Predatory Animals and Love

[running]

Originally Posted by LPC

Joseph123, I am so sorry that this thread has not really answered the question you originally posed. Tobi did her best, her very best, I can see from her posts. I am sorry that I did not see this thread before, as I don't come here so often these days.

If you wish to contact me by PM, or message via my site, I will do my best to discuss the issue with you. You wished to restrict the discussion, but on a public forum you can't do this. People will come in with all their various different viewpoints - as they are entitled to do. But if you want a private discussion, I am quite happy to enter one with you.

People are welcome to continue with this thread - but I will not return to it.

I guess you can't have your cake and eat it to. Or how ever the sang goes.

[girlsearching]

Animals have souls I belive they can also feel empathy too.

[running]

Originally Posted by girlsearching

Animals have souls I belive they can also feel empathy too.

......i agree!

[Touched]

I think everything has a soul. Even stones have souls, or a spiritual counterpart.

This does not make them the same, just part of the whole.

[Arcturus]

saw a programme on some wolves once. they were in need of a kill to keep the pack going. all of a sudden they set off in one direction and after sometime they came to an old bison bull and a younger male. it was like the time and place had been set telepathically between the bull and the pack. the pack got fed, an old bull wouldn't slow down the herd and wouldn't die slowly and miserably, but just beneath his best. it's a tough existence, spending your days trying not to be dinner..."where heaven scrapes the poavement".

steiner believed that each species had a group soul. in that he meant that they were not individual souls but one soul. so a human, he said, is like a species in themselves, as they are supposedly one soul too. might be true, dunno for sure. either or, what happens to the body cannot harm the soul.

[Amilius777]

I think I am the only one who holds this opinion.

I don't believe in "specific souls".

I believe in spiritual souls that were all produced from God and have a choice of which direction they want to take.

I believe in an all-loving Supreme Being. This Being gave all souls the right to go through evolution as they please. There ARE of course RULES. But these rules are still very small. It shows how loving and accepting the Source truly is.

The Source allows souls to either remain in spiritual realms and grow in the spirit-plane as they please. And/or if the soul needs either types of development because of self-esteem or selfish issues, the soul incarnates in the Earth Plane- preferably as a human. If the soul wants a complete negate of selfishness and develop in selfless love, some souls incarnate as Animals! And then the soul after incarnating in Animal lives, the soul can incarnate as a Human and continues. Some souls incarnating as humans can "get it right" within one lifetime or it may take several incarnations. Eventually the soul of the human can become a Spirit Guide. IN FACT a soul incarnated as an animal COULD complete his or her journey and ascend as a Spirit-Guide. This is why some people have "Animal Spirit-Guides". They are not "literally" animals, they were an animal in their most recent physical incarnation.

In my book of spiritual experiences, Individual souls can NOT incarnate as rocks, plants, and insects. They are pure energy, pure manifestations of Spirit with no individuality and they do not harbor the devices and elements for the Individual Soul to express themselves. BUT Rocks, Plants, and Insects are still THINGS, they are Thought-forms produced by God and have their own "Spirit-Energy" to manifest; whereas Animals and Humans or Humanoids in other Systems/Galaxies have the potentials and devices in their physical bodies to express the Individual Soul-self. And btw, majority of souls in animal incarnations prefer "Higher Animal forms" in order to be still conscious of themselves. Lower animals and their brains tend to handicap a soul to experience a lesson, thus I find it rare for an Individual Soul to incarnate in lower animals.

[alamode]

Originally Posted by LPC

Joseph123, I am so sorry that this thread has not really answered the question you originally posed.

It looks like this is the issue/question that he originally posed: Any being killing another is certainly about the least loving act possible

That really means he is saying that any being (i.e. human) who kills another being for food (i.e. human kills animal for food) is doing the least loving act possible (i.e. wrong/immoral act).

I've read through the entire thread and I see that its been answered throughout the thread that killing animals for food is just the way the world works and has absolutely nothing to do with being a morality issue (loving vs. non-loving acts). In the world we live in, life eats life.

Predatory animals killing other animals for the purpose of food are the model example for humans to follow. In nature, there is a time to live and a time to die or be killed.

