VeggieBoards - Reply to Topic
Thread: Why are some many Christians proud to eat meat? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
06-28-2015 10:30 PM
no whey jose
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in MPLS View Post
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!
06-28-2015 09:58 PM
Dave in MPLS
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
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.
06-27-2015 10:35 PM
no whey jose
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in MPLS View Post
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.
06-27-2015 10:13 PM
Dave in MPLS
Quote:
the source itself is that of a Christian journal so its quite obvious what their point of view will be
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.
06-27-2015 01:42 PM
Robmeister
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasminedesi16 View Post
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!!
06-27-2015 11:58 AM
Jasminedesi16 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.
06-24-2015 01:21 PM
peacefulveglady 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.
06-24-2015 08:01 AM
no whey jose
Quote:
Originally Posted by mecanna View Post
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! [emoji13]
06-24-2015 07:25 AM
mecanna 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.
06-23-2015 01:38 PM
RedTeaAddict 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.
06-23-2015 11:45 AM
varun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in MPLS View Post
Original article here
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.
06-23-2015 10:36 AM
Dave in MPLS
Quote:
But birth doesn't happen nine months after conception. It's closer to ten. Wouldn't they celebrate his birth in mid-January?
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.
06-22-2015 03:33 PM
leedsveg
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
But birth doesn't happen nine months after conception. It's closer to ten. Wouldn't they celebrate his birth in mid-January?[emoji780]
Crikey nwj! You're trying to find logic in religious stuff from 2000 years ago....
06-22-2015 03:16 PM
no whey jose
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in MPLS View Post
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.
But birth doesn't happen nine months after conception. It's closer to ten. Wouldn't they celebrate his birth in mid-January?[emoji780]
06-22-2015 01:38 PM
Dave in MPLS 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.
06-22-2015 01:24 PM
Dave in MPLS
Quote:
The 3rd week of December was a Roman-Pagan festival called Saturnalia, loosely related to Hanukkah but never on the same days, later it was decided that December 25th would be the official day of Saturnalia (beginning from midnight), it was also called Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of the everlasting Sun), this accompanied the fact that Dec 25th was winter solstice and people celebrated the beginning of a new crop season.
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.
06-21-2015 05:36 AM
Go Vegan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robmeister View Post
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
06-21-2015 05:21 AM
Robmeister
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Vegan View Post
Not the dreaded "my meat" comment! No! I always hear this

"I need my meat"
"I love my meat"
"I couldn't live without my meat"

As we were saying in another thread it's NOT YOUR meat and it never was!
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.
06-21-2015 05:15 AM
Robmeister
Quote:
Originally Posted by varun View Post
I never write anything related to religion without expecting sceptical/hostile responses. While I'm no expert in the matter most of the terms I say can be verified using history. The 1st and 2nd centuries were an interesting time for religion, or should I say unification of religions. The 3rd week of December was a Roman-Pagan festival called Saturnalia, loosely related to Hanukkah but never on the same days, later it was decided that December 25th would be the official day of Saturnalia (beginning from midnight), it was also called Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of the everlasting Sun), this accompanied the fact that Dec 25th was winter solstice and people celebrated the beginning of a new crop season. Easter/Eastre was a word used in Germany to denote the change of season from summer, typically in the month of April. Eggs were supposedly symbolic of a new beginning in those days and was used to symbolize Easter, this resembles the Jewish festival Passover but not completely. The cross has long been a pagan symbol in Egypt, Rome & Greece, some explanations point to a constellation of a similar shape, some feel its a symbol of God. Saint Nicholaus or Santa Claus also had its origins from Europe (he was a German-origin saint from European border of Turkey). Germans celebrated his acts of kindness as an example of why charity should be done.

