What are the best sources of protein for mercury toxic people? Is it bad to take dairy products? What should be taken instead?

This is a real problem for me because;

1. I want low carb
2. I'm vegetarian (aspiring to be vegan).

Any vegan protein supplements (i.e. rice) out there that don't contain aspartame or heavy metal contamination?

Brazil nuts are extremely high in protein.

Hemp products.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Carla, my concern with the hemp is that it's from the same plants as cannabis? Have you tried it yourself? I'd be interested to know your experience.

The hemp they grow for food has no THC in it at all, it is a different variety. For years, the US govt. would not allow the importation of Canadian-grown hemp, but now they do, having been convinced that it is safe and contains nothing bad.

I love hemp products, esp. the "hemp hearts" - that is the husked hemp seed. It is high in complete protein and has a good ratio of Omega 6 to Omega 3. There is good info on the w.w. web on this topic. Don't be afraid to try it - this is a good food. My children love it. We feel well nourished by this natural whole food. I know it sounds like I am advertising or something, but I am not a hemp farmer, nor do I sell it!

If anyone here has any knowledge of disadvantages of hemp products, please let me know.

If I see some hemp products, I might give one a try. If I do get high, at least it would be a change to depression <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

After reading about how hemp has a better quality protien than many meat-- i've started eating things with organic hemp. It's very filling and my body really responds well to it.

Carla, is hemp a grain?

Is hemp a grain? No, it is not a grain, but culinarily speaking, sometimes some people will lump it in with grains. Also, it has been recommended for people who should not consume gluten.

Hi Demi -- I used to be a strict vegetarian. I'm not trying to discourage you from it, but I'm not sure it's the best diet for folks recovering from mercury poisoning.

Huggins mentions that vegetarians/vegans tend to have a more difficult time recovering from CMP. I did alot of reading and research on this issue, and I could never come up with a scientifically foolproof answer.

However, after going 6 months post-removal without really feeling a whole lot better, I decided to put aside my reservations and experiment with a small portion of meat. I *immediately* felt better -- significantly so. I don't know what is special about animal protein, but there is something about meat that just makes me feel better.

What I do now is eat one meal a day that contain animal protein, typically chicken, turkey, grass-fed bison or beef, or eggs, per day. My other 2 meals are strict vegetarian. I feel worlds better than before.

If you're concerned about the ethical, environmental and health issues, I buy strictly organic/free range meats, or at the very least, products that don't use antibiotics or growth hormones and that are raised in humane conditions. I'm thankful to have both local farmers in my area who sell such products and an excellent health food store that carries top quality products.

I also have a hemp protein smoothie for breakfast, with organic fruits, hemp protein, and rice milk. But I've found the animal protein is absolutely necessary for me.

I would stay away from dairy products altogether, and some people have problems with eggs. However, I have had no issues with high sulfur foods like eggs.

Hope that helps.

Tom

p.s. I wonder if it's even possible to have a low carb, strict vegetarian diet. I tend to doubt it.

Thanks for the input Tom. I'm glad you've found a solution that works for you. I myself would rather die than eat an animal, so it's not an option for me. I can understand why others feel the need to go back to meat, though. It's just not something I myself will ever do.

Besides, I actually got better when I became a vegetarian at 15. I suffered terrible OCD while I had the fillings on a regular basis, but once I stopped having fillings, no longer had braces, and became a vegetarian, I went from a chronic sufferer to "almost" normal.

If meat was so essential, I don't think I would have had such a dramatic improvement when all that was different was the fillings and the braces. I am optimistic that I will get such an improvement again when the root canal and other fillings are gone. I was also eating dairy at that time, so with the dairy gone, I should have better odds of getting better.

I won't resort to something I totally don't believe in just because it is the opinion of one expert that it is necessary. I don't blindly trust anyone that much, certainly not when thorough research has not been done on the subject. No disrespect to Huggins intended.

Demi, I understand your aversion to meat. However, if you find in the future that you want to try animal protein without killing an animal, perhaps organic eggs are the way to go. They don't have to be fertile eggs - so you are not killing anything. And, if you have even a small back yard, if it is legal in your area, you can have chickens yourself and get fresh eggs every morning. I got chickens two years ago. Not only do we like the eggs, but chickens are lovely, funny pets. But, if you can't keep chickens, often organic free range eggs are sold in the store. One of the reasons I got chickens was to save some chickens from the horrible fate of egg production as it is practised today. They are free-range and run around our yard all day. Or, if you buy organic, you are encouraging farmers to go free-range with their chickens. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Maybe, if enough people do this, most chickens will have better lives. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Since CMP is generally not accepted by the mainstream medical community, it's not likely you will see any scienftic studies exploring such issues. Who is going to fund the study about animal vs. plant sources of protein in mercury poisoned individuals. Not gonna happen.

As a result, you are left to experiment for yourself.

I think you'll find that nearly everyone recommends a high protein diet. The unkown factor is what is so special about animal sources of protein vs. other sources. But again, because it has not been verified through some study, that does not make it untrue. Of course, it doesn't make it true either.

I don't believe in blindly believing anyone either. That's why I chose to experiment personally. There is no substitute for direct, 1st hand experience. I'll believe my own experience over some study any day. I'm glad I did -- boy do I feel much better as a result.

I have talked to many others who have had identical experiences to mine, incidentally. Although I'm certainly not suggesting that what works for us will work for everyone.

Best of luck.

Tom

Even if it was 100% proved that animal protein helps the detox process, it wouldn't change my mind about eating meat. I don't believe in taking the life of an innocent creature to either convenience or improve my life. It's not the chicken's or the cow's fault I am poisoned.

I respect everyone's decision to eat meat, and I hope that people can respect mine to not.

Well, whether you realize it or not, you are directly contributing to the deaths of all kinds of animals and other living creatures. When that big Combine sweeps through the wheat field to supply the wheat for your bread (or rice or whatever), all kinds of snakes, birds, insects, moles and other creatures are killed in the process. Multiply this by number of vegetarians in the world, and you have hundreds of thousands of dead animals and insects.

When the house or apartment building that you live in was constructed, all kinds of wildlife was killed and/or displaced. As human population continues to grow, that process only continues.

Or consider the water treatment plants, dams, highways, bridges etc. that have been built -- they all result in the deaths of animals and other life forms.

Nearly all human activity results in some life or death impact on the natural world.

Just because you don't eat animals, that does not mean you aren't killing them.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the killing -- it's the immense pain and suffering involved with modern food production. I have no problem killing a bison that grazed its entire life in a field, as long as that process is humane (and it is). I should be so lucky to die such a quick, painless death. Of course modern factory farms are another story altogether.

The bottom line is that life on earth results in the deaths of other living creatures, despite the fact that the ways in which you contribute to such death is not immediately visible.

I have not the slightest craving for meat and I believe that that lack of desire for it came about by my grasp of the ugliness of killing, your "humane" slaughter notwithstanding.

It is true that the land where my house is situated was once a home to some wild living things - probably insects or mice, though the species is irrelevant. So - what does this mean? That I should ADD to that injustice by eatijng buffalo that was "humanely" (you're fooling yourself) dispatched? Where does one even find a wild buffalo nowadays? To eat any animal raised in captivity for the sole purpose of being killed is to my mind improper. Moral people hunt down, and kill, the animal themselves.

Dear Anonymous,

If eating meat does not feel good to you (i.e. you have some emotional aversion to it), then you are essentially acting in your own self-interest by avoiding it. But let's not confuse that with some kind of altruism or morality.

I'm not sure why you put "humanely" in quotes. There are humane ways to kill and inhumane ways to kill. To lead an animal into the slaughterhouse one at a time to reduce stress and put a quick jolt to the head is humane. To raise an animal in an overcrowded pen where it nevers see the light of day or has room to roam and be pumped full of antibiotic-laced grain and growth hormones, only to be led en masse into a slaughterhouse is not humane.

I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that I was suggesting you should do anything at all. What you should or should not do is of no consequence to me. I was simply stating that vegetarians contribute to a great many animals deaths, many of which I am certain die a much more painful death than a quick bolt to the head, which is almost instantaneous, if done right. Imagine a squirrel or bird mutilated in a combine left to die a slow death in a wheat field so that there is bread for our hummus sandwhiches.

In fact, it could be reasonably argued that a vegetarian diet results in *more* deaths than a meat eaters. If we consider all of the animals and other living creatures that die to produce the rice, soybeans for the soyburgers, wheat, corn, and other products that are produced using modern farming machinery and then consider how many animals die during the harvesting of a grass-fed bison (that would be 1), the results are rather obvious. I realize that does not describe most meat eaters, and I'm certainly not speaking for them, but those options are available. I think it's impossible to tell which results in more deaths, but the point is valid.

You'd have to provide some kind of reasoning as to why raising animals in captivity is improper. I'm not talking about factory farmed animals, but rather free-ranging animals like bison who roam and graze and live an otherwise pretty darn good life I would think by bison standards. Are they in pain? Do they suffer? What makes it improper?

One thing I think we both would agree on is that most people eat way too much meat. Given the current human population, imagine what the world would be like if everyone ate as much meat as the average American or European.

As to hunting, you'll have to explain to me why piercing a deer with an arrow or shooting it wit a gun is more "moral" than raising a chicken for food. You might only wound or maim the animal, if you don't get a direct hit, causing a great deal of suffering and pain for the animal. If you are avoiding meat for moral reasons, then I would think this would be an important point. How is causing more suffering for an animal more humane than ensuring a quick, painless death with a quick, direct jolt to the head?

Not that I have anything against hunting for survival. Were we still living in the hunter/gather era, hunting down and killing animals in that fashion works well. It's just not feasible with 4 billion plus people on the planet -- we all don't have hundreds of acres to hunt wild game like Ted Nugent. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I have no problem with someone living in Alaska killing a caribou, dressing it, quartering it, and freezing the meat for the year's supply of protein. It just doesn't work on large scale is all.

Should the human population somehow get reduced to 4 million instead of 4 billion, then hunting/gathering becomes a perfectly viable lifestyle again. Not an option for those living in London and Manhattan in 2006 though.

Here is an excellent article by the way, which raises some very good points for consideration:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/280191.shtml

Good luck with the mercury issue.

Tom

Can't we all just respect each other's views? We're all here to help and support each other <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Depends what you mean by "respect". When someone makes strong statements that you disagree with, it is disrespectul to ignore that person & his statements, because he obviously is trying to interact with you. Further, it is disrespectful to one's self to ignore strong statements that oppose one's own beliefs. We ALL have to stand up for ourselves.

I don't see why a bit of intellectual jousting in cyber space causes you distress, Demi. Personally, I try to stop others' conflicts only when some deep harm is going to be done. If the owner of this forum doesn't like the members here having a relatively respectful conflict, he can always delete our posts and give us a scolding. You know, like we're little children in kindergarten.

Ta33, I am familiar with those arguments put forth by R. Manning in that article you posted for us, and they are not at all new to me. I actually agree with most of it.

But, you see, or I hope you see, no one eats (or should eat) accordingly to a set of abstract principles based on what our ancestors ate, because - for one thing, only - humans have irreversibly changed in the millennia since hunter-gathering. We have changed physically and we have, I hope, changed psychologically. That some of us have an almost lifelong revulsion to animals being killed directly for our own consumption must not be ignored. Many, many others have no such revulsion, and crave meat. I would not stop them from doing so even if I could.

