the BIBLE is clear on being VEGETARIAN

Discussion in 'Christianity' started by dafenstein, Jul 19, 2010.

  1. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Hare Krishna Yogi

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    115
    Master Brian,
    You have not deleted the scanned pages!
    Now, I must bow to you.
    Most clever of you to figure out my thinking.

    Thus, I again have been made to acquiesce and concidered your munificience.
    Well, again I'm tempered by the reminder of protocol's needs.

    Thank you for teaching me civility,
    Bhaktajan

    Yeah but, Yeah but, Yeah but, Yeah but, No Haggis for you!

    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


    And now for something completely different:

    Patrick McGoohan lives! Patrick McGoohan was a real agent! It was a true story!
    The #6 was actually tracking down double-agents within the village.
    He only tried to escape when he got stoned ---and that gave others ideas to escape. He got reprimanded each time for that.
    His finally escape was actually his retirement to a walkup on Downing St.
    His cover was that he was a television actor/producer. It's time the truth comes out.
     
  2. Snoopy

    Snoopy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,307
    Likes Received:
    43
    I know, I know!

    s.
     
  3. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    2
    I wonder if this is an unconventional way of communicating. Some people put words together to form sentences. Some other people put scanned books together to form sentences. We should learn from this guy!!!
     
  4. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    the only thing i've learned so far is that he witters on about complete nonsense and then gets annoyed that nobody agrees with him.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  5. greymare

    greymare Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like cows and pigs and chickens and deer, and fish and all that. I really do, one of my favourite animals are cattle.

    I also like to eat said animals.

    We give thanks to the Lord before we eat, and in my opinion, that counts for alot!

    I am not concerned if people do or do not eat meat, I am not trying to tell them that they are wrong, and I expect the same in return.

    love the Grey
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2011
  6. Snoopy

    Snoopy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,307
    Likes Received:
    43
    Interesting...

    In English we have different words for the animal when it's alive than when it's on a plate. The Saxons were agricultural and used the words that we have retained for the animal. The invading Normans didn't dirty their hands with agriculture and we have retained the words of French derivation that they used for the animal on the plate.

    But looking at the OP...bit tenuous that...
    Did the Middle East of that time have any culture of vegetarian diets?

    s.
     
  7. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,541
    Likes Received:
    2,400
    Last question first, I've often wondered that and have not heard. I do know that in Africa its often hard to eat without meat as there isn't enough local veggie choices.

    But to the first part, yes, we do that intentionally don't we? To sanitize the fact that we are eating a living breathing creature. It isn't Bambi, it's venison, it isn't a cow it is beef, not a pig, but pork, chickens and turkeys we evidently don't care for.

    I rarely eat meat, it is only if I know who killed it, or knew its name....
     
  8. Snoopy

    Snoopy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,307
    Likes Received:
    43
    I used to think of the two names like that - that it was dissociation by euphemism. But now it seems that if England had not been invaded by the Normans we would still only be using the agricultural Saxon names.

    s.
     
  9. luecy7

    luecy7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hare Krishna! Time to slaughter the... loaf.
     
  10. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Hare Krishna Yogi

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    115
    I found the following verbatim mini-thesis on a Philosophy forum, under the title:

    Defending killing and eating animals is morally wrong

    I personally will break down this very nicely argument.

    I will seek the central points in this plea.
     
  11. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    4
    Bhaktajan, you rock! Go to it! I am not comfortable making strong moral or intellectual or spiritual judgements (as you have probably noted in my disparaging remarks about using "no" or "all"). But someone has to make the argument (which I, personally, hold to be true (in a soft sense)) that the consumption of flesh (does this drill all the way down to killing innocent yeasts to make spirits?) is not good.
     
  12. IowaGuy

    IowaGuy Hunter-Gatherer

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    3
    Do you believe it is "wrong" for animals to eat other animals? For example, is it "bad karma" if a wolf eats a moose?

    Should we try to get rid of carnivorous animals that eat other animals, in order to "save" the lives of innocent animals that would otherwise be eaten?

    Let's say, for example, that we could sterilize carnivors such as wolves & lions, so that they would no longer reproduce (or would reproduce at much lower numbers). This would save the life of many "innocent" animals. Would you support such a project?
     
