Feb '11 00:36
    Originally posted by Dasa
    ... the only persons who need to eat meat would be persons in a jungle hunting and being forced to eat meat. but that's the minority
    What does "the jungle" have to do with this? How are "persons in a jungle" forced to eat meat? The "jungle" is absolutely teeming with edible non-meat sources of food such as fruit, nuts, berries, root vegetables, leaves, pith, saps, mushrooms, herbs etc. How are they any more or less "forced to eat meat" than people not in the "jungle"?
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    16 Feb '11 04:45
    Originally posted by FMF
    What does "the jungle" have to do with this? How are "persons in a jungle" forced to eat meat? The "jungle" is absolutely teeming with edible non-meat sources of food such as fruit, nuts, berries, root vegetables, leaves, pith, saps, mushrooms, herbs etc. How are they any more or less "forced to eat meat" than people not in the "jungle"?
    I believe that unless you are farming, it is difficult to get sufficient nutrition without meat.
  6. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    16 Feb '11 05:53
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I believe that unless you are farming, it is difficult to get sufficient nutrition without meat.
    And you are under the impression that "persons in the jungle" don't farm?
  7. Wat?
    Joined
    16 Aug '05
    Moves
    76863
    16 Feb '11 10:32
    Originally posted by Dasa
    Not true....

    Because you become an atheist by choosing to ignore the reality of God, which by default make you an atheist.

    So there is choice there.

    You cannot prove there is not a God.......so that leaves an opening for there to be a God.

    So if there is an opening for there to be a God, you must choose which way to go.

    You have chosen to go for "there is no God"
    Not necessarily true!

    Buddhists do not say there is 'no God'. We say we are sitting out, until there is evidence of a God. The same way you cannot prove there is a God, we don't see evidence of there being a God. That doesn't mean to say there isn't.

    And yet, we are considered atheistic.

    Based upon that, we 'haven't' chosen that there is no God. We wait in anticipation of evidence, or no evidence to the contrary.

    -m.
  8. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    16 Feb '11 21:20
    Originally posted by mikelom
    Not necessarily true!

    Buddhists do not say there is 'no God'. We say we are sitting out, until there is evidence of a God. The same way you cannot prove there is a God, we don't see evidence of there being a God. That doesn't mean to say there isn't.

    And yet, we are considered atheistic.

    Based upon that, we 'haven't' chosen that there is no God. We wait in anticipation of evidence, or no evidence to the contrary.

    -m.
    Well then that position you described is acceptable, only if you have lived the spiritual life presented by Vedanta, for by living the spiritual life one develops realization of God.

    But take this into account............Vedanta explains that to come to know God, a person must qualify themselves first, meaning that when a person is in the conditioned state (nearly everyone).....they have not the sufficient spiritual insight to understand the God principle.

    Just like if someone put in front of me a page of sheet music, it would just be a page of scribble and mean nothing to me.... but for some one who is qualified in music they could easily understand......so likewise persons who live and practice spirituality as described by Vedanta, develop this spiritual insight and then can clearly understand the reality of God.

    Persons who do not practice the purificatory spiritual process of spirituality, will remain unqualified to develop this insight.

    Some persons are born with this insight to a degree.

    Persons who do not have this spiritual insight and speculate with their conditioned mind will always embrace error, and this is problematic in understanding the God factor......and they might even say their is no God.
  9. Subscriberjosephw
    Owner
    Scoffer Mocker
    Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9958
    16 Feb '11 23:14
    Originally posted by Dasa
    "Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature. If the whole world adopts vegetarianism, it can change the destiny of humankind."
    Albert Einstein


    "There is just no reason why animals should be slaughtered to serve as human diet when there are so many substitutes. Man can live without meat."
    The Dalai Lama


    "If man wants freedom why keep bi ...[text shortened]...
    "It is s...
    [/b]"Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature..."[/b]

    Pale, anemic, weak, soft, wimpy, girlish, sissyish, jibber-jabbering, unable to hear anyone but themselves talking and talking and talking and.....


