NationStates Jolt Archive

Why would Jesus, the embodiment of altruistic compassion, eat meat, there by causing suffering to animals of His Fathers creation?
If He is God, which I have believed for all of my life, wouldn't he have the highest moral standerds?

Protein?

Why would Jesus, the embodiment of altruistic compassion, eat meat, there by causing suffering to animals of His Fathers creation?

Do we actually have any evidence (either secular or Gospel) that he did in fact eat meat?

Um, meat is tasty?

he did eat fish

Because not even Jesus could turn down a nice rare sirloin steak. :)

he did eat fish

I recall that he provided a meal for the five thousand from the fishes and loaves, but did he actually partake himself? (ignoring the fact that is probably only a metaphorical feeding with spiritual sustenance, rather than your actual small fishes and loaves...)

Do we actually have any evidence (either secular or Gospel) that he did in fact eat meat?

Actually, if I may quote the Gospel:
"'Have you anything to eat?' And they offered Him a piece of grilled fish, which he took and ate before their eyes." -Luke 24:42-43

he did eat fish
God hates shrimp!

www.godhatesshrimp.com

I think you have to bear in mind the period in which Jesus lived (without getting into the argument of whether he did or didn't). The kind of things acceptable then and now are vastly different - in Jesus' time, it's unlikely there would have been many hippies saying "yeah, man, but animals man, they're just like us". Historical context, at all times.

In Jesus' time, long hair on a man was considered an abomination.

God hates shrimp!

www.godhatesshrimp.com

He hates figs as well.

http://www.godhatesfigs.com/

What else should he have eaten? Aren't the plants just as alive, just as much hi creations?

Every time you get sick and get better, your immune system kills off thousands of invading germ cells or virii. Every salad you eat, every steak you eat, every drink you take, kills things.

There are an extremely small number of organisms, all single cellular or smaller, living in ocean thermal vents that are capable of living without depending on the death of others. Plants mix energy from the sun and the minerals and nutrietns of plant and animal corpses to live. Animals depend on either amputating ot killing those plants to survive themselves. Diseases kill organisms, and the organisms kill the diseases to defend themselves.

Death of anything, human or otherwise, isn't something to be looked forward to, but neither can it be avoided. Even within the Garden of Eden (if you believe it existed) plants were sacrificed for food.

So long as life depends on metabolism, death and life will go hand in hand eternally. All we can do is take care to not deal out death needlessly or rashly.

I think you have to bear in mind the period in which Jesus lived (without getting into the argument of whether he did or didn't). The kind of things acceptable then and now are vastly different - in Jesus' time, it's unlikely there would have been many hippies saying "yeah, man, but animals man, they're just like us". Historical context, at all times.

In Jesus' time, long hair on a man was considered an abomination.

The Bible says that Jesus of was of the Jewish sect N'tzarim, meaning that, actually, he never cut his hear. And even before Jesus there were many people in India and Egypt who were vegetarians.

Actually, if I may quote the Gospel:
"'Have you anything to eat?' And they offered Him a piece of grilled fish, which he took and ate before their eyes." -Luke 24:42-43

That's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for, however it is after he is risen from the dead and so can hardly be taken as a conventional act of eating.

What else should he have eaten? Aren't the plants just as alive, just as much hi creations?

Every time you get sick and get better, your immune system kills off thousands of invading germ cells or virii. Every salad you eat, every steak you eat, every drink you take, kills things.

There are an extremely small number of organisms, all single cellular or smaller, living in ocean thermal vents that are capable of living without depending on the death of others. Plants mix energy from the sun and the minerals and nutrietns of plant and animal corpses to live. Animals depend on either amputating ot killing those plants to survive themselves. Diseases kill organisms, and the organisms kill the diseases to defend themselves.

Death of anything, human or otherwise, isn't something to be looked forward to, but neither can it be avoided. Even within the Garden of Eden (if you believe it existed) plants were sacrificed for food.

So long as life depends on metabolism, death and life will go hand in hand eternally. All we can do is take care to not deal out death needlessly or rashly.

Its actually quite simple once you really think about it. Do the plants feel pain when you kill them, are they conscious of their existence (like animals, including insects)? Do we exploit the plants rights when we mass breed them only to be killed? NO.

That's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for, however it is after he is risen from the dead and so can hardly be taken as a conventional act of eating.
of course it was a conventional act of eating
jesus rose from the dead wtih the same body he died with and was jsut as human as before he died

i dont see why vegetarianism would be more moral. the eating of meat seems to be well within gods plan or he would have spoken against it much sooner than the new testament

i dont see why vegetarianism would be more moral.

contrast with...

