Forcing Your Child to be Vegan/Vegetarian.
Replies
-
So I have read through a lot of this debate and I think a lot of good points have been made by both sides, but I think in the end the vegetarians who do not eat meat for moral issues are akin to pro-lifers who think life begins at conception. Once a person decides, in both cases, that something is a conscious life form and has value they consider it's killing murder. Those who do not think it is conscious do not believe it is murder. Once the lines have been drawn, there really isn't much way for either side to back away from their stance.
I was thinking the same thing. And what I am getting from this conversation is people who thing it's morally wrong to kill and eat a an animal but it's perfectly fine to abort a human fetus.. :huh:
Call me biased, but my thinking goes the other way - I am always surprised when the same people who argue for the rights of a cluster of cells take no issue with the needless slaughter of other sentient creatures.
Both of which have heartbeats. I suppose I would be more empathatic if they were against the slaughter of both.
"I suppose I would be more empathetic if they were against the slaughter of both." And some are, though I agree they are in the minority. Life under this fragile biosphere abounds extravegantly in all forms, physical and mental. Variety truly is the foundation. Thinking in stereotypes limits and creates an illusion of a boundary where none may exist.
-Debra0 -
Right. And do you know that your definition would be utterly meaningless to an atheist. Actually it is uttlerly meaningless to me. It is a random definition designed to tautologically prove your argument, i.e., the definition is so totally meaningless but includes the conclusion you wish to make. I.e., Humans define god. Only humans can achieve god. Therefore, animals can be eaten. This is utter garbage, More Catholic hokus pokus. Do you want to have a serious discussion or do you want to keep pitching dogma. Philosophically and practically this definition is simply not viable. For the following reasons:
1. Not all humans believe in god.
2. You cannot prove there is such a thing as the "infinite good." And if the history of the Catholic Church is the example you hold up, the only thing you might be able to prove is that there is infinite evil.
3. If you are going to discuss the world use the standard model of physics. You cannot postulate a god, you can only speculate about he/she/it.
4. I do not accept your definition of god and most rational people, including I suspect most people born Catholic (like my wife) would not either.
5. You cannot prove that animals do not have this mystical quality you have defined.
6. Your term is vague, amorphous and rests on other vague amorphous terms, like "union with god."
7. Your definition is, as I said tautological, and assumes that everyone is going to accept your definition of god, which I certainly don't.
8. Actually, you have not defined god, other than to make it something that the whole house of cards depends upon
9. You cannot or have not proven that human existence transcends the material
10. You cannot, and have not proven that our value as a species depends upon god, but you have postulated it.
11.You cannot and have not proven that if our species depends upon god, other species do not depend upon god.
12. Your dichotomy between infinite and finite is nonsense and meaningless.
And actually I have to go to my health club in five minutes, and I cannot complete this list, but I do not accept your definition and I will not argue it since it is built upon a lot of mystical crap you haven't defined, and which I doubt can be meaningfully defined.
I see God as full of compassion, not full of whatever your stuff is. A being of infinite compassion would not condone pain or murder.
My definition of “transcendent” is not random. If you define the properties of matter/physical being (spatial extension, weight, motion, physical relations, etc.) you can easily see that the interior life of human beings includes activities and dimensions that cannot be meaningfully understood in physical/material categories (e.g., abstract thought/universal concepts, moral notions, freedom, religious notions). To your points:
1. No, all humans do not believe in God. Nor do all humans believe in anything. Their denial does not make them right. Descartes, for instance, believed animals were simply materially extended machines and therefore, since they were not connected to a “soul,” they had no feelings. I’m sure you think he’s stupid, too, but does the fact that he didn’t believe something mean that you can’t make an argument for it?
2. On your second point, I hope you can understand that discussing complicated topics is difficult in a short space. I’ll do the best I can under the constraints of time and space but I do think there are very good reasons supporting the argument I made on transcendence. There are many very good philosophers who agree with this approach and I’m happy to recommend some things if you are interested. Concerning the “infinite good,” I do think I can make several sound philosophical arguments for its existence. Let me just point to one thing now, though. You may deny there is an infinite good but your activity and thinking today will show you are inconsistent on this. I’m sure you know, based on your life experience, that you continually long for things you perceive to be “good” (or desirable in some sense). Your experience certainly shows you, I think, that no one or combination of finite things can satisfy your longings. Although you may place your hopes for happiness and fulfillment in a new car, house, relationship, job, etc., you always find a nagging incompleteness accompanies it. A fundamental feature of human experience is questioning. Why do we question? Obviously because what we experience does not completely satisfy our curiosity, wonder, amazement, and desire to “know” and be fulfilled. Questioning, wondering, unsettledness, etc., are all characteristics of human life in this world as we are confronted with finite objects. What is the limit of our desires for truth and goodness? I do not see any good reason to say there is a limit. Consequently, the human intellect and will are fundamentally oriented towards an unlimited (“infinite”) horizon that always transcends any particular “good” experienced in this world. “Good” things in this world are partially satisfying since they share in some sense in the ultimate goal towards which we are striving but none of them are everything we desire. I suggest this reality is why most people believe in God or a supreme reality. Our inherent orientation towards unlimited truth and goodness reveal a reality that can bring human desires to “rest.” That reality is God. When this line of reasoning is coupled together with the various good arguments for the objective existence of God, I think the case is very good. Not only is human nature directed towards God by its intrinsic orientation (in intellect and freedom), but also the very structure of the world we experience directs us to its origin: God.
3. I deny that physics is the final word on the meaning of the world or its origins. There is absolutely no reason to think that the current model of physics is the final one. There is no reason to think that physics accounts for itself (therefore we need a “metaphysical” account of things to ground it). Physics is incapable of explaining higher levels of emergent phenomena in this world (e.g., life, intelligence) unless you take an unsatisfactory reductionistic approach to these matters. Further, and important for our discussion, physics is no help at all in discussing moral questions.
4. I think my understanding of God is quite rational. What, in particular would “most people” object to? I affirm that God is the eternal, self-existent, uncaused source of all dependent being. I hold that this God chose to manifest himself in the course of history in the person of Jesus Christ.