Your bolt-in-the-head-to-the-buffalo presentation is starting to wear thin. Do YOU watch your buffalo being thus dispatched? Inquiring minds want to know! Would you want to be gently led into a slaughterhouse to receive a bolt to the head in order to feed some higher form of life? Yes. No. (Check one.) You are assuming that the buffalo (or other animal) does not know what is to come and therefore does not suffer in the least. Not so. The only way to do it humanely is to sneak up behind the animal where it is grazing in the field and shoot it very quickly. Even then, you are separating its spirit from its physical form in a quick, shocking way and this cannot be a good thing for its spiritual journey. It is said, I don't know if it is true or just the propaganda of people who mindlessly revere aboriginals, that some tribes understood this, and apologized and prayed for the animals that they hunted and killed. The one who raises animals specifically for killing or who eats the animals where someone else has done the dirty work, has never been known to do any such thing, at least not in any widespread way that I know of.

Why do I say that hunting is more humane? It is not more humane, it is less inhumane. The animal senses danger and is prepared for the chase; this is why we say it is a wild animal. (I acknowledge with sorrow the messy job that some hunters do.) The domesticated animal has no such preparation. Gol darn it, killing a domesticated animal in a pen (or a large field) is just too damn easy; it is the act of cowards. It ain't sporting - don't you get it?

You rightly note that "vegetarians contribute to a great many animal deaths". Yes, we do. But no meat eater consumes only meat; they eat it in addition to plant foods, thereby contributing even more to animal destruction and suffering. Only a fool would suggest that humans can exist without killing any sensate, ambulant being, for heaven's sake. Because we, or at least I, anyway, have somehow along my evolutionary road, developed a sense that animals want to continue their lives just as much as I do, I do what I can to reduce the directly-for-me killing. No, this does not automatically make me a more moral or altruistic person, as you correctly stated. I could actually write an entire essay on why altruism and socalled "morality" is highly overrated, by the way!

Re the shortage of humanely (according to your definition only) obtained flesh, why not go the route of the good folks in Soylent Green? It is true that some of the complete protein (heh, heh) in those wafers may have been obtained violently by the government, but a large portion came from people who arranged their own humane suicide, accompanied by lovely scenery and music of their choice. Totally voluntary, no psychic or physical pain. Regardless of what you or I eat today, human society is headed for the edge of the falls, and I can certainly foresee the kind of total social misery depicted in the that film, can't you?

I suppose I just don't like arguments.

Also, what I would like is not someone elses opinion that I should eat meat, but support for my decision not too. That's what friendship is about, isn't it?

I don't expect other people to share my views and I don't believe I will ever change someone elses views, so I just don't go into debate. Rather I support charities etc that reflect what I believe.

If everyone else enjoys the debate, well then, go right ahead! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I am unable to keep hens at the moment, but I agree it is an ideal solution <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I will look into organic hen farming.

You have raised alot of straw man arguments; so I'm not going to address things that I never said. It's really unclear to me what you are trying to argue.

The bottom line to me is that you proposed that killing animals is wrong, but you haven't laid out any coherent arguments as to why that is true. If that is not your argument, then what is it?

I have simply countered with example of how vegetarians kill too, and you acknowledge that. But I don't understand why your killing is ok, and mine is not.

Of course I don't butcher my own bison and cows, but I have been to a slaughterhouse. It is not a pretty picture, as you might imagine. But there are obvious reasons why it is impractical for me and others to witness the slaughtering of our food. It's simply not feasible in our current system of food production. I truly believe that we ought to be more aware of the consequences of our eating decisions, and under our current system, we are far removed from the impacts for our actions. This is not a good thing.

But this is certainly true for vegetarians as well. Have you been to the corn and wheat fields where the countless squirrels, birds, snakes etc. are mutilated to produce your pita bread? The reasons you have not are probably the same reasons I and other meat eaters do not.

Is all of the food you buy organic? If not, do you visit the various waterways that are polluted by the chemicals that run off from the corn fields? Have you been to Iraq to witness the death and squalor that is caused by our need for petroleum to fuel our modern agricultural system? Neither have I, of course, for obvious reasons.

You are as distant from the effects of your eating decisions than I am -- maybe more. Such is modern life. This may not be a pleasant truth, but it is the truth nonetheless -- all we can do is make the best choices we can given that reality.

So please explain to me a) why killing animals is wrong or b) under what circumstances is it ok to kill, and why under those circumstances, but not under others. Then we'll have something to go on.

This site sums up my reasons for being an aspiring vegan (I am having hard time giving up chocolate). They put it better than I ever could. I am hopeless at debate and getting over my points, so I just don't try <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

http://www.viva.org.uk/goingveggie/top20.html

Sorry, I don't have the time to address every single one of these straw men arguments on this web site, but trust me, I'm very familiar with them. I was "vegan" for a number of years. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I was more interested in addressing the specific issue that you brought up about why killing animals is wrong, or under what circumstance is it right. That was the main point, I thought, but I could be mistaken.

Hi Tom. I personally just don't want to be a part of the animal slaughter industry. That's why I became a vegetarian. All life is precious to me, even bugs. I always take bugs into the garden and try to save their life if they are stuck in the bath etc. I never drown them unless they are hurt and suffering. The times that I have had to kill a bug have been quite distressing to me. I'm 30 now and I haven't eaten meat since I was 15.

As to when it is right to kill an animal, for me it is never "right" but that sometimes it is "necessary". It's necessary to shoot a bear if it is going to attack you and it's necessary to kill bugs if they are going to overrun the home etc. I think self-defense is generally taken as an okay motive to kill - even in regards to killing another human being. If it is necessary to survive, I don't think it is "wrong", but for me personally if it can be avoided, I would prefer to avoid it.

No one has to share my view, I am perfectly okay with that. I am the only vegetarian in my family <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

PS I am not, in anyway, condemning those who eat meat for their health. It must be a very difficult decision for any former vegetarian/vegan to make.

If you are telling me that the accidental, unintentional killing of small animals & insects while growing plant foods is of the same consequence, spiritually, as poleaxing a bison between the eyes, I don't go along with that. There are degrees to all things, and we all draw the line somewhere, even you who are trying so hard to make angels dance on the head of a pin.

I don't support vegetarianism for its own sake. I see vegans who I think need a good slab of red meat - for a while, anyway.

You asked a direct question, what is wrong with killing animals for food? If you as an individual need it - nothing is wrong with that. If you don't really need it from a nutritional standpoint, then it is wrong to do something to another being that you don't want to have done to you. That is basic decency as I learned it a long time ago. Your attempt to equate my purchasing plant food from a farm where mice and insects were inadvertently killed with slaughtering a mammal is laughable. You can do better.

No, I don't grow all my own food. I grow and/or gather and "put by" maybe 20% for me and my family of 3. I don't personally "produce" things like salt & oil, etc. I have grown small patches of grain when I had the space to do it - no mechanized equipment or slave animal labor involved. But it was hard, hard, work, like African villagers on their little plots.

I am not interested in moral or spiritual "purity" that some aim for in their day to day lives, like the Jains, but neither would I go to the opposite extreme that I see practiced by 99% of the unthinking, braindead population where daily diet is concerned.

No, I haven't been to Iraq, and that war ain't about oil for our "modern agricultural system", as you think. It is a war started by George Bush and his neoconservative, Zionist puppetmasters to keep Israel safe and happy.

Isn't this post getting carried away?! Why do some feel the need to push others to the limit? Can't we each be sensitive to one another? God, in the Bible, has allowed for eating meat. He does not command us to eat meat, though. There are some methods of raising and slaughtering that are purely inhumane and need to be jettisoned. But, eating meat is not wrong, and neither is vegetarianism. If you think someone would benefit from changing their diet, tell them so. If they take your suggestion, fine. If not, that is their perogative. Live and let live and stop trying to stir up dissension! Demi, I am not referring to you. You have always stated your case but offered no judgement upon others who think differently. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Thank you, Dallas. And I share your sentiment. Live and let live <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Dallas, it sounds from your description as if it might be me, Carla, who is trying to "stir up dissension", that I am "offering judgment on those who think differently".

Yer darn tootin' I am, and thank you for noticing. (At least I hope it's me you were referring to!)

Conflict, mine or others', is not an "issue" for me. The members of this forum could go at it tooth & nail, on some other topic, and it might actually do me some good to be exposed to it. As long as you don't call anyone names, what's the problem.

Yes, our Creator certainly allowed for the consumption of meat, but did not force it. Good points. And some people are not suited to meat eating, and others are not suited to avoiding meat.

Our Creator also allowed for personal spiritual and psychological development that makes it impossible for some of us to keep quiet about deliberate animal killing, which we see as repulsive & cruel. If it takes a bit of edgy public debate to get people to see aspects of animal killing that they had not previously considered, then count me in. Actually, I guess I already counted myself in. And if my opponent thinks I am full of boloney, let him say it, too.

I think we should leave it up to the administrator/moderator to decide if he wants Sweet 'n' Nice or if he can tolerate a certain amount of discord. After all, he is owner & boss. I can handle being banned. I already got booted out of an animal rights forum for getting involved, on the prolife side, in an abortion thread started by someone else. It was Pro Abortion - 500; Anti Abortion - 1.

Hello.

I'm the administrator and I've been watching but I believe in letting people work out most of their own issues with each other. This is healthy and part of the reason we're all not created identical to each other.

We'll find that most people—whether they're "agreeable" or "confrontational" in nature—have something useful and valuable to offer. With personality strengths, there are weaknesses and vulnerabilities that naturally-occur together with those strengths. Our interaction with others reveals those weaknesses to us, often in the form of emotional pain. Our interaction then helps us to change—if we let it.

With this in mind, those who are more sensitive could realize their value and influence, even when someone a little more brash comes along. They could learn not to be hurt by words because those words are not threatening to them because they (the sensitive) already have value and need not be "easily offended" (as the Bible says). God is in control and all things work together for good.

Similarly, those with more edge could perhaps benefit from a strategy of sensitivity that would make them more effective and influential when dealing with a more sensitive person.

Some are warriers. Some are artists. Both are valuable and hopefully perform their function in the "Body" as they were designed to do. If not, God will deal with them, although He (Yahweh) expects us to kindly point out imperfections in our friends ("As iron sharpens iron...") if we discern that it is beneficial at the time. After all, it is not what is said to us that makes us great or small or useful or useless. It is what we say.

Sorry, Carla, it wasn't you I was referring to re: stirring up dissension, but if you would like, I will certainly include you in that last message <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Nope, it was Tom. It almost feels as if he is attacking Demi. You see, I know Demi has a lot of physical problems, and just plain doesn't feel well, and in her posts, I could feel her tension rising. She has enough to contend with. Now, there are some things worth fighting for, ie: things that are truly either right or wrong, but I don't feel it is worth getting all bent out of shape about things which are of personal opinion esp. if one of the parties is starting to get miffed, or hurt, or whatever. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

And, Carla, and Demi, I absolutely loathe the way many animals are treated. It is criminal in the extreme. I am not against eating meat, but I feel the animals should be treated as humanely as possible. But, if humans can't even treat our own kind humanely (ie: abortion / Terri Schiavo starvation murder aided and abetted by even the gov't! ) then animals don't stand a "chance".

Following are a few pieces of information that may be helpful.

I want to add that I value the input of both Carla and Demi as well as all others on this forum although some of your styles are very different, I have no problem with that.

Both are extremely knowledgeable and helpful to others in a variety of areas and although they have a very different style of communication, they both make excellent points. Many—including me—have benefited from the depth of the knowledge and experience they have.

For example, the discussion about animals: I believe eating meat is perfectly acceptable and healthy. So is not eating meat. it's a personal preference. Some people may have different ideas on whether or not it's healthy, but that information differs only because we get information from different sources. Although I realize the conversation got much deeper than that.

