Forcing Your Child to be Vegan/Vegetarian.
Options
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:
Okay, if you are referring to me, do not make assumptions. This is a philosophical discussion. Just because I ask a question like, "If someone has a low IQ why can't we eat them." Do not assume that I am advocating eating people with low IQs. That is NOT how a philosophical discuission works. When I truly advocate something, it will not be ambiguous.
I wasn't referring to anyone in general. Just find it ironic that some people are against killing animals but not human fetuses. The same way people who are against the death penalty are also pro-choice.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.0 -
I have a problem with this myself! Same for the pro-lifers who believe abortion is wrong, but then support the death penalty.The same way people who are against the death penalty are also pro-choice.0 -
I understand the associaton you were making, Adrian. My reply to this would be that I can explain WHY I believe the murder of human beings is wrong. I ground my morality in God and Christianity (regardless if anyone else buys into that). However, I do not see how a vegan or vegetarian can proclaim that it is morally wrong to eat meat because Jesus was a vegetarian (they are then grounding their morality in Jesus and Christianity), but have no source to back that up. That was my initial point of contention.I wasn't linking the two things philosphically, but the arguments remind me of each other. Once a person has been convinced something is murder, it's easy to see why they feel so strongly about it. That's the only point I was trying to make.
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. I do not believe you must have a deity on which to base morality. In fact I have my own opinion on Jesus and Christianity, which we are likely never to get to since we are continually debating Catholic Dogma.0 -
Now here is a philosophical discussion... which came first? a diety or morals?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.0 -
Now here is a philosophical discussion... which came first? a diety or morals?
Well, since atheists have their own moral system, I guess morals came first.0 -
Now here is a philosophical discussion... which came first? a diety or morals?
A person who does not believe in God can have morals. I do not think one has to have a diety to be a moral human being. I have friends who are atheists, and they are kind, loving people who do not go around killing people or eating babies. A deeper philosophical discussion on morality would take us into what "grounds" someone in their morality. Adrian and I have danced this one before.
0 -
Now here is a philosophical discussion... which came first? a diety or morals?
Well, since atheists have their own moral system, I guess morals came first.
But were there atheists at the beginning of humanity? Seeing as it seemed like every tribe and people group had their own version of god (albeit similar... this is even evident after the crossing of the ice bridge from the Eastern Hemisphere to the Western)... and while atheists may have their "own" moral system... it still seems to mirror off the same ole, same ole...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.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 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
