Vegetarianism and Religion

[mattgreenecomposer]

Ill eat pretty much anything that walks on 4 legs, swims, or flies in the air....

[timothy42b]

To clarify, Im curious about peoples views on the consumption of meat in light of their religious / spiritual / philosophical beliefs. We are talking here about the morality of killing to sustain ones own life, or not as the case may be.

I can only tell you how I personally feel. 

Only aware human life is sacred and only aware human life needs to be protected.  Thus I oppose capital punishment, war unless there's no other option, killing except in self defense, etc.  Preaware human life like an early stage fetus is not sacred and I have no problem with abortion. 

Animal life to me is not equal with human life, and if it stands between me and a full stomach it's going down. 

I realize that it may not seem completely consistent, in that although I allow killing animals I also claim it must be for a valid purpose and must be done without cruelty; in general I oppose any kind of cruel treatment (I almost said inhumane) of animals.  I guess i can't explain that.

Whether that is a religious explanation I am not sure.  Hope this helps.  I think the position of my particular religion is that we are "given dominion" but also expected to exercise good stewardship.  But I don't find that a precise enough specification. 

[mike_lang]

Humans are made in the image and likeness of God.

Animals are naught but tasty steaks, pork roasts, and chicken enchiladas.

'Nuff said.

[ahinton]

i don't understand why a personal choice would get you called everything under the sun.   it's just not their business what you eat.  perhaps they thought you were undermining their own beliefs by believing something different.  i don't really see how what one person eats affects another person.  maybe they need to take a step back and realize that vegetables can sometimes kill a person.  look at what happened with simple bags of frozen spinach.

I'm entirely with you here. It is, of course, true and well known that certain religions lay down some rules about what may and may not be eaten by their adherents and, whilst it is not my place to argue with tenets of religious faiths to which I do not subscribe, I nevertheless do not agree that this should be so, as diet and nutrition are not an intrinsic aspect of religious belief and practice and such rules are therefore unduly proscriptive. I would add only that most foods can be potentially dangerous, not only in general terms (diseased meat or fish, accidental errors in genetic modification of fruits and vegetables, the presence of pesticide residues, etc.) but also in the specific terms of what may not suit the dietary requirements of certain individuals; inevitably the more processed food is, the greater the potential risk of such dangers (hence the frozen spinach case to which you refer).

if one wants to know what the bible says - one merely reads the chapters about clean and unclean meats.  eating meat is in the bible after the supposed 'fall.'

The Bible is specifically relevant to Christians, whereas this thread addresses religion in general; you should therefore make allowances for the fact that the Bible covers only one religion of many in this context. Furthermore, the Bible is some two thousand years old; it therefore dates from an era long before refrigeration, freezing and other means of food preservation came into being and in which almost all agricultural practices and the infrastructure of distribution and retailing of food as we know them today were entirely unknown. To examine what the Bible says about what may or may not be eaten has therefore to be done in a solely historical context rather than as one that can have any relevance today; this is the same about almost everything else in the Bible, as I've said many times before - it's an historical chronicle. Lastly, I would end by adding that what this so-called "fall" can possibly have to do with the state and edibility of meat is beyond me.

my theological differences with people are usually about the 'fall' and involve whether sex is bad.  as i see it - adam and eve didn't get reprimanded for having sex and told they 'fell.'  God merely asked them how they knew they were naked.  ok.  different subject.

Yes, indeed it is, so why have you raised it here? Since you have done so, incidentally, do you really get embroiled in theological debate about "whether sex is bad"? I always know that I'm in for a problem when I see the words "as I see it" from you, Susan. I just don't get this "fall" business in any case; it makes no sense to me. And if certain sexual activity between men and women were frowned upon and accordingly didn't occur, we'd not be having this discussion and no Bible would have been written, because it is the word of a bunch of humans, not of God.