5. You cannot prove animals do have the qualities I have defined. If I use your approach, you can’t prove rocks and dirt don’t have these qualities, either. I take the position that it is reasonable to believe things that we have positive evidence to support. It is not reasonable to believe things merely because we cannot prove them false. I can’t prove the laws of physics won’t change in five minutes and cause the sun to explode. I’m certainly not going to fear that happening, however.
6. I’m happy to define any term you find confusing. I was presenting a complex argument but, I I am quite willing to define more carefully any of my terms. Every point has been well thought out by much better minds than my own and I’m happy to explain.
7.What part of my definition is tautological?
8. I defined “God”, at least in a preliminary way, above in #4.
9. I have proven that human existence transcends the material at the beginning of this reply and have alluded to my reasons in prior responses. The very fact that we are talking about what matter is shows that we are transcending it in abstract thought. To think “about” matter means we have made of it an objective of reflection. The reflection itself transcends the object.
10. I have indeed argued that we need an ultimate ground for objective morality and I call that ground “God.” Since God is the ultimate source and ground of all dependent, finite beings, any value those beings have is to be understood, at least ultimately, in relationship to their Ground and Reason for being. You have not offered an alternative basis for moral value. If anything, you have denied there is such a basis by affirming moral relativity and affirming that moral systems justify themselves merely by internal coherence (a rather frightening proposal).
11. Every species depends on God inasmuch as no being in this world has within itself the reason for its being. Considered in themselves, nothing in this world “has to be.” There was a time when neither of us existed. The universe is at a moment, I am told, in its “life.” It was apparently “born” around 13 billion years ago and is slowly dying from entropy. Everything about his world points us to its finitude and dependence.
12. Finite is that which has limits and is contingent/dependent. Infinite is that which is without external restraints/limits or dependence. Seems reasonable to me.
You conclude by affirming some kind of “God.” This is confusing. Is your “God” finite? Is your “God” dependent? Upon what basis do you affirm your “God” exists?0 -
I'm not saying that there aren't good and moral atheists... I know that there are... I am friends with quite a few... and I have no problem with them... some of them live their life better than those that are religious.
Ain't that the truth!0 -
As I have said many times there are many, many versions of Jesus and Christianity. I have come to my own conclusions about both, and as I have also said before, I am a Chruch of one.
Oh, I didn't realize we weren't speaking of the same Jesus and the same Christianity. So, YOUR Jesus was a vegetarian. Please educate me on your Jesus and what sources you have that prove he was a vegetarian. If it's simply because you WANT to believe Jesus was a vegetarian, that's fine. I have no problem with people making their own choices. It's when you start making statements to others that it is wrong to do something because Jesus didn't do it. Like I said, I assumed we were speaking of the same Jesus, so that may have been when the confusion began.
My Jesus is definitely not the Jesus of the Catholic Religion. My Jesus is compassionate and loving. My Jesus subsumes all sentient creatures into His circle of love. You already have a taste of why I believe that, for example,
1. Jesus was a member of the Nazarene sect, which was vegetarian
2. The original Ebionites, Jewish Christians, of which Jesus was certainly a member as was his brother James, was vegetarian.
3. Much of Catholic and other mainstream Christianity was borrowed from pagan mythology, for example, the Virgin Birth, dying for our sins, ascending into heaven, in the case of the Catholic religion, the mother goddess.
4. There are places in the Bible where Jesus seemed to eat meat, such as, e.g., John 21, but all of these can be shown without much difficulty to have been later additions
5. Biblical tampering extends to the Sermon on the Mount as I have shown using John and Irenaeus. There are dozens of other arguments that we never got to.
6. Early Christians were almost universally vegetarian. Only after the Paulist philosophy took hold and it was decided to spread Christianity to the pagans (good marketing move on his part) did not being Jewish, circumcised or vegetarian come into being in Christianity. The Romans never would have become Christians if Paul hadn't made these changes.
7. Some sects, such as the Gnostics maintained their vegetarianism for over a thousand years.
8. Jesus' teacher, John the Baptist was vegetarian.
9. At the last supper, Jesus, even in your version of the story did not eat meat.
10. The early Christian Church made great efforts to stamp out vegetarians, There are hundreds of examples I could give of this but the one we have focused on most was the Albigensian Crusade where Pope Innocent III killed a million vegetarians. Some by pouring molten lead down their throats.
11. The issue of vegetarianism was huge in the early Chruch and was consider a heresy.
12. The Council of Nicea codified a church that was nothing like Jesus' version. Jesus never claimed to be a god. The reason for the formalization of rules for the Christian Church at Nicea was to create a socio-political organization that would back the emperor and keep the people quiet. Constantine himself was NOT a Christian. He was using them. Those he used were used willingly because it meant great wealth for them.
13. The official Church was a church militant. The gentle Jesus would never have killed heretics, nor would he have set up a hierarchy of rulers headed up by the Pope.
14. James was the leader of the Christian Church after Jesus died. James was Jesus' brother.
There are a lot more reasons, but I am really spending too much time now. Later.0 -
If we are debating the worth of a "cluster of cells" in comparison to a cow, I'd say the cow has more value and worth as a life. Get further along in a pregnancy, my answer would change. But everything is on a scale, in my opinion. I'd have no qualms about squashing a bug, but I'd cry if I hit a dog with my car by accident. I have no moral objection to eating a cheeseburger, but I couldn't bring myself to eat a dolphin steak. Not every animal is equal, and a clump of cells is not a baby, in my view.
As an aside, I had absolutely no idea that there was any religious argument for/against vegetarianism.0 -
Right. And do you know that your definition would be utterly meaningless to an atheist. Actually it is uttlerly meaningless to me. It is a random definition designed to tautologically prove your argument, i.e., the definition is so totally meaningless but includes the conclusion you wish to make. I.e., Humans define god. Only humans can achieve god. Therefore, animals can be eaten. This is utter garbage, More Catholic hokus pokus. Do you want to have a serious discussion or do you want to keep pitching dogma. Philosophically and practically this definition is simply not viable. For the following reasons:
1. Not all humans believe in god.
2. You cannot prove there is such a thing as the "infinite good." And if the history of the Catholic Church is the example you hold up, the only thing you might be able to prove is that there is infinite evil.
3. If you are going to discuss the world use the standard model of physics. You cannot postulate a god, you can only speculate about he/she/it.
4. I do not accept your definition of god and most rational people, including I suspect most people born Catholic (like my wife) would not either.
