 |
QuakerInfo.com Forum
A place to discuss Quakers and Quakerism
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Vegetarian or not? |
| I am vegetarian |
|
37% |
[ 17 ] |
| I am not vegetarian |
|
62% |
[ 28 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 45 |
|
| Author |
Message |
oneputt
Joined: 28 Dec 2002
Posts: 232
|
 Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 11:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| The Message Bible?No thanks.The original Greek phrase in verses one and two means "weak,impotent or diseased".Not "someone who doesn't see things the way you do" or a "different background". |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rylan_losce
Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oneputt wrote: |
| The Message Bible?No thanks.The original Greek phrase in verses one and two means "weak,impotent or diseased".Not "someone who doesn't see things the way you do" or a "different background". |
Alright. I've had it. Why is it that you and all of us must keep fighting? Obviously, we do not agree, so there is no use in persisting in arguing. This is the nonsense that Paul is constantly rebuking. It is said that history repeats itself. Clearly this is the case now. The point of that passage (this is almost wholly agreed upon by most biblical scholars) is not that vegetarians are weak in faith, it means, rather, that they are weak in conscience. Take advice from the beatles: "Let it be."
Just let it rest. Just let the Spirit work individually in everyone how it wishes. Do not try and force your beliefs on me, and I will do the same. (Or at least try) Vegetarianism is a personal way for me to not add to the violence in the world. I see no reason for me to consume the flesh of an animal so that I might please myself. I think it is redundant death. I am not trying to judge you or convict you. I am just expressing and defending myself and the Spirit's will for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oneputt
Joined: 28 Dec 2002
Posts: 232
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The point of that passage (this is almost wholly agreed upon by most biblical scholars) is not that vegetarians are weak in faith, it means, rather, that they are weak in conscience. |
You misunderstand my posts.I have never said that the Bible says that vegetarians are weak.I clearly stated that the passage was about eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols,and not about a debate about vegetarianism among the early Church.Please take the time to understand what you are reading.And my post about the Message was simply making that point.The Message does not convey the true meaning of the Greek,that those who think they cannot eat meat sacrificed to idols are weaker in faith,and not just the watered down "who see things differently".
| Quote: |
| Just let the Spirit work individually in everyone how it wishes. Do not try and force your beliefs on me, and I will do the same. |
I have never attempted to force my beliefs on anyone here.I have not even expressed the idea that vegetarianism is wrong.I have simply tried to correct erroneous information given by those who are trying to force their perception that vegetarianism is more spiritual than eating meat upon other Christians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tensor_77
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 7, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My view on this topic is that Jesus truly showed us that it was good and acceptable to eat meat, such as the loaves of bread and also the fishes (Matthew 14:13-21, 15:32-39), (Mark 6:31-44, 8:1-10), (Luke 9:11-17), and (John 6:1-13). Our Holy Lord also explains to us, through the Holy Ghost, in the book of Romans; "For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him." (14:2-3)
It is alright to eat all things and alright to eat only herbs, but once we say to each other that it is wrong to eat or not to eat, there is where judging is, and love fades and that leads to "doubtful disputations." (Romans 14:1) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 8, 2006 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tensor_77 wrote: |
| My view on this topic is that Jesus truly showed us that it was good and acceptable to eat meat, such as the loaves of bread and also the fishes (Matthew 14:13-21, 15:32-39), (Mark 6:31-44, 8:1-10), (Luke 9:11-17), and (John 6:1-13). Our Holy Lord also explains to us, through the Holy Ghost, in the book of Romans; "For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him." (14:2-3)) |
Tensor,  perhaps you have not yet read the numerous posts on this issue. There is no evidence that Jesus sanctioned the deprivation, cruelty and slaughter of animals. The biblical records on this issue are distorted, misleading, and political: I suggest you read the previous posts on this topic, and the recommended literature, and then you may realise that it is not sufficient to simply accuse Jesus of sanctioning violence because of what the Bible appears to imply. Even if the Bible explicitly and unequivocally condoned our contemporary treatment of animals (or any abuse of other creatures for human gain and appetite), it would be illogical, because it is not in harmony with love and respect for all creation - it would be avoidable, unnecessary and irrational selective violence.