I'm not writing any of this to offend you or any religion, just pointing out a few influences of Christianity which are proven to be older traditions followed in the B.C era. Most other modern-day Christmas traditions came from various European countries which symbolized their unique faith.
OK then...You a little more accurately point out actual history here summarized neatly here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by varun View Post
Most other modern-day Christmas traditions came from various European countries which symbolized their unique faith.
That's a FAR CRY from Christianity being a Roman-pagan religion.
06-20-2015 07:16 PM
Go Vegan
Quote:
Originally Posted by varun View Post
I never write anything related to religion without expecting sceptical/hostile responses. While I'm no expert in the matter most of the terms I say can be verified using history. The 1st and 2nd centuries were an interesting time for religion, or should I say unification of religions. The 3rd week of December was a Roman-Pagan festival called Saturnalia, loosely related to Hanukkah but never on the same days, later it was decided that December 25th would be the official day of Saturnalia (beginning from midnight), it was also called Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of the everlasting Sun), this accompanied the fact that Dec 25th was winter solstice and people celebrated the beginning of a new crop season. Easter/Eastre was a word used in Germany to denote the change of season from summer, typically in the month of April. Eggs were supposedly symbolic of a new beginning in those days and was used to symbolize Easter, this resembles the Jewish festival Passover but not completely. The cross has long been a pagan symbol in Egypt, Rome & Greece, some explanations point to a constellation of a similar shape, some feel its a symbol of God. Saint Nicholaus or Santa Claus also had its origins from Europe (he was a German-origin saint from European border of Turkey). Germans celebrated his acts of kindness as an example of why charity should be done.

I'm not writing any of this to offend you or any religion, just pointing out a few influences of Christianity which are proven to be older traditions followed in the B.C era. Most other modern-day Christmas traditions came from various European countries which symbolized their unique faith.
I completely agree that Christianity absorbed the pre-existing Roman religion and other pagan religions.

I also think once the Roman empire decided to adopt Christianity as its official religion the Romans would have been involved in deciding precisely what would remain canon and what would be cut out so they did play a role in directly shaping the religion as well.
06-20-2015 07:08 PM
Go Vegan
Quote:
Originally Posted by vefo View Post
how many times have we all heard the " I'm uncomfortable with animal farming but I couldn't live without my meat" ? I've heard it a lot! the same people continue to eat meat and be selective about their ethical behavior.
Not the dreaded "my meat" comment! No! I always hear this

"I need my meat"
"I love my meat"
"I couldn't live without my meat"

As we were saying in another thread it's NOT YOUR meat and it never was!
06-20-2015 06:52 PM
varun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robmeister View Post
LOL! LMAO!!! Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
I never write anything related to religion without expecting sceptical/hostile responses. While I'm no expert in the matter most of the terms I say can be verified using history. The 1st and 2nd centuries were an interesting time for religion, or should I say unification of religions. The 3rd week of December was a Roman-Pagan festival called Saturnalia, loosely related to Hanukkah but never on the same days, later it was decided that December 25th would be the official day of Saturnalia (beginning from midnight), it was also called Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of the everlasting Sun), this accompanied the fact that Dec 25th was winter solstice and people celebrated the beginning of a new crop season. Easter/Eastre was a word used in Germany to denote the change of season from summer, typically in the month of April. Eggs were supposedly symbolic of a new beginning in those days and was used to symbolize Easter, this resembles the Jewish festival Passover but not completely. The cross has long been a pagan symbol in Egypt, Rome & Greece, some explanations point to a constellation of a similar shape, some feel its a symbol of God. Saint Nicholaus or Santa Claus also had its origins from Europe (he was a German-origin saint from European border of Turkey). Germans celebrated his acts of kindness as an example of why charity should be done.

I'm not writing any of this to offend you or any religion, just pointing out a few influences of Christianity which are proven to be older traditions followed in the B.C era. Most other modern-day Christmas traditions came from various European countries which symbolized their unique faith.
06-20-2015 06:44 PM
vefo
Quote:
Originally Posted by faded_amaranth View Post
I can't understand this perspective and since it has come up in a few recent threads I figured it deserved its own topic. Overall I'm not saying that people who believe in a Bible should feel guilty about being allowed to eat animals; I just don't understand the flippant attitude some have, since it came with such a huge cost.
Without getting into a discussion about the short comings of religion, a few things come to mind that are aimed at people of religious persuasion. The heart of the issue is honesty, integrity and awareness without being selective.

From my observations, the religious are the least likely to be critical thinkers, Its easy to be a good religious person without any depth of thought, hey you don't want to be drawn into discussion about animal abuse because you love your lamb roast, and then you would have to think about the ethics of the whole process.

