Eating meat is a sin

[markovitch]

Markovitch, you say that you have a hard time believing that we humans should have dominion over the earth because a human is retelling the story of creation. The story is in the Bible, which claims for itself that everything in scripture is written by men as they were INSPIRED by God. Either you accept this or you don't. And if you do, as I do, then it's not very hard to deduce that 2 contradicting points cannot be true at the same time. Either it's ok to eat meat today, or it's not. And another important thing. Truth is sometimes narrow, and not all inclusive. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father, except through me."

But if you claim to be a Christian, how can you claim that eating meat is a sin when the founder of your religion advocated it and never called it a sin?

i never claimed to be a christian. I was raised a christian, and I have read the bible numerous times. hence the 'modicum of expertise.'

I don't really understand part of your argument...

" either it's okay to eat meat today, or it's not"

do you mean that a 'god-given right' is true and constant throughout all time and space? Biblical interpretation has yielded an awful lot of misguided ideas of dominion and stewardship, such as converting the heathens, burning the witches, enslaving the less than human. Now i don't want to get caught in an argument of scale and severity, these are just examples of past, popular biblical interpretations that have been shunned in more recent times. The word of god may be constant (and correct), but the translators, the interpreters and the believers are not. People INSPIRED by god are still people. Thankfully, that has led to evolution and deeper understanding of humanity's relationship with god. I refuse to believe that humanity will not continue to deepen their understanding of their world, or, if you will, their 'dominion'; if that is true than all is truly lost.

That is my only point.

EllenC-- right on!

[FistFullaRoux]

We should all know where our food comes from. I was raised on a dairy farm, so I've been up close and personal with the whole thing. I still eat meat and veal and pork and duck, etc, but I have I'd say I do have a little more reverence for them. I've seen and been involved the butchering process, so I think in order to (for lack of a better term) honor the animal's life or be thankful for the food, prepare it well, so it will be enjoyable and nourish those who eat it. It's the basis of "country cooking", if you will. None of the animal goes to waste. As if you are saying, "You were a good animal. Since we killed you, we will make sure that we throw nothing away without getting at least some use from it."

Admittedly, this is anthropomorphic. But the idea is saying the same thing. Thank you. Whether you are thanking a diety or the animal itself, it is elevating the whole tone of a meal. It is a celebration of either the animal's gift to the table, or God's (or Buddha's or Allah's or your particular diety's) granting of the gift to you. (This next point is part of all religions and non-selfabsorbed individuals) Now you take the energy and strength that the food has given you and go out to do good things.

It's not the meat so much, as what you do with it. The main point of most religions can be boiled down to, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Think about it, if we were suddenly to become food for something else, we would be upset even more if they only ate, say, the left side of the heart, but you killed the whole person for it, and sent the rest to a landfill.

That's why I personally have a problem with some foods. Foie gras and shark's fin pop to mind. Honestly, I've never had the opportunity to try either, but I don't know if I would. Crab claws are different, as you don't kill the animal to get them. I think of them as the same category as eggs. I'm not particularly concerned about the suffering of animals. As long as they were reasonably cared for, and dispatched humanely, I'm OK with that. My definition of reasonablly cared for may differ from yours, but only because I've been injured by animals who have no concept of "wait" or "stop" or anything else other than "I'm hungry" or "I'm tired" or "I really need to be over there right now".

Also remember, that most religious books, manuscripts, scrolls, etc were written before certain discoveries and inventions. At the time of the Bible (both testaments) germs were not known of - they simply said "unclean". This, I think, was meant to say "can make you sick". Refrigeration was couple thousand years away. Food poisoning and food bourne illness was a fact of life. Where we get upset at the concept of a little upset stomach now, it would be a fact of life then. Medicines were primitive at best. The best way to stay healthy was to avoid getting sick. By avoiding foods with high incidents of illness, you increase your chances of staying healthy, so you could provide for yourself and family.

As far as it being a sin to eat meat, I don't think so, even logically (which is not always involved in religious discussions). Anything that you are going to use as food has to be treated with a certain amount of respect, no matter what it is. It's what nature does. It makes you literally care for your food, animal or vegetable. As long as it has been cared for and nurtured, treated with respect in it's handling and preperation, and it's not specifically forbidden for whatever reason, eat it. Be thankful for it, and use the strength gained from it to do good work.

[Mudpuppie]

None of the animal goes to waste. As if you are saying, "You were a good animal. Since we killed you, we will make sure that we throw nothing away without getting at least some use from it."

Admittedly, this is anthropomorphic.

I don't think it's anthropomorphic. Antropomorphic would be if the animal winked at you and said, "No prob! Hope you enjoy my tasty loins!"

[FistFullaRoux]

Hope you enjoy my tasty loins!"

Um... Now theres a mental image for you!