Can you not see the inconsistencies: Jesus would not have said that it was 'good and acceptable' to slaughter animals - certainly not the intensified farming methods of today, and the useless, senseless and unforgivable suffering inflicted on the animal kingdom in the name of God. because it is: 'good and acceptable.' The logic and reasoning of this issue does not flow: violence is violence: love and God's peaceable kingdom does not equate with deliberate, avoidable and unnecessary violence and deprivation toward sentient creatures that is seen (or not seen if one chooses not to see) in the animal industry. It is an insult to the God of Love to accuse Him of condoning such horrors.
All of this has been debated on this forum many, many times, and I am more than happy to keep repeating myself when someone posts approval and excuses, in the name of God, for the abuse of our fellow creatures.
I recommend a rereading of all previous posts on this topic - and then judge which reflect the love, compassion and respect of God for the whole of creation.
| Tensor_77 wrote: |
| It is alright to eat all things and alright to eat only herbs, but once we say to each other that it is wrong to eat or not to eat, there is where judging is, and love fades and that leads to "doubtful disputations." (Romans 14:1) |
It is not a matter of telling others what to eat and not eat - you miss the point: should we not say that cannibalism is wrong? It is about raising consciousness to the fact that factory farming methods and intensive and compassionless rearing and slaughter of non-human animals (not forgetting the torture and pain of the vivisection laboratories) is unacceptable. In fact, inflicting avoidable violence, suffering and deprivation and disrespect on any sentient creature is sinful; and to pass judgement and condemnation on the loveless and cruel practices of animal abuse does not mean: 'love fades' - just the opposite: love glows in the darkness of ignorance and denial.
Love all of creation and do not intentional hurt any of our fellow creatures - is this so wrong? It may be an ideal, but many of us are making the effort. What a pity that established religion is so hypocritical that it advocates an all loving and compassionate God - but only for those who are human.
God cannot be all love and compassion if He condones the violence and deprivation that we inflict on other sentient creatures. Either violence is a violation of this love, or it is not - it cannot be selective. Do we really want to be mistaken?
I'm conscious that others may not want me to keep repeating myself - please read the previous posts that address your argument and point of view. If there is anything fresh to bring to this debate, then lets go forward... 
In Friendship |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pulpculture
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Posts: 564
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 9, 2006 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
and to add to Anthonys example I could post numerous passages in the Bible supporting slavery and instructing us how to treat our slaves. If someone alse was in agreement with the Bible and pro-slavery would you expect me to sit back and not speak out? No I would speak out. Would you then be more worried about me judging the person or me protecting fellow human beings?
Tensor - If you had a pet dog and I felt the urge to kick it and stamp on its head whilst you were out walking it - would you not judge me and prevent me from doing so? Well for me there's no difference - I'm going to judge the farmers and the hunters in this world and try to prevent them from inflicting missery on creatures that can't stand up for themselves. Creatures that can't fight back.
My view is that if I'm right I'll know about it on judgement day - If I'm wrong then my actions will have lead to a load of animals enjoying less pain and suffering for no reason whatsoever. I'm comfortable either way 
Go in peace
_________________
.
I said don't forget Burma! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 9, 2006 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Matthew,
Thank you for your post, I know we are very much in agreement on this issue. I would like to respond to two comments you have raised: farmers and hunters. I'm not comfortable equating these two together for reasons that have already been discussed in previous posts.
I am uncomfortable accusing all farmers of 'inflicting misery on other creatures' - although, some farmers are guilty of this: for them the end product justifies the means. I feel sure there are many farmers who are well intentioned and compassionate; much of the distress of farm animals is caused after they leave the farms, in transportation and in the slaughterhouses, however, I'm not sure I can say the same about the misery inflicted on cows and calves in the production of milk.
The sad thing about these issues is that the suffering involved is all unnecessary - we now live in an age when we are much better informed about our dietary needs, and there so many non-dairy and non-meat sources of protein, vitamins and minerals available; a vegetarian diet is very healthy. Additionally, we don't need to wear animal skins; and there are alternative methods of medical testing available, other than torturing animals, that we need not only to encourage and support, but to actually become aware of, and be informed about.