5. You cannot prove that animals do not have this mystical quality you have defined.
6. Your term is vague, amorphous and rests on other vague amorphous terms, like "union with god."
7. Your definition is, as I said tautological, and assumes that everyone is going to accept your definition of god, which I certainly don't.
8. Actually, you have not defined god, other than to make it something that the whole house of cards depends upon
9. You cannot or have not proven that human existence transcends the material
10. You cannot, and have not proven that our value as a species depends upon god, but you have postulated it.
11.You cannot and have not proven that if our species depends upon god, other species do not depend upon god.
12. Your dichotomy between infinite and finite is nonsense and meaningless.
And actually I have to go to my health club in five minutes, and I cannot complete this list, but I do not accept your definition and I will not argue it since it is built upon a lot of mystical crap you haven't defined, and which I doubt can be meaningfully defined.
I see God as full of compassion, not full of whatever your stuff is. A being of infinite compassion would not condone pain or murder.
My definition of “transcendent” is not random. If you define the properties of matter/physical being (spatial extension, weight, motion, physical relations, etc.) you can easily see that the interior life of human beings includes activities and dimensions that cannot be meaningfully understood in physical/material categories (e.g., abstract thought/universal concepts, moral notions, freedom, religious notions). To your points:
1. No, all humans do not believe in God. Nor do all humans believe in anything. Their denial does not make them right. Descartes, for instance, believed animals were simply materially extended machines and therefore, since they were not connected to a “soul,” they had no feelings. I’m sure you think he’s stupid, too, but does the fact that he didn’t believe something mean that you can’t make an argument for it?
2. On your second point, I hope you can understand that discussing complicated topics is difficult in a short space. I’ll do the best I can under the constraints of time and space but I do think there are very good reasons supporting the argument I made on transcendence. There are many very good philosophers who agree with this approach and I’m happy to recommend some things if you are interested. Concerning the “infinite good,” I do think I can make several sound philosophical arguments for its existence. Let me just point to one thing now, though. You may deny there is an infinite good but your activity and thinking today will show you are inconsistent on this. I’m sure you know, based on your life experience, that you continually long for things you perceive to be “good” (or desirable in some sense). Your experience certainly shows you, I think, that no one or combination of finite things can satisfy your longings. Although you may place your hopes for happiness and fulfillment in a new car, house, relationship, job, etc., you always find a nagging incompleteness accompanies it. A fundamental feature of human experience is questioning. Why do we question? Obviously because what we experience does not completely satisfy our curiosity, wonder, amazement, and desire to “know” and be fulfilled. Questioning, wondering, unsettledness, etc., are all characteristics of human life in this world as we are confronted with finite objects. What is the limit of our desires for truth and goodness? I do not see any good reason to say there is a limit. Consequently, the human intellect and will are fundamentally oriented towards an unlimited (“infinite”) horizon that always transcends any particular “good” experienced in this world. “Good” things in this world are partially satisfying since they share in some sense in the ultimate goal towards which we are striving but none of them are everything we desire. I suggest this reality is why most people believe in God or a supreme reality. Our inherent orientation towards unlimited truth and goodness reveal a reality that can bring human desires to “rest.” That reality is God. When this line of reasoning is coupled together with the various good arguments for the objective existence of God, I think the case is very good. Not only is human nature directed towards God by its intrinsic orientation (in intellect and freedom), but also the very structure of the world we experience directs us to its origin: God.
3. I deny that physics is the final word on the meaning of the world or its origins. There is absolutely no reason to think that the current model of physics is the final one. There is no reason to think that physics accounts for itself (therefore we need a “metaphysical” account of things to ground it). Physics is incapable of explaining higher levels of emergent phenomena in this world (e.g., life, intelligence) unless you take an unsatisfactory reductionistic approach to these matters. Further, and important for our discussion, physics is no help at all in discussing moral questions.
4. I think my understanding of God is quite rational. What, in particular would “most people” object to? I affirm that God is the eternal, self-existent, uncaused source of all dependent being. I hold that this God chose to manifest himself in the course of history in the person of Jesus Christ.
5. You cannot prove animals do have the qualities I have defined. If I use your approach, you can’t prove rocks and dirt don’t have these qualities, either. I take the position that it is reasonable to believe things that we have positive evidence to support. It is not reasonable to believe things merely because we cannot prove them false. I can’t prove the laws of physics won’t change in five minutes and cause the sun to explode. I’m certainly not going to fear that happening, however.
6. I’m happy to define any term you find confusing. I was presenting a complex argument but, I I am quite willing to define more carefully any of my terms. Every point has been well thought out by much better minds than my own and I’m happy to explain.
7.What part of my definition is tautological?
8. I defined “God”, at least in a preliminary way, above in #4.
9. I have proven that human existence transcends the material at the beginning of this reply and have alluded to my reasons in prior responses. The very fact that we are talking about what matter is shows that we are transcending it in abstract thought. To think “about” matter means we have made of it an objective of reflection. The reflection itself transcends the object.
10. I have indeed argued that we need an ultimate ground for objective morality and I call that ground “God.” Since God is the ultimate source and ground of all dependent, finite beings, any value those beings have is to be understood, at least ultimately, in relationship to their Ground and Reason for being. You have not offered an alternative basis for moral value. If anything, you have denied there is such a basis by affirming moral relativity and affirming that moral systems justify themselves merely by internal coherence (a rather frightening proposal).
11. Every species depends on God inasmuch as no being in this world has within itself the reason for its being. Considered in themselves, nothing in this world “has to be.” There was a time when neither of us existed. The universe is at a moment, I am told, in its “life.” It was apparently “born” around 13 billion years ago and is slowly dying from entropy. Everything about his world points us to its finitude and dependence.
12. Finite is that which has limits and is contingent/dependent. Infinite is that which is without external restraints/limits or dependence. Seems reasonable to me.
You conclude by affirming some kind of “God.” This is confusing. Is your “God” finite? Is your “God” dependent? Upon what basis do you affirm your “God” exists?
I really don't have time to rebut this now. I will, rest assured. However, it is very cute the way you ignore issues you cannot confront.. I tried to cut to the chase by asking how a God of infinite love could not include sentient beings in his circle of love, and as I expected, you totally ignored that.0 -
My Jesus is definitely not the Jesus of the Catholic Religion. My Jesus is compassionate and loving. My Jesus subsumes all sentient creatures into His circle of love. You already have a taste of why I believe that, for example,
1. Jesus was a member of the Nazarene sect, which was vegetarian
2. The original Ebionites, Jewish Christians, of which Jesus was certainly a member as was his brother James, was vegetarian.
3. Much of Catholic and other mainstream Christianity was borrowed from pagan mythology, for example, the Virgin Birth, dying for our sins, ascending into heaven, in the case of the Catholic religion, the mother goddess.
4. There are places in the Bible where Jesus seemed to eat meat, such as, e.g., John 21, but all of these can be shown without much difficulty to have been later additions
5. Biblical tampering extends to the Sermon on the Mount as I have shown using John and Irenaeus. There are dozens of other arguments that we never got to.
6. Early Christians were almost universally vegetarian. Only after the Paulist philosophy took hold and it was decided to spread Christianity to the pagans (good marketing move on his part) did not being Jewish, circumcised or vegetarian come into being in Christianity. The Romans never would have become Christians if Paul hadn't made these changes.
7. Some sects, such as the Gnostics maintained their vegetarianism for over a thousand years.
8. Jesus' teacher, John the Baptist was vegetarian.
9. At the last supper, Jesus, even in your version of the story did not eat meat.
10. The early Christian Church made great efforts to stamp out vegetarians, There are hundreds of examples I could give of this but the one we have focused on most was the Albigensian Crusade where Pope Innocent III killed a million vegetarians. Some by pouring molten lead down their throats.
11. The issue of vegetarianism was huge in the early Chruch and was consider a heresy.
12. The Council of Nicea codified a church that was nothing like Jesus' version. Jesus never claimed to be a god. The reason for the formalization of rules for the Christian Church at Nicea was to create a socio-political organization that would back the emperor and keep the people quiet. Constantine himself was NOT a Christian. He was using them. Those he used were used willingly because it meant great wealth for them.
13. The official Church was a church militant. The gentle Jesus would never have killed heretics, nor would he have set up a hierarchy of rulers headed up by the Pope.
14. James was the leader of the Christian Church after Jesus died. James was Jesus' brother.
There are a lot more reasons, but I am really spending too much time now. Later.
I believe I've already refuted all of this conspiracy theory "crap" (to borrow your adjective), but I'll see if there is anything I've missed. You cannot deny that the majority of the books you have and sources you've used are typical vegetarian conspiracy theorist books. I've looked into them and found them to be lacking in scholarly research, some of them do not even cite their sources or background.0 -
However, it is very cute the way you ignore issues you cannot confront.. I tried to cut to the chase by asking how a God of infinite love could not include sentient beings in his circle of love, and as I expected, you totally ignored that.
I never ignore anything on purpose. There are many issues raised and little time on my end to reply. Instead of accusing me of ignoring issues I “cannot confront,” simply bring them to my attention again and I’ll make it a point to reply to them. Concerning your question, a God of infinite love gives love to creatures in accordance with their mode of being and purpose in his creation. God “loves” the rocks, for instance, inasmuch as he wills their existence and they share, in their own way, in God’s goodness. Sentient beings share in God’s love inasmuch as they have the gift of existence and enjoy finite, limited pleasure and participate in the wide range of expressions of God’s creative power in this world. Other creatures (like ourselves) are given deeper levels of participation in God’s love. I don’t see any contradiction between God’s “infinite love” (which, I don’t think I used that expression; I would say that God is infinite love within himself and chooses to allow other creatures to participate in his love but God doesn’t have to give to every creature everything that his love means within his own being; in fact, God doesn’t owe anyone anything, our very being is a gift from God and we have no basis to demand anything of God) and God making creatures who, according to varying modes of receptivity, experience God’s love differently.0 -
If we are debating the worth of a "cluster of cells" in comparison to a cow, I'd say the cow has more value and worth as a life. Get further along in a pregnancy, my answer would change. But everything is on a scale, in my opinion. I'd have no qualms about squashing a bug, but I'd cry if I hit a dog with my car by accident. I have no moral objection to eating a cheeseburger, but I couldn't bring myself to eat a dolphin steak. Not every animal is equal, and a clump of cells is not a baby, in my view.
As an aside, I had absolutely no idea that there was any religious argument for/against vegetarianism.
To your clump of cells argument, I disagree... while not viable, an embryo or a fetus as barely just a clump of cells... it has working organs within a few short weeks... but that's just where I differ on the "clump of cells" view point...
As far as the last statement... neither did I... I don't remember every reading "thou shalt not eat meat" in the Bible... though I did know that Daniel and the other Jewish men did prove the Babylonians wrong when they ate a vegetarian diet and were healthier than the Babylonians... but like I said before, I don't see it as that big of a moral dilemma...0 -
My Jesus is definitely not the Jesus of the Catholic Religion. My Jesus is compassionate and loving. My Jesus subsumes all sentient creatures into His circle of love. You already have a taste of why I believe that, for example,
1. Jesus was a member of the Nazarene sect, which was vegetarian
2. The original Ebionites, Jewish Christians, of which Jesus was certainly a member as was his brother James, was vegetarian.
3. Much of Catholic and other mainstream Christianity was borrowed from pagan mythology, for example, the Virgin Birth, dying for our sins, ascending into heaven, in the case of the Catholic religion, the mother goddess.
4. There are places in the Bible where Jesus seemed to eat meat, such as, e.g., John 21, but all of these can be shown without much difficulty to have been later additions
5. Biblical tampering extends to the Sermon on the Mount as I have shown using John and Irenaeus. There are dozens of other arguments that we never got to.
6. Early Christians were almost universally vegetarian. Only after the Paulist philosophy took hold and it was decided to spread Christianity to the pagans (good marketing move on his part) did not being Jewish, circumcised or vegetarian come into being in Christianity. The Romans never would have become Christians if Paul hadn't made these changes.
7. Some sects, such as the Gnostics maintained their vegetarianism for over a thousand years.
8. Jesus' teacher, John the Baptist was vegetarian.
9. At the last supper, Jesus, even in your version of the story did not eat meat.
10. The early Christian Church made great efforts to stamp out vegetarians, There are hundreds of examples I could give of this but the one we have focused on most was the Albigensian Crusade where Pope Innocent III killed a million vegetarians. Some by pouring molten lead down their throats.
11. The issue of vegetarianism was huge in the early Chruch and was consider a heresy.
12. The Council of Nicea codified a church that was nothing like Jesus' version. Jesus never claimed to be a god. The reason for the formalization of rules for the Christian Church at Nicea was to create a socio-political organization that would back the emperor and keep the people quiet. Constantine himself was NOT a Christian. He was using them. Those he used were used willingly because it meant great wealth for them.
13. The official Church was a church militant. The gentle Jesus would never have killed heretics, nor would he have set up a hierarchy of rulers headed up by the Pope.
14. James was the leader of the Christian Church after Jesus died. James was Jesus' brother.
There are a lot more reasons, but I am really spending too much time now. Later.
I believe I've already refuted all of this conspiracy theory "crap" (to borrow your adjective), but I'll see if there is anything I've missed. You cannot deny that the majority of the books you have and sources you've used are typical vegetarian conspiracy theorist books. I've looked into them and found them to be lacking in scholarly research, some of them do not even cite their sources or background.
I would be interested in your list of "vegetarian conspiracy books," because I am not sure I have read one. I would be delighted to however, since I was seriously considering writing one myself.0 -
2. The original Ebionites, Jewish Christians, of which Jesus was certainly a member as was his brother James, was vegetarian.
Jesus was a member of a sect that was named after him?
4. There are places in the Bible where Jesus seemed to eat meat, such as, e.g., John 21, but all of these can be shown without much difficulty to have been later additions
John is accepted as the youngest of the gospels any many believe at least partially written by Gnostic authors. Is it possible that they edited existing stories to fit their world view?5. Biblical tampering extends to the Sermon on the Mount as I have shown using John and Irenaeus. There are dozens of other arguments that we never got to.
Tampered by using a word that can mean fish or relish (relish being a sauce served with bread that can be made out of fish).6. Early Christians were almost universally vegetarian. Only after the Paulist philosophy took hold and it was decided to spread Christianity to the pagans (good marketing move on his part) did not being Jewish, circumcised or vegetarian come into being in Christianity. The Romans never would have become Christians if Paul hadn't made these changes.
then why was circumcision not stamped out with as much vigor as vegetarianism supposedly was?
7. Some sects, such as the Gnostics maintained their vegetarianism for over a thousand years.
8. Jesus' teacher, John the Baptist was vegetarian.
9. At the last supper, Jesus, even in your version of the story did not eat meat.
10. The early Christian Church made great efforts to stamp out vegetarians, There are hundreds of examples I could give of this but the one we have focused on most was the Albigensian Crusade where Pope Innocent III killed a million vegetarians. Some by pouring molten lead down their throats.
11. The issue of vegetarianism was huge in the early Chruch and was consider a heresy.
why? You have yet to supply a motive for this.
13. The official Church was a church militant. The gentle Jesus would never have killed heretics, nor would he have set up a hierarchy of rulers headed up by the Pope.
I agree with this. I have always held that Christianity had a good thing going until they tried to make it a form of government.
14. James was the leader of the Christian Church after Jesus died. James was Jesus' brother.
Islam has this same issue of succession.0 -
I know of no recognized scholar of New Testament backgrounds of contents who agrees with your first point (Jesus was a member of the Nazarene sect). My bet is that you will provide a source, if you do, from some conspiracy theory book written by someone who reasons like you do about historical documents.1. Jesus was a member of the Nazarene sect, which was vegetarian
There is no good basis for your second point. You are equivocally using “Ebionite” (there were two very different versions of this movement). I know of no recognized NT scholar who takes your position on this.2. The original Ebionites, Jewish Christians, of which Jesus was certainly a member as was his brother James, was vegetarian.
I have already replied to this and you have consistently refused to respond.3.Much of Catholic and other mainstream Christianity was borrowed from pagan mythology, for example, the Virgin Birth, dying for our sins, ascending into heaven, in the case of the Catholic religion, the mother goddess.
Such things can only be “shown” to be later additions to those who have already concluded that Jesus was a vegetarian before looking at the data. The burden of proof is on you to show that a first-century Jew whose culture used meat and sacrifices, etc., on every hand, chose vegetarianism. A few references in Gnostic writings is certainly weak evidence.4. There are places in the Bible where Jesus seemed to eat meat, such as, e.g., John 21, but all of these can be shown without much difficulty to have been later additions
You often refer to sources and arguments without identifying them. Based on what I have seen, there is little reason to fear your “dozens” of arguments.5. Biblical tampering extends to the Sermon on the Mount as I have shown using John and Irenaeus. There are dozens of other arguments that we never got to.
Wow. This is quite an unsubstantiated statement. I’d like to see evidence for “almost universal vegetarianism” among early Christians.6. Early Christians were almost universally vegetarian. Only after the Paulist philosophy took hold and it was decided to spread Christianity to the pagans (good marketing move on his part) did not being Jewish, circumcised or vegetarian come into being in Christianity. The Romans never would have become Christians if Paul hadn't made these changes.
Gnosticism was contrary to original Christianity and that is why they rejected most of the biblical writings. Their source of information was their own imagination and the contents of Gnosticism have almost nothing to do with Judeo-Christian roots.7. Some sects, such as the Gnostics maintained their vegetarianism for over a thousand years.
John the Baptist was not Jesus’ teacher!!! Ha! Where did you get THAT one?8. Jesus' teacher, John the Baptist was vegetarian.
Jesus did celebrate the Passover with his disciples and would have eaten meat (lamb)! He took the end of that meal when the final cup was used and the unleavened bread and instituted a new celebration but the lamb would have been eaten earlier.9. At the last supper, Jesus, even in your version of the story did not eat meat.
Back to the Albigensians. You haven’t answered whether you agree with the Abligensians on everything they taught. Are you claiming that the Church has gone around looking for vegetarians and killing them for that? The issues, as usual, are far more complicated.10. The early Christian Church made great efforts to stamp out vegetarians, There are hundreds of examples I could give of this but the one we have focused on most was the Albigensian Crusade where Pope Innocent III killed a million vegetarians. Some by pouring molten lead down their throats.
Eating meat offered in sacrifice to idols was an issue in the early Church. Vegetarianism was not.11. The issue of vegetarianism was huge in the early Chruch and was consider a heresy.