in the new testament - paul explains that 'all things are clean' but not all manners of eating it are beneficial to worship of the true God. for instance, if food is offerred to idols - why pretend you are worshipping an idol. today, typically people aren't in temples eating to artemis or whatever.  also, there is a prescription in the bible not to drink the blood of an animal because it's life is in the blood.  i tend to be very careful on that one because uncooked meat also carries disease and/or bacteria.  also, a correlation has been found between some shellfish and certain cancers. perhaps God knew why he called scavengers 'unclean.'  they eat garbage off the bottom of the ocean.  also, scavengers like the owl, cormorant, hawk - they're also called 'unclean.'  basically clean animals and birds are listed in the bible as having specific features to look for (they are interestingly divided into categories - uncloven or cloven hoof, chew or don't chew the cud) two of those features must exist for an animal to be considered clean.  the clean animals must have a cloven hoof and chew the cud.  the camel has a cloven hoof but doesn't chew the cud.  who would want to eat a camel anyways?  birds are listed specifically as to type of bird and the distinction is that they are not predatory over dead animals.

All of what you write here is once again predicated upon writings dating back two millennia; our entire present-day attitudes to food - growing it, marketing it, manufacturing it, retailing it, storing and preserving it, preparing it, eating it - as well as our dietary and nutritional knowledge - would almost all have been utterly unrecognisable to people in the Middle East in Biblical times.

what churches make an issue of vegetarianism vs. omnivorianism?  scientology?  i think to some jewish faiths (ie messianic) there is an indication in the bible the shabbat looks backwards and forwards at the same time.  for one brief moment (day) we rest and feel the birth of creation and the renewal of it at the second coming.  if the earth will be in complete harmony again - then the animals and trees and everything alive will feel this peace as we do.  it is said that the little child will lie down with a lion.  and the lion is said to eat straw like an ox.  as i see it - God can make life any way He sees fit ...and if He did at creation - what is stopping Him at the return of Jesus Christ?  that is an issue of faith vs seeing, though.  what we see now is far different.  the food chain is basically following predatory instead of vegetarian ideals.

Here we go again, off into your world of fantasy! What I wrote about the general irrelevance of the Christian Bible to present-day issues of food production and consumption likewise applies to the equivalent texts of other religions, partly because it is not, "as I see it"(!), the business of religions to be proscriptive about their adherents' diet and partly because these texts are ancient and we now live an a world where attitudes to all aspects of food are entirely different to the eras in which these texts were written.

Best,

Alistair

[steve jones]

I realize that it may not seem completely consistent, in that although I allow killing animals I also claim it must be for a valid purpose and must be done without cruelty; in general I oppose any kind of cruel treatment (I almost said inhumane) of animals.  I guess i can't explain that.

Actually, no, I dont think seems inconsistent.

Nature can be cruel, but it rarely seems to be unnecessarily so. Is it coincidence that smarter animals are generally the hunters? I fully believe that a dog can feel stress and fear beyond that of a sheep, for instance.

Also, consider for example how a lion kills a wildebeast. Does the lion kill the prey in as painful and grotesque a manner as possible? No, it kills it in the quickest, cleanest, most efficient.

Yes, nature can be cruel, but it seems to avoid unnecessary suffering when and where possible. It appears that real cruelty occurs only when animals begin thinking for themselves. You see killer whales playing with their food, chimps too... then there is us without grotesque industrialized farming.

Who knows, perhaps nature will find ways to 'correct' these anomalies?

Eek! 

Incidentally, please know that Im not sure just how much I believe this tosh myself. It pops into my head, seems to make sense, so it gets posted! But I am certainly not writing it with enough conviction to put it up there with anything remotely credible. I promise you of that!   

SJ

[prometheus]

Nature is cruel and unnecessary. But animals don't see why it is good to reduce the suffering of others.


Animals have no morality. Humans do. (though great apes do have some sense of morality)

[steve jones]

Nature is cruel. And true, animals have no morality on the most part.

But humans are worse! For all of our morality, our bad deeds put Mother Nature's to shame.

SJ

[thalbergmad]

what is stopping Him at the return of Jesus Christ?     