All we can do is take care to not deal out death needlessly or rashly.

Well, for the vast majority of the western world it is needless to eat meat - there are alternatives available.

That's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for, however it is after he is risen from the dead and so can hardly be taken as a conventional act of eating.

You right, I am sorry that my last example wasn't very clear. Jesus did however, feed meat to his followers, though.
And what I meant even more by this thread was, why does the Bible seem to despise vegetarians (of which I happily consider myself.)
for example when the Bible says : "People range from those who believe they may eat any sort of meat to those whose faith is so weak they dare not eat anything but vegetables"- Romans 14:2
It really doesn't make much sense when he says that vegetarians are "weak of faith" and I find it insulting.

of course it was a conventional act of eating
jesus rose from the dead wtih the same body he died with and was jsut as human as before he died

How human was he before he died?

Beacuse after that fall God gave animals for man's consumption

Jesus was 100 percent man and 100 percent God.

"People range from those who believe they may eat any sort of meat to those whose faith is so weak they dare not eat anything but vegetables"- Romans 14:2
It really doesn't make much sense when he says that vegetarians are "weak of faith" and I find it insulting.

Paul is a strange character, that can't be escaped from, and an argument can be made that much of what he expressed in his letters has little basis in the actual teachings of Jesus. To a certain extent he stands in something of the same relation as Plato does to Socrates.

The Bible says that Jesus of was of the Jewish sect N'tzarim, meaning that, actually, he never cut his hear. And even before Jesus there were many people in India and Egypt who were vegetarians.

Really? Now, I'm sure Paul wrote about the long hair abomination thing. I'm no biblical scholar though, so I freely admit that I could be hideously, hideously wrong.

Paul is a strange character, that can't be escaped from, and an argument can be made that much of what he expressed in his letters has little basis in the actual teachings of Jesus. To a certain extent he stands in something of the same relation as Plato does to Socrates.

Right, so that explains my post then.

Nicely timed!

Paul is a strange character, that can't be escaped from, and an argument can be made that much of what he expressed in his letters has little basis in the actual teachings of Jesus. To a certain extent he stands in something of the same relation as Plato does to Socrates.

It still bothers me though that there are so many Christians saying that it was part of Gods plan to have animals bred and raised to die in meat factories.

Well considering there are no formalities and no labels then why would you label Jesus a veggie or meat eater? Wouldnt that be a formality that you say he can not eat meat? Then label him something that another person chooses to live by. Hmm even the bible will tell you that Jesus was a individual leader that used the guidance of his father to lead all the good on this earth. So why should he follow what someone else wants him to do? You don't have to follow anyone do you? You can lead, we all can lead. So don't follow what other people want you to do and be.

i dont see why vegetarianism would be more moral. the eating of meat seems to be well within gods plan or he would have spoken against it much sooner than the new testament

I find it hard to believe in a God that includes animals suffering and eventual murder into his plan.

How human was he before he died?
i believe that dogma has it that he was entirely human as well as entirely god. or something to that effect. in any case he was fully human

hey if you dont like animals being killed and eaten, talk to GOD not me. its the way the world is arranged, its no more immoral for US than it is for a lion. we DO however have a responsibility to not make animals suffer more than is necessary. cruelty to animals is wrong.

remember that whole cain killed abel thing? cain was jealous that god didnt like his grain sacrifice while he liked abels animal sacrifice. so i guess god has always liked that animal death thing. *shrug*

Beacuse after that fall God gave animals for man's consumption

I'm not sure where in the Bible you are refering to, possibly you are refering to pre-Fall times in the first book of Genesis, and it isn't entirely clear that he did give animals for man's consumption. It all depends on your interpretation of the word translated as 'dominion' - some take it to mean stewardship, a responsibility to watch over and care for the animals.

King James Version:

Gen 1:29
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing
seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Gen 1:30
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the
air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Note how it is not explicitly stated that we should eat the animals.

If we are going to speak of God's intentions (a foolish thing, because humans can never understand, being but imperfect copies of God)...

If God intended that his creatures all be vegetarians, explain: the lion.

Explain also the structure of the human mouth, with both flat grinding teeth (plants) and also pointed, shearing teeth (flesh).

And of course, compare and contrast the digestive tracts of a herbivore (horse, cow, camel) human, and predator (dog, lion, dolphin).

hey if you dont like animals being killed and eaten, talk to GOD not me. its the way the world is arranged, its no more immoral for US than it is for a lion. we DO however have a responsibility to not make animals suffer more than is necessary. cruelty to animals is wrong.