Most of this point is nonsense and is consistent with your conspiracy theory orientation. Jesus did claim to be God’s Son and the authorities considered this “blasphemy” and worthy of death. It is interesting how you conveniently dismiss anything in the Gospels that doesn’t fit your version of things as “additions” but yet you accept bizarre claims by later Gnostic sects with not a word of criticism. Your inconsistency and tendency to gravitate towards the bizarre and unusual shines out everywhere.12. The Council of Nicea codified a church that was nothing like Jesus' version. Jesus never claimed to be a god. The reason for the formalization of rules for the Christian Church at Nicea was to create a socio-political organization that would back the emperor and keep the people quiet. Constantine himself was NOT a Christian. He was using them. Those he used were used willingly because it meant great wealth for them.
The gentle Jesus forced people out of the Temple and declared eternal damnation for some. I’ve often thought that many versions of Jesus do pretty well until people read the Gospels. You have created a “Jesus” (the one you call “MY Jesus”) that has little to do with the one we find in the primary sources. You find no objection to manipulating the data at your whim to support what you want Jesus to be. I think it would be more intellectually honest to simply discard Jesus and declare yourself the final authority on these matters.13. The official Church was a church militant. The gentle Jesus would never have killed heretics, nor would he have set up a hierarchy of rulers headed up by the Pope.
To say “James was the leader of the Christian Church” presupposes there was a single leader over all the Christian communities. Are you granting that kind of structure from the very beginning? Was Christianity, from the start, a reality that had a one-leader structure? This seems to pose some problems for your vision of the early Church. I’m betting you will ignore this point as well as most of the ones above!14. James was the leader of the Christian Church after Jesus died. James was Jesus' brother.0 -
Summertime, MacPatty(i) and Kimmy - you inspire! You are each at different stages in your curiosity and research regarding what you eat but you are all curious, aware, and engaged. I thought I finally had it all figured out with a pescetarian diet but then had to amend that slightly when I became seriously allergic to soy isolate protein recently. :sad: My research, though, and curiosity allowed me the ability to flex appropriately when the universe seemed to deem I needed to. We all have to do the best we can and really, with valid information easily available, the only excuse is willful ignorance.
Three cheers to you three :drinker: :drinker: :drinker:
-Debra
:flowerforyou: Aw, thank you!0 -
Summertime, MacPatty(i) and Kimmy - you inspire! You are each at different stages in your curiosity and research regarding what you eat but you are all curious, aware, and engaged. I thought I finally had it all figured out with a pescetarian diet but then had to amend that slightly when I became seriously allergic to soy isolate protein recently. :sad: My research, though, and curiosity allowed me the ability to flex appropriately when the universe seemed to deem I needed to. We all have to do the best we can and really, with valid information easily available, the only excuse is willful ignorance.
Three cheers to you three :drinker: :drinker: :drinker:
-Debra
:flowerforyou: Aw, thank you!
Now where's that LIKE button I keep looking for? Oh well...here's to you all: :drinker:0 -
Now where's that LIKE button I keep looking for? Oh well...here's to you all: :drinker:
And because apparently I want us all to have diabetes...
0 -
I love your creative use of jpg's to correct MFP's lack of proper features. Plus, PANDAS with oreo feet!!! I'm willing to risk diabetes for one of those.0
-
I love your creative use of jpg's to correct MFP's lack of proper features. Plus, PANDAS with oreo feet!!! I'm willing to risk diabetes for one of those.
We can split one--then we're only half at risk.
0 -
Summertime, MacPatty(i) and Kimmy - you inspire! You are each at different stages in your curiosity and research regarding what you eat but you are all curious, aware, and engaged.
I will begin participating in "Meatless Mondays" this Monday!
I am so glad to hear this. Thank you for being a great example of open-mindedness
0 -
So I have read through a lot of this debate and I think a lot of good points have been made by both sides, but I think in the end the vegetarians who do not eat meat for moral issues are akin to pro-lifers who think life begins at conception. Once a person decides, in both cases, that something is a conscious life form and has value they consider it's killing murder. Those who do not think it is conscious do not believe it is murder. Once the lines have been drawn, there really isn't much way for either side to back away from their stance.
I was thinking the same thing. And what I am getting from this conversation is people who thing it's morally wrong to kill and eat a an animal but it's perfectly fine to abort a human fetus.. :huh:
Call me biased, but my thinking goes the other way - I am always surprised when the same people who argue for the rights of a cluster of cells take no issue with the needless slaughter of other sentient creatures.
Both of which have heartbeats. I suppose I would be more empathatic if they were against the slaughter of both.
I guess the big issue for me is that animals have developed brains and nervous systems and feel pain, can suffer and grieve.
I am also against the idea of animals being brought into the world only to be be slaughtered or used as food. Really, if I were to get down to it, I would be against the ritual impregnation of cows, pigs and other animals of the "food industry" and the eventual birth of their offspring, because if there were no animals brought into the industry, there would be nothing to slaughter. Plus, everything that goes along with the "miracle of birth" in the factory farm setting - gestation crates and the dairy industry, to name two examples. It bothers me that humans think so highly of themselves that they would bring a baby cow into the world only to eventually kill and eat it (or steal the mother's milk and send said baby cow to the veal factory). Really, I'm more anti-birth in the farm animal world than anything else.
I don't really feel that the two are comparable.If we are debating the worth of a "cluster of cells" in comparison to a cow, I'd say the cow has more value and worth as a life. Get further along in a pregnancy, my answer would change. But everything is on a scale, in my opinion. I'd have no qualms about squashing a bug, but I'd cry if I hit a dog with my car by accident. I have no moral objection to eating a cheeseburger, but I couldn't bring myself to eat a dolphin steak. Not every animal is equal, and a clump of cells is not a baby, in my view.
Please bear in mind that this is simply asked out of curiosity, but do you find that society dictates what animals you find "valuable", such as a dog, or is it a hierarchy that you create?0 -
I don't think anyone here has insinuated that atheists, agnostics, or the religious are either more or less moral than eachother. But as far as morality coming from god or the bible, once again I need to point out that there is nothing in the bible forbidding animal torture, but whether you're a meat eater or veggie, we can all agree that it is wrong. How did we come to these conclusions without supernatural guidance?