The part that is not acceptable is when animals are treated cruely. If they are raised and killed for food, they should be killed in a way that does not hurt and raised in a way that they can have a good life experience. Not surprisingly, this makes them even more healthy as food (free range, etc.).

I currently view this issue this way: The part that is not healthy is not the animal meat itself, it is the blood which is carrying the toxins and waste out of the body when the animal is killed. The Bible states not to eat the meat with the blood and there are many ways to remove the blood from the meat including using salt. Of course, salt is an important symbol in the Bible symbolizing purification. Interesting.

I also don't believe animals have spirits. They are refered to as "souls" in Genesis (see Strong's). In the spirit dwells faith and intellect and other higher attributes that animals simply don't posses because God did not intend that they be intellectual beings. They are emotional (i.e., soulful) and physical. Humans are both of these, plus spiritual (see "Breath" in Strong's: Genesis). God also demonstrates the "value" factor of human beings by saying we are of more value than "many sparrows" (Luke 12:7). This is not to say that animals are not valuable, just that humans (I believe "saved" humans) are more valuable to God.

The Bible speaks about both the grace and severity of God (Rom 11:22) but we humans don't always like to deal with the severity part. An animal had to die to make the covering for the original garden dwellers. This is an early symbol of Christ, who's death was also severe.

The spirit of mankind is the most compelling part of us. It allows us to plan for the future, create weights and measures, examine physical laws and build buildings by using faith in physical laws. It also enables us to love, sacrifice and express our will, sometimes for the better, often for the worse, but always—hopefully—improving.

Debating is a natural outcome of intellectual beings expressing their differing experiences and conclusions. It's healthy so long as it remains intellectual and does not become animal. So, debate away. Just remember that your opponent may very well be valuable to God even if they haven't come to the same conclusions you have.

It's important to remember that a debate would never occur if people were completely apathetic, so I always respect those who debate (so long as they are not simply feeding off dissention) because they have passion. Christ said He prefer that we are either hot or cold, just not apathetic (Rev 3:15-17).

On another note, research that I've read has shown that "O" blood types digest meat better than "A" blood types, who probably do better as vegetarians.

Just a little information that I hope is helpful.

Thanks for the kind words, Russ. It is nice to be valued <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I find it interesting the different views people have.

Carla, I can sympathise with you. I got banned a couple of times for my convictions on groups. That's when I realised I was only alientating people rather than doing the causes I believe in any good, so I've quit debating and channeling my efforts elsewhere. I too am pro-life. Most vegetarians are, I think.

I am A blood group so the finding is very interesting <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I'm not a theological person, but I'm not sure I agree that animals don't partake in God's kingdom. The Bible tells us that the whole of creation is groaning since the fall and in wait to be reconciled to God. That is open to interpretation, bit it suggests to me that animals might well taste eternity. They have probably suffered more than humans as a result of the fall as they have been exploited and abused. I think we are accountable to God for how we treat animals and the environment. I believe that at death the essence of our being is "saved" by God and transferred to another body (we need a brain to be sentient). This can also apply to animals. I actually think there are going to be more animals in heaven than people, lol <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Tom, I also appreciate everything that you have said, and agree with much of it. You have made me think about some things I had not considered before - ie: petroleum for tractors etc. I just did not want the discussion to detiorate to the point where someone - who is hurting already - gets hurt even more. Russ, I also appreciate what you have said re: what the Bible has to say on the subject - esp the eating of meat with the blood still in it. Based on the Bible, I also believe that we are the only eternal creatures (besides angels and the triune God himself) although I also believe that although my pets here will not greet me there, that there will be animals (the lion will lay down with the lamb). I stand to be corrected on that, though, if I am wrong.

Maybe I shouldn't say this, but I feel I should as it could be important.

I've been thinking more about the noted role of protein in recovery. It could be that there is a connection between mercuy toxicity and insulin resistance i.e. mercury mimicks insulin resistance or those with insulin resistance are vulnerable to mercury.

It's very difficult to be tested for insulin resistance as it's not diabetes, but can lead to it.

A high protein, low carb diet is recommend for those with Insulin Resistance. It's very difficult to have a high protein diet as a vegan (which is what someone has to be if they cut out dairy and don't eat meat) as many protein sources are also carb sources.

I used to be on the Atkins diet and have a couple of books about it, and meat was included as it is high in protein and low in carbs. The Atkins diet doesn't recommend more than 20 carbs a day. This would be very difficult as a vegan. It's possible as a vegetarian because sources of protein like cottage cheese are low in carbs. I manage to stick to the vegetarian Atkins for about 2 weeks and 4 weeks later I had a period, which I hadn't had previously for a year. That could be coincidence, however, as I gave up the diet and got a period again in the autumn.

I have been diagnosed medically with PCOS (poly cystic ovarian syndrome) which is thought to be rooted in Insulin Resistance. I believe my mother has mercury poisoning, and she also has a blood-sugar problem.

But I think it's only by exploring all possibilities - rather than just assuming animal protein is superior to plant protein (which is still not proved and is contested by some experts) - that we will come to unbiased answers that will ultimately help people get better.

Hi Dallas. I firmly believe that animals share salvation with us, based on my undestanding of the Bible:

ROMANS 8:19-21 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
(KJV).

LUKE 3:6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.'" (NKJ)

ECCLESIASTES 3:19-20 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath, man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust and to dust all return. (NIV)

ROMANS 8:19-21 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
(KJV).

LUKE 3:6 teaches that and all flesh shall see the salvation of God. (KJV)

PSALM 36:6 Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your judgments are like the great deep; you save humans and animals alike, O LORD. (NRS)

GENESIS 1:30 and to every animal of the earth, and to every fowl of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth on the earth, in which is a living soul, every green herb for food. And it was so. (DBY)

REV: 5-13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, [be] unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

I think God allows us to eat animals, if we want, but I think the idea of animals sharing salvation with us makes some people uncomfortable because then they have to question their treatment of animals etc.

Sorry, I pasted one quote twice. This is the site I got most of them from.

http://www.ourchurch.com/member/w/w_lasalle/

Spirit to me is sentience, which I think is valuable to God. I believe all sentient life has intrinsic value to God i.e. we and animals are valuable for ourselves, not for how much others value us.

No human might love an unknown stray dog dying in an alley on a cold winter's night, but I believe that creature matters to God, and all the suffering he/she goes through, and welcomes the dog to heaven at death.

WOW! My how a thread can go off course.

I'd just say to you folks who are against the open exchange of ideas, including differing viewpoints, or who are not comfortable with polite dissension (last time I checked, I was perfectly reasonable and civil), that you simply not participate in the discussion. Just ignore the thread and go on about your business. Why would it bother you that other people are engaged in debate? Just move on.

In every online forum I've participated in, there are always a handful of people who want to CONTROL the discussion -- keep some information in and keep other information out. Sorry folks -- if information is posted that conflicts with your beliefs and ideologies, either refute that information logically and rationally, or don't participate.

One of the beauties of the internet, imo, is that it is largely uncensored. Unpopular or previously unheard ideas can be shared and discussed in a forum without some authority deciding what can and cannot be said. I say let freedom ring. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

To answer the original question, I think you'll find that a "low carb, high protein vegetarian diet" is a bit of an oxymoron. Should anyone find some research or other scientifically-based information that contradicts that supposition, I'd be interested in seeing it.

For those vegetarians that consume dairy products, you might consider that you are very much participating in the slalughter of animals. Guess where those dairy cows end up after they have been used up to provide your milk, cheese, yogurt, cottage cheese and so on -- you guessed it.

As to the qualifer "intentionally" being added to killing animals, you might consider that the drunk driver does not *intend* to kill people, but he is still held legally responsible for manslaughter. If you know that countless birds, squirrels, and mice will be mutilated by combines to produce your meals, and you participate in that process anyway, I would suggest you hold some moral responsibility in the deaths of those creatures based upon the fact that you know that harm will be inflicted and you do it anyway. If you wish to argue that killing mice, birds, and snakes is somehow morally acceptable and killing bison is not, or that killing the mice, birds and snakes is "necessary" and killing bison is not, then you'll have to define exactly what makes something necessary. But before you've done that, you'd have to somehow show that killing animals for food is "improper" or "wrong". You can't just claim that is, and that be the end of it.

As to these other tangential issues, I'm afraid when quotes from the bible are being used as evidence to support one argument or another, then we have strayed from the standard of logic and reason as the basis for making decisions and into the realm of "beliefs". I've seen the bible used to justify meat eating and veganism alike, which goes to show you how flexible the bible is as a source. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> After all, if you use your book as evidence of absolute truth, what's to prevent me from using my book, whether that is Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat or the Koran? If you say the Bible is God's word therefore it is true, and L. Ron Hubbard says his book contains the words of God, what makes your book right and L. Ron's wrong? Because the bible is more popular? Is that your standard? Because you grew up Christian and those millions of Chinese buddhists must therefore be wrong? It's all quite arbitrary, isn't it?

Now these thoughts may make you uncomfortable, and you may therefore say that they are inciteful, but then am I responsible for your reactions? Think about that.

I'm not going to respond to your post, Tom, because it is very confrontational and hostile. There are those of us here who base our lives and our beliefs on the Bible, therefore it shapes what we think. The God of the Bible allows the eating of meat and leaves it up to individuals whether they do or don't. I think what is debated in Christian circles is whether meat-eating was in God's oiginal plan for humans before the fall. That, of course, is of no interest to atheists.

I agree with Demi on both counts.

I definitely believe mercury plays a role with insulin resistance. There is some information on the Internet about this but unfortunately I don't have time to go into it now.

Also, I tend to believe animals will be in eternity with us. I can't say that I've found scripture verses that support this idea 100% because I think some at least some of the verses Demi quoted are in another context, however, being that animals are souls and indeed have value and are not accountable for sin because they have no intellect, and because there are some scripture verses that seem to indicate this, I think they will likely be there, which is certainly a good thing.

As a sidenote, the behavior we see in animals that looks like intellect (I believe) is actually pre-programmed behavior combined with layers of learned behavior. It's exactly like the bios system in a computer. It's a behavior that's injected into the hardware (actually called firmware) by an outside source—an intelligence external to the computer. The behavior that we often interpret as the "understanding of words" by animals is actually a function called modeling—a function the brain and soul are very efficient at.

Modeling creates associations between sounds, images or feelings (soul function) and desired actions (based on, perhaps, rewards, whether emotional -phrase- or physical -food-) and carries them out. This looks or seems like intellect but I believe it is not. This modeling is also at the base of compulsive behavior, like eating when not hungry but when feeling lonely or depressed. As we become stronger in faith, we become less prone to the naggings of the soul and more intellectual—more logical—and decide what to eat (for example) than just eating as a reaction to an emotion.

The net effect and very wonderful thing about this life is that we are doing spiritual things when we are doing intellectual things. Living in the spirit (as opposed to living soulishly) gives us self control ("for God has not given us a spirit of... ...but of ... ... self control"—II Ti 1:7 -sound mind is better translated self control-) is opposed to the soul which is the undiscerning part of us. This is part of the war that exists "in our members" that Paul talks about: The war between spirit and soul. A source of our struggles in life. The differences between maturity and immaturity.

The soul is also the only part of us that is subject (in part) to evil spirits or demons. These miserable beings want you to share in their misery and will affect, to some degree, the soul—the emotions—and attempt to lure us into trouble. Resisting this emotional temptation (urges, desires, ...functions of the soul) will cause the being to find someone else more vulnerable to "pick on". As scripture says: "Resist the Devil and he will flee from you" (Jam 4:7). This is the true essence of spiritual warfare: Resisting temptation, urges, desires, that are useless, hurtful, harmful, or otherwise negative.