I thought God gave us freedom of choice, no? - whereas we do not know if he gave such a gift to the lion.

It still bothers me though that there are so many Christians saying that it was part of Gods plan to have animals bred and raised to die in meat factories.

It bothers me that so many Christians say it's part of God's plan to have non-believers burning in a pit of fire for all eternity for never having heard of him. Religion can be used to justify all manner of nonsense if you've got the gall for it. Being part of a faith doesn't always mean you're interested in doing the right thing, and I think it is human nature to want to take the easy route through life.

i believe that dogma has it that he was entirely human as well as entirely god. or something to that effect. in any case he was fully human

hey if you dont like animals being killed and eaten, talk to GOD not me. its the way the world is arranged, its no more immoral for US than it is for a lion. we DO however have a responsibility to not make animals suffer more than is necessary. cruelty to animals is wrong.

remember that whole cain killed abel thing? cain was jealous that god didnt like his grain sacrifice while he liked abels animal sacrifice. so i guess god has always liked that animal death thing. *shrug*

Why would God of compassion and love, Jesus Christ, find joy in animal sacrifice. And I have asked God many times why he did the things he did. Sorry, but he hasn't answered on my God Phone yet! I was asking you (pl.) because I needed some different points of view.

It still bothers me though that there are so many Christians saying that it was part of Gods plan to have animals bred and raised to die in meat factories.

Well, I think it is highly unlikely that God would chose to smite you for not eating animals. Certainly nowhere in the Bible does it say that we must eat them. There is the implied stance that it is acceptable within God's plan to eat some of them, but not others (those which are clean/unclean)*, but there is no imperative to kill and eat them.





* Are we entering the dodgy territoy of Leviticus here? If so it is time for some serious hermeneutics - it is inescapable that much contained therein seems little more than a commentary on societal mores or metaphorical statements, rater than the commandment of the Lord

Its actually quite simple once you really think about it. Do the plants feel pain when you kill them, are they conscious of their existence (like animals, including insects)? Do we exploit the plants rights when we mass breed them only to be killed? NO.

Can you be sure of that? Can you say where the mind, the soul resides? Plants are incapable of expressing emotion, that does not necesarilly prove that they are incapable of feeling them?

And in terms of mass breeding plants, what do you think a farm is? Further, consider that the plowing of a single field to produce wheat/grain kills as many organisms (both plant and animal living in the soil) as the entire american cattle industry each year.

Brutal as it sounds, to put vegerarianism over omnivorism is to put animal life as more important then plant life. If all life is sacred, a creation of god, do not the plants fall under that as well?

One final interesting note to think about, most plant matter can survive for weeks after being removed from the main plant, so when you eat a salad, you're eating most of that while it's still alive.

Why would Jesus, the embodiment of altruistic compassion, eat meat, there by causing suffering to animals of His Fathers creation?
If He is God, which I have believed for all of my life, wouldn't he have the highest moral standerds?

Because his father said in the first book of the bibble that animals are food!!!

Therefore I say that PETA is a satanic anti-christian cult!!!(J/K)

Because his father said in the first book of the bibble that animals are food!!!

Chapter and verse, if you would be so kind?

Can you be sure of that? Can you say where the mind, the soul resides? Plants are incapable of expressing emotion, that does not necesarilly prove that they are incapable of feeling them?


Speaking as an agnostic, for me it is the matter of how evolved the central nervous system is and the display of pain behaviour (or that which we map onto human pain behaviour) which argues very strongly for animals and fish being able to feel pain as we understand it, but not for micro-organisms or plantlife. Through things such as MRS we are able to observe activity in certain brain structures which go hand in hand with the experience of pain and pain behaviour in human beings, and when similar brain structures and activities within them are seen to be co-existant with pain behaviour in non-human animals it seems like a fairly safe bet to assume that they are capable of feeling something analogous to the pain we feel.

Because his father said in the first book of the bibble that animals are food!!!

Therefore I say that PETA is a satanic anti-christian cult!!!(J/K)

Being a huge supporter of PETA I feel extreme anger at what you just said. Please explain what you have against PETA.

Speaking as an agnostic, for me it is the matter of how evolved the central nervous system is and the display of pain behaviour (or that which we map onto human pain behaviour) which argues very strongly for animals and fish being able to feel pain as we understand it, but not for micro-organisms or plantlife.

Exactly. Except I am not an agnostic. But I agree with everything else.

Being a huge supporter of PETA I feel extreme anger at what you just said. Please explain what you have against PETA.