    Jesus was crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. Jesus is Lord.

    You believe a lie if you don't believe that.
  10. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    17 Feb '11 01:55
    Originally posted by josephw
    "Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature..."[/b]

    Pale, anemic, weak, soft, wimpy, girlish, sissyish, jibber-jabbering, unable to hear anyone but themselves talking and talking and talking and.....


    Jesus was crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. Jesus is Lord.

    You believe a lie if you don't believe that.[/b]
    I dont accept anything written or spoken (spiritual knowledge) by persons who are cruel to animals, for to be cruel is a sign of ignorance and impurity and therefore the authenticy of the Bible is defiantly in question for it supports cruelty.
  11. Lowlands paradise
    Joined
    25 Feb '09
    Moves
    14018
    17 Feb '11 08:28
    Jesus was crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. Jesus is Lord.
    You believe a lie if you don't believe that.[/b]
    "Jesus was crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. Jesus is Lord."
    The first two statements might be true; the last two certainly not.
    How do you want to call that?
  12. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    17 Feb '11 10:44
    Originally posted by Dasa
    I dont accept anything written or spoken (spiritual knowledge) by persons who are cruel to animals...
    Well I have little time for people who admit that they "don't accept anything written or spoken by persons who are 'cruel' to animals". You know, I think you're starting to get the hang of this there are different belief systems out there thing. If this is part of the new Dasa persona - and if it's sincere - then I welcome it.
  13. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    17 Feb '11 15:57
    Originally posted by FMF
    Well I have little time for people who admit that they "don't accept anything written or spoken by persons who are 'cruel' to animals". You know, I think you're starting to get the hang of this there are different belief systems out there thing. If this is part of the new Dasa persona - and if it's sincere - then I welcome it.
    Once again you twist meaning....

    You are aware that I mean the following.....I do not accept what religious persons are saying in the context of spiritual discussion, if those persons support animal cruelty and say it is not wrong.

    Because if these pseudo religionists say that it is not wrong.......then it will mean they will easily fabricate anything from then on, after such a fanciful statement that animal cruelty is not wrong.
  14. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    17 Feb '11 16:05
    Originally posted by Dasa
    You are aware that I mean the following.....I do not accept what religious persons are saying in the context of spiritual discussion, if those persons support animal cruelty and say it is not wrong.
    I am not aware of anyone supporting animal cruelty on this forum. I don't support animal cruelty, as I have explained to you, and which you have accepted.

    Many people disagree with you about there being a spiritual imperative to be a vegetarian. Quite clearly "religious" people and "spiritual people" can eat meat.

    Just saying - over and over and over again - you cannot accept anything they say in a spiritual context doesn't achieve anything in terms of discussion or engagement and sound more like a poster's final remarks before leaving the community.

    What do you think you will achieve by calling people who disagree with you "dishonest" and "in error" in what seems like every singe one of your posts?
  15. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    17 Feb '11 16:31
    Originally posted by josephw
    "Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature..."[/b]

    Pale, anemic, weak, soft, wimpy, girlish, sissyish, jibber-jabbering, unable to hear anyone but themselves talking and talking and talking and.....


    Jesus was crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. Jesus is Lord.

    You believe a lie if you don't believe that.[/b]
    “..."Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature..."

    Pale, anemic, weak, soft, wimpy, girlish, sissyish, jibber-jabbering, ..... “

    LOL

    like you, I am not too impresses with this "Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature" comment.
    I can think of some very good reasons for becoming vegetarian (like I did) but he hasn't mentioned any of them.
    The main good reasons for becoming vegetarian is to reduce the pressure on our dangerously limited resources (including land , water, and energy) and, depending on what kind of meat and how much saturated fat it has (if you don't go vegi ) and lifestyle factors, possibly health.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree