Forcing Your Child to be Vegan/Vegetarian.
Replies
-
Although I don't recall anywhere in the Bible that the topic of animal cruelty is discussed, there are texts that direct us towards some concept of care for animals. The first text that comes to mind is from the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy: "Don't muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads out the corn." The point is that an animal that is used for labor should also be cared for (and therefore it should be able to eat from the fields it labors in, hence, "don't muzzle" the ox's mouth). Jesus talked about a man pulling his animal out of a ditch on the Sabbath day. In other words, care for the animal is sufficient to "violate" the commandment against labor on the Sabbath.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.
I don't think we need the Bible to teach us to not torture animals. I think Immanuel Kant was probably right when he argued that humans should feel empathy towards other animals to the degree that they resemble ourselves. In other words, when we see that animals experience pain and react in ways that resemble our own reactions, we can legitimately infer that they suffer. We should therefore seek to avoid unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering on animals. Kant thought, and I think he was right, if someone delights in torturing animals they are likely to enjoy inflicting pain on other humans, too. That being said, Kant did not think that animals, since they cannot engage in moral reasoning, do not belong to the "moral community of persons" and therefore we should not equate, for instance, killing a human with killing a dog.
We can arrive at an understanding of such things without some kind of scriptural statement because, I believe, we have the "light" of the moral law that enables us to "see" what is good for us. The Bible itself affirms that there is a universal moral law and that because we have a moral guide we are responsible for our actions.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
Well thank you. :flowerforyou: Most people don't understand my conflict, and think I'm either not committed to the cause of not eating meat, or they think it's just a "phase." Many factors come into play in my ultimate decision, so it's nice to not just hear "EITHER DO IT OR DON'T!" 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.
Meh... I honestly wouldn't have a problem eating Bambi's mom... So I don't really care if people eat dog, rabbit, horse, cow, whatever... But I don't take eating meat all that lightly. Or at least I try not too.0 -
Me:
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) 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. [/quote]
MacPatti:
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:
Me:
Your definition could apply to Caspar the Friendly Ghost. If you claim to know the nature of God, please explain how. Give citations, and don't conveniently skip this question.
MacPatti
1. No, all humans do not believe in God. Nor do all humans believe in anything. Their denial does not make them right.
Me:
Just as your affirmation doesn't make you right.
MacPatti:
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?
Me:
Descartes did two correct things in his life. His idea of animals was not one of them.
MacPatti
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.
Me:
You haven't made any arguments. You have given a convoluted and questionable definition where have the independent terms are undefined.
MacPatti:
There are many very good philosophers who agree with this approach and I’m happy to recommend some things if you are interested.
Me:
Name some, but only those who are not Catholic Apologists.
MacPatti
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).
Me:
Yeah. Money for example.
MacPatti
Your experience certainly shows you, I think, that no one or combination of finite things can satisfy your longings.
Me:
Questionable conclusion.
MacPatti
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.
Me:
I'll tell my wife.
MacPatti
A fundamental feature of human experience is questioning.
Me:
I wish that were true. I wish that people who, for example were raised in religious environments where they are spoon fed pap, and regurgitated thinking of others would think for themselves. If people did question everything, then we would have a national philosopher.
MacPatti:
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.
Me:
Really? This is a guess on your part, obviously since you cannot know that.
MacPatti:
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.
Me:
You may well be right but it is a big step from believing in god and saying god exists.
MacPatti
Our inherent orientation towards unlimited truth and goodness reveal a reality that can bring human desires to “rest.”
Me:
Okay, here we go. You know this how?
MacPatti:
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.
Me:
Okay, If I were grading this in an Ivy League University it would get a D. (Grade inflation) In a Catholic University, probably an A. You haven't defined anything. You have essentially said "God Exists because humans have an urge for perfection." Said another way, "God exists because humans want him to exist" Sorry, but you will have to do a lot better than that.
MacPatti:
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).
Me:
Wow! This may be the most perfect example of Jesuitry I have ever seen. Congratulations.
MacPatti
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.
Me:
I will grant you that the current standard model, even with the recent addition of a verified Higgs, is likely not the final version. But it is the best we have now. And unlike you, I find concepts such as Supersymmetry, Brane Theory, String Theory, and other concepts just beyond the edge of what we know very satisfying.
MacPatti
4. I think my understanding of God is quite rational.
Me:
Of course you do. I find the idea of Dr Who and the Time Lords quite rational. But nonetheless, there is no real proof for either.
MacPatti
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.
Me:
You hold it because you were told to believe it God cannot be the source of anything unless he exists, and that you certainly have not proven,
MacPatti
5. You cannot prove animals do have the qualities I have defined.
Me:
You cannot prove humans have them. And even if I buy your excursion into Alice and Wonderland, you have admitted that some people do not have these transcendent qualities, because of a "defect." Okay then. Let's kill them and eat them.
MacPatti
If I use your approach, you can’t prove rocks and dirt don’t have these qualities, either.
Me:
They don't. I don't buy that "transcendence" is a real quality to start with.
MacPatti
I take the position that it is reasonable to believe things that we have positive evidence to support.
Me:
I also take that position. However, you have adduced no evidence to support anything. It is all speculation and conjecture, with a little Jesuitry thrown in.
'
MacPatti
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.
Me:
Huh? Non seq time is it?
MacPatti
6. I’m happy to define any term you find confusing.
Me:
Nothing you have said constitutes a proof. Everything is your opinion. You have defined a term "quality of transcendence" which has as much meaning as "fraculation of findibar." You have used terms like "Unity with God (the Infinite)" which are meaningless, and then, to boot, you deny your God infinite compassion.
MacPatti
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.
Me:
Regurgitating Catholic stuff again. Why am I not surprised. Try and answer my criticisms other than by saying, "They are invalid." Seriously this definition wouldn't fly in any serious philosophy class I have ever been in.
MacPatti
7.What part of my definition is tautological?
Me:
You define a term in terms of other terms which you claim to be included in the first term.
MacPatti
8. I defined “God”, at least in a preliminary way, above in #4.
Me:
Poor definition, (I am resisting the temptation to say, "that definition sucked." I am trying to present a kinder, gentler me.)
MacPatti
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.
Me:
You have proven nothing. You have come up with a lot of interconnected definitions not one of which has a sold basis in fact or even logic.
MacPatti
10. I have indeed argued that we need an ultimate ground for objective morality and I call that ground “God.”
Me:
Now here you are actually starting on something that could get interesting. God being defined as the ultimate ground for objective morality. Nice. But then doesn't the definition of who God is change when objective morality changes?
MacPatti
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.
Me:
Whoops! You've fallen off the wall again, Humpty Dumpty. You have gone from God being defined as "the ultimate ground for objective morality" to "all things are dependent upon God for being." Non Seq!
MacPatti
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).
Me
Yes it is frightening. Where did I say that? Since when does the Categorical Imperative allow for cultural relativism?
MacPatti
11. Every species depends on God inasmuch as no being in this world has within itself the reason for its being.
Me:
Oh,yes it does. It's called the genome.
MacPatti
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.
Me:
MacPatti. I'm impressed. You are now trying to involve the second law of thermodynamics in your interpretation of God. Well done. So since entropy dictates that total chaos is the ultimate end, then God must be total Chaos, right?
MacPatti
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.
Me:
Okay, quick lesson in philosophy. Finite and infinite are a priori terms. They work in an analytic system, but in a synthetic a posteriori system their meaning changes, and the terms are defined as per the standard model of physics (E.g., "the universe is infinite," as per the standard model where space is curved, obviates definitions in analytic models such as the Euclidean system where you can say "a plane stretches infinitely in all directions." or "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.")
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?
[/quote]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.
Actually, there are plenty. Some books I have used in this discussion:
The Heretic's Feast - Colin Spencer
Judaism and Animal Rights - Roberta Kalechofsky
Judiasm and Vegetarianism - Richard H. Schwartz
Christianity and the Rights of Animals - Andrew Linzey
Deep Vegetarianism - Michael Allen Fox
Ethical Vegetarianism - Kerry S Walters and Lisa Portmess
Vegetarian Judaism - Roberta Kalechofsky
The Lost Religion of Jesus - Keith Akers
Is God a Vegetarian -Richard Alan Young
The Vegetarianism of Jesus Christ - Charles P. Vaclavik
The Forgotten Beginnings of Creation and Christianity - Carl Anders Skriver
Food for the Spirit - Steven Rosen
Of course I also use ancient texts such as those in the Ante Nicene Fathers, and Josephus. As said previously on this board, I probably have a hundred books either directly or indirectly on this subject.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.
[/quote
MacPatti, you have refuted NOTHING. When I started this discussion I admitted up front that my position was a minority one, i.e., our first discussion of the Sermon on the Mount. I said there that only one of the Gospels said something different, but that difference was worth looking at. All you have done is reaffirm that the other Gospels say something different from John. That is not a refutation, that is a reiteration of what I said.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.
God loves rocks? Okay. Does he love Granite more than Marble? Sandstone more or less than schist? Is there a rock Pope? (No I don't mean Jim Morrison or Keith Richards.) How on earth can you claim any of what you said? It is all opinion, i.e. there is nothing intrinsic in the idea of God that necessitates a sliding scale of love, based upon "deeper levels of participation" in his love. Again, even if I bought your confused garden of thought on this subject, there are too many weeds growing in it. For example as I said before explain to me why Adolf Hitler would be more valuable to God than Koko.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?
No, some of these sects overlapped. The Therapeutae, Essenes and Nasarenes did to some degree. The Ebionites were named after a mysterious figure named Ebion, who some believe was Jesus.
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?
Yes. Astute of you to notice. That argument works as well as mine.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).
There are probably dozens of early texts that do not mention the fish. John in my opinon does not mention fish. Irenaeus clearly does not mention fish. If you would like other sources I would be happy to give them to you. It will take me a while to dig them all up.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?
Circumcision was not the threat that vegetarianism was. If one says he is circumcised, there is nothing necessarily indicative of a superior morality about that (except maybe to Jews), but if one says he is vegetarian, he is saying that logically, his ethic is superior to non vegetarian ethics, because he causes less pain and death. This was the position of many early vegetarian sects, some of which I named above. The early Christians required vegetarianism and circumcision.
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.
Because vegetarianism claims to be a superior morality. How many Christians do you think would buy that? If I claimed that I had a superior morality because I was circumcised,most people would laugh. If I had a logical reasonable claim to a superior morality because I didn't kill where others did, I would be taken more seriously. Also, don't forget that these early groups claimed that Jesus was a vegetarian. That being so, if Jesus were indeed a vegetarian, it would be a black eye for the established Christian Church because they were claiming that you don't have to have a special diet to be Christian. Vegetarian Christians were a danger to the established church.
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.
Interesting. I didn't know that. I am aware that Mohammed got his ideas about the Christian religion from Arab Christian groups living in his area. If they in fact believed that James was the successor of Christ, then perhaps many Christians of that time believed it as well.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
MacPatti, by "recognized scholar of New Testiment" you mean those that agree with you. You have already mentioned Elaiine Pagels, and expressed your distain for her. However, as a Professor of Religion at Princeton, she has credentials that you cannot deny. I am not saying she agrees entirely with me, but we think similarly, and she agrees with some of my conclusions. The same can be said for Bart Ehrman, Professor of Religion at The University of North Carolina. Certainly not one for one agreement with me, but probably more so than with you.
There is no good basis for your second point. You are equivocally using “Ebionite” (there were two very different versions of this movement).2. The original Ebionites, Jewish Christians, of which Jesus was certainly a member as was his brother James, was vegetarian.
Really? I wasn't aware of that. Perhaps you can enlighten me. I was referring to the sect referred to by Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 1 page 82, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Ch 26:2 P 352 and 439.
As for the early Christians deeply divided on the issue of whether meat could be eaten see Paul:
"If your brother is outraged by what you eat, then your conduct is no longer guided by love. ... It is a fine thing to abstain from eating meat or drinking wine, or doing anything which causes your brother's downfall."
Romans 14:15
"If meat makes my brother stumble, I will eat no more flesh."
Corinthians 8:13
As for James being the brother of Jesus (which the Catholic Church denies despite that he is clearly named as his brother in the Bible, see Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus.
I know of no recognized NT scholar who takes your position on this.
Well, then you obviously don't get out much. Many of the early scholars do.
In the Catholic tradition, Johannes Schummer, Die altchristilice Fastenpraxis, p. 32, "Abstinence from meat and wine is already know to us in the earliest traditions of Christianity,"
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.
You have not replied to this and I have never refused to respond. Come at me again with whatever you claim I have not responded to.
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.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
No they are obvious to anyone with an open mind. And experts have analyzed them to find that they were written by different authors.
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.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.
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.
Above, I gave a list of books that I use. Sure you you can find some of them. Ideally I recommend that you go to the books written by Jews, who are giving independent views and sources for what they say about early Christianity. Vegetarian Judaism is an excellent one, for example.
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.
Read any or all of the books I listed above. Read the arguments for humoring vegetarians given by Paul above. They were in the New Testament.
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.
Ha! Now I would like to see sources for that.
John the Baptist was not Jesus’ teacher!!! Ha! Where did you get THAT one?8. Jesus' teacher, John the Baptist was vegetarian.
The Bible.9. At the last supper, Jesus, even in your version of the story did not eat meat.
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.
But of course that event was conveniently omitted in four Gospels. Convincing.
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.
You haven't admitted that Innocent III and St Dominic were evil murders. And yes, the issues were complicated but vegetarianism was at the core.
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.
See Quotes from Paul above. The Greek word used for meat in those texts was not the word for meat from a sacrifice.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.
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.
I claim to be God's son as well. But I am not God.
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.
There is a huge amount of data to support my claims.Huge, and it includes the Bible as well as the canonical texts in addition to non-canonical texts. You have to remember that when these texts were written, no one knew which would later be deemed canonical or heresy.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.
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.
I am the one citing the Bible and the Church fathers as well as other sources. You are the one saying, "You are wrong," without giving cites.
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.
There is a difference between having a Pope and having a church leader. Churches like the Lutheran Church today have Synod Presidents to decide certain matters. No one claims he is infallible however,
Now off to my bike race.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?
Not in my opinion,0 -
VegesaurusRex- As much as I've enjoyed this debate, I don't see any reason to keep going over the same points. We can find everything you're typing here in any vegetarian conspiracy theory book or online blog (I checked). If you choose not to eat meat because you feel it is morally wrong, I respect that. My point of contention here has always been that you ground that morality in Christianity, saying Jesus was a vegetarian and that is false.
There are many things we can feel are morally wrong without needing Christianity. For example, many feel it is morally wrong to spank children. I respect their position on that. You feel it is morally wrong to eat met. I respect that. Neither are backed by scripture or Jesus, but I respect both.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?
I think so, certainly. To me, there's a big difference between, for example, the quality of life of a free range chicken, and those who live in pen covered in feces, and in such cramped quarters that they never learn to walk.0 -
VegesaurusRex- As much as I've enjoyed this debate, I don't see any reason to keep going over the same points. We can find everything you're typing here in any vegetarian conspiracy theory book or online blog (I checked). If you choose not to eat meat because you feel it is morally wrong, I respect that. My point of contention here has always been that you ground that morality in Christianity, saying Jesus was a vegetarian and that is false.
There are many things we can feel are morally wrong without needing Christianity. For example, many feel it is morally wrong to spank children. I respect their position on that. You feel it is morally wrong to eat met. I respect that. Neither are backed by scripture or Jesus, but I respect both.
MacPatti, I suspected you would bow out or try to avoid answering when we got to the hard core philosophy. Also quoting Paul to prove my point is going to be a little tough for you to handle, As I asked before, what are the vegetarian conspiracy blogs/books that you have checked. Two or three of the books I posted might be considered conspiracy books, But I would love to see your list. Bytheway, just because some of my arguments (some are definitely original with me) are in what you call "vegetarian conspiracy books" doesn't make them wrong,
If you don't want to continue any more I respect that. But please don't say we have gone over the same things many times. Most of the issues and questions I have posted today we have NEVER touched on.0 -
MacPatti, I suspected you would bow out or try to avoid answering when we got to the hard core philosophy. Also quoting Paul to prove my point is going to be a little tough for you to handle,
To be honest, I didn't even read your last few posts because it's more of the same. Please give me Paul's quote again so I may address this for you. I'm not sure what "hard core philosophy" you're talking about, so perhaps you can tell me what that is as well. I'm afraid you're way out of your league here regarding theology and philosophy, but I'll be happy to reply to these final two points of yours.0 -
Interesting enough, I started a discussion with my wife about what she thought about being a vegetarian. We actually came to a consensus that we some time soon will be getting off red meat and pork. We shall see about poultry and fish.0
-
My husband, who is quite the protein guy, is on board with meatless Mondays, so it's a start for us, too! I'm allergic to shellfish and all fish, so that makes it more difficult here. I've definitely been inspired to look more into slaughterhouses and animal cruelty in the meat industry!Interesting enough, I started a discussion with my wife about what she thought about being a vegetarian. We actually came to a consensus that we some time soon will be getting off red meat and pork. We shall see about poultry and fish.0 -
And Kimmy has inspired me to eat more chocolate bunnies!0
-
Perhaps we could start another debate thread some day regarding how many vegetarians are pro-choice!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: 0 -
Since I just realized we're at 499, I wondered if this thread will get locked at 500 like the main forums. Have we ever done that before in this group?0
-
Since I just realized we're at 499, I wondered if this thread will get locked at 500 like the main forums. Have we ever done that before in this group?
Let's find out.0 -
I see it does! Maybe we can move on to something else now!0
-
I see it does! Maybe we can move on to something else now!
wanna talk about diva cups?:laugh:0 -
I've had a hysterectomy, but for some reason I've joined that conversation!wanna talk about diva cups?:laugh:0 -
I'm not sure I want to know what "diva cup" is...
Patti--I'm glad I could help interest you in eating more chocolate bunnies. :laugh: I personally wait 'til the day AFTER Easter to buy mine...they're usually around 75% off then.
My boyfriend, I suspect, will never be a vegetarian. He is a butcher, and thus, we get meat very cheap and he brings it home a lot. I no longer buy any meat, since he just gets it at work, anyway, for a better price than I can (and he can get best quality, too). However, he definitely eats MORE meat than I do. For example, for him, every dinner MUST have meat, whereas I can most certainly have a meatless dinner. When I go to restaurants, I have no problem ordering a meatless meal, either. He will eat almost anything I make, and he'll try most anything new that I bring home or make, but I know he'd notice the first day I try to give him a meatless dinner. We tried those Morningstar Farm/Boca substitutes, and personally, I am not a fan of those. They're processed to hell and I got sick of them quickly. My boyfriend even tried those, and he wasn't fond of them, either...not to mention I had to live with the gas from him that resulted afterwards and that was lethal. :laugh: I guess what I'm saying is, for us, it'd be "baby steps." For me, it's easier, since for a short time, I was a vegetarian (a couple of months), and I don't feel the need to eat meat 24/7. I think he needs a substitute, though, and definitely not in the form of "fake" burgers and the like. We went to an Indian buffet the other day, and they have a lot of vegetarian dishes, and I was extremely shocked to see that he only had one piece of chicken, and the rest were rice, veggie, and tofu dishes. I never thought I'd see the day where he VOLUNTARILY ate a tofu dish, but he said it was really good, so I may have to learn how to cook it properly to try as a substitute sometime for him. If any of you have tips on cooking tofu, do tell! 0 -
"So one of the many new devices I purchased for this trip was a Diva "Moon Cup". Since feminine hygine supplies would be hard to come by and waste-producing, I opted instead to buy a thing like a Barbie Deluxe Toilet Plunger, and stuff it up my hooha.
The theory is that the cup catches your pan drippings, and you empty it a couple times a day, washing it with hippy soap, and reinserting. It presupposes you are enough of an Earth Mother to be OK not only with your monthly outpourings, but also with generally fossicking around in your flaps. Now, I am no stranger to gore. Nor am I squeamish about my delicate rosje of delight, except that I have no such illusions about it and indeed am always reminded of nothing so much as stuffing an oddly-warm raw turkey. So, when after several weeks of teasing, the Period Fairy threatening to postpone the Communist Invasion until I was actually getting on the plane (I was about ready to scream and cry at some hapless unwary male just as a sacrifice to appease her) at last I greeted the rosy-fingered dawn and set about embarking on my new life as a eco-friendly Diva.
The Moon Cup comes in two sizes; Size A, for youthful nymphs under 30 who have never given birth and have silken tresses and tinkling laughs and are all size 0, and size B, for Big Ol' *****es like m'self, who have either spawned, or are so old (ie over 30) that they might as well have been poppin' them out like Duggar Donuts, because their sugar walls are now echoing corridors full of cobwebs and slackness. Of course the packaging phrases it more nicely, but I was miffed to see that despite having never replicated, I was still doomed to the Big Gulp size because of my age alone.
So, chalice in hand, fingers washed, and let's fold that thing like a taco (no, not THAT thing, the other thing!) and cram it up where only one man has gone before and even then not for a damn long time even when he WAS still around. I'm sure I imagined the rusty creaking sounds as I tried to shove something which was larger than anything previous (with the exception of various medical speculums which, I believe, were constructed by the same person who designed the Montlake Drawbridge)into the Gaping Maw.
Now, you're supposed to roll the cup up, smuggle it past the border, let it expand, then turn it clockwise (or counter clockwise, or then one way and another, stopping when you hear the click, or something...) anyway, you're supposed to be able to turn this thing like a dial in there."If the cup does not turn easily, you did it wrong" Oh, of course, I'll just grasp hold of a thing about the size, shape, and slipperyness of the pointy end of a peeled hard-boiled egg, which is now buried in the meaty folds of my innermost femininity, which, I may add, are well-sluiced with the special effects from a Quentin Tarantino film, and spin that sucker like a dredel.
There is, also, a small stem at the base of this cup, which, being made of the same slippery silicon and about a centimeter long, is about as helpful as providing a live, untrained earthworm for a handle. More on this later.
So, rotate this thing in situ, to ensure a good 'seal' and a comfortable fit.
Does. Not. Happen.
Ladies (and gentlemen, although I hope for your sake none of you gentlemen are reading this), I tried. I hauled that thing in and out of there more times, and with much less joy, than Eeyore with his birthday present, and not once could I get that thing to "turn easily". I finally gave up, since it seemed, at one point, to be "fully inflated" and more or less in the right place. Frankly I think that having left my furrow unplowed for so long, I'm not exactly the proper degree of hotdog-hallway that the instruction-writer was intending to address, but so be it. Let's give this thing a whirl, if we can't give it a twist.
Fast forward a few hours in which I've done nothing much. To its credit, I don't feel the presence of THE CUP at all, no discomfort, not even a vague sense of "eugh" as I sometimes have when knowing all that stands between me and my khakis is a small cottony Dutch boy. In fact, I'm getting rather concerned that the Diva Cup has wormed its way in like some form of parasitic jellyfish and is now eagerly migrating up my fallopian tubes, with me all unknowing. Time to go fishing.
And that is where I discover that, while it's difficult to try and 'turn' a Diva Cup newly lodged in your sanctum sanctorum, it's a freakin' log-fall compared to trying to recover said Cup after it has gotten comfortably settled in the downy folds of your blood-engorged tissues. Yes, indeed, if cram my fingers up there to the point of pain, I can just, tantilizingly, tickle the end of that goddamn silicone 'stem'. Grasp it? Not in hell.
Of course the instructions say, if this happens, DO NOT PANIC. Well, thank god for that, because I was already running through the list of people I'd trust with a flashlight, a set of forceps, and an experience that would scar both of us for the rest of our lives. There were instructions for different positions, and "bearing down" and so forth, which I tried, to no avail, and I was pretty sure that my ham-fisted efforts (ahem) were just making things worse on the "swollen" front, so Diva and I took a break, and retired to our respective corners for an hour or so.
Now I brought out my secret weapon: Beer. If, gods help me, I ever have to have a baby, I intend to be drunk off my *kitten* for the delivery, and I surely hope that the Fairy Prince Unicorn Elvis who is my chosen Babydaddy will provide a bedside IV of godly ambrosia, or at least Jim Beam. But anyway, two beers and I'm good to go spelunking in quest of the Holy Grail once more.
Either the beer, or the break, or the combination of all of these and squatting on the bathmat like a Neanderthal crapping, finally, produced enough of that goddamn 'stem' to grab (which was good, because I was dreading having use the kitchen tongs Up There or something) and, with a surprising amount of horrible suctioning "discomfort", the invader was routed! And, wonder of wonders, it was indeed partially filled. Not filled with DELICIOUS CANDY, no, but it did seem to have been, you know... -working-, before I so rudely dislodged it from its parasitic feeding. I felt a combination of grudging respect and intrigue, as one might upon meeting a foe worthy of their steel. Provided we could agree to disagree on the whole "turn 360 degrees in place" aspect, perhaps this could indeed be a workable partnership. Better than bleeding into the Rupununi and attracting every caiman, pirahna, and candiru fish for fifty miles.
But not without some boundaries first. I tied a ROPE to that stupid stem this time."0 -
"Of course the instructions say, if this happens, DO NOT PANIC. Well, thank god for that....."
HAHAHAHAHA!! Funny review.0 -
"To be honest, I didn't even read your last few posts because it's more of the same. Please give me Paul's quote again so I may address this for you. I'm not sure what "hard core philosophy" you're talking about, so perhaps you can tell me what that is as well. I'm afraid you're way out of your league here regarding theology and philosophy, but I'll be happy to reply to these final two points of yours."
MacPatti, don't bother replying. Your replies are all standard, and if I want to know what they will be, I can go to the Catholic Encyclopedia. That stuff is just garbage (e.g., "St Dominic didn't really take part in the Inquisition, and he really didn't kill anyone"- even the Singing Nuns knew that wasn't true.)
As for what is "hard core philosophy" in a classic setting of course read Plato and Aristotle. For early modern read Hume, Berkeley, Locke and Kant, and for modern read (if you like the linguistic approach) Ayer, Austin, Wittgenstein and Russell, the latter two also being a good choice for the mathematical approach. Nothing in any of them is remotely like the reasoning you have presented. You might also want to look at a contemporary writer, Korzybski, who lived near me in Connecticut.
Finally, I am most certainly not out of my league, but I am afraid you are. I am afraid you don't have the remotest idea of what philosophy is about, particularly modern philosophy based on Mathematics and Physics and Linguistic analysis to determine what we can know and how we can know it. It is a much different approach than Thomas Aquinas, or any of the "philosophers" you seem to admire.
Also, intellectual honesty is a good place to start. Do not just regurgitate what you have been told is true, but be willing to look at what you believe critically. Since Schweitzer, there has been an Historical Jesus Movement which you seem oblivious to. Much has been learned about Christ the man that very clearly contradicts what you have been taught by the Catholic Church.0 -
I knew I didn't want to know what diva cup is. :sick:0
-
As for what is "hard core philosophy" in a classic setting of course read Plato and Aristotle. For early modern read Hume, Berkeley, Locke and Kant, and for modern read (if you like the linguistic approach) Ayer, Austin, Wittgenstein and Russell, the latter two also being a good choice for the mathematical approach. Nothing in any of them is remotely like the reasoning you have presented. You might also want to look at a contemporary writer, Korzybski, who lived near me in Connecticut.
Finally, I am most certainly not out of my league, but I am afraid you are. I am afraid you don't have the remotest idea of what philosophy is about, particularly modern philosophy based on Mathematics and Physics and Linguistic analysis to determine what we can know and how we can know it. It is a much different approach than Thomas Aquinas, or any of the "philosophers" you seem to admire.
To assert that I am "out of my league" is not the same thing as proving it. Citing a series of names is not the same as demonstrating knowledge of what they wrote. If you know about all these thinkers, you might know that the kinds of arguments I was presenting actually grew out of reflection on the implications of Kant's "transcendentals," the relationship between the "objective" world and the constitutive participation of the mind in forming concepts, etc. If you know about Ayer then you know that his version of Positivism was long ago discredited since it was shown to be self-defeating (to claim "the only things that are true are those that can be demonstrated through the positive method of science" is to claim something that cannot survive its own test; some surface reading on positivism will show that). I'm not sure how you can claim to know much about Plato without knowing the mystical dimensions of his thought, the goal of knowledge being union with the "Good" from which all reality proceeds. Perhaps you know something about his later descendent, Plotinus, who developed these mystical dimensions of Plato's thought. And, of course, you conveniently left out St. Augustine's whose synthesis and development of Plotinus' thought (Neoplatonism) became the context in which philosophy was carried out in the western world for nearly a 1,000 years. If you know Aristotle then you should know that it was unsolved problems of his thought that inspired people like Aquinas and the major Muslim philosophers (Avicenna and Averroes). It was reflection on people like Aquinas and Kant and other modern movements in philosophy (especially Hegel) that led to major 20th century philosophical/theological movements that fit much of what I was talking about in prior emails (see Karl Rahner for instance).
So, your latest reply is nothing but a woefully inadequate and unimpressive argument "from authority." You are asserting your authority without offering a substantial reply to any of my points. Again, it is one thing to argue against your opponent in dialog by arrogantly asserting you have more knowledge but it is an entirely different thing to demonstrate your superior understanding. I am quite confident that anyone reading our correspondence will conclude that my arguments stand unanswered from your end. In fact, I suspect that what you are doing is exactly what the worst of the Inquisitors did. They likely simply asserted their position and declared that those they persecuted weren't "in their league."0 -
I missed the whole debate!
Now, whether I can be bothered to go back, find quotes I want to reply to and copy and paste them into this thread remains to be seen ...0
This discussion has been closed.