[mnebergall]

Tell this to the cave person who would have perished were it not for the protein-rich food and warm clothing animals provided. The survival of the species probably depended on an adequate supply of meat and fur coats. If eating meat is a sin, then I guess most all of our primordial ancestors are in hell.

[GSBravo]

Is fish considered meat?

[bandregg]

Jumping back to the Judeo-Christian line of reasoning for a moment, I vaguely recall a new testiment story about John refusing to eat something that had been considered unclean and the Lord getting pretty upset about it, because why should anything that God made be considered unclean. I have no idea what the verse is, and may in fact be talking out of my ass on this, it's been a long time since Sunday school. Sound familar to anyone?

[EllenC]

You are relatively accurate in your synopsis. In Act Chapter 10 Peter did have a vision of animals and the Lord said, "Kill and eat." Peter refused because of his Jewish culinary traditions. The dream is actually about Peter preaching Christianity to the Gentile nations. It is more a matter of symbolism than the food per se, but it has been used by many Christians to justify the differences in eating habits.

It is clear when studying the Bible, that Christ ate meat. He certainly ate lamb as this is a traditional Passover meal and the Bible makes it clear that traditions were followed for the Last Supper.

[=Mark]

It is clear when studying the Bible, that Christ ate meat. He certainly ate lamb as this is a traditional Passover meal and the Bible makes it clear that traditions were followed for the Last Supper.

I still find it odd that at the Last Supper they all sat on the same side of the table... Whats up with that?

[EllenC]

I'm thinking that's artistic license.

[cakewalk]

It is clear when studying the Bible, that Christ ate meat.  He certainly ate lamb as this is a traditional Passover meal and the Bible makes it clear that traditions were followed for the Last Supper.

I still find it odd that at the Last Supper they all sat on the same side of the table... Whats up with that?

Well, y'know. It's like when you're at a wedding and the photographer comes around to your table to take a picture, and everyone goes to one side of the table so they'll all be in the shot. Same principle, I guess.

It's always been very easy (and, in my experience, very prevalent) for people to determine what they want/believe in/support, etc. and then go to the Bible and pick out verses that seem to support their positions ... and ignore the ones that don't. This is generally called "being right." I have a lot of difficulty with it. If you want to eat meat, eat meat. If you don't, don't. You're both right. I think maybe the bible doesn't really have much to do with it. It pretty clearly says both yes and no, depending on what you want to believe in the first place.

Edited February 4, 2004 by cakewalk (log)

[Toasted]

:

It's always been very easy (and, in my experience, very prevalent) for people to determine what they want/believe in/support, etc. and then go to the Bible and pick out verses that seem to support their positions ... and ignore the ones that don't. This is generally called "being right." I have a lot of difficulty with it. If you want to eat meat, eat meat. If you don't, don't. You're both right. I think maybe the bible doesn't really have much to do with it. It pretty clearly says both yes and no, depending on what you want to believe in the first place.

Yup, this sums up how I feel about the whole thing.

[hwilson41]

Tell this to the cave person who would have perished were it not for the protein-rich food and warm clothing animals provided.  The survival of the species probably depended on an adequate supply of meat and fur coats.  If eating meat is a sin, then I guess most all of our primordial ancestors are in hell.

Very well said. Much of this debate is almost so silly it's beneath discussion, except for the fact that some otherwise very bright people are saying some of it. How many vegetarians were there 100 years ago? 200 years ago? 500 years ago? The further back you go, the less sense it makes. If you're hungry, you eat what is at hand or you die. That's not a very complicated concept. To say that you shouldn't eat what folks used to eat because now you can get by without it is at best very questionable logic. Yeah, I could get by without it. I could also get by without beer...but I don't want to . Does that make me bad? Actually, that one is probably OK because beer is made from vegetable extracts (I think). Anyway, it is the height of intellectual arrogance to think that you are so wise, so well informed, and so thoroughly educated on an issue (any issue) that not only are you allowed to make your own choices, you should also be empowered to make others' choices for them. Balderdash!

THW

[KarenS]

We are not cave men (and women). We are not all Christians. The earth is extremely populated. The oceans are on the verge of being overfished. Our food is being contaminated with pesticides, toxins, and disease. Are we being good stewards? It seems to me that the sin is how careless (and profit motivated) agribusiness has become.

[markovitch]

Very well said.  Much of this debate is almost so silly it's beneath discussion, except for the fact that some otherwise very bright people are saying some of it.  How many vegetarians were there 100 years ago?  200 years ago?  500 years ago?  The further back you go, the less sense it makes.  If you're hungry, you eat what is at hand or you die.  That's not a very complicated concept.  To say that you shouldn't eat what folks used to eat because now you can get by without it is at best very questionable logic.  Yeah, I could get by without it.  I could also get by without beer...but I don't want to .  Does that make me bad?  Actually, that one is probably OK because beer is made from vegetable extracts (I think).  Anyway, it is the height of intellectual arrogance to think that you are so wise, so well informed, and so thoroughly educated on an issue (any issue) that not only are you allowed to make your own choices, you should also be empowered to make others' choices for them.  Balderdash!