When he comes back, can you please ask him to drop into the Wimpy Bar and get me a flame grilled whopper.

Ta

Thal

[ahinton]

When he comes back, can you please ask him to drop into the Wimpy Bar and get me a flame grilled whopper.

Ta

Thal

Now what good will that do you? Why can't you think of eating something decent for a change? - especially to celebrate the second coming of Jesus Christ, with whom you could perhaps sit down and enjoy some grilled bream and some decent wine; who knows, once the conversation had gotten reasonably relaxed between you, you could talk about devout female Christian pole-dancers in Philadelphia (about which you'd probably already know a little bit more than He would)...

Best,

Alistair

[mike_lang]

And true, animals have no morality on the most part.

I.e., consciences?  Which animals do?

[pianochick93]

what if human meat was available in the stores?  would cows have any sense of compassion when they ripped open the plastic packages and made human hamburgers? 

I'm sorry, but since when do cows wander around in the streets buying meat???

Since when do they have the hand (or hoof) structure required to rip open a bag. The only way they could do that was if they stepped on it or bit it, or both.

[prometheus]

I.e., consciences?  Which animals do?

Great apes.


Remember the chimp experiment when they are given uneven rewards? At one point the ape that is getting the lesser reward for the same task compared to the second chimp. And then it just says: "*** you" and stops completing the exercise even though it was still getting a reward and now it won't get anything.
Or maybe it was throwing it's 'unfair' reward at the human handing out the reward.


There's other examples.

Wait, word filter will come and ruin my post.

[G.W.K]

When he comes back, can you please ask him to drop into the Wimpy Bar and get me a flame grilled whopper.

LOL...does England still have Wimpy Bars? There are none in Scotland now...

G.W.K

[ramithediv]

LOL...does England still have Wimpy Bars? There are none in Scotland now...

G.W.K

Is there anything in Scotland now......

[G.W.K]

Meaning?

G.W.K

[ramithediv]

Meaning?

Do you mean "Meanies"

[G.W.K]

No I meant "Meaning?" which is a term used when someone wishes you to elaborate on a point that they (and maybe others) cannot understand.

 

G.W.K

[thalbergmad]

Is there anything in Scotland now......

Yes, piles of life extending cancer drugs that are paid for by English taxpayers and denied to the English people.

Thal

[G.W.K]

Yes, piles of life extending cancer drugs that are paid for by English taxpayers and denied to the English people.

Thal

Why do the English ALWAYS think about themselves?

G.W.K

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Is there anything in Scotland now......

Yes, piles of life extending cancer drugs that are paid for by English taxpayers and denied to the English people.

Thal

Why do the English ALWAYS think about themselves?

Ah, I know. And us Scots are so generous to them. We give them our politicians 

[G.W.K]

Ah, I know. And us Scots are so generous to them. We give them our politicians 

I never knew you were Scottish. It is true...look at their Prime Ministers.

Tony Blair = Scottish
Gordon Brown = Scottish

G.W.K

[thalbergmad]

Which explains why so much money pours over the border.

Just for once, it would be nice to have a prime minister that puts the English first. This will not happen under the slack jawed cretin that is in power at the moment.

Thal

[G.W.K]

Just for once, it would be nice to have a prime minister that puts the English first.

There you go again - thinking about yourself. Turning everything to you.

G.W.K

[thalbergmad]

Listen sporren features, if it was not for English taxpayers, you would still be running around in skirts foraging for berries.

Remember and be grateful.

Thal

[ahinton]

Listen sporren features, if it was not for English taxpayers, you would still be running around in skirts foraging for berries.

Remember and be grateful.

Thal

It's "sporran", not "sporren" - unless, of course, you are adopting some obsolete English spelling of the word. As to the politicians, we've had over 10 years of UK "government" in which the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer were Scots and the recent changes at the top have not affected that. The leader of the Tories is a Scot. The last two leaders of the Liberal Democrats were (and indeed still are!) Scots. The Labour leader that never became Prime Minister during the Thatcher years, Neil Kinnock, is a Scot. His successor, John Smith (decd.) was a Scot. Sometimes I wonder why so much money was (over)spent on the Scottish parliament building in Edinburgh when the existing houses of parliament in London were already serving the purpose as well as the quality of politicians therein could allow...