The moral question to ask is as follows "is the food (whether it be plant or animal) taken in rightness and harmony with nature?" The moral question NOT to ask is "was there killing?" In any case such as: when the bird eats the worm, when the wolf eats the caribou, and when the human pulls up the weed, etc. is it done in rightness and in harmony with nature?

Agriculture involves killing hundreds of animals for the protection and maintenance of those crops. Hundreds of animals (gophers, rabbits, birds, insects, etc.) die each time a field of grains, beans, soy and other vegetation is harvested.

Plants that are harvested normally eat animals too (i.e. fossil-fuel-derived fertilizers, blood and bones, manure, etc.).

The soil eats animals too (a million tiny organisms in every spoonful of topsoil). The soil is a "predatory" life form. All life forms must eat something that was once alive. All life forms fit into a circle of producers, consumers and decomposers.

[lemex]

Originally Posted by alamode

It looks like this is the issue/question that he originally posed: Any being killing another is certainly about the least loving act possible

That really means he is saying that any being (i.e. human) who kills another being for food (i.e. human kills animal for food) is doing the least loving act possible (i.e. wrong/immoral act).

I've read through the entire thread and I see that its been answered throughout the thread that killing animals for food is just the way the world works and has absolutely nothing to do with being a morality issue (loving vs. non-loving acts). In the world we live in, life eats life.

Predatory animals killing other animals for the purpose of food are the model example for humans to follow. In nature, there is a time to live and a time to die or be killed.

The moral question to ask is as follows "is the food (whether it be plant or animal) taken in rightness and harmony with nature?" The moral question NOT to ask is "was there killing?" In any case such as: when the bird eats the worm, when the wolf eats the caribou, and when the human pulls up the weed, etc. is it done in rightness and in harmony with nature?

Agriculture involves killing hundreds of animals for the protection and maintenance of those crops. Hundreds of animals (gophers, rabbits, birds, insects, etc.) die each time a field of grains, beans, soy and other vegetation is harvested.

Plants that are harvested normally eat animals too (i.e. fossil-fuel-derived fertilizers, blood and bones, manure, etc.).

The soil eats animals too (a million tiny organisms in every spoonful of topsoil). The soil is a "predatory" life form. All life forms must eat something that was once alive. All life forms fit into a circle of producers, consumers and decomposers.

I hope you got an answer Joseph. A wonderful response is given here. It's how it works. I think it must be put in perspective. You know, humans have limited capacity, animals even less don't you think. This is primarily your thought. The limits are what is inescapable so you can understand why.

But the web of life is all about energy and the unfortunate design and flaw is how energy is obtained. The only way a person would be able to live is if they could produce their own energy, but it is not allowed. You may not have even considered this, but this planet is a certain size certainly relative to life. By virtue of form it cannot be infinite in any way. If every living thing were allowed to live forever plus being allowed to reproduce within weeks or months every square inch of earth would be literally filled with life. Our planet would not be able to support unlimited life. Some things cannot be limited and other limitless. Eating is part continued existence. By virtue of being real it cannot be infinite and balanced. We didn't set the rules of how the Universe operates, it seems to know itself. We don't know what it feels or what it knows.


One has to think in terms of the big picture. It is as much about you as not about you. In any case, have you ever considered this to be a reincarnation issue.

[Gem]

It's a ecological system, and humans don't have a harmony with it, more like humans want to control it, but the natural world extends throughout the universe and it's interelated.

When humans live in harmony they adapt their lives to the ecology that supports diversifying biology, but man's impact is causing huge reductions in bio diversity...

In eco systems that are harsh such as high altitudes, polar regions, deserts and islands, Man's food supply is animals, and in temperate regions there are more veges... and that's no morality based so compassionate stuff, it's survival.

We are so comfortable with our meditation cushions and mod cons that we can afford to have these 'spiritual' morals, which have nothing to do with living harmoniously with nature.

No one really wants to kill the animals, but they have a full understanding of their place in the eco system, and just like an animal, humans survive as their environment dictates, which is a deeper harmony.

I don't believe it's correct to project human traits onto animals, such as our specific emotions and desires. They may not be soulless, but they don't have our bodies, our brains, or our societies, and they certainly don't have our emotions or our values.

You're in for a very rough ride if you're just starting to worry about animals that harm for food...