THW

the Hindu, the Buddhists have been on earth for a very, very, very long time. While they are not all vegetarians, there are healthy populations in each group that are, and have been for ages.

I don't see any posts on this thread telling anyone what they should or should not do. I see this thread as a lively discussion.

but its all beneath you anyway.

Edited February 5, 2004 by markovitch (log)

[Moopheus]

Tell this to the cave person who would have perished were it not for the protein-rich food and warm clothing animals provided. The survival of the species probably depended on an adequate supply of meat and fur coats.

Actually, judging by archeaological remains, our primordial ancestors ate an awful lot of fruit (you can tell a lot from the teeth). Also snails, clams, and the like, at least guessing from the huge midden heaps left behind. Clothing is a relatively recent invention, evolutionarily speaking. The survival of the species didn't really depend on it, but it did allow migration and settlement of otherwise inhospitable areas.

[Katherine]

Tell this to the cave person who would have perished were it not for the protein-rich food and warm clothing animals provided.  The survival of the species probably depended on an adequate supply of meat and fur coats.

Actually, judging by archeaological remains, our primordial ancestors ate an awful lot of fruit (you can tell a lot from the teeth). Also snails, clams, and the like, at least guessing from the huge midden heaps left behind. Clothing is a relatively recent invention, evolutionarily speaking. The survival of the species didn't really depend on it, but it did allow migration and settlement of otherwise inhospitable areas.

Fruit is only available seasonally, meat is a year-round food, especially in the savannahs of Africa where our predecessors evolved. Protein, however, is a poor source of fuel.

Actually, our ancestors ate as much fat as they could get ahold of. We know they cracked the bones to remove the brains and marrow, and probably obtained the carcasses by scavenging them partially eaten after the predators had their fill, but before the hyenas arrived.

Certainly anyone living in a cold climate would have needed a lot of fat to get them through a long winter before storage became possible, and they'd probably need some skins to wrap themselves in, too. Europe was populated throughout the last ice age, and caves aren't warm inside.

Paleontologically speaking, shell heaps are modern.

[Moopheus]

We are not cave men (and women). We are not all Christians. The earth is extremely populated. The oceans are on the verge of being overfished. Our food is being contaminated with pesticides, toxins, and disease. Are we being good stewards? It seems to me that the sin is how careless (and profit motivated) agribusiness has become.

Somewhere in the Talmud the apocryphal (non-canonical) story is recorded that before Yahweh made the Earth, he made and destroyed many worlds before coming up with the one he thought was good. And when he presented it to Adam and Eve, he basically said (setting a precedent for every parent since the dawn of time) "look at the effort that I have made for you. Take care of it, don't screw it up, because I'm not making you another one."

[BrennaMorgan]

Why is it that so many people don't consider fish to be meat? As far as I know, it's animal muscle, just like beef, pork, and poultry.

[BrennaMorgan]

"Very well said. Much of this debate is almost so silly it's beneath discussion, except for the fact that some otherwise very bright people are saying some of it. How many vegetarians were there 100 years ago? 200 years ago? 500 years ago? The further back you go, the less sense it makes. If you're hungry, you eat what is at hand or you die. That's not a very complicated concept. To say that you shouldn't eat what folks used to eat because now you can get by without it is at best very questionable logic. Yeah, I could get by without it. I could also get by without beer...but I don't want to . Does that make me bad? Actually, that one is probably OK because beer is made from vegetable extracts (I think). Anyway, it is the height of intellectual arrogance to think that you are so wise, so well informed, and so thoroughly educated on an issue (any issue) that not only are you allowed to make your own choices, you should also be empowered to make others' choices for them. Balderdash!"

Hahahaha. Well said. Why do people feel that they have the authority to tell others what they should/should not eat? No one should feel guilty to consume what human beings have been eating since the beginning of time. To each his/her own.

[NeroW]

Yes! A sin! I knew there was a reason why I like it so much!

[reesek]

religion is often misused to bully people into or out of behavior...god wants this...god wants that - the slope gets very slippery very fast - think david koresh and anyone else who claims they have a bat phone to god.

i agree with karen - agribusiness makes me very sad. foie gras production makes me sad - so i don't eat it.

that doesn't mean i think everyone should stop eating meat just because they "can." but just because we "can" keep millions of animals in stinky, confined spaces, forced to eat grain laced with their family members, and show them the instruments that will kill them just before they die - doesn't mean we have to.