And now back to the topic, anyone?...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

if it was not for English taxpayers, you would still be running around in skirts foraging for berries.

The Scots pay taxes too, you know - and as for the berries, we Scots export some of them all over the world and it is accordingly now possible for people in England to buy some of them at grossly inflated prices in Waitrose.

Remember and be grateful...

Best,

Alistair

[ramithediv]

The Scots pay taxes too, you know

Most don't because they don't work. 

[gilad]

Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. Nough said.

[mephisto]

Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. Nough said.

If this is true, than I agree with you.

[timothy42b]

The Scots pay taxes too, you know - and as for the berries, we Scots export some of them all over the world and it is accordingly now possible for people in England to buy some of them at grossly inflated prices in Waitrose.

Remember and be grateful...

Best,

Alistair

The Scots also gave the world bagpipes.

For which we thank you.

Not. 

[ahinton]

Most don't because they don't work. 

Not true (at least not nowadays) - and anyway some Scots don't pay taxes because they can avoid them, but in that they're no different to the English.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The Scots also gave the world bagpipes.

For which we thank you.

Not. 

I've never given anyone any bagpipes, so I cannot be held responsible for that - and anyway, have you not heard of Northumbrian ones - or Hungarian ones? They're not exclusive to Scotland, you know...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The Labour leader that never became Prime Minister during the Thatcher years, Neil Kinnock, is a Scot.

I think you have had too much wine Hinty.

Kinnock was the biggest Welsh git in history.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Sometimes I wonder why so much money was (over)spent on the Scottish parliament building in Edinburgh

Well, the Scots get so much English tax payers money that they had to think of ways to spend it.

Once they had purchased a few thousand crates of Whiskey and a couple of tons of Haggis, they still had a surplus of £100 million. Therefore, the new parliament came into being.

Thal

[ramithediv]

Once they had purchased a few thousand crates of Whiskey

Don't forget all the bottles of "Buckfast Tonic Wine" they buy with their Giros

[ahinton]

I think you have had too much wine Hinty.

Kinnock was the biggest Welsh git in history.

Thal

No, m'sieur. "Git" he may have been (or may still be, for all that I know or care), but his present Welshness does not hide his Scottish ancestry; "Kinnock" is hardly a Welsh name, now, is it?!...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Well, the Scots get so much English tax payers money that they had to think of ways to spend it.

Once they had purchased a few thousand crates of Whiskey and a couple of tons of Haggis, they still had a surplus of £100 million. Therefore, the new parliament came into being.

Thal

They didn't need to "purchase" what was already their own (although "whiskey" would not have been theirs, since that's the Irish stuff whereas "whisky" is the Scots nectar) and, in any case, I didn't realise that the change out a mere hundred million quid was enough to finance the Scottish parliament and its housing...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Don't forget all the bottles of "Buckfast Tonic Wine" they buy with their Giros

No, the majority of my countryfolk are far too busy making a fast buck to bother with buying Devon liquor such as you mention here.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

No, m'sieur. "Git" he may have been (or may still be, for all that I know or care), but his present Welshness does not hide his Scottish ancestry; "Kinnock" is hardly a Welsh name, now, is it?!...

You would have to go back a few generations to find any Scottish blood in that moron.

He is as much Scottish as Pianistimo is Welsh.

Thal

[ahinton]

You would have to go back a few generations to find any Scottish blood in that moron.

He is as much Scottish as Pianistimo is Welsh.

Thal

I don't think that this is at all accurate, although I am no expert on the Scottish ancestry or otherwise of the now absentee Pianistimo.

Anyway, your apparent obsession with my wine-imbibing might suggest that you wonder at my own Scottishness, since I ought surely to be indulging in a liquid on quite another colour.

See you at the Powell concerts tomorrow, I hope.

Best,

Alistair