What amazes me is the apparent lack of advertisement on television for vegetarian and vegan food: appetising alternatives to meat; additionally, how often do we find alternative forms of medical testing being brought to our attention in the media, or by our doctors, etc. - is this is due to the monopoly of the enormously powerful meat and pharmaceutical industries that are able to influence the media, provide misinformation, and withhold the true facts?
In Friendship |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oneputt
Joined: 28 Dec 2002
Posts: 232
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 9, 2006 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The sad thing about these issues is that the suffering involved is all unnecessary - we now live in an age when we are much better informed about our dietary needs, and there so many non-dairy and non-meat sources of protein, vitamins and minerals available; a vegetarian diet is very healthy. |
While I certainly agree with the posts concerning the humane treatment of animals,I don't believe this statement is accurate.I posted the following on another thread without a response back from the vegetarians,so I will just copy it into this thread.
_____________________________________________________________
Two additional thoughts on man being intended to be vegetarian.
First,why does the human stomach produce hydrochloric acid,which is used to break down animal proteins?No herbivore's stomach produces this.
Second,what about vitamin B12?It is essential to good health and it's lack can led to serious medical problems and even death,but is available only in animal products.Take a look at this site and realize that it is written by vegetarians for vegetarians.
www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html
From the vegetarian site:
"Vitamin B12 is a member of the vitamin B complex. It contains cobalt, and so is also known as cobalamin. It is exclusively synthesised by bacteria and is found primarily in meat, eggs and dairy products. There has been considerable research into proposed plant sources of vitamin B12. Fermented soya products, seaweeds, and algae such as spirulina have all been suggested as containing significant B12. However, the present consensus is that any B12 present in plant foods is likely to be unavailable to humans and so these foods should not be relied upon as safe sources. Many vegan foods are supplemented with B12. Vitamin B12 is necessary for the synthesis of red blood cells, the maintenance of the nervous system, and growth and development in children. Deficiency can cause anaemia. Vitamin B12 neuropathy, involving the degeneration of nerve fibres and irreversible neurological damage, can also occur."
Note that vegans,who do not use any animal products,have to eat foods artificially fortified with vitamins from animal sources.Why would this be necessary if humans are designed to be vegetarians?
_____________________________________________________________
The issue then becomes balancing our evolutionary need for meat with ways of acquiring it humanely.Since mankind is growing in population beyond the capacity for a hunter/gatherer type of supply,large scale farming is a necessity to acheive this,but should be done in a humane way.
Last edited by oneputt on Sun Jul 9, 2006 6:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oneputt
Joined: 28 Dec 2002
Posts: 232
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 9, 2006 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| and to add to Anthonys example I could post numerous passages in the Bible supporting slavery and instructing us how to treat our slaves. If someone alse was in agreement with the Bible and pro-slavery would you expect me to sit back and not speak out? No I would speak out. Would you then be more worried about me judging the person or me protecting fellow human beings? |
The problem with this comparison is that we have evolutionary and physical proof that man is designed to eat meat.We aren't depending on culturally biased thought as proof of the legitimacy of eating meat.
| Quote: |
Tensor - If you had a pet dog and I felt the urge to kick it and stamp on its head whilst you were out walking it - would you not judge me and prevent me from doing so? Well for me there's no difference - I'm going to judge the farmers and the hunters in this world and try to prevent them from inflicting missery on creatures that can't stand up for themselves. Creatures that can't fight back. |
This is a perfect example of the irrational and irrelevant thought process that inflames these discussions.The difference is that there is no good reason for you to be kicking a peaceful pet dog.Farmers are not in business simply to inflict needless harm,as in your example.They are in busines to raise food and clothing,and sometimes use methods that don't take into consideration the ethical treatment of the animals.This is wrong and needs to be addressed and corrected,but hardly an accurate comparison to the mindless violence of your scenario. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pulpculture
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Posts: 564
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| oneputt wrote: |
| This is a perfect example of the irrational and irrelevant thought process that inflames these discussions.The difference is that there is no good reason for you to be kicking a peaceful pet dog.Farmers are not in business simply to inflict needless harm,as in your example.They are in busines to raise food and clothing,and sometimes use methods that don't take into consideration the ethical treatment of the animals.This is wrong and needs to be addressed and corrected,but hardly an accurate comparison to the mindless violence of your scenario. |
Ultimately farm animals travel to have their throats slit. I speak up for them. Both examples involve violence. To me both examples of violence are unnecessary - that's where we disagree.
