[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brad Nelson:
[QB]What I'd invite now is anyone who has something to say about the larger issue of vegetarianism and spirituality to jump right in.

Jump right in? Without a net? Well, fortunately I love vegetables: carrots, onions, brocolli, cabbage, tomatoes, peas, beans, lettuce, spinach, parsley, sage, rosemary and...well...you know...they're all good. But so is a thick, juicy, tender cut of steak. Rarely do I eat them (heh, heh), but I do. Wanna beef about that?

Brad,

You're a nut!

Thank you.

qt

You're a nut!

YW. Nuts are full of protein, and most of us...err, them...are comprised of the non-animal "good" types of fat. Nuts are fun. What other food makes you work so hard just to get at the good parts? Bananas are for wimps. Real men eat coconuts. Nuts are guilt-free protein you can enjoy almost anywhere. And nuts are just, well, nutty! We need a national campaign to extoll the virtues of the humble, yet worthy, nut. I'd suggest a slogan such as "Nuts: they're no longer just for squirrels". Here's to the nuts everywhere.

Originally posted by Brad Nelson:
You're a nut!

YW. Nuts are full of protein, and most of us...err, them...are comprised of the non-animal "good" types of fat. Nuts are fun. What other food makes you work so hard just to get at the good parts? Bananas are for wimps. Real men eat coconuts. Nuts are guilt-free protein you can enjoy almost anywhere. And nuts are just, well, nutty! We need a national campaign to extoll the virtues of the humble, yet worthy, nut. I'd suggest a slogan such as "Nuts: they're no longer just for squirrels". Here's to the nuts everywhere.

And they're great for vegetarians....lol....

Thanks for adding perspective Brad. I was beginning to think 'Jesus is definitely not a vegetarian' vs. 'I don't know if he was or not' was going to determine the fate of our planet....

You are a coconut. I am a Brazil nut.....Phil and Chris are....wellllll....(don't tempt me )

What's YW? Wyoming backwards?

Tee

You are a coconut. I am a Brazil nut.....Phil and Chris are....wellllll.


I see this discussion has shifted away from the serious into the realm of frivolity.

Just wondering, however, Uraqt, if after all those exchanges, you still think the issue of Jesus being a vegetarian is an "open question"? Will we be hearing all about this again from you when someone else raises the issue? Do you think whether or not Jesus had sex is still an "open question?"

I ask all this not to attack (truly, Phil), but because you raise issues, people make responses, then you dismiss those responses simply by saying "I disagree," but don't give reasons for your disagreements and don't really respond to the points raised. There's no real discussion happening then.

For the record, you may think you somehow made your case for Jesus being a vegetarian (and even sexually active?), but you really didn't. You only posted responses. Not the same thing at all.

I'll drop it now, as it's clear you have no intention explaining either what you were implying about Phil and I because we viewed the "Passover Plot" as blasphemous. It seemed a cheap shot, and still does.

Chris

Dear Chris, Phil, Sr. Louise, and Board at Heartland:

On November 5, 01, I received two unsolicited posts from Chris. After our exchange, I publicly posted at shalomplace asking him not to post me again either privately or publicly.

On January 2, 02, I sent Chris a private post with the header: "your post to me at shalomplace". In this post, I once again asked him not to post me, after reading his post addressed to me, in the Adi Da section of the shalomplace boards.

If you check his most recent postings to me at sp, you will see that I did, in fact, respond to his initial questions but, then, in the next post, once again asked him to stop posting me.

I am not interested in carrying on any sort of a 'discussion' with you Chris.

I am requesting that you stop trying to interact with me. I have no intention of answering any of your questions.

Sincerely,

Tee

(Phil, you have my full permission to read the exchanges between us stored in my sp mailbox.)

Uraqt, I've no intention of snooping in your private messages here; I don't even know that an Admin can do so--delete them, maybe, but probably not read them.

Anyone may address anyone else on the public aspect of this forum, however. As I read back on this thread, I see an amicable exchange between you and Chris. Then there was that broadside which you took at him and me. It seems you have been interacting with Chris--both in a friendly and not-so-friendly way.

No one is required to respond to anyone's question or comments on this board. If you don't want to interact with him from now on, then just don't. Ignore his posts; just skip over them. You're under no obligation to read them, nor to reply to his questions and comments. Just ignore him if he bothers you. If you don't want private messages from him, click on his profile icon in one of his posts and then click the Add to Ignore List link.

As I read over your exchanges, I am struck by the hostility between you two, but I'm wondering if that will ever heal if you don't even talk to each other. I'm also struck by the civility which you are both making an effort to maintain. As Brad and others can affirm, disagreements of this kind can often get "down and dirty" on Internet fora. Thank you both for avoiding that error.