The (J/K) means Just Kidding. It was a joke

I thought God gave us freedom of choice, no? - whereas we do not know if he gave such a gift to the lion.
well now if you want to claim that vegetarianism is more moral for some reason go ahead but i dont see where it is RELIGIOUSLY more moral. i dont find any religious basis for finding the eating of meat to be immoral.


NOW
the seventh day adventists find vegetarianism to be religiously more moral but not because (as i understand it) of the killing of animals but because they believe it is superior nutritionally. your body as a temple kind of thing. so they push a vegetarian diet in the same way they push abstinence from alcohol and tobacco.

Could anyone who is a vegetarian please type VGTN.

Exactly. Except I am not an agnostic. But I agree with everything else.

Well as a christian, surely the only meat that your would have to eat would be the 'body of Christ' as Communion wafer (or not if you do not believe in the transubstantiation), and here it is a mystical/religious transformation, rather than an actual slaughter and consumption of a creature unable to give its consent, no?

Could anyone who is a vegetarian please type VGTN.

I'll type VGN for vegan, how's that?

The (J/K) means Just Kidding. It was a joke

THANK YOU, I was getting a cold sweat. (s)

(s) means seriously.

well now if you want to claim that vegetarianism is more moral for some reason go ahead but i dont see where it is RELIGIOUSLY more moral. i dont find any religious basis for finding the eating of meat to be immoral.

Well, connecting it back to your statement of earlier saying 'All we can do is take care to not deal out death needlessly or rashly' - is it needful to eat meat within the majority of the western world?

I could speculate also about how far we should extend the commandment to 'love thy neighbour', in light of the granting of stewardship over the flora and fauna of the world to human beings: it seems that in this act of granting dominion we are thus granted some responsibilities to the animal and plant kingdoms, no?

So youre the only VGN (besides me).
Thats kind of sad.

What is the world coming to!!

Why would God of compassion and love, Jesus Christ, find joy in animal sacrifice. And I have asked God many times why he did the things he did. Sorry, but he hasn't answered on my God Phone yet! I was asking you (pl.) because I needed some different points of view.

oh its never made sense to me either. its been suggested that its an historical alegory from the switch from hunting and gathering to a farming culture. guess it took god a while to adjust to the switch. he sure did hate that whole golden calf thing.

i usually chalk it up to the old testament being written for a whole different audience than the new. jesus has a radically different view of god from that in the old testament. and yes, it would seem to make SENSE that jesus would have compassion for animals and their suffering but i either he had his hands full with the guys he chose as apostles (they werent the brightest) or perhaps the writers didnt think what he had to say about animals was important enough to jot down

I hope I find the answer to my question soon. I think I might convert Hinduism of Buddhism since the Bible doesn't make that much sense when you start looking at it in depth.

So youre the only VGN (besides me).
Thats kind of sad.

What is the world coming to!!

A thread titled 'Jesus?' hardly broadcasts itself as one concerning the ethical or health conscious dimension of nutrition, though, does it? It isn't something that concerned vegans/vegetarians/omnivores are immediately going to make a beeline for.

Ashmoria are you a vegetarian?

Well, connecting it back to your statement of earlier saying 'All we can do is take care to not deal out death needlessly or rashly' - is it needful to eat meat within the majority of the western world?

I could speculate also about how far we should extend the commandment to 'love thy neighbour', in light of the granting of stewardship over the flora and fauna of the world to human beings: it seems that in this act of granting dominion we are thus granted some responsibilities to the animal and plant kingdoms, no?
i dont suppose its NEEDFUL to eat any particular kind of food. i just dont find the eating of meat inherently immoral. i dont think it CAN be. life feeds on life. theres just no getting around that.

and yes, it would seem to make SENSE that jesus would have compassion for animals and their suffering but i either he had his hands full with the guys he chose as apostles (they werent the brightest) or perhaps the writers didnt think what he had to say about animals was important enough to jot down

He did, however, lead some of them away from their previous employment as fishermen...

A thread titled 'Jesus?' hardly broadcasts itself as one concerning the ethical or health conscious dimension of nutrition, though, does it? It isn't something that concerned vegans/vegetarians/omnivores are immediately going to make a beeline for.

Ya, I guess your right, though the reason I came on here wasn't to meet other vegans, it was to discuss the authority of Jesus and if he is really the Son of God.

Oh well I can answer this one.. Because it's good. Why does anyone eat what they eat?

i just dont find the eating of meat inherently immoral. i dont think it CAN be. life feeds on life. theres just no getting around that.

Without wanting to appear like I'm engaging in sophistries for the sake of it: does cannibalism fit into the same ethical category?

He did, however, lead some of them away from their previous employment as fishermen...