_________________
.
I said don't forget Burma! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Top Ramen
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Posts: 94
Location: Virginia
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I do not condone the treatment of the animals and the methods of production of the majority of livestock operations in America. To reach the current rate of consumption and price of the commodity, agriculture employs immoral methods. I feel no guilt in consuming meat or meat products that are produced in ways I would identify as good. However, I consume less meat because of cost and availability. In addition, I do not see anything wrong with meat acquired through hunting when there is a healthy animal population in an area hunted.
In both of the qualifiers, the amount of meat individuals could consume would be significantly reduced from present consumption.
I understand that people believe that the killing of animals is immoral. In some cases it appears to be the central tenant of their morality. I have respect for people's stongly held beliefs.
_________________
"Freedom is actually a bigger game than power. Power is about what you can control. Freedom is about what you can unleash." - Harriet Rubin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shay
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 885
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oneputt wrote: |
Two additional thoughts on man being intended to be vegetarian.
First,why does the human stomach produce hydrochloric acid,which is used to break down animal proteins?No herbivore's stomach produces this.
Second,what about vitamin B12?It is essential to good health and it's lack can led to serious medical problems and even death,but is available only in animal products.Take a look at this site and realize that it is written by vegetarians for vegetarians.
www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html
From the vegetarian site:
"Vitamin B12 is a member of the vitamin B complex. It contains cobalt, and so is also known as cobalamin. It is exclusively synthesised by bacteria and is found primarily in meat, eggs and dairy products. There has been considerable research into proposed plant sources of vitamin B12. Fermented soya products, seaweeds, and algae such as spirulina have all been suggested as containing significant B12. However, the present consensus is that any B12 present in plant foods is likely to be unavailable to humans and so these foods should not be relied upon as safe sources. Many vegan foods are supplemented with B12. Vitamin B12 is necessary for the synthesis of red blood cells, the maintenance of the nervous system, and growth and development in children. Deficiency can cause anaemia. Vitamin B12 neuropathy, involving the degeneration of nerve fibres and irreversible neurological damage, can also occur."
Note that vegans,who do not use any animal products,have to eat foods artificially fortified with vitamins from animal sources.Why would this be necessary if humans are designed to be vegetarians? |
I also don't think humans evolved as vegetarians. I believe we're omnivores. Even a vegetarian I can find agrees with me:
http://www.purifymind.com/HumansOmnivores.htm
His conclusion?
| Quote: |
| Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns. |
But I will agree we can live as vegetarians or even vegans without any major health problems, just paying attention to our diet.
In regards to your question about b12, b12 is easily consumed through eggs and milk- both o which fit into a oco-lacto vegetarian diet, and even the synthesized stuff is still vegetarian, they're not extracting it from cows' stomachs to stuff into Cheerios. b12 is made from microorganisms, which even vegans cannot help but ingest whenever they breathe or swallow water, so even strictly vegan sites will tell you this is not killing, but rather making use of a resource:
http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/everyvegan/
| Quote: |
| To be truly healthful, a diet must be best not just for individuals in isolation but must allow all six billion people to thrive and achieve a sustainable coexistence with the many other species that form the "living earth". From this standpoint the natural adaptation for most (possibly all) humans in the modern world is a vegan diet. There is nothing natural about the abomination of modern factory farming and its attempt to reduce living, feeling beings to machines. In choosing to use fortified foods or B12 supplements, vegans are taking their B12 from the same source as every other animal on the planet - micro-organisms - without causing suffering to any sentient being or causing environmental damage. |
In other words, it's no worse or better than letting your own blood cells kill off a cold.
Last edited by Shay on Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:10 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harold
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 136
Location: Kentucky
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am vegetarian.
_________________
"The whole duty of humanity, from a Christian perspective is: To know God and to show God." -James Patterson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| oneputt wrote: |
| I posted the following on another thread without a response back from the vegetarians.. |
Sorry, I occasionally miss posts
Now, I wrote a detailed response to this - and then lost it: I suppose this has happened to most of us. 
| oneputt wrote: |
Two additional thoughts on man being intended to be vegetarian.