Edit: Nothing in the bible to my knowledge.0 -
I want to throw a question out here: what is the moral difference between what we know as animal cruelty and killing an animal to eat?0
-
\I want to throw a question out here: what is the moral difference between what we know as animal cruelty and killing an animal to eat?
To my knowledge, The butcher my dad used to work for did it at their shop and they did it quickly and as painlessly as possible.
Killing an animal out of cruelty is doing it with the intent to see it suffer and feel pain.
Killing an animal to eat can be a means of survival and be done is an easy/painless way if done right.0 -
I want to throw a question out here: what is the moral difference between what we know as animal cruelty and killing an animal to eat?
It's a good question and further illustrates my point here and in past discussions about morality. I am a meat eater, although I have heard a lot of good points by the vegans/vegetarians here. The difference for me is that while I eat meat, I don't like seeing anything suffer needlessly or cruely.0 -
I've already granted that you don't have to be religious to believe torturing animals is wrong. But you can't say it's morally wrong for someone to eat meat because Jesus didn't. Just say you think it's morally wrong and leave Christianity out of it. (this is a general 'you', not directed to you).It's a good queston and further illustrates my point here and in past discussions about morality. I am a meat eater, although I have heard a lot of good points by the vegans/vegetarians here. The difference for me is that while I eat meat, I don't like seeing anything suffer needlessly or cruely.0 -
I've already granted that you don't have to be religious to believe torturing animals is wrong. But you can't say it's morally wrong for someone to eat meat because Jesus didn't. Just say you think it's morally wrong and leave Christianity out of it. (this is a general 'you', not directed to you).It's a good queston and further illustrates my point here and in past discussions about morality. I am a meat eater, although I have heard a lot of good points by the vegans/vegetarians here. The difference for me is that while I eat meat, I don't like seeing anything suffer needlessly or cruely.
No, I understand what you are saying, and we are on the same side of the issue, albeit for different reasons. But we were speaking to the moral aspects of it and exactly why it is wrong to be cruel to an animal if you were using christianity as a reason. That was all. It wasn't an attack on the faith as much as a debate on the foundation of of the value that torturing an animal is bad. It's actually a very interesting look at morality, because many people who enjoy activities such as dog fighting do not view it as morally wrong while others make the excuse that it is cultural, mirroring things like ****-fighting.
I've thought about it and decided that decided that animal cruelty is sensless and deranged free of scripture guiding me. I was just wondering if you could point to anything the bible said declaring animal cruelty was wrong. It is sort of a gotcha question because if there isn't, then you have come to the same conclusion I have without divine intervention which is something we have debated on before. But to be fair, I am not rock solid on that position that the bible doesn't speak of it, I just couldn't recall anything of that nature.0 -
\I want to throw a question out here: what is the moral difference between what we know as animal cruelty and killing an animal to eat?
To my knowledge, The butcher my dad used to work for did it at their shop and they did it quickly and as painlessly as possible.
Killing an animal out of cruelty is doing it with the intent to see it suffer and feel pain.
Killing an animal to eat can be a means of survival and be done is an easy/painless way if done right.
I suppose if it really came down to it, I would rather a death be quick and painless than prolonged and painful, but ultimately, isn't it a death? Does the "quick and painless" nature somehow justify it?
Sure, eating meat "can" be a means of survival, but for most of us posting here, who are not in any way starving, left on a desert island, etc., the consumption of meat goes beyond a means of survival and becomes a matter of taste, and ultimately greed. Even though the human body doesn't need meat, people still choose to kill and eat them - plus, if we get those meats and animal products from factory sources (and even "organic", "local" and "free-range" sources), there is a stunning amount of cruelty involved in their "production" that the public never sees, mostly because people just plain don't want to think about it. And don't get me wrong - for a large part of my life, I too put up my blinders because the thought of a doe-eyed cow might ruin my steak dinner.
But I think it's important to note that for the most part, cruelty is a big ingredient in the production of animal products. Even on hyper-local farms, the ultimate goal is to make a profit no matter how much a farmer "cares" for his animals - that means male calves and "spent" cows are useless to a dairy farm, male chicks are useless to an egg farm. Even if it's not just the killing that qualifies as cruelty, certainly the production of meat and animal products should.
I remember not too many months ago, the US ban on horse meat was lifted, and people (well, my Facebook at least) went absolutely ballistic. Horse steaks? Disgusting! The dog meat festival in China? Barbaric! Yet Hindus in India might just as quickly point the finger at us for our unrivaled consumption of cows.
I think that even if a person chooses to eat meat, it's important that they step back and ask "why?" If the answer is some variation of "because that's how it's always been", then it might be time to do a little research.0 -
\I want to throw a question out here: what is the moral difference between what we know as animal cruelty and killing an animal to eat?
To my knowledge, The butcher my dad used to work for did it at their shop and they did it quickly and as painlessly as possible.
Killing an animal out of cruelty is doing it with the intent to see it suffer and feel pain.
Killing an animal to eat can be a means of survival and be done is an easy/painless way if done right.
I suppose if it really came down to it, I would rather a death be quick and painless than prolonged and painful, but ultimately, isn't it a death? Does the "quick and painless" nature somehow justify it?
Sure, eating meat "can" be a means of survival, but for most of us posting here, who are not in any way starving, left on a desert island, etc., the consumption of meat goes beyond a means of survival and becomes a matter of taste, and ultimately greed. Even though the human body doesn't need meat, people still choose to kill and eat them - plus, if we get those meats and animal products from factory sources (and even "organic", "local" and "free-range" sources), there is a stunning amount of cruelty involved in their "production" that the public never sees, mostly because people just plain don't want to think about it. And don't get me wrong - for a large part of my life, I too put up my blinders because the thought of a doe-eyed cow might ruin my steak dinner.
But I think it's important to note that for the most part, cruelty is a big ingredient in the production of animal products. Even on hyper-local farms, the ultimate goal is to make a profit no matter how much a farmer "cares" for his animals - that means male calves and "spent" cows are useless to a dairy farm, male chicks are useless to an egg farm. Even if it's not just the killing that qualifies as cruelty, certainly the production of meat and animal products should.
I remember not too many months ago, the US ban on horse meat was lifted, and people (well, my Facebook at least) went absolutely ballistic. Horse steaks? Disgusting! The dog meat festival in China? Barbaric! Yet Hindus in India might just as quickly point the finger at us for our unrivaled consumption of cows.