If they in fact felt guilty about eating animals, then they should have the honesty and integrity to address that guilt, how many times have we all heard the " I'm uncomfortable with animal farming but I couldn't live without my meat" ? I've heard it a lot! the same people continue to eat meat and be selective about their ethical behavior.
06-20-2015 01:26 PM
Robmeister
Quote:
Originally Posted by varun View Post
Lets face it technically Christianity is a Roman-Pagan religion with primary roots in the European nations which spread to the whole earth afterwards.
LOL! LMAO!!! Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

Going back to the original question of this post; Just like any other group or religion, you're going to have some individuals or segments that go off the rails with strange interpretations and what not that do not represent (or misrepresent) the "mainstream" if you like. There's nothing scriptural or Christ-prescribed that supports Christians as being particularly "proud of" being meat eaters.
06-20-2015 11:38 AM
varun
Quote:
Originally Posted by faded_amaranth View Post
I never read a translation where "hunter" was used, interesting. I didn't go reread the Cain and Able story when I was preparing this thread but I did wonder what he was up to with those sheep.
That story is something isn't it? Abel the righteous presented god with meat offering and got approved while Kain the tiller offered his fruit & grain and got rejected, now due to jealousy and anger Kain kills his brother. Logically this story has about as much sense as the Trials of Job, but some feel its a Hebraic folklore about how their ancestors came to be sheep-breeders.

As for the question of this thread, I don't know if Christians are proud to eat meat because of their religion or because their family always were meat-eaters. Lets face it technically Christianity is a Roman-Pagan religion with primary roots in the European nations which spread to the whole earth afterwards. Its the Jews who have kosher laws (as demanded by God the Lord), not the Christians, that's because of their European diet which conveniently ignored the Tanach where not negotiable. It has nothing to do with religion.. just the heritage and regional diet continuing on.
06-20-2015 04:45 AM
Robmeister
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capstan View Post
It's not too surprising Christians might take pride in brutal behavior, as a result.
Completely ridiculous
06-19-2015 04:34 PM
Go Vegan Any religion based around an ancient book is going to be morally outdated today. That said, I think that the New Testament is a lot more benign than many other ancient texts.
06-19-2015 04:03 PM
Capstan The New Testament teaches that symbolically eating the body and drinking the blood of Jesus (cannibalism) is holy. The entire faith centers around the killing of Jesus (murder) as the only way to "salvation." It's not too surprising Christians might take pride in brutal behavior, as a result.
06-19-2015 01:37 PM
Robmeister In a nutshell, the Bible is the progressive revelation of God's dealings and revelation of Himself to mankind. Any "Christian" who rips scripture out of context to try to prove God is either for or against vegetarianism....or for/against meat-eating doesn't know their Bibles as they ought.

The Pauline literature in the New Testament speaks of meat that was sacrificed to idles. In that day, meat sold in the market place was in many cases meat that was used in a pagan ceremony. Paul was writing to new Christians whose faith (and conscience) was "weak" in that in their new born desire to please the One True God they were worried that eating such meat was a sin.

He was telling more mature Christians whose faith was stronger and who had no problem eating such meat to be careful when with the "weaker" Christian so as not to make them "stumble."

Today a corollary would be the use of alcohol. The Bible teaches to not get drunk. It doesn't speak of total abstinence except in the case of a Nazarite vow and maybe one or two other exceptions.

So a "strong" Christian who has no problem having a beer or two, a glass of wine or two needs to be careful exercising that freedom of conscience and faith when it comes to a "weak" Christian who may think drinking a beer is a horrible sin. Out of love and understanding for the "weaker brother" it is the right thing to do NOT to drink ("eat meat") in front of that brother.
06-19-2015 10:46 AM
Dave in MPLS Romans 14 is actually pretty easily dealt with.

He was using an example of then current controversies to push his own theological views and interests. Catholic, protestent, Eastern Orthodox, whatever -- we're all plying variations on Pauline Christianity. At that time there were THREE belief systems that could lay claim to being Christianity. Jewish Christianity, Gnosticism, and Pauline Christianity.

Jewish Christianity is the beliefs of those who first followed Jesus. They were still Jews and still did "Jewish" things. Like follow the food rules.

Gnosticism's relationship to Christianity is complex, and I was pretty much telling tales when I said it could lay claim to BEING Christianity, but what's important here is that many Gnostic sects had food rules.

Along comes Paul. His view is that faith trumps things like food rules. Martin Luther later picked up that football and ran with it, but that's beyond the point here. Following things like food rules is a sign of weak faith to Paul. His decleration that the person who doesn't eat meat is weak in faith isn't commentary that the non-eater is weak in faith because he's not eating meat, rather because he's following an arbitrary rule. The Jewish Christians had a set of food rules. His example points to the Gnostics though. Many Gnostic sects practiced meat abstention as a food rule. Paul is wagging his finger and saying "Nope. It's faith, stupid. Not rules."

I hope that made sense
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off