First,why does the human stomach produce hydrochloric acid,which is used to break down animal proteins?No herbivore's stomach produces this. |
This is simply not true. Herbivores do have hydrochloric acid but to a lesser degree. If, over a long period, herbivores have eaten a meat diet, more hydrochloric acid will be produced - this is the law of evolution: adaptation.
| oneputt wrote: |
| Second,what about vitamin B12?It is essential to good health and it's lack can led to serious medical problems and even death,but is available only in animal products.Take a look at this site and realize that it is written by vegetarians for vegetarians. |
I think that Shay's response to this was very good and I don't think I could improve on what she wrote - however, it is worth serious consideration; the vegetarian web page is very interesting and appears factually informative - I will give it some serious thought and make additional enquires. Yet, this is only relevant for those who are vegan and not vegetarians: for the latter, it makes no difference.
| oneputt wrote: |
Note that vegans,who do not use any animal products,have to eat foods artificially fortified with vitamins from animal sources.Why would this be necessary if humans are designed to be vegetarians? |
Oneputt, your logic appears to be flawed: vegetarians don't eat flesh so the issue of B12 deficiency does not apply - it is an issue for vegans only and is not a factor in proving that humans were not 'designed to be vegetarians.'
| oneputt wrote: |
| The issue then becomes balancing our evolutionary need for meat with ways of acquiring it humanely.Since mankind is growing in population beyond the capacity for a hunter/gatherer type of supply,large scale farming is a necessity to acheive this,but should be done in a humane way. |
This is not true, 'large [meat] farming' is not necessary, in fact non-animal, plant based protein is not only healthier but requires less land to produce and does not produce large amounts of methane gas, one of the primary sources of global warming. All of this is part of the misinformation generated under the influence and 'encouragement' of the meat industry (influencing and controlling the masses much like the pharmaceutical industry - it is about profit, wealth, monopoly and power) and should be treated with caution. The facts are available online to those who are interested.
In Friendship |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oneputt
Joined: 28 Dec 2002
Posts: 232
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This is simply not true. Herbivores do have hydrochloric acid but to a lesser degree. If, over a long period, herbivores have eaten a meat diet, more hydrochloric acid will be produced - this is the law of evolution: adaptation. |
Herbivores do not produce the acid in quantities necessary to digest meat,while humans do.You simply prove my point that our bodies are designed to process meat.
| Quote: |
| Oneputt, your logic appears to be flawed: vegetarians don't eat flesh so the issue of B12 deficiency does not apply - it is an issue for vegans only and is not a factor in proving that humans were not 'designed to be vegetarians.' |
This statement is completely illogical.Vegetarians don't eat meat,so the issue of lacking B12 because you don't eat meat is not an issue for them?Huh?And whether it is meat,or other animal products such as eggs or milk,this is the only way to get processable B12.
| Quote: |
| This is not true, 'large [meat] farming' is not necessary, in fact non-animal, plant based protein is not only healthier but requires less land to produce and does not produce large amounts of methane gas, one of the primary sources of global warming. All of this is part of the misinformation generated under the influence and 'encouragement' of the meat industry (influencing and controlling the masses much like the pharmaceutical industry - it is about profit, wealth, monopoly and power) and should be treated with caution. The facts are available online to those who are interested. |
While this sounds good in theory,it simply isn't true.You cannot,as the veggie supporters do,do a simplistic acre of plant food vs. acre of meat ranching comparison.Many areas cannot support farming,and the cattle free range on the hardy native grasses that can grow.Come to where I live and try running some kind of largescale vegetable farm.You'll be broke in a year.Yet large numbers of cattle are free ranged on the native grasses.This is true in many other parts of the world also.This claim by the veggies in this matter is a very selective and misleading one.It might apply doing the comparison on an Iowa farm with good soil,where the plant foods outperform the cattle ranchers,but all the world is not Iowa.
Meat eating evolved from necessity to feed a growing human population.
Oh,and the "facts" that should be used with caution are the ones that the vegetarians claim to support their agenda.How many vegetarians have ever told people they are trying to convince about the B12 issue? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