In one sense, you could look at the revelations of God to us in scripture as being divided into 3 parts, just as we are: Soul, Body, Spirit. The Old Testament we see the raw emotion (soul) of God reacting with mankind. In the beginning of the New Testament, we see the revelation of the Body of God in Yashua (interestlingly, this takes place in 4 books—gospels—4-a number often associated with Christ in the body, as in The Fourth Word of the Bible.). Later in the New Testament, we see the descending of the Holy Spirit on mankind, bringing us to into grace and understanding as the Holy Spirit helps us understand scripture. Interesting.

OK, back to the context...

Nevertheless, animals are designed to be enjoyed by humans and by God (for all things were created for His pleasure) but it's always good to understand these things for what they are.

I don't put animals on the same level of value as humans, but they are valuable and should be treated with respect, as the Bible commands.

Hey Tom, How's it going. You and I have debated before so I just want to add a little something to your last post. It's very simple and not disrespectful in any way.

Whenever I hear someone talking about the Bible like you did—saying that by using it we stray from logic and reason, there is one and only one explaination for it, and that is this:

You've never studied it.

I often hear people repeating the mantra of mass media who slander this amazing book (Of course, the owners of the mass media do this for the benefit of their own harmful agendas.). You see, most people parrot a world view (yes, most). Some actually do their homework and study.

Until you actually check the book out for yourself, you will not experience the amazing depth, truth, and benefit that can be gained from this book that is like no other in the world. Give it a try.

If you're interested in the deeper, intellectual side of the Bible, you will find help in the writings of Bullinger:

• Number in Scripture
• The Witness of the Stars

I would also suggest using one of the older translations which tend to be more accurate to the original language, like the New King James translation.

All the best!

Hi Russ. I agree with most of what you wrote, except the bit about equating intellect with spirituality. I agree with you completely that animals are mostly "pre-programmed" to behave the way they do, what we call "instinct", and that humans far surpass animals in intelligence, but I think that the main difference between animals and humans is that we have a conscience, the ability to judge what is right and wrong, and animals don't have that conscience.

As animals don't have a conscience, they can't be judged on what is right and wrong. They are therefore essentially sinless emotional beings (can feel pain, loneliness, happiness, fear), and as sinless beings will be reconciled to God, whereas humans are emotional sinful beings because we have the ability to choose between right and wrong and humans brought sin into the world. Animals are subject to the sin of humans and the sin humans brought into this world, which corrupted the natural world - including animals, but not through fault of their own. According to the Bible, all animals will be at peace with each other in heaven, unlike on earth which is subject to sin.

I think to base value of life on intellect can lead down unwanted avenues i.e. the more intelligent a person, the more they are valuable. The more capable a person, the more valuable their contribution, and so forth. These are attitudes that justify abortion etc.Humans have differing intellectual abilities, but intelligence and conscience don't go hand in hand. Very simple people can be good people and highly intelligent people can be very corrupt.

I need to be careful how I put it also, though, because while I believe all sentient creatures have a soul, there is a time when the fetus isn't sentient, which someone could take to mean it's okay to kill it.

Maybe a better way to put it is that all sentient beings have a soul, but only humans have a conscience, and only humans are accountable to God for behaviour and treatment of other living creatures and the natural world. God judges humans, but doesn't judge animals.

I agree completely with you that while humans are most valuable to God, all creatures are still valuable. Kind of like in our families where the human members are "more" valuable, but we love our pets too <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

This should read "all living creatures have a soul, but only human beings have a conscience". Sorry! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Hi Demi,

But you just did respond to my post.

That's too bad you perceive it as hostile, though it's not an uncommon reaction. Lots of people get defensive when their beliefs are questioned. I, on the other hand, welcome all viewpoints (assuming they are presented in a civil manner), as beliefs are less important to me than the truth. Often times I end up changing my viewpoint, when the new information is founded in reason.

Dogma of any flavor, by it's very nature, is not very flexible, however, as is obvious from your statement about not wanting to hear opposing viewpoints. Hey, to each his own.

Take care, and good health.

Tom (not an atheist . . . not that there's anything wrong with that). <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

It's not your differing viewpoints I object to, Tom, it's your insulting manner. Hopefully no one's views are static as it would be an arrogant person who claimed to be in sole possession of "the truth".

I don't know what your problem is with me. I've already stated that I respect your decision to eat meat and even that my religion allows people to eat meat. Maybe even God wants me to eat meat (if it is necessary for recovery) but you have to understand that the thought of eating meat makes me ill. It is my right to not eat meat, as it is yours, and my right to believe and support alternatives to meat-eating in society when possible i.e. not to those people whose survival absolutely depends on it.

If you want an argument then you've chosen the wrong person because I am not well enough to argue, either mentally or physically. It doesn't matter to me what you believe about meat-eating or even if you are a butcher. I will support your right to freedom of speech. Please respect others also and that not everyone wants to engage in debate and argument about what they believe. I am not trying to force veganism on anyone.

Hey Russ,

I don't remember ever debating anything with you, but that could be the mercury. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> You don't have to tread lightly around me, obviously. I don't mean it personally, and I assume no one else does either. Let 'er rip.

I really don't have time to address your straw man arguments, and I'm not in the habit of defending things I did not say or mean. I'll just wish you good luck with whatever path seems right for you.

Take care, and good health.

Tom

Demi,

Please don't take things so personally. It's just that if you don't want to discuss the issue, then please don't respond at all. It's just information -- how you react is up to you.

I don't control your feelings, you do.

Speaking of which, I hope you feel better, whatever path you take.

Take care,

Tom

Hey Tom.

Actually, my response to you doesn't qualify as a Straw-Man Argument. I responded directly to your statement dealing with the Bible and straying from logic and reason. I even used the same words.

Anything someone believes is a belief. The Bible is based in logic and reason. Anyone who has studied it and is being honest knows that. That's why I simply said that you obviously haven't studied it.

Just because some people have used it in the past (I'm not talking about anyone on this forum) to draw conclusions that are not logical does not mean the Bible is not logical. People draw illogical conclusions from all sorts of good data.

Make sense?

I would also suggest that taking a close look at what the Bible really says would be very beneficial for you. The prophecies about this time are coming true—it's really happening just as it was predicted—and this provides very real, very tangible evidence of it's authenticity. This is really important stuff that everyone needs to know about. Check it out.

All the best.

I've thought a while how best to respond to this, and I can't really think of a way except to say it plainly - that is the "rationality" of a bully. Our words (and actions) have the power to hurt someone. In that way, we do directly influence the feelings of others. A kind word can build someone up, a cruel word can tear them down. Bullying and abuse doesn't have to be physical or sexual, it can be verbal.

About a year ago, on one of the religious TV shows on Sunday morning, where a married couple discuss modern issues vis a vis Bible teachings, the subject of an afterlife for animals came up. They had previously felt not, but changed their minds, and even advertised a book called Fido in Heaven? I have not read it, maybe you have, Demi. I'd sure like to get a hold of a copy. If my late pets aren't going to be there, I don't want to, either, and I mean it.

In any case, I am not religious, but trying to respect religious people, I must add that I don't care what any Holy Scripture says - Christian, Jewish, Muslin, Buddhist, etc. I have a powerful feeling that we will indeed meet our "pets" in the Next World. And meet not only them, but the ones we harmed also by careless and unappreciative meat-eating. (Not all meat eaters are like this but most are.) Can I prove this? Of course not. And nobody can prove the opposite point of view, either.

Russ, you truly are a Moderator.

This isn't about protein, which is what this thread is supposed to be about (gulp), but you implied that animals somehow "count" less to the Almighty because of lack of intellect. Not so fast. There are humans who because of birth problems, perhaps, or because they resulted from incest, who never develop that faculty, and who are, indeed, less intelligent than most animals I have known. So, where do these people fit into God's plan (according to your beliefs)?

Russ,

There's logic and reason in the Bible. That's not what I'm saying. I'll state it differently (hopefully more clear): you really can't use the Bible as the end-all and be-all authority in a discussion based in reason and logic. That does not mean the Bible does not contain logic and reason. See the difference?

To say that we should or should not do something based upon what some book or other proposed authority says is a logical fallacy, specifically the "appeal to authority" fallacy. There's no way to prove its claims; it's not verifiable. Once you appeal to authority, we have entered the realm of "beliefs" or opinions, which are of limited use in logic. I'm not saying beliefs are "bad" -- just inappropriate in this context.

Otherwise, we could go back and forth deferring to our authorities all night (if I had any), which is not very productive (and not very logical). <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I think the fact that people use the Bible to prove that God both wants us to eat meat and not eat meat is a pretty clear example of the futility of using the Bible as an authority -- it's totally up to human interpretation and cannot be verified logically. (please note that's not a slander, just a fact). That also does not mean what is written in the bible is not "true", just that it cannot be verified.

If it (or anything else for that matter) cannot be verified, then we have discarded reason and logic as the foundation of our discussion, which I simply don't have any interest in.

Carla,

Honestly, I'm not sure where the thought came from that I believe animals are less valuable because they are less intellectual. I never meant to imply that at all.

If you could point out in my post where it sounds like I'm saying that, I would appreciate it and I'll change it so there are no misunderstandings.

After years of skeptical study, I simply concluded that the Bible is an accurate representation of what God wants to say to humans. In it He says we (humans; I believe He is specifically refering to saved humans in that passage as non-saved humans will be destroyed) are more valuable than many sparrows. I don't feel that less intellectual beings are less valuable because they are less intellectual. I honestly believe our value (as well as the value of animals) comes entirely from God for we (and animals) come entirely from God.

I believe that humans are more valuable because the scripture says so. Being created in the Image of God, we are called children of God, and I would imagine that this is why God calls us more valuable—because we are created in His image. The same is not said of animals in scripture.

My personal theory is that we're created in God's image (three parts: soul, body, spirit) whereas animals are two-part beings (body and soul). God puts different values on different parts of His creation and this makes sense to me when I examine scripture and life as a whole.

Just as our children are normally more valuable to us than our pets, Gods children are more valuable to Him than His pets. The pets are still very valuable, they just don't hold the same position as children.

I hope this clears it up and makes sense.

Tom,

The Bible and Christ speak directly to the heart of this matter for the question that really needs to be answered is whether the Bible was authored by God.

• If so, then you're in great error.
• If not, then you're right; It's just a book that some can use for whatever perceived value it has.

Using logic and reason, I have deduced—as I believe the vast majority of people who have actually studied it have—that the Bible is in fact God's inspired writings to us. Having not studied it, the mentality behind what you're saying is perfectly analogous to the mercury issue.

Many people I tell about the mercury issue—which I have also studied and verified its validity—laugh, ignore, or otherwise hold the opinion that it's a farce. However, when they actually look into it, they eventually discover its validity.

The problem is all based around false witnesses—and there's a world full of them. Considering how the mass media hates the scripture, and that they slander it so frequently (say things about it that are not true; Knowing the scripture, I see this myself all the time) it's not surprising then that many assume that these fortune tellers and false witnesses are assumed to be telling the truth. To allow this assumption to become opinion is illogical. For as many assume that when the ADA, NIH, ACS, and all the other lying acronyms falsely claim mercury is safe, many suffer, not directly because of the lie, but because the lie is assumed to be true (very important).

Again, all the things you are saying about the Bible are completely based on hearsay and assumptions and have no validity until you study it for yourself. I hope you do because, if you are a logical person (as I assume you are), you will come to the same great conclusion that so many others have before you.

For these reasons, I highly recommend exercising the those three beautiful—inescapable—words that keep logic, reason and intellectual honesty at the forefront of our lives, and those words are:

"I don't know".

One last thing...