Im not just discussing Jesus anymore though. Why is the Bible itself so omniverous?

Ashmoria are you a vegetarian?
no im not but i do try to keep my consumption of meat to a reasonable amount. i dont keep meat as the center of my diet

no im not but i do try to keep my consumption of meat to a reasonable amount. i dont keep meat as the center of my diet

Cool. Thats what my mom and my Chinese teacher are doing. They are not vegetarians but see why so many people are, and are slowly adapting to vegetarianism.

Speaking as an agnostic, for me it is the matter of how evolved the central nervous system is and the display of pain behaviour (or that which we map onto human pain behaviour) which argues very strongly for animals and fish being able to feel pain as we understand it, but not for micro-organisms or plantlife. Through things such as MRS we are able to observe activity in certain brain structures which go hand in hand with the experience of pain and pain behaviour in human beings, and when similar brain structures and activities within them are seen to be co-existant with pain behaviour in non-human animals it seems like a fairly safe bet to assume that they are capable of feeling something analogous to the pain we feel.

It's difficult to argue morality without relying on religious grounds, because things become far more subjective to individual opinion, but I'll try.

There are essentually thee types of morality at any one time. What is right/wrong for the individual/the group/God. For now, we're discounting the third, so as not to rely on religious grounds fr our arguments.

The right/wrong morality of the self is rather simple, will I derive more pleasure from doing X, or not doing X. Every decision one makes in life is based on this morality, on which choice will result in the most pleasure, or the least pain. A parent may run into a burning building to save their child, because though the physical pain is high, the emotional pain would be higher if they did nothing. Charity and other cases of "selfless giving" give a strong feeling of reward and satisfaction afterward. etc.

the morality of the group is subjective to the overall group feeling an dintent, and acts in many ways as that of th eindividual, bt on a larger scale. To allow murder would hurt the group, so most groups disallow it. however, to disallow eating would hurt the group, so it is allowed. The "group" can be anything, from a country (goverment/laws), religion (sins), subcultures (fads, cool/not cool), etc.

Now, the morality of the self says one must continue to survive so long as it is not too painful to do so, and one must eat in order to survive. Thus, by the morality of the self, it is alright to eat, and eat anything.

However, the second level, the morality of the group, comes into play, and is determined by what "group" you choose. If you choose your "food eating" group to be, say, your friends, then canibalism within that group is bad, but anything else is ok. If you choose humans, then canibalism at all is wrong, but eating anything on earth is alright. If you chosoe animals, then being carnivorous is wrong (and likewise wrong for carnivorous animals), but herbivorism is alright.

Things get sticky if you choose your group as "all life". There, killing anything to eat it is bad. However, as I've mentioned before, with rare exception life as we know it is completely dependant on death, not even in the repeated instances of consumption, but with every breath of air containing bacteria. With this group, we cannot make it patently wrong to kill within the group, as before, becasuse that would mean disallowing eating. Thus instead a balance must be reached, of one surviving, but not wasting.

My personal 'eating morality' conatins three groups, myself, my fellow humans, and all life. By my own morality, I must eat, and must induce death to do so. I will not eat other humans, for I would not want them to eat me, but I consider myself to be a part of the nature of this world. Thus, as part of its ecosystem, I will consume what I must, waste what little I can, and in the end be consumed by it as well.

Without wanting to appear like I'm engaging in sophistries for the sake of it: does cannibalism fit into the same ethical category?
im not quite sure of what you are asking but certainly when one finds oneself in the extreme position of having to eat corpses to survive it is in the same category. ive never otherwise considered the morality of eating dead people. its hard to get past the natural repugnance of it.

It's difficult to argue morality without relying on religious grounds, because things become far more subjective to individual opinion, but I'll try.

There are essentually thee types of morality at any one time. What is right/wrong for the individual/the group/God. For now, we're discounting the third, so as not to rely on religious grounds fr our arguments.

The right/wrong morality of the self is rather simple, will I derive more pleasure from doing X, or not doing X. Every decision one makes in life is based on this morality, on which choice will result in the most pleasure, or the least pain. A parent may run into a burning building to save their child, because though the physical pain is high, the emotional pain would be higher if they did nothing. Charity and other cases of "selfless giving" give a strong feeling of reward and satisfaction afterward. etc.

the morality of the group is subjective to the overall group feeling an dintent, and acts in many ways as that of th eindividual, bt on a larger scale. To allow murder would hurt the group, so most groups disallow it. however, to disallow eating would hurt the group, so it is allowed. The "group" can be anything, from a country (goverment/laws), religion (sins), subcultures (fads, cool/not cool), etc.