Hang in there, both of you, and strive for peace.

Phil

Deleted by Tee with Phil's permission

To have you address me in this way is akin to having Cardinal Law address the parents of children who have been abused by his pedophile priests as a moral leader. It is a sick joke.


Well, Uraqt, I'm not sure what I said that was so offensive, but there was no call for that remark about Cardinal Law.

It sounds like you're planning on taking a break from the forums. Come back when you're ready.

Phil

Phil said:

I agree with your philosophy of living as nonviolently as possible, but don't understand how eating vegetables is less violent than eating animals--especially, as in your case, where no distinction is made between the kinds of souls enlivening entities. Eating lots of plants would seem to be doing more violence than eating one animal--at least from the plants' point of view. See what I mean?

Eating (killing) vegetables rather than animals is less violent because vegetables have a lower consciousness than animals.

I'm a really strict vegetarian, but if I was starving, I certainly might eat meat rather than starve. Causing my own death rather than a pig's would be an act of greater violence (not to mention my sense of self-preservation).

Vegeatables or trees can withstand terrible heat and cold without it 'bothering them' because of the way they are - of low consciousness. An animal, much less a human would be so uncomfortable to stand outside in ice, snow or desert conditions that they would leave their body (die).

You can see that (especially more intelligent) animals (such as cats, dogs and horses) have a great deal in common with humans - they have a family, home, sex, they eat, sleep and affection for others. Some use a primitive language. This is not so true of plants. Therefore, it is clear (obvious) that there is more pain caused to say, a cow being slaughtered, than a carrot being picked, chopped and boiled.

The vaishnava point of view is that all violence causes a sinful reaction (as ye sow...); however, vegetarian food CAN be offered to God as a sacrifice, who takes away that sinful reaction.

Sorry to have been away from the discussion for a while; I hope people can stop bickering and stay on-topic.

Arjunanatha

Hi... simply have to chime in on this discussion... not the vegetarian part per se but the violence part. I have a difficult time seeing eating either plants or animals as violent. Do not all living things feed off others in one way or another? Plants receive nourishment from the minerals etc. left from dead decaying plants, animals feed off of plants and other animals - as do we. For me the violence comes in when we destroy or kill unnecessarily - wantonly... whether we kill either plant or animal or even other humans. To destroy a forest to build a golf course is a type of violence. To kill an animal for it's tusks or its "rack" or because it happens to be in a place we don't want it to be in is to me a type of violence. I find it violent when ships leak oil and destroy millions of sea creatures and when acid rain destroys a forest.
I guess it all goes back to the question of whether we are owners or caretakers - what is meant by dominion over.
Just my two cents worth....
Peace,
Wanda

Arjunanatha, I see your point and respect the reverence for life that you are expressing in your diet. I can also go along with plants having less consciousness than animals, although there are lower and higher animals, as you know. Fish have much less consciousness than birds, which have less than rabbits, which have less than gorillas, etc.

Even so, what seems clear is that animals aren't especially conscious of their consciousness, and so the degree of pain and suffering they endure when, say, a fish is caught or a chicken killed is very brief. They don't really know that their death is coming, and so there's no anxiety about being fattened up for the slaughter. Wanda makes the point about the kind of violence or reverence we bring to the action, and that's important, too. None of us should eat a piece of meat without expressing gratitude for them animal that has given its life for us to have its protein; same goes for plants as well. Mindlessly slaughtering and consuming meat (quite commonplace) is another matter, however. I'm convinced that much of the bad karma you alluded to can be canceled with prayers of gratitude and reverence.

The Lord Jesus has not forbidden his followers to eat meat. Far from it. But I don't think this gives us license to kill indiscriminately, nor to be careless about our diet. It's a question of the kind of attitude we bring to our responsibility for the earth, as Wanda also noted.

Thanks for looking past the bickering and picking up the thread again.

Phil

Hi guys,
I just caught up on all the posts. It's not a net i need...pass the dramine, I'm dizzy.
thanks for the laugh, Phil. Your response about using a cookbook for a refernece while dismissing the Bible, and ending with a sigh gave me the best laugh in a long time. It just struck my funny bone. So this was a positive venture.

Hi Ana. Thanks for jumping in and for sharing. I actually did intend the cookbook vs. Bible remark in a spirit of levity, and am glad you took it so.

Let us know your thoughts on the topic when you have the time or inclination.

Phil

(moved from another thread: posted by <SADIE>

-------------

MR>DASA

You said we reap what we sow. The Hare Krishnas are going bankrupt because of the high number of child abuse cases. Is your religion reaping what it sows?

Did the 6 million Jews in the Holocaust reap what they sowed?

SADIE