An enlightened Lord would choose vegetables over meat. The choice of meat may suggest a suffering lord.
The decision is testified as to having angered the organic grower, but organic growers are nonviolent; the nature of plant care, and vegetable production, decreases anger, because the organic grower learns not to get upset, upsetting as growing for market or many can be; because there are natural laws, which determine what causes getting upset, we need to learn, not get upset at, and organic growing and farming, requires a sense of humor—so it roils me to hear stories in some old testament that a farmer got angry and killed a meat-producer.
It seems more logical to me, that shepherds and slaughterers be more prone to violence than the farmer, and more likely to be offended if the lord chose vegetables, and that the farmer is neither disposed to anger or violence.
So what does this say about those who spoke the ancient language of Hebrew, and had required reading, and understood the authority of religion, separation of history and society? Bonds are grounded in thinking for yourself towards ability to think around lies that may never be cleaned up.
Or, you go into the inner sanctums of the most sacred temple and change the story to the lord chose vegetables, and the shepherd got angry and killed the organic grower—and this doesn’t make sense either, because an organic grower is stronger having a harder work, than a shepherd. So you have a slippery slope the Jews have never climbed back up stemming from a story between a grower and a shepherd/slaughterer who have an antagonism which doesn’t exist in experience, though the slaughterer may be volatile, the organic grower is sympathetic to livestock raisers who frankly are exceptionally mature people, if strange slightly.
This harks back to the spiritual basis of society being how little meat you are relying on. Which it seems was replaced by a culture of lying, (which the illogicalities of this story indicate this story is a lie) through writing, popularized by the old testament. A return to simpler agrarian times is consistent with less writing, and greater patriarchy. So the story must be changed to the destruction of writing, by agrarianism; in a feud where in the story of Cain and Able lies the genesis of the overtaking of writing by honesty.
But how do you deal with that? As a descendant of Abraham, are you able to handle this issue, or do you have to recuse yourself? At some point are not all the descendants bound into some vast anthropological experiment? I don’t know. If you are within the culture of writing, and holding back honesty, then you have no more right to make a comment, than a real estate agent showing property, unless what you say is factual.
At the same time, who is optimistic enough to prophesize the fall of writing falsehoods, the fall of writing without testifying using the terminology of the New Testament, and beyond; when far from being able to escape lies, we live in a miserable universe that traditionally causes fear. Is there a trade between agrarianism and writing, involving the number of saved? I think the potential myriad of unexplored nuances within, these metaphysics, step over that question, and you may find a path here.
Not only is the light of the food producing community mocked here, but the story seems to go more like this: One brother offered the lord a false society ruled by writing; and another offered the Lord a more messy perhaps society, but one dominated by agriculture and relationship with animals. That the Lord chose western civilization now, if we can still lay that claim, indicates how scary the universe is. As history wrought wars on more honest economies, so we must police our own contracts; for changes that affect them.