That's quite a leap. Nevertheless, it perfectly drives home the point I have been making about how you are making assumptions based on other peoples opinions—hearsay.

My advice? Don't judge truth by the conclusions of others. Big mistake. Also, careful when making leaps of "logic" that say that differing opinions mean source information cannot be verified. Not everyone is logical or there may not be enough information given to draw a solid conclusion on certain non-critical subjects so people add their own opinions. It's a big mistake to obliterate the possibility of all verifable logic because people have opinions.

So often I have discovered that when people do this (what the previous statement says) it is nothing more than an excuse to not do something they simply emotionally don't want to do (check out the Bible for themselves). It's a copout. I don't like excuses. Nevertheless, you must explore the information yourself or take the risk that I'm right. Make no mistake,

• There's plenty of information in the Bible that can be verified, and
• The risk of ignoring it is huge.

Tom, I do hope you invest the time to thoroughly check it out.

I haven't heard of the book. I've been a vegetarian for about 15 years, but it's only pretty recently that I came to believe that animals share eternity. This came about when my dog died last year. We put him down as he was very sick. One moment he was alive, the next he wasn't, and there was...nothing.

I really struggled with my faith after this (a lot of my friends are atheists) and I believed what I had always been told at church - that animals don't have an afterlife. I had seen so many emotions in my dog. I had seen personality. A personality more sweet and adorable and loyal than in most people I had ever met. He was his own "person". He knew what he wanted, he knew what he liked. He got scared, he showed affection, he made demands. He would wag his tail when happy and he would cry or sulk when he wasn't. I couldn't believe that all this emotion, which wasn't in any way different to human emotion, just that he wasn't as clever as us, would just fade away into nothing. If he had no afterlife, if everything that he was was just inside his brain, I couldn't believe that we, as humans, were anything more than our brains either.

So I really prayed for answers on this and rather than abandoning my faith, kept with it. When I read in the Bible passages that suggest that animals do share in eternity, then it all made sense to me. It was all consistent with that "spark" of individual life that we see in living creatures as opposed to non-sentient ones, and that every creature, great and small, matters to God.

I think that, with so many things, we believe what we are told, and then there will be something in life that will make us question it and seek answers. So far in my life, the Bible hasn't failed to give me answers to things that I thought I knew without question, but when I approach it with a different heart I see things from a different view.


According to the Bible humans are accountable to God. I don't believe that meat-eating was in God's original plan for humans. I believe that after the fall humans disobeyed God's original command that the grains and fruit would be food for them and hunted animals. It's not until after Noah has been saved from the flood does God say to him "now I offer the animals as food to you". So, I kind of think it was a concession from God, that he was giving his "blessing" to eating animals, which hitherto had been against his commands. But as God did say that eating animals was okay after this point, and that Jesus ate fish (I think, anyway) then eating animals isn't a sin, but I don't think it was God's original plan. I don't think that humans or animals had craving for flesh of other creatures, but that it came about after the fall.

Hi. It was your post #4579 that led me to think that you don't take much note of the SUFFERING of animals. Words (used by anyone) such as "valuable" or "created in God's image" are, to my thinking, pure abstraction. Pain and extreme fear & panic are not abstractions - not yours, not mine, not that of the animals people use and eat.

It is not outside the realm of possibility that there is a race on some other planet (God never said there wasn't) that is so highly developed compared to us, that they would consider us the same way you consider earth's animals. Now, if those ultra-beings were to do to us, what we do to our animals here, would the mere fact of the aliens' superiority take away our pain of being led to slaughter, hearing the cries of our fellow beings, smelling the blood of those that were just dispatched? I can't fathom the horror & panic these animals experience. It would be as immense as my own.

I support freedom of religious belief, so I don't know if I should debate with you too much, but what Tom had to say is more up my alley. I have thought about this deeply for years, and I just can't go along with the idea that Almighty God would expect all people, all over the world, from the day of Christ's birth, to the present day, to go to the Bible for advice on everything that they do. Personally, some of it makes a lot of sense, but some does not.

Also, you said it was the blood we should be careful to not consume, and that is why special methods of preparing meat are necessary. Well, isn't that from the Old Testament? Why would any Christian need to follow the rules & regulations & laws of the Old Testament? With Christ's sacrifice, all that was made null & void. "It is not what a man puts into his mouth that defiles him, but by what comes out."

Anyway, while I think that this is a good discussion, it really might be more suitable if it were placed in a separate thread, because this is supposed to be about PROTEIN - about which I have some thoughts & questions, so I will follow this post up with another. Thank you, Russ.

Re PROTEIN. I was wondering why some people who had suffered symptoms of deficiency on a vegan/veg diet do much better including meat - even though the veg diet had lots of protein in terms of actual grams. I have known more than a handful of such people.

Could it be the ratio of the various amino acids in the meat to each other that makes it unique, rather than actual quantities? Or maybe it is something else in the meat - some fatty acid or mineral or vitamin that is present in greater amts than is found in plant food? Does anyone know anything about this?

If it's just the balance of amino acids, then a person who has deficiency synptoms could try consuming amino acids. If they could afford it, they could go to a Dr. who knows about these things and have a profile done and then supplement with the necessary aminos. Just a thought. Because I do know of a vegetarian who was sickly, but when she started taking carnitine (I think), she perked right up, and continues to be perky to this day.

Hey Carla,

Thanks for writing back.

I see what you're saying and thanks for pointing out how you look at the post I made earlier.

Here are some thoughts in response.



I understand what you mean by abstraction. I believe it's important to consider that these phrases or concepts like "created in Gods image" are profound in many ways. They are also very moving if you understand the implications and believe that they are true.

Far be it from me that I should come into this world that I did not create, possess this body that I did not design, and live under physical laws I did not fashion and appoint myself supreme commander.

I rather view myself far beneath truth, looking up and learning always. I see order and intelligence in the design of things and constantly realize that I cannot build or design these things. Whether a tree or a living creature's body, it is—in fact—God's technology, God's expression, God's creation. The most beneficial thing I can do in light of these things is be quiet and listen.

In this humility, I had prayers answered supernaturally, I had my life saved by someone I couldn't see, and I built a world view carefully and methodically through study and research, learning about this stuff that surrounds me, whether it be good or it be evil.

I'm saying all this to say that in my carefully-crafted world view, the things you ask are easy to answer but require long explainations, explainations that are best served up from the best source for answers I've found: You guessed it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />: the Bible.

Life and the world are not simple. We live in a very complex system that supports us physically, yet the emotional interactions between are also designed to be self-balancing. Yet in considering your question about how life on another planet would view us, the answer is easy. If they knew truth, they would know we are valuable to God and peace would be a natural outcome.

Unfortunately, our judgement is clouded and our world view is skewed slightly and then eventually driven completely off course because there are indeed evil people in the world who deliberately lie, steal, and kill. There is a reason they are here but I won't go into that just now.

As we become more mature children of God, we are expected to become less—what I call—emotionally based. This means, we make decisions based on logic and reason and not impulses or feelings. This does not mean that we cannot feel. In fact, I have a saying I keep from years ago goes like this:

"Our emotions are like children. If we carefully raise them, train them and discipline them with wisdom, when they grow up, they will be our friends."

As I learned deeper concepts about the world, I saw them expressed in great depth the Bible, and this is part of what initially drew me to it. For this reason, if we had aliens that were much more advanced then us come and visit, if they obeyed God's laws, it would be a very good experience for us. If they didn't obey His laws, it could be catastrophic.



Every answer we want concerning our lives is not in the Bible. God expects us to become mature and to be able to take personal responsibility for our lives. This means drawing conclusions and studying the world to learn more.

Information about what herb to take for what ailment, for example, is not in the Bible. There is a lot of information we are expected to learn over time ourselves. Unfortunately, we don't practice what we have learned all the time. A relationship with God is personal, very real, and will naturally manifest changes in your life, including personal responsibility, and it will help you gain control over your life in ways you never considered. The Bible is at the core of understanding this relationship.

I understand what you said about some of it making sense and some of it not. However, most people who have actually read the Bible carefully and/or studied it will tell you that they draw much more information from it each time they read it. This has been my experience and it really is truly amazing.



The food laws are from the Old Testament and they are still in force. Yet, Christ delievered us from the consequences of breaking the law.

We're living in amazing times seeing prophecies from the Bible actually being fulfilled. One of these is that the mainstream church has gone astray and forgotton what the Bible actually says. I'm amazed at the fact that, even though our lives are governed by principles that we can learn more about in the Bible, the vast majority of Christians don't read it. I am amazed (yet not) by this, as it was predicted that this would happen at this time.

Christians have a difficult time understanding some principles in the Bible for several reasons:

• They don't study the Bible.
• Many of the newer translations have been deliberately changed to confuse Christians and mislead them.
• The true conclusions of modern science are being slandered in order to oppose Christian beliefs. True science is in perfect harmony with it.
• So many people are on drugs or consume bad foods that degrade their ability to comprehend deeper principles.

It's important for Christians to read all of the Bible and not leave out the parts that they don't get or understand or like.

For example, the law was given "...forever..." yet people are compelled to say that the law was done away with because on it's face, it doesn't make sense to them. Of course, understanding all this stuff takes time, so a little more study would expose that the law hasn't been done away with. Only the consequences of breaking it have been.

It's important to study and be sure to get an old Strong's because the newer ones have been malicously altered. I've seen it myself. There are evil people in the world with their heart set on slandering Christ and the Bible for their own profit.



Thank you, Carla. I'm a pretty easy-going moderator/administrator although I have well-defined views because I've done my homework. I'm easy-going because I'm not interested in quashing anyone's views. Express away. And if the views are not on topic, great! Some of the best conversations in life begin in a completely different context as have many relationships.

A good relationship may begin as a business relationship at work, develop into a friendship, a romance and eventually lead to marriage and finally, children. How cool is that?

My philosophy for governing this board is the same as our government used to be (before the powers-that-be corrupted it). Leave the people alone, let them be personally responsible for their actions, let them say what they will and do what they will (so long as it doesn't quash the rights of others), let them keep what they earn and all will be the better for it.

Perhaps one day, when you see the Russian army invade the U.S. One day when you learn about how the Arabah (the desert) surrounding the dead sea has become two bodies of water and the dead sea supporting life for the first time in recorded history, or when you see a mark required on the right hand or forehead for all the people of the world to buy or sell (called "biometrics"), or you see the new colorful currency that will be distributed in the U.S. and other countries of the world, you will think back to what some guy on a forum once said about these things and wonder if the Bible really is what it claims to be.

All the best and thanks for caring enough to converse! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Re your 2nd last paragraph - are you referring to all those juicy predictions in the Book of Revelation? I read that over & over, and think that a person must be willfully blind to not see what is happening under our very noses. However, it is not only the Christian bible that spoke of a time of great troubles, to be followed by end of human society in its present form, and the appearance of a fine new world under the rule of God Himself - there have been other cultures with the same kinds of stories in their ancient books. And there have been, apparently, at least 16 other Christ-like beings in other parts of the world over thousands of years. I don't really know, of course, but it is surely all grist for the mill.

Carla,

Actually, not only Revelation, but Daniel, Ezekiel, and several other books speak about this current time.

About other Christ-like beings...

Christ himself said that many will claim Christ is here or there or has already come, but don't believe it. When He returns, as long as you don't get decieved by the deception that will occur first, you will know when the real Christ returns.

I just wish more people would put some time into prophecy because it's really amazing. It's also amazing to see how numbers are used consistently throughout the Bible. Everyone would benefit greatly from it.

Take care!

I once dated a nurse who said that protein means you support teenagers <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Good questions, Carla. I think more research needs to be done on meat verses plant diet. There is a lot of vested interest in promoting the idea that meat-diet is healthier than vegan/vegetarian diet so we are bombarded with that message.