  13. Gatekeeper

    Gatekeeper Shades of Reason

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    40
    The way I look at it is if there will be no death in the kingdom, then we will obviously not eat the flesh of other creatures. Why not live as if we are already there and be good stewards instead of living off the lives of other animals? I understand the whole circle of life thing, but we are not required to eat flesh. As I understand it, our digestive system is better equipped to digest fruits, veggies, nuts, and grain anyway.
     
  14. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Hare Krishna Yogi

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    115
    It's not about beasts being beasts.

    It's about KARMA incurred by doing beastly works.

    Beasts do not incur karma. They are in the every act that is a result of past karma that put there soul into the living body of a Beast.

    Only in Human Life do souls accumulate Karmic-Payback.

    The Vedas too, say that birth in the higher celestial planetary planets here in the material world DO NOT incur karma ---there too those born into such births remain there until there (good-) Karmic-payback expires.

    All Karma (acts & re-actions to the initiating Act are both temporary).

    I am claiming that the Correlation of Meat eating and Violence (bad karmic acts) HAS NEVER YET BEEN STUDIED aka Documented ---while it occurs right under our noses.

    Just look at the lack of compassion and demonic-possession-like acts done in mass-shootings!

    Just because mother-nature's "endorsed Karmic-payback" does NOT
    evolve into mass deaths caused by Organised War
    [with opposing sides wearing special identifying military Uniforms]
    ---but rather, manifests as mass deaths caused by 'Miscellaneous XYZ causes'
    ["Mass deaths" known by any other name are still known as . . . "Mass deaths"]
    ---is still a text-book expression of this Thread's OP.

    Here is another bench mark:
    Women become more and more brute ugly as they age due to consuming cadavers!
     
  15. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    4
    My opinion is that it is not a question of "innocence" on the part of animals. Nor it a question of physical make-up (like a flesh-eating bacteria, at the ridiculous level, or the coyote, whose role as a carrion-devourer is quite beneficial). It is a question of axiology or morals or ethics. And as far as I know human-beings are the only creature that uses them (or needs to).
     
  16. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    4
    Quite true, Bhaktajan. I really do not see a connection between Matthew and vegetarianism. Also I believe G-d gave us a mind to think and reason, not to repeat platitudes.

    What was the experience in our evolution is not our experience now. There are plenty of good sources for non-meat protein. And Gandhiji does not appear to have a overly large stomach (or the Buddha in renunciation). Jains have done pretty well with it for a few thousand years.

    One does not have to demolish the house to replace a faulty fuse (the house is every one else's belief system and the fuse is your aggressiveness. "Take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye."
     
  17. Ecumenist

    Ecumenist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    1
    Biblical???

    Who knows; who cares. This is academic.

    Either you're a vegetarian, and you know that eventually we will all be ~ and should be ~ or else it's a lost cause [till you come around]. ;) :)

    But yeah, the animals suffer, especially when kept in the deplorable, 12 inch by 12 inch type Frank Purdue chicken-cage conditions as his chickens are kept in ... prior to being cruelly slaughtered [yes, inhumanely and often quite cruelly] by desensitized scum-sucking excuses for human beings.

    Blah blah blah, they need a job too. Give them guns, then, and pay them to exterminate the particular breed of scum which YOU think should be removed from our planetary `island.' Or just pretend you don't ever wish x group, or y person, would just disappear. Yeah, for me it's John Boehner right now, as there is no greater impediment to progress in America that I know of. But that's another issue, now ain't it.

    Anyway, when you kill a peeg, or a cheecken, or mu-cow or goat, what you do is you prematurely end an INCARNATE LIFE in terms of its earthly career. Yes, the Group Soul will re-absorb the Life Itself, the suffering of the animal will - in that sense - come to an end [as it's quite horrid in the conditions most of these animals are kept in for `processing' ~ at least here in America] ... but your problems have just begun.

    From the moment of butchering, there is the astral `taint' [which has no clever, cutesy sexual connotation here, my friends, but only a nasty, horrid stay-behind ... which some of us know well enough to have long, long ago left behind, we hope!] ... which stays with the animal. It is the combined negative effect, in terms of vibrations, from the astral plane [animals FEEL, folks ~ accept that or just LEAVE, now] ... and possibly a hint of mental vibration, plus the obvious, cumulative physical discomfort and suffering ... left behind in terms of toxins and toughness, which are a permanent part of the flesh, or the animal carcass which has been prematurely prepared.