Now, the morality of the self says one must continue to survive so long as it is not too painful to do so, and one must eat in order to survive. Thus, by the morality of the self, it is alright to eat, and eat anything.

However, the second level, the morality of the group, comes into play, and is determined by what "group" you choose. If you choose your "food eating" group to be, say, your friends, then canibalism within that group is bad, but anything else is ok. If you choose humans, then canibalism at all is wrong, but eating anything on earth is alright. If you chosoe animals, then being carnivorous is wrong (and likewise wrong for carnivorous animals), but herbivorism is alright.

Things get sticky if you choose your group as "all life". There, killing anything to eat it is bad. However, as I've mentioned before, with rare exception life as we know it is completely dependant on death, not even in the repeated instances of consumption, but with every breath of air containing bacteria. With this group, we cannot make it patently wrong to kill within the group, as before, becasuse that would mean disallowing eating. Thus instead a balance must be reached, of one surviving, but not wasting.

My personal 'eating morality' conatins three groups, myself, my fellow humans, and all life. By my own morality, I must eat, and must induce death to do so. I will not eat other humans, for I would not want them to eat me, but I consider myself to be a part of the nature of this world. Thus, as part of its ecosystem, I will consume what I must, waste what little I can, and in the end be consumed by it as well.

Are you a vegetarian/vegan or not?

Without wanting to appear like I'm engaging in sophistries for the sake of it: does cannibalism fit into the same ethical category?

Touchy issue. One one handpretty much everyone agrees that to kill someone unnecesarilly is wrong, and thus using one's fellow human as a "food source" is likewise wrong. However, if someone is already dead, and you are in desperate need for food, is the comsumption of that flesh amoral? In the end I thin, by the groupings of morality I laid out above, it has to lay iwth the person's own morality. If they do not feel they could live with themself after eating another human's corpse, then I will never be one to call out "They should have done it." On the other hand, one has a right to live, and do what is necesarry to preserve that life. If someone, in such a situation, decides to canibalize the corpse, can anyone else truely say "the dead body had more right to decompose, then you had to continue to live"?

Are you a vegetarian/vegan or not?

I'm an omnivore, as nature/God created me to be. I consider all life to be sacred, but I also accept that to protect my own, death is inevitable and a part of nature's cycle/God's plan.

If someone, in such a situation, decides to canibalize the corpse, can anyone else truely say "the dead body had more right to decompose, then you had to continue to live"?

That was basically the point I was leading towards in response to one of Ashmoria's earlier posts: "i dont find any religious basis for finding the eating of meat to be immoral." I don't know whether she would find something unethical about, for example, continuing to eat the corpses of the dead after the rescue party have arrived with supplies, or whether she makes a distinction between 'religiously immoral' and 'otherwise immoral'.

That was basically the point I was leading towards in response to one of Ashmoria's earlier posts: "i dont find any religious basis for finding the eating of meat to be immoral." I don't know whether she would find something unethical about, for example, continuing to eat the corpses of the dead after the rescue party have arrived with supplies, or whether she makes a distinction between 'religiously immoral' and 'otherwise immoral'.
im only discussing the religious aspects because thats what the thread is about. im not religious myself

cannibalism is religiously immoral, but i do believe that those poor souls who were forced into it received absolution from their religious leaders because of the extreme circumstances involved.

the psychological problems implied with willfully eating dead bodies without there being extreme need negates any question of morality. people who like to eat corpses are pretty much insane so they are not immoral they are sick. but if they arent there are other moral questions before you ever get to the point of putting human flesh into your mouth. i mean whose body could one legally eat? you cant dig up corpses, there are laws against that. you cant eat your neighbor, thats not your body to eat.

there was that case in germany where the man killed and ate (or ate and killed) another man with his fully informed consent. i dont know how that played out legally but its so bizarre that i'd have to have a psychologist tell me that neither man was crazy before i could begin to assess the morality of it.

i cant really think of a circumstance where i would say it was moral to eat a corpse other than extreme circumstance where its eat or die. i guess i cant get past the notion that only crazy people would eat corpses.

We Should All Be Vegitarians :)

people who like to eat corpses are pretty much insane so they are not immoral they are sick.

Is this a universal statement intended to cover all cultures and times?

Note how it is not explicitly stated that we should eat the animals.

And thus, the ongoing need to retranslate the Bible, to stop people trying to warp obvious meanings. I suggest you get a modern translation - frex, the NKJV, Amplified, New American and New International all translate the verse with some version of "Everything that lives [and moves] will be food for you". (And those are just the versions within arm's reach of me).

