This is spot on....and could more fittingly be posted to the 'STUPID THINGS OMNIVORES SAY'...as this is BY FAR not a uniquely or primarily Christian sentiment.....again answering the original premise of the thread.

Agreed

You're wrong. But you're in good company. So was I.

You got the Saturnalia right. Where initially I differed was in how I viewed the relationship between Saturnalia and Christmas. My thought was the dates of the two were not related because Christmas was borrowed from Saturnalia, but because (as I remembered it) a pope once declared that Christian holidays should be celebrated on the dates of pagan holidays as a way of recruiting pagans and moderating the influence of pagan beliefs. I wasn't clear on the details, so I started Googling.

I found the pope's name. Pope Gregory the Great wrote a letter suggesting the scheme in 601. But there's a problem. The idea I had is a popular one, but probably incorrect. December 25 was being used in North Africa as Christ's birth date within the first few centuries CE.

So how did they arrive at that date? They extrapolated the unknown from the known, given their understanding of the Way Things Work. The known is the date of the crucifixion. You can derive that from the text of the Gospels - put in our calendar, March 25. For reasons that are beyond my understanding, the date of Christ's conception was considered to be the same as date of His execution (just in a different year, of course). If conception occured March 25, birth would happen 9 months later. December 25.

Original article here.

I should mention ...

Just to be clear, I am not arguing FOR December 25. I'm certain that it wasn't. There is nothing in the Bible that says it was, details in the two nativity narratives suggest otherwise, and it doesn't matter anyway.

But birth doesn't happen nine months after conception. It's closer to ten. Wouldn't they celebrate his birth in mid-January?

Crikey nwj! You're trying to find logic in religious stuff from 2000 years ago....

Oddly enough, Christmas was celebrated in January in some communities.

As far as "closer to ten" ... It's pretty accepted to just say "9 months", discarding the fraction I guess. That's how it goes down in everyday conversation at least.

4th and 5th century texts explicitly use the believed relationship between conception and crucifixion to fix a birthdate (25 Dec or 6 Jan). I'm not saying it's accurate, I'm not saying it makes sense, I'm suggesting that we take how people say they derived those dates into account when trying to figure out where those dates come from.

I completely get what you mean but the source itself is that of a Christian journal so its quite obvious what their point of view will be, this doesn't mean that I'm not wrong either. At this point in time most of us may have some things right and some things wrong but that's not enough to make a bullet-proof argument. I'm just learning new theories each day but at the end they are only theories. Some do come with great proof in the form of tangible evidence which is what I try to base my logic on as much as possible. There is speculation about Dies Natalis Solis Invicti being celebrated approx. 300 B.C, ok thin margin of error & not so reliable when it comes to proof, there is one more festival the Egyptians celebrated on Dec 25, i.e the birth of goddess Isis's (portrayed by Virgo the virgin) son Horus. This was approximately 1500 B.C. Of course since Horus is the Sun-god it again points to the fact that Dec 25th was their Winter solstice & the day when the Sun would rise again until summer equinox.

I have nothing against religion at the end of the day, each person is entitled to his/her view on God. What I debate about, in a way of sorts is when certain textual statements contradict with each other or clashes with factual timelines and that includes just about any literature that has passed many hands over time. Personally after browsing through the Tanach & the New Testament, there are absolutely no similarities in keeping with the berit (covenant). This is because the Jews are still living according to the Abrahamic / Mosaic Law, whereas Christians believe they have been redeemed by the new Messiah. Suffice to say that there are contradictions but each religion has its reasons & authority based on its past history. I'm just into friendly debates here & in no way mean to hurt religious sentiments.. we're on VB for a different purpose altogether so I shall stop it here.

Well speaking as a Christian vegetarian the short answer is, unsurprisingly, arrogance.

There is a big problem in mainstream Christianity of "Look at me and how much of an awesome God obeying Christian I am because I do X but don't do Y" and loudly proclaiming the wonders of meat eating in the presence of a vegetarian/vegan is one of many cases. Many months prior to taking the plunge into full vegetarianism I left a church with this kind of arrogant attitude. The arrogance being one of the reasons why I left and have yet to go to any church since. There was also a lot of fundamentalist/legalistic garbage going on as well that ran contradictory to deep open and unbiased research into Judeo-Christian scripture reading that sickened me as well but that's a topic for another time.

I've never read anything about the allowance to eat animals being something to "curb humanity's violent nature" so I cannot speak to that. But you're right there is plenty in scripture that supports the concept of treating animals humanly and with respect whether they're for work, sacrifice, or food. It's a living thing ergo it demands respect especially if it is giving up its life to sustain yours. The first chapter of Isaiah being famous for the line "I do not delight in the blood of animals" and God essentially screaming at the human race to just stop acting like jerks instead of just slaughtering animals left and right so they can continue to act like jerks.

According to Genesis 8:20-21, Exodus 29:15-25, 40-41, Leviticus 1:1-15, Leviticus 2,3,4,6,8, 17, 23, Numbers 15:1-22, etc... the smell of burnt flesh as an offering is pleasing to the lord.

I've heard this used as a reason to eat meat in discussions.

Now, to be fair to the Christians out there, I know some non-Christians who are ridiculously proud to eat meat.

I don't think it counts as an offering if you eat it yourself!

This is why i converted from Being a Christian to Paganism. Its more peaceful and I cannot deal with all the doctrines and teachings that most religious organized churches does. I am much more healthier and at peace . I am hardly sick anymore worrying about stuff.

I don't think it is just Christians who are proud to eat meat. I'm pretty much an atheist or agnostic, and I have had some atheists just laugh at me and give the "top of the food chain" argument. And that we can eat them because they are less intelligent than us and our ancestors did it so we should too. I have many Muslim friends who are really proud to eat meat too and think I'm crazy for giving it up and will often say things "but halaal meat doesn't hurt anything and god said meat was healthy for us." There just people out there of all different backgrounds who are just really proud to eat meat.

A great answer to the original question that started this thread!!

Than forget where it was printed. Deal with the raw facts. Just like we ask non-veggies to do when we cite things we find in The Vegan or Vegetarian Times or wherever. Where something was printed is simply irrelevant. Disregarding something based on one's opinion of the source rather than by engaging with the claim being made says more about one's own unstated (and possibly unrecognized) commitments than it does about the claim in dispute.

Attempting to impeach a fact (or opinion) based solely on it's source is a logical fallacy, anyway.

-----

But to answer the OP's question, I agree with those that held that pride in carnivory is far from a Christian-only phenomenon.

I haven't read the Christian article, so this might be irrelevant to the particular thing you're referencing, but I just wanted to say that sometimes the bias of a particular source does matter. Certain websites deal in opinion rather than fact. I'm thinking of the Weston A. Price Foundation and that popular site about how vegan diets destroy dental health.

That's why it's important to engage with the claim itself before handwringing over the source. If someone says to me "WAPF said this" I'd respond to whatever "this" is claiming rather than pointing out that WAPF is ... unreliable. I most likely will go on a nice little tear about the Foundation as well, but after I've addressed the real issue.

On this specific issue, it feels like the argument isn't with me or my source, but with Kirk Cameron. I'm not Kirk. I assure you.

That sounds like a good strategy. I'll keep that in mind next time the issue comes up in a debate. Thanks!