    Nevermind that red meat will destroy your heart far more quickly than twisted theologies, which can only accomplish the same in multiple of your incarnations ... and nevermind that it takes something like TEN or TWELVE POUNDS of grain, fed to cows, to equal ONE POUND of beef. I learned that in Diet for a Small Planet ... and it means that we're being STUPID when it comes to feeding people, thus the high #s of kids that must languish and die of starvation RIGHT here in [you fill in the blank], EVERY day of the year.

    Yeah, nevermind mad cow disease, nevermind the high fat content that most of us lardass Americans just LOVE to swallow down ... nevermind the obvious NIGHTMARE that red meat is for your heart, or even the risk of Mercury poisoning & such from eating what would otherwise be a safe enough form of swimming meat. Yeah, the health risks alone are enough to make a sane person puke.

    But hey, if you really want a simple reason to NEVER eat another piece of meat again, just remember: yes, that animal likely suffered, for YOU. And while my shrink with Tibetan Buddhist inclinations used to say - jokingly, though with a straight face - that "it wasn't killed for me," the bottom line is, yes, it was. Don't get personal and upset about it; just don't eat it!

    I mean, Jesus, who is supposed to have had wine ... and I'm sure, meat ... almost certainly never tasted wine his entire life. Or at least, not as you and I do. And I damn sure don't expect anyone to be taken seriously who will chime in about his Jewish upbringing and all that rigamarole. If you haven't figured out by now that JESUS WAS DIFFERENT, then you clearly don't much need to be thinking in terms of Christianity ... or probably Judaism, for that matter. Yeah he was different, and he DID NOT EAT MEAT.

    Hey, where does it say that in my Bible?

    Did your Bible tell you to get up this morning and brush your teeth, or smile at your kids before you packed their nice little lunches in Batman lunchboxes ... and DOES IT TELL YOU TO USE A CELL PHONE?

    Alright then, if you do any of this crap which it doesn't tell you, GO AWAY, you're a bad Christian.

    And if you don't do all that stupid crap from Leviticus?

    Again, go away, and come back when you're ready to stop thinking so much.

    Like I said, I got no clue about Biblical vegetarianism. I just know what's healthier, and more spiritually sound, for many of us [notice I did not say ALL] ... and since most of us CAN afford and learn to eat healthy, meat-free diets, we sure as hell don't need to turn it into a religious argument about "The Bible SEZ ... yadda yadda."

    WHO CARES

    THINK!!! ~ for yourselves! ~ IF YOU DARE

    Muahahahahahaha! :)
     
  18. Ecumenist

    Ecumenist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    1
    Also, yeah, there is karma between Kingdoms, I'm pretty sure. And in that, slight karmic indebtedness on the count of a 3rd Kingdom to the 4th is a small, small matter as we compare ours to them! Or to the 5th, or others. Yet watch this.

    If we suddenly, instantly [John Lennon-style and all] "got to" experience ALL of the karmic equalization, so to speak, from your and my and everyone's many, many trillions of combined and complicated, cracked-up crazy lives ... w/out the Balance of what some call Mercy and Grace {what do you think Celestials Think about? Who are these again? But wait, you're saying that if these Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and Archangelic choirs exist, there are thus related to all of us, and all/each of us to Them, how? [Yes, precisely.]} and when it comes to Who expresses or embodies what, I'll prefer the Virtues as they incarnate however, whenever, as whomever, please.

    This only means, that as and while I still see, or experience any embodiment or expression of a Lipika-Lord ... or Karmic Agent [Lofty Beings, as to their expression I'm not sure I ever want to be on the wrong side OF] ~ what can that mean! (?) egads, I suppose I'm still here, in samsara somewhere/how, and must surely have some Dharma to some-one ... `self and other' now dissolving, for if you meet the Buddha on the Road ...

    ;)
     
  19. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    4
    Hey bhaktajan, check out this link, it was written by a UC Berkeley anthropologist (just the kind of person our friend keeps citing). “A hypothesis to explain the role of meat-eating in human evolution” , then look at any 0f the 248 citations (I did not find one in a skimming that rejected the thesis.

    Some physical anthropologists (and a lot from our friend's alma mater) seem not to agree with his thesis: "I think all vegetarians need to talk to physical anthropologists who will quickly relieve them of any idea human beings were ever vegetarians." I wrote the author of the article, sure enough, she argues that human beings were primarily herbivorous (like pan paniscus or bongos) who slowly became primarily carnivorous due to ecology changes last ice age (fruits and vegetables slowly disappeared and fresh meat was better--caused less deaths--than carrion).
     
  20. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566

Share This Page