I think that even if a person chooses to eat meat, it's important that they step back and ask "why?" If the answer is some variation of "because that's how it's always been", then it might be time to do a little research.
Like I said, all interesting points, and I promise I will look further into the healthiness of being a vegetarian. Problem for me is that I desire a lot of protein consumption to keep the muscle I already have, and I have a lean body mass of around 190-200 lbs. If I can get that kind of protein support from being a veggie, I'll consider it. Past that, I do think that the anti-animal eating crowd has made good a good argument. I can't promise I would convert, but who knows. I did eat a lot of Boca stuff because of a friends wife while I was in the Army.0 -
\I want to throw a question out here: what is the moral difference between what we know as animal cruelty and killing an animal to eat?
To my knowledge, The butcher my dad used to work for did it at their shop and they did it quickly and as painlessly as possible.
Killing an animal out of cruelty is doing it with the intent to see it suffer and feel pain.
Killing an animal to eat can be a means of survival and be done is an easy/painless way if done right.
I suppose if it really came down to it, I would rather a death be quick and painless than prolonged and painful, but ultimately, isn't it a death? Does the "quick and painless" nature somehow justify it?
Sure, eating meat "can" be a means of survival, but for most of us posting here, who are not in any way starving, left on a desert island, etc., the consumption of meat goes beyond a means of survival and becomes a matter of taste, and ultimately greed. Even though the human body doesn't need meat, people still choose to kill and eat them - plus, if we get those meats and animal products from factory sources (and even "organic", "local" and "free-range" sources), there is a stunning amount of cruelty involved in their "production" that the public never sees, mostly because people just plain don't want to think about it. And don't get me wrong - for a large part of my life, I too put up my blinders because the thought of a doe-eyed cow might ruin my steak dinner.
But I think it's important to note that for the most part, cruelty is a big ingredient in the production of animal products. Even on hyper-local farms, the ultimate goal is to make a profit no matter how much a farmer "cares" for his animals - that means male calves and "spent" cows are useless to a dairy farm, male chicks are useless to an egg farm. Even if it's not just the killing that qualifies as cruelty, certainly the production of meat and animal products should.
I remember not too many months ago, the US ban on horse meat was lifted, and people (well, my Facebook at least) went absolutely ballistic. Horse steaks? Disgusting! The dog meat festival in China? Barbaric! Yet Hindus in India might just as quickly point the finger at us for our unrivaled consumption of cows.
I think that even if a person chooses to eat meat, it's important that they step back and ask "why?" If the answer is some variation of "because that's how it's always been", then it might be time to do a little research.
Like I said, all interesting points, and I promise I will look further into the healthiness of being a vegetarian. Problem for me is that I desire a lot of protein consumption to keep the muscle I already have, and I have a lean body mass of around 190-200 lbs. If I can get that kind of protein support from being a veggie, I'll consider it. Past that, I do think that the anti-animal eating crowd has made good a good argument. I can't promise I would convert, but who knows. I did eat a lot of Boca stuff because of a friends wife while I was in the Army.
My heart is all aflutter to hear this No need to look at it as "conversation" - Meatless Mondays are a great place to start! Maybe this isn't the place to put it, but I feel the need to get a little tangential here.
I completely understand the need for adequate protein - when I went vegan while on my school's Olympic weightlifting team, I had the same concerns. Here's some good animal-free sources of protein:
Seitan (home-prepared or store bought): 118 calories/24g protein per 3.5oz. (Also, my favorite).
Tempeh: 240 calories/20g protein per 1/2 package
Vegan Boca Burgers: 100 calories/19g protein per patty
Black Beans: 240g/16g protein per cup
Lentils: 230g/18g protein per cup, cooked
Vegan Protein Powder (brown rice/gemma pea blend): 118 calories/25g protein per scoop
Tofu (when you learn how to prepare it, it is sooooo delicious): 60 calories/6g protein per 3oz.0 -
I remember not too many months ago, the US ban on horse meat was lifted, and people (well, my Facebook at least) went absolutely ballistic. Horse steaks? Disgusting! The dog meat festival in China? Barbaric! Yet Hindus in India might just as quickly point the finger at us for our unrivaled consumption of cows.
Yep. Just as most people in the U.S. do not eat bugs and say "eww gross," others balk at our meat consumption. And I was waiting for someone to bring up the lack of beef consumption in India. I know people who eat veal, but won't eat a lamb, and vice versa. It's pick-and-choose based on the culture you live in, and/or how you were raised. People just don't want to admit they're hypocrites.
Personally, I know I cannot cut meat out cold turkey (pun somewhat intended ). I live with a butcher, so it's especially hard. I'm sure it doesn't mean much to a real vegetarian or vegan, but stuff like this inspires me to eat LESS meat. Maybe one day I can cut it out entirely, who knows. I often think about it. 0 -
I remember not too many months ago, the US ban on horse meat was lifted, and people (well, my Facebook at least) went absolutely ballistic. Horse steaks? Disgusting! The dog meat festival in China? Barbaric! Yet Hindus in India might just as quickly point the finger at us for our unrivaled consumption of cows.
Yep. Just as most people in the U.S. do not eat bugs and say "eww gross," others balk at our meat consumption. And I was waiting for someone to bring up the lack of beef consumption in India. I know people who eat veal, but won't eat a lamb, and vice versa. It's pick-and-choose based on the culture you live in, and/or how you were raised. People just don't want to admit they're hypocrites.
Personally, I know I cannot cut meat out cold turkey (pun somewhat intended ). I live with a butcher, so it's especially hard. I'm sure it doesn't mean much to a real vegetarian or vegan, but stuff like this inspires me to eat LESS meat. Maybe one day I can cut it out entirely, who knows. I often think about it.
It probably doesn't mean much coming from one person on the internet, but don't feel this somehow cheapens your choices. Every vegetarian/vegan that would say that lessening your meat consumption "isn't a big deal" forgets about their own past that likely involved cheeseburgers and mom's meat loaf.
Like a lot of things (weight loss, for example), the decision to eliminate meat and animal products only comes when the person is ready. To the animals spared by your decision to give up meat, it's no small thing 0
This discussion has been closed.