There are many healthy vegans out there and statistically vegetarians live longer than onmivores, so it's a myth that vegans are going to keel over and die.

I'm not the best representative of a vegetarian because I have so many health problems from mercury. These problems started when I was a meat-eater, not a vegetarian. My friend, however, became a vegetarian the same time as me and went on to have 5 children, where as I can't even get periods. She only ate fish during pregnancy, which knowing what I do now might not have been the best choice! But she thought it would help her babies.

Maybe some vegans and vegetarians don't take enough care to make sure they are getting enough protein or vitamins in their diet. I've always taken a vitamin supplement. I took iron for a long time, but it didn't help me to get a period. It's pretty easy for a vegetarian to get enough protein as cheese and eggs are complete proteins. To get complete proteins as a vegan it's necessary to combine proteins i.e. peanut butter on toast is a complete protein.

If someone needs a high protein, low carb diet then they really are in trouble as a vegan, and may well suffer health consequences. I am having trouble designing a diet for myself. I haven't given up yet though, because there is no way I am eating meat. I would rather risk the dairy, if I have to get a low carb high protein source.

It could well be the amino acids in meat. For some people to get better on the meat, which is documented, there has to be something in the meat that helps them. So, if this can be done as a supplement for people with aversion to eating meat, then problem solved <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Of course, a lot of people feel healthier on a vegan diet too. It probably depends on the person's state of health. One woman I was talking to said that since becoming a vegan her hair has thickened and her nails.

BTW, for those in the UK who are looking for an alternative to dairy milk that isn't soya, Plamil's White Sun might be a solution. I haven't tried it yet as I haven't found a local supplier, but it's sunflower milk with pea protein and has a ration of 3.2 g of protein to 1.8 g of carbs.

PS some vegansmight not supplement with B12, which is thought to be necessary. My own experience concurs with this as when I went a week without B12, I suffered bad pins and needles in the night.

Okay, I have been making some progress today. I spent 3 hours in the supermarket looking at the contents of everything I was interested in buying <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I found some shelled hemp seeds, which I am going to try.

Found an organic muesli cereal that is only 17carbs per serving, compared to others that are 40-50+ and got some high protein nuts to add to it which should increased the protein content.

Linda McCartney's sausages are 8g protein to 3carbs and are vegan, so are ideal with veggies <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Her pies are also vegan and not high carb (about 30carbs). Quorn stuff have eggs in them and they don't specify whether they are free-range or not, so I avoided their products. I think they also had milk in them, but am not sure.

Broccoli has higher protein than carb content and pretty versatile, and is nice with lentils (which aren't exactly low carb but are high protein).

I got some organic eggs, which I am not really happy about eating, but I'm going slowly with the diet change.

Genesis is a book that I have overlooked a lot (tend to focus on NT) but I've been reading it lately and was interested to read about "supernatural beings" and "giants" in Chapter 6. Gods and goddesses and giants and such beings occur in the mythology of many countries, and I've always found it very interesting. Some would say it was "heretical" to be interested in mythology, but seems to me that it's very consistent with Scripture, based on this chapter <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

You're right on the money! It is not only the Bible that can give us direction. There is much, much more, from all around the world.

I would like to add that despite the myriad of opinions on this thread, to me, it is one of the most interesting. Whether I agree with the life philosophies or world views of others, everyone on this forum contributes to the value of the information here and it benefits all who visit.

This is how it's supposed to work.

Thanks to everyone! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Russ,

If you believe in the bible, great for you. I've no problem with anyone's beliefs, insofar as they don't infringe on me. Obvoiusly, as I'm sure you've deduced by now, I no longer have an interest such matters -- matters of dogma, that is. I fear that by trying to explain myself one last time, I have opened myself up to yet another unsolicited sermon, but I guess I'll take that risk. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Russ says: "Using logic and reason, I have deduced—as I believe the vast majority of people who have actually studied it have—that the Bible is in fact God's inspired writings to us. "

This statement is simply does not stand up to logical scrutiny, Russ. There is no way to logically deduce that "God" exists in the first place -- at least not in the manner in which those of us who adhere to the rules of informal logic and science -- let alone that the words written in the Bible were spoken (or otherwise communicated) by Him/Her/It. It's just not possible to objectively verify. It's a logical dead end road -- sorry. That you *believe* that the bible contains the words of some omniscient creator is more accurately the case. The difference between beliefs and facts are that beliefs cannot be verified logically. If "God" could be verified, then there wouldn't be such wide disagreement about the matter. On the other hand, there is virtually no disagreement that the Sun exists, for example. Furthermore, it's existence can be verified in ways that would leave no room for doubt. Unfortunately, that is not the case with "God" or the bible.

Therefore, since the matter cannot be proven (or has not yet, if you like), then it is irrelevant (and not appropriate) in any discussion that is to be based in logic -- the very foundation of the argument is not logically sound (the logical fallacy of appeal to authority . . . i.e., it's in the bible, therefore it must be true). Even if we assumed that we all agreed that "God" exists, there is no way to verify what "God" meant or did not mean. Again, not verifiable.

In anticipation of more erroneous assumptions, let me just say ahead of time that I did not say it was useless or bad or does not contain reason or logic. I also did not say that there is no such thing as "God" . . . nor did I say people who believe in "God" are not logical . . . nor did I say that scientists don't believe in "God", or that belief in God was "irrational" etc.

Russ says: "It's a big mistake to obliterate the possibility of all verifable logic because people have opinions."

Nowhere did I say or imply such a thing. Sorry, another straw man. The point is this: the bible is ambiguous - the evidence for this is overwhelming. Just look at how many flavors of Christianity there are, for example. Look how wildly different the interpretations of the same piece of literature are. In contrast, there is no debating the Sun's role in photosynthesis -- it is verifiable. That "God" says we should or should not eat meat quite plainly is not verifiable.

Russ says: "So often I have discovered that when people do this (what the previous statement says) it is nothing more than an excuse to not do something they simply emotionally don't want to do (check out the Bible for themselves). It's a copout. I don't like excuses. Nevertheless, you must explore the information yourself or take the risk that I'm right."

I know you're trying hard to steer the direction of the discussion toward religion -- sorry, not interested. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> My only interest in religion these days is in the context of refuting it's relevance to a discussion based in logic and pointing out its logical irrelevance. If you want to keep introducing belief systems as evidence of some truth, then I'm afraid we're using different rules.

Speaking of which, here are mine . . . and the rest of us who use informal logic as the foundation of a debate/discussion.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html

Best,

Tom

Oops, that was me above. Forgot to log on. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />

I agree with Russ. The Bible is generally very clear about what is right/wrong behaviour. There are lots of "shades" of behavioural differences because a lot of self-claimed Christians don't like the rules so they deviate under the basis of "we're saved anyway so it doesn't matter".

But the Bible doesn't tell us everything about how to live and we're left to make some decisions for ourselves i.e. whether to use birth control or not.

Also, if God made Himself as visibly obvious as the sun, then people would have no choice but to believe. And they would start being moral etc just so they wouldn't go to hell. God wants people to choose to come to him and to chose morality.

As things are now, those who don't want to believe, who don't want to be moral, are under no obligation to do so. They can see no God so they can dismiss the existence of God.They are subsequently free to live as they want to live, not as they feel they should, as are we all. None of us have to be religious. It is easy to rationalise oneself out of a belief system that depends on faith.

Hey Tom,

I'm going to be frank with you. I don't mean any offense at all, however, I must point out how you are contradicting yourself within the same paragraph as I hope it will someday benefit you or someone watching this wonderful thread.


Dogma. Hmmm... How did you arrive at this conclusion? Have you checked it out for yourself? Have you read it? Tom, Tom, Tom: It's glaringly obvious that you haven't.

Amazingly, you speak of logic and reason and yet you judge the Bible entirely on hearsay. This is blatent—clear—undeniable. Do you see it? I do hope so because it's right there in both of your previous posts, as clear as could be.


Scrutiny? Have you scrutinized the Bible? You use such strong words yet, what do you really know about about the Bible?

What you're really doing is just picking the opinion that feels best to you—being emotionally-based—and choosing the opinion that just happens to feel better to you because it keeps you from having to actually do any work checking the thing out.

Ever heard of the tomato effect? Look it up on the Internet and ask yourself which side of the debate you would have stood on. Are you willing to do a little work for the sake of finding out the truth or will you continue follow the crowd?

Heaven is not for cowards. It's for people who are brave—unafraid to face the truth by researching, regardless of what it reveals. It involves facing ourselves. Are you brave?

"But the cowardly, unbelieveing, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolators, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Revelation 21:8

When courage fails, freedom is soon stolen away by those who lust for power, and we're (globally) well-on-our-way down that slippery slope. Keep your eyes open and see what happens in the next several years as freedom is being systematically stolen from us, even now.


Whoa. Good thing you're not a scientist.

How do you think we measure the distance from Earth to the nearest star? How is it so well established and easy to scientifically deduce what direction the Earth is moving in relation to stars or points in the universe.

Ever heard of the red shift? Blue shift? You can't smell it. You can't feel it, yet science relys on it to accurately measure things. It is a standard. It is a weight; A balance, yet it is used to measure distances and speeds that no tape measure will span, yet, science rightfully accepts it, correlates it, uses as a measure.

How do we prove there is a God? Exactly the same way, but it takes a little work and a little intellect, but the payoff is huge.

Tom, in the same way the previously-mentioned shifts are used to measure things that are accepted as well-known, there are ways to prove God's existence, but you have to be willing to do a little work. The little bit of work is, in fact, the filter that separates the cowardly from the brave. Be brave. Take a peek before passing judgement on this amazing book.

Up to this point, because you've not been willing to honestly check out the book that you have drawn so many solid and DOGMAtic conclusions about, how can your opinion stand? Is drawing conclusions based on hearsay—logic and reason to you? To face this fallacy in your own internal logic, you must be both brave and humble. Brave enough to face the truth and humble enough to be open to the possibility that you could be wrong.


Ahhh, yes you did Tom; Yes you did.

If you can't see it, there's nothing more I can say to help you see the vast illogic in your arguments. Please read the post where I pointed this out to you carefully and see if you can't muster some intellectual honesty (which takes courage) to see it for yourself. It's right there and clearly pointed out. As for anyone else who reads this thread, they'll have to decide for themselves.

And just to drive the point home in—what I consider an unmistakable way—here's a quote from your most recent post:


Do you see it? Do you see how you use the opinions of others to draw conclusions about the Bible. Do yourself a favor: Don't follow the crowd, it is a bad idea. Qualify your opinions by checking it out for yourself. There are no shortcuts. Don't waste your time listening to other people's opinions. You must know better than to do that, don't you?


Wrong again; Wrong again.

I have no interest in religion just as you. I have no interest whatsoever in steering conversations in the direction of religion—none whatsoever. I'm talking about truth, not religion.

I don't have some pride directing me to "get as many people saved as possible". I don't have some ego trip that keeps me high trying to prove my intellect to anyone. I couldn't care less about those things.

The only thing I'm interested in doing is helping people discover the same amazing and life changing information I found in the greatest book ever written. It makes me happy to see people's lives change for the better when they discover the same wonderous information that changed my life, but until you really try it, you will spend your life wondering what this guy on the other side of this keyboard is talking about.

It's real.

It's truth.

Check it out.

Tom, I'm sure your a good guy in many respects and I'm well aware that we all have our shortcomings, so if you can ever bring yourself to put forth the work to read the book for yourself, you will never regret it. Look at it as an investment in yourself. You will eventually realize how true it is.

Been there.

Done that.