Why would God approve of vegetarianism? Go have a look at the way cows are treated in India, where they're supposedly 'holy'. Poor starving beasties. Also, if we all went vegan there'd immediately be a massive slaughter of animals as farmers rendered their herds down for blood and bone.

Oh, if eating meat is murder, are omniverous animals murderers? Alternatively, if different rules apply to them, why claim they are the same as us?

Is this a universal statement intended to cover all cultures and times?
nope
but its my understanding that no cultures engage in the casual eating of corpses. i guess i could be wrong

all the examples i can think of occur under some sort of relgious shield making the unacceptable acceptable. but im not all that much into cultural anthropology so who knows.

I figured someone with knowledge of the bible would never have to ask this question. Of course Jesus ate meat. If you would read a little bit, all animals and plants are put here for our use as we see fit. Eating them is part of the deal.

Why would God approve of vegetarianism? Go have a look at the way cows are treated in India, where they're supposedly 'holy'. Poor starving beasties.

I think you are confusing the fact that in India the cow is seen as Holy with the issue of vegetarianism: is the Indian populace vegetarian? No.

Possibly a better parallel would be wild deer in Europe - some are under human stewardship, others are left to their own affairs. Do we describe them as 'poor starving beasties'?

God had people make sacrafises OUT OF ANIMALS for hundreds and hundreds of years. And when Cain if you remember tried to make a sacrafise out of veggies God was insulted. I don't think God really cares about animals. If he did wouldn't they have some place in heaven?
Just some observations I could really care less what judgements you make on them.

I figured someone with knowledge of the bible would never have to ask this question. Of course Jesus ate meat. If you would read a little bit, all animals and plants are put here for our use as we see fit. Eating them is part of the deal.

Chapter and verse for:
1. Jesus eating meat (other than fish)
2. The announcement that "all animals and plants are put here for our use as we see fit"

Thank you.

im only discussing the religious aspects because thats what the thread is about. im not religious myself

cannibalism is religiously immoral, but i do believe that those poor souls who were forced into it received absolution from their religious leaders because of the extreme circumstances involved.

the psychological problems implied with willfully eating dead bodies without there being extreme need negates any question of morality. people who like to eat corpses are pretty much insane so they are not immoral they are sick. but if they arent there are other moral questions before you ever get to the point of putting human flesh into your mouth. i mean whose body could one legally eat? you cant dig up corpses, there are laws against that. you cant eat your neighbor, thats not your body to eat.

there was that case in germany where the man killed and ate (or ate and killed) another man with his fully informed consent. i dont know how that played out legally but its so bizarre that i'd have to have a psychologist tell me that neither man was crazy before i could begin to assess the morality of it.

i cant really think of a circumstance where i would say it was moral to eat a corpse other than extreme circumstance where its eat or die. i guess i cant get past the notion that only crazy people would eat corpses.

Big difference between eating animals and eating humans. I you can't see the difference you are insane.

Big difference between eating animals and eating humans. I you can't see the difference you are insane.
yeah i suppose youre right

but

if you were going to leave out the religious reasons for not eating corpses. what basis do you use fo saying that its immoral to eat dead people? you arent HURTING them. you may be consuming a body you have no legal right to. you may be insane. but, other that the utter repugnance of it screaming at you that its WRONG, why is it wrong?

Big difference between eating animals and eating humans. I you can't see the difference you are insane.

Explain the difference to me, would you?

Well, Jesus fed people with fish, so it seems like he would be likely to eat meat.


- Professor Mayhem, of the Kingdom of Mayhem

Well, Jesus fed people with fish, so it seems like he would be likely to eat meat.

In a passage which seems most likely an allegory of providing spiritual, rather than physical sustenance, which calls into question the veracity of the incident, yes?

Why would Jesus, the embodiment of altruistic compassion, eat meat, there by causing suffering to animals of His Fathers creation?
If He is God, which I have believed for all of my life, wouldn't he have the highest moral standerds?
Simple answer. In Genesis God gives animals and all green things to man for food. Therefore, God put them here so that we might be able to eat. Since Jesus was in nature God, why wouldn't he eat meat when he was in the body of a man? It is obviously a fallace system of logic you used to come to your conclusion. For instance, God ordered the Jews to sacrifice animals to him. He obviously didn't mind them being killed, at least for a good cause. Such as preventing low protein intake.

Historically people's diets weren't as well rounded as we enjoy to day. Meat was something essential to survival since other sources of protein and vitamens weren't readily available. The Egyptians and Indians had vegetarianism but Israel is an inhospital landscape, where growing crops with protein wasn't always possible. So if Jesus ate meat it was most likely to survive.