Never better.

Take care and please consider what I say. World events will be turning darker in the next several years. Time is getting short. Try something new, now.

All the best.

Though I have not contributed to this post for a little while - no time to get into a deep discussion and Russ has been doing a great job - I would like to second all that Russ has been saying. There was a time when I would have tossed the Bible into the garbage as irrelevant. But since studying it, and the world around me, I find overwhelming evidence of God in the workings of the human body, the earth, and the universe. His Word, the Bible, defines and gives remedy for the human condition like no other book I have ever read. People can twist what it says, like they can twist anything else, to make it seem like it says what it does not. That is a part of the human condition. Therefore, we must read the Bible prayerfully and humbly ourselves asking God to reveal Himself to us and putting no preconceived ideas onto the text.
Russ, I agree, we are indeed entering a dark time. We are about to lose many, if not most, of our freedoms and our way of life. We have had the Light and have turned our backs on it. It is easier to convince someone that mercury fillings are bad for you than to convince someone that the unborn or the disabled should not be murdered (turning off a machine is one thing - withholding nourishment is criminal - and when even the President does not put a halt to this type of thing we are, justifiably, in trouble). Withought (inter)national repentance and faith in Jesus, I see nothing but darkness for this country (and the world). My only hope is in Jesus, for strength to endure, and for eternal life. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Ah, so many misconceptions and assumptions, so little time. And yet more unsolicited advice. It's pretty telling when you reflect on the reasons people tend to offer unsolicited advice.

Another "gotcha" in discussions like these is that sometimes individuals project their own assumptions and beliefs onto the other person's words. They react to what they think the person means, rather than simply reading the words on the page.

If you haven't "got it" by now, I'm afraid there is a major disconnect. Maybe I'm just not communicating very well, or maybe you're just not able to put aside your preconceptions, beliefs. and assumptions long enough to hear what I am actually saying. My apologies for my participation in the miscommunication, whatever the root cause.

Should you decide to make yourself familiar with the rules of informal logic as the accepted standard for debate/discussion, then maybe we'll chat again.

Until then, best of luck to you.

Tom

Hello, Russ. In your post to me #4645 and yours to Tom in #4691, you spoke about emotions in a negative way, and defended logic. Nothing against logic - we can't live without using that faculty - but may I remind you of this old saying:

"Information [ie, logic] can lead a mind to water, but only emotion can make it drink."

For heaven's sake, please don't tell me that you use the Bible as your Encyclopaedia for Living based purely on the logical side of your brain, without input from your emotions. Come on! It's your emotional brain that causes you to be attracted to the Bible's teachings in the first place; deciding that these teachings were, indeed, logical, came afterwards.

Though I believe in God, I originally came to see that human society was spiralling downwards and headed for a major fall, not from the Bible but from the writings of non-theists, confirmed by my observations. I kid you not.

Now fast-foward about 25 years: I finally read the bible and saw that it confirmed what those other sources taught me. I don't reject anything that appeals to me. Is that emotion? Yes. Emotion tempered by the wisdom of life's experiences.

It is also logical, not purely emotional, that I should try to not treat animals the way I would not want to be treated. It is LOGICAL that if I have no feeling for the suffering of all conscious sensate being - animal & human - then some day I will be regarded similarly and suffer for it. It is a giant error to try to separate logic & emotion. They both come from Almighty God, and we have to develop the wisdom to know when to subordinate one to the other. And it is not the same formula for all of us, all the time.

Good for you for taking the time -- most people won't do it.


Unfortunately, "organic" does not necessarily mean "cruelty-free". It only means they are not fed hormones or antibiotics. It does not necessarily mean that they are fed organic grains.

Also, the term "free range" is largely unregulated, and the interpretations of what "free range" actually means are wide ranging. The only surefire way to know is to go to the farm yourself (if one is avalable locally). Unfortunately, this often means just doing the best you can with what your options are.

Also, most egg-laying hens end up in the slaugherhouse eventually.

p.s. good resource: http://nutritiondata.com/nutrient-search.html

p.s. eggs are probably the highest quality source of protein though -- hopefully that will make you feel better. Personally, I tried eggs before I tried meat. It was the meat that did it for me. (not suggesting you should do that, just sharing my own personal subjective experience).

It's not just the hens who end up killed, but male chicks aswell. I don't intend eating eggs permanently. In fact, I think this will be my last box. It weighs too heavily on my conscience and as an egg only has 6g of protein, it's not worth it.

Demi, too bad you don't know of a farm nearby that has free-range chickens, because, those chickens probably are able to go all over the yard - ours do - and so do our friends' chickens. Also, if the eggs are not fertile - (our neighbours would KILL us if we got a crowing rooster,!) you don't have to worry about the males being killed. A non-fertile egg is not alive. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I don't think we have any farm around here that sells eggs. But even then there's the chance they will kill the hen when she's "out of her prime". The male chicks are killed when a brood are hatched because they are pretty useless. But I don't really like eggs, anyway, as they repeat on me.

Too bad you don't live next door to me & mine! We do not kill our chickens. We do not kill males. They die of old age or sometimes a hawk gets one. The eggs taste great. I'd give you eggs for free. - Carla.

Hey Carla,

Thanks for your comments on logic and emotion.

In response, I think the best way to model how I view emotion and logic is to use a ship:

• Emotion is the fuel,
• Logic is the rudder.

If we try to use logic to propel us, we won't move very fast. If we use emotion to guide us, we'll spend our lives turning in circles.

It's really important for people to understand the difference between these two in their lives, and to understand what role they play. It's like knowing the difference between a wrench and a hammer. We need to use the right tool for the right job.

It's also important to know that evil generally attempts to provoke us via emotion because our emotion is undiscerning (makes a bad rudder). Our spirit, on the other hand--properly trained--is discerning.

It's also important to talk about this thing called intuition and instinct.

Instinct is easy to model. If you know computers, it's perfectly analogous to the BIOS. It is the information that is put into you automatically that allows you to function without using intellect to perform basic functions, for example, when we're very young, it enables nursing.

Intuition really speaks of that ability to listen on a spiritual level. Yahweh says that he will be a voice telling us whether to turn to the right or turn to the left. For some, this may be a real mental voice. For others, it manifests as a feeling--actually a result of hearing the voice spiritually but not being able to actually hear the mental "sound" of it. The result is a feeling telling us that we "feel" good about this person, for example, or "bad" about another with no logical input. It's much like subconscious advertising that, perhaps, makes you thirsty.

Because most people do not actually hear the mental "sound" of the voice, what's left to go on is the feeling that results, and therefore, people confuse this wonderful spiritual function (intuition) with a soul-based function (emotion) without regard to it's origin, and for this reason, there is great confusion between peoples discernment of the spirit and the soul.

The cool thing is that we can work within ourselves to become better at discerning the origin of information--whether it originates from the spirit or the soul. When you do this, you will be much less prone to errors in decisions you make when asking God for guidance, and you will be less disappointed in cases when you're listening to your own soul, thinking it was intuition and then getting mad as God for giving you bad advice or not answering. It's so very important for us to learn to discern the difference between self-induced emotions and intuitions.

The Bible speaks specifically of this when it talks about prophets that speak from their own soul and/or presumptuously rather then from God.

And while I'm on the subject, I've discovered that woman tend to be better at intuition then men. I've also discovered that men tend to be better at logic then women (these are just tendencys that I've observed, not absolutes by any means). I believe this is part of the reason we make such a great team.

This is a very condensed explaination of what I have modeled regarding logic and emotion and hopefully someone will benefit from it. Perhaps it will help dispel confusion in someones life.

On a side note: What an awesome and intelligent group of people we have on this forum.

All the best.

Thanks, Carla. That is a very kind thought <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

If people are going to continue this dicussion PLEASE can we have it in a new thread? This one is taking a VERY long time to open with my slow dial-up. Thanks! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Hello, Russ.

What you are saying about logic and emotion is essentially the same as what I said.

-Carla.

Great Carla, I wasn't sure. Thanks for the feedback.

Tom,

You're not getting the point that is at the core of what I'm saying. I'm going to explain one more time in case there are others who aren't seeing it as well.

You said:



OK, what you're saying is this:

Fact: Because there are "so many flavors of Christianity",

Conclusion: The Bible is ambiguous.

I agree with your fact. Your conclusion, however, is just pain silly.

Let me demonstrate my point with a question:

Fact: Many dentists (probably the vast majority at this time) believe that mercury, once it is combined with the other substances in an amalgam filling, form a "stable alloy..similar to the way sodium and chlorine...combine to form table salt" (from ADA website Jan 15 2006). They also believe that "...a person would have to have almost 500 amalgam fillings in his mouth to see subtle symptoms even if he were the most mercury sensitive patient" (from ADA website, Jan 15 2006). However, a growing number of dentists believe that amalgam fillings can be and are harmful, so much so that they no longer use them in practice.

Your Conclusions: What would you conclude from this information given above? Would you conclude that the data about amalgam toxicity is ambiguous? Would you conclude that there just isn't any way to know?

A very small amount of mercury is toxic to all humans. This is well-known in the medical literature. Mercury vapor comes off amalgam fillngs 24/7. This is also well-known. Yet, these 2 groups of people have come to completely different conclusions. How? Why? What does this mean?

Based on the method you used to reach your previous conclusions, you would conclude that the base information about amalgam is ambiguous. However, this is simply not true. How do we know? Derived logic. Read on...

(1) FACT: Mercury is a well-known very dangerous toxin.

(2) FACT: Mercury escapes from amalgam fillings 24/7.

If we assume that at least some of the escaping mercury is inhaled or ingested (which is logical), we have to conclude the following derived fact:

(3) Amalgam fillings cause mercury toxicity.

It's much like saying:

IF
A = B
AND
B = C
THEN (we can conclude)
A = C.

It is the most simple form of derived logic.

When you see differing opinions like this, it always means that there is a break in the logical flow. In other words, someone is breaking the rules of coming to logical conclusions (replacing one of these "=" with one of these "~"). If we all came to logical conclusions, we would all come to the same conclusions and what a friendly world it would be.

So where is the break in logic in our mercury scenario? I'll cut to the chase.

The ADA profits from the manufacture of amalgam fillings. How? The ADA holds two related (profitable) patents which are exposed in a video we're soon going to sell on the Herb Allure website called Quecksilber. The ADA has been lying to dentists about the safety of amalgam fillings and the dentists have been assuming that the ADA has been telling them truth. This is the break in logic, the false assumption.

The break in logic in your conclusion about the Bible is that you are basing your opinion on the opinion of others who don't know the Bible. It's that simple. You are deriving information from a "bad" source.

I realize that it's a sad statement to say that most people who call themselves Christians haven't read the Bible—the definition of their belief system—for themselves. It is a sad statement indeed. Nevertheless, it's true. The fact is, the vast majority of Christians derive their information about the Bible from preachers and the vast majority of these preachers don't read the Bible to them cover-to-cover. They just preach their opinions on certain more "interesting" or "emotionally enticing" parts of the Bible (not every congregation has this problem, but the vast majority do). This is sad; Very sad.

You also have the problem that a lot of the newer translations of the Bible do not accurately translate the original language. Again, there are people with an anti-Bible agenda marketing their own Bible translations intended to slander the original work. This is why I recommend using the King James or New King James translations and getting an old Strong's as a reference (I've seen some of the newer Strong's that have been altered as well).

Ironically, the Bible itself foretold details about this time we live in. It says that they (the preachers) will become "ticklers of their (the congregation's) ears". In other words, teaching them only the emotionally enticing parts of the Bible and ignoring the deeper stuff. This is another break in logic.

So, here's the big picture.

Bible (information)
~~ break in logic from preachers personal emotional bends ~~
~~ break in logic from misunderstandings ~~
~~ break in logic from anti-Bible seminaries ~~
Congregation
~~ break in logic from poor communication skills ~~
~~ break in logic from personal emotional bends ~~
~~ break in logic from Bible slanderers ~~
Tom

You can see that there is plenty of room for breaks in logic between you and the book itself. This is the reason I keep urging you to look at the book for itself. That is the only way you're going to get a clear, direct picture of whether the book is ambiguous or not.

I watched Discovery Channel (owned by Discovery Networks which is one of the biggest Bible slandering corporations in the world) for a few minutes the other day and heard that the belief that crocodiles have supernatural spiritual significance is an "old Christian belief". Hmmm, news to me. I've read the Bible cover-to-cover at least 8 times now and I've never seen anything like that anywhere. How can something be a "Christian" belief if it does not appear in the defining Christian literature? Actually, I hear this kind of Bible slandering on TV all the time. Their goal is to keep you from discovering (another irony) the true nature of this amazing book by NEVER LOOKING AT IT.

It's no different then the video called "The Clinton Chronicles". The mainstream media slandered it so badly that my boss at the time would not even watch it when I offered to give it to him. Of couse, this is the whole idea because had he watched it, he would have discovered that it's one of the most compelling and shocking videos ever made about politics. It's incredible and will keep you glued to the screen every minute.

Tom, my hat's off to you for at least reading this conversation, however I am disappointed that you didn't address the fact the you know little or nothing first-hand about the book you hold such a strong opinion about.

I urge everyone to get their information directly from the source.

It's the logical thing to do <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Here are some interesting questions to ponder:

-- getting killed by a predator can cause more pain and suffering to a critter than slaughter.

-- if a chicken weren't bred for laying eggs or food, it would have never got to experience life in the first place.

-- if a chicken is killed, who suffers as a result, assuming a quick, painless death by slaughter? Do the other chickens mourn its loss?

All good questions that you asked, ta33.

1. True, but we don't intentionally expose them to that risk. We watch over them, but s**t happens. I have seen a hen killed by a hawk. I'd say it is fast. Where the whole picture is concerned, that hen had a mighty good life until the end. Also, sometimes a backyard farmer kills a chicken very fast & mercifully. In my case, esp. if it is an old hen, I don't mind too much that it died to keep the hawk's babies alive. But it's the hen's feelings that matter.

2. This is a typical going-in-circles argument. I could just as soon ask a person born in a literal jail to its mother, a baby who was destind to stay there all its life, if that is fine with him - if his life is "worth" living. I don't know. Ask a suicidal person if he wishes he had never been born; ask seriously disabled, pain wracked person how he feels. You will get a variety of responses.

Some of our chickens are hatched under a hen, and cared for by that hen, and sometimes by other hens, also.

3. I have seen dead chicken bodies pretty much stepped-over and ignored by the other chickens. Whether they "suffer" in some inchoate way, a way that I myself can't perceive, I don't know.

As I have posted in the past, no living thing, esp. not humans, can exist without killing something or other, directly or indirectly. Some people would therefore conclude that it doesn't matter at all, then. I just disagree: I think that we have a moral responsibility to attempt to reduce the suffering that we cause in the course of living our lives. You do your part and I do mine. Personally, I don't carry a measuring stick, but I can't help noticing when people take a don't-give-s**t attitude.

POSTED BY ta33: (I have this all backwards - Carla)
Here are some interesting questions to ponder:

-- getting killed by a predator can cause more pain and suffering to a critter than slaughter.

-- if a chicken weren't bred for laying eggs or food, it would have never got to experience life in the first place.

-- if a chicken is killed, who suffers as a result, assuming a quick, painless death by slaughter? Do the other chickens mourn its loss?

Hi Carla,

Just as a side note, I'm not casting judgements about raising hens and so forth -- I'm just exploring the issue for the sake of discussion.


I understand what you're saying. I have no problem with hawks being hawks. Although one could make the same argument for humans eating chickens, too.


I'm not talking about factory farming here -- I think we both agree that is really awful and unacceptable. But what about the bison who spent his entire life roaming in open grassland before being killed humanely? That animal had the benefit of living a pretty good life that it wouldn't have otherwise experienced. Why is it morally unacceptable to raise an animal that lives a good life and that also provide lifes and energy for another living creature?

I guess what I'm asking is what is so bad about death, given the high quality of life experienced? A life that would have never been experienced without the need/desire to raise that animal for food.

I wonder if there aren't deeply emotional (fear-based) beliefs surrounding the issue of death for humans that make them uncomfortable with the idea of animals dying.


I agree, I don't think there is any way to really know for sure since chicken thoughts/feelings are private. My point is that if other chickens are not experiencing pain and suffering at the loss, then what's the problem with the dead chicken? With human beings, if someone shoots me dead tommorrow, that will create alot of suffering for other people still living -- family, friends, etc. But I myself do not experience any loss (assuming a relatively painless death) -- I'm dead, how can I experience anything?!? "I" obvious don't care that I'm dead -- I'm dead after all! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


I certainly would not conclude that! Far from it -- to me it's all about minimizing pain and suffering in other living creatures, which is one of the many reasons factory farms are so heinous. It matters very much, imo.


No disagreement there. To me, it's about minimizing pain and suffering . . . death is just a part of the circle of life -- nothing to be feared or demonized or held up as some target of moral outrage.

I personally don't want to eat animals. I don't want to be the cause of any animals deliberate death or suffering i.e. dairy cow having her baby taken from her. My aim is to be full vegan by the spring (going slow with diet change). That may be hard for people to understand, but that's their problem.

You are persuasive, no doubt about it. Your questions are so pointed and direct, just plain good appropriate questions. I think I understand where you stand, now.

From my point of view, it is not a simple question of "don't eat animals". It is, over all, a question of how humans regard animals, whether they are eating them or not. I can't bear the the thought of some alcoholic or druggie or junk-food-addict going veg, esp. vegan - they will degenerate far faster without the meat than with it. Meat (is it the amino acids? the EFA? or what?) seems to provide a balance to sugar, alcohol & drugs - crude & temporary, but still it keeps them on their feet for a little longer.

What I think you don't "get" and I sure hope I don't sound like I am patronizing you - is that you equate, for example, the hawk killing its prey (chicken or mouse, for example) with a human buying "meat". No, it ain't the same; and this is why I defend hunting to a degree. Both the hawk and the human with his weapon are doing the deed themselves. But the large majority of humans want that "meat" but don't want to have to get it legitimately - because killing & gutting is hard, dirty work,( and I have, when much younger, assisted with this.)

When you go to the store and get your pkg of "meat", you are removing yourself from the reality that that animal wanted to keep on living just as much as you.

That some people are aware of that reality - and hate it - but still want that creature's flesh, shows that God has a sense of humour.

I don't know if you are debating with me just because you enjoy the jousting or what, but to try to equate the hawk doing what hawks were designed to do THEMSELVES, and the human buying the neat little package of "meat" and cooking & preparing it with salt & pepper and other yummy flavourings - well, when you equate those two, it kind of makes me think you are just making fun of me, that you think I'm not the sharpest tack in the box. No human could consume that "meat" without all the preparation involved in reducing its animality (my word) and coarse, revolting, unrefined taste. Even steak tartare - they add seasonings. I'd defy 99.9% of civilized citizens to eat "meat" (ie, animal corpse) the way the hawk does, never mind catching it & killing it themselves!

Have you ever wondered WHY they can't eat "meat" the same way that the hawk, and other carnivorous/omnivorous animals do? Something else is going on here. And I think it is the fear of death that you talked about - but which you imply is an attitude held only by sappy vegetarian animal-lovers. You can say you don't mind death, but if you were dispatched very suddenly & unexpectedly, like our much-discussed bison, your spirit would mind plenty. Of course, this is nothing I can prove. But we were meant to die of old age,all of us, human and animal alike. And as Demi said, I don't recall her exact words, we are somehow fallen and therefore must do sad & ugly things to stay alive. I do think that people who say, "oh, death is natural and neat and nothing to fear" talk that way only when they are very old and on their deathbed after a fulfilling life. Don't tell me, ta33, that if someone came to your door (at your young age) with a gun and told you that they'd kill you in an hour that you wouldn't give a hoot.

I wish that people who craved meat would just eat it and be done with it, esp. ex-vegetarians. Honest, the hoops they jump through trying to defend their reborn desire for "meat" makes me cringe. They owe no one any apologies. It is the mindless meat eating that raises my ire, or those who raise abstract arguments about our ancestry or whatever. I mean, our ancestors, depending on how far back you want to go, lived in cold, dark caves, too, but I don't see anyone wanting that kind of housing today.

Demi said something about moving this discussion elsewhere because she has dial-up internet.

I don't think you do, to be honest, based on things you said below, but that's ok.


First, I did not claim that a hawk killing a chicken was morally equivalent to a human killing a chicken for food.

Second, I already explained in a prior post why it is simply not feasible for each individual to kill and gut his own food. It's just not practical in our current modern society.

Personally, I have killed and gutted many an animal -- mostly fish and small game, though. I don't imagine I would enjoy very much killing and gutting a deer or bison, for example, but if I HAD TO, I would. Given that I don't have to, why would I?


Two comments: 1) Why should you assume that I am removing myself from the reality of the dead animal? How do you know what I'm thinking when I buy my meat (which does not come in a package, by the way). 2) How are you going to go about proving what an animal does or does not want? Obvsiously there are certain behavioral cues, but aren't these instinctual reactions to stimuli? Can a chicken feel fear, and if so, how do you know? What does chicken fear feel like, and how do you know? Is chicken fear the same as human fear, and if so, how do you know? On what basis do you assume that the chicken wants to live just as much as me?

I will grant you this though, and we'd probably agree: I think it is not a good thing that people are so far removed from the consequences of their actions. But I assure you I have done a fair amount of research into how our food gets to the table, and as a result make purchasing decisions based upon that information. Like I said before, I've no problem with death -- it's the pain and suffering we could do without. I honestly don't feel bad that the bison has died for reasons already stated, but I am appreciative that it lived, giving me an opportunity to benefit from it. I show my appreciation in my own way. If you want to call it corpses or other emotionally charged terms, that doesn't change anything to me -- those are just words.


Are you trying to argue that eating meat is "unnatural" for human beings? Is that your argument?


I never said or implied any such thing.


Whoa, nellie. You have entered the realm of beliefs, which cannot be proven. That I have a "spirit" has not been established, nor has it even been defined. Let alone, that a "spirit" could have the capacity to "mind" like I can in my current state. Major red herring. Sorry.


Why? Because you say so? Because the bible or some other script says so? Sorry, what we were "meant" to do or not do is not something you can't judge.



There's only one way to find out. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />



I never said any such thing. I assure you I would give a hoot. What conclusions would you draw from this?



Two comments: 1) Personally, I don't "crave" meat at all. In fact, I changed my views about meat eating long before I actually began eating meat again. I just had no "desire" to eat it, until the mercury issue. In fact, giving up meat was a piece of cake - one of the easiest things I've ever done. I still don't eat most meat products to this day. I could take it or leave it, to be honest. I'm probably the exception to the rule, though. 2) This is mere entertainment and mental exercise for me - I certainly don't have to "defend" my views to anyone, least of all strangers on the internet (no offense). <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Interestingly though, I have come across those who are rather defensive in defending their diets, which makes you wonder if they don't feel a little guilty deep down inside. On the other hand, the vegans (in general), from my experience, certainly have their own set of "issues". I've met some interesting people with some interesting viewpoints on the matter, but I guess that's neither here nor there.