Ok first of all what kind of ridiculous arguement is this on whether or not Jesus ate meat? What is wrong with eating meat? The Bible even talks about how in the last days people will forbid to eat meats.
God created all things for man to use for his own good and God's glory. Remember I believe it was either peter or paul and they had a dream of all sorts of animals on a net of some kind, and God brought different meats to bring to him, but he refused to eat some because they were unclean according to Jewish tradition. But God said that all things that he made are clean. Anyway I hope you werent serious about this topci.

Genesis 1:26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

There ya go.

Simple answer. In Genesis God gives animals and all green things to man for food. Therefore, God put them here so that we might be able to eat. Since Jesus was in nature God, why wouldn't he eat meat when he was in the body of a man? It is obviously a fallace system of logic you used to come to your conclusion. For instance, God ordered the Jews to sacrifice animals to him. He obviously didn't mind them being killed, at least for a good cause. Such as preventing low protein intake.

We have already seen in Genesis how God's commandments to mankind concerning food have changed: initially they are only to eat the plants, but after the flood they are allowed to also eat the animals. Why should Jesus not also signify another change?

so
going back to the original premise of this thread
i dont think that jesus was vegetarian or expected us to be vegetarian.

so MY question is

given your obvious feeling that vegetarianism is morally correct...

does this make christianity morally unacceptable to you?

or

given your christian faith, Cakkivatti, are you unable to have a morality that exists outside the bounds of chistianity?

Genesis 1:26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

There ya go.

Next verse, if you please...


Gen 1:29
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing
seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Note how between the creation of man and the Flood God only allows man to eat plants.

Personally, I've never quite been able to get past the fact that two of the faith's longest-running acts of worship are, essentially, symbolic rituallized cannabilism and vampirism.

You know, the communion wafer & wine becoming the flesh and blood of Christ...

(If you think about it, it's related...)

Jesus fed people fish. It never says that he himself ate meat.

Jesus eats meat.

Mark 14:12-18

14:12
And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?
14:13
And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him.
14:14
And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?
14:15
And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us.
14:16
And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
14:17
And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.
14:18
And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.

So Jesus celebrated passover. And therfore ate meat (specifically lamb). End of argument.

Well come on vegetarian infidels. What do you have to say for yourselves?

Guess I really did kill that one.

Sorry. :(

Altruism is unselfish concern for others, not food.

If "others" includes fauna then it should also include flora, since they are both food. They are both life.

Originally Posted by Capitallo
Big difference between eating animals and eating humans. I you can't see the difference you are insane. Explain the difference to me, would you?
Eating humans is yuckie.

Eating humans is yuckie.

Not to mention prohibited.

you guys are all idiots. we were created with the ability to digest both meat and plant matter. If some people choose to not eat meat then that is there decision. Jesus never said anything for or against eating meat. also animals dont have feelings. there typical lives exist of sleeping, eating, and having sex while some humans spend there lives doing this humans have the ability for logical thought while animals do not. so i find it incredibly stupid to debate whether or not Jesus said anything for or against eating meat when we humans are clearly designed to eat meat and animals have no emotions or ability to rational thought. while i do not believe in the killing of animals just for the sake of it i have no moral qualms from eating a nice juicy veal steak.

you guys are all idiots. we were created with the ability to digest both meat and plant matter. If some people choose to not eat meat then that is there decision. Jesus never said anything for or against eating meat. also animals dont have feelings. there typical lives exist of sleeping, eating, and having sex while some humans spend there lives doing this humans have the ability for logical thought while animals do not. so i find it incredibly stupid to debate whether or not Jesus said anything for or against eating meat when we humans are clearly designed to eat meat and animals have no emotions or ability to rational thought. while i do not believe in the killing of animals just for the sake of it i have no moral qualms from eating a nice juicy veal steak.

Infidel !!!!

How am I an idiot. Did I not just prove in the scripture that Jesus apporved of eating meat. Read the whole thread. :rolleyes:

Chapter and verse for:
1. Jesus eating meat (other than fish)
2. The announcement that "all animals and plants are put here for our use as we see fit"

Thank you.
1. As pointed out elsewhere, Jesus is Jewish, and so celebrated Passover - which means wolfing down on lamb, and partook in the sacrifices, so eating all sorts of other beasties.
Meat eating didn't become a problem until Christians had to decide whether to eat meat which had been sacrificed to pagan gods or not. No reason for a Jew to avoid eating meat, and several to continue doing so.

2. Genesis 9:3 is the ideal verse - "every living thing shall be food for you." And, of course, this is before Abraham so is to all humans, not just to the Jews.