|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
 Posted - 01/07/2004 : 09:23:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ivan, people using the Bible to justify torturing and eating animals is a hot-button issue of mine.
There are lots of other issues that people try and use the Bible to defend as well...many that I don't agree with either. When it comes down to it though, it's simply the difference between interpreting the Bible for what it is, and interpreting it for your own agenda.
quote:
To say that animals were put here for us to eat is ex post facto arguing: it's justifying one's actions after the fact.
(God:) "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. " Genesis 9:3
So, since God told us that animals could be food for us, I do not see how saying so is post facto arguing.
quote:
But this isn't the place to debate vegetarianism; that's a whole 'nother thread
Correct. In fact, I do not even think that it is a debate. It's simply personal preference...a preference I have no problem with.
quote:
I can post some Bible contradictions, Ivan. But you'll invariably respond with a tortured rationalization, or yet another quote which, in your mind, trumps mine.
Why the hostility? I have yet to display any tortured rationalism, and have only posted quotes which are in context and logical, as well as relevant to the subject and my point of view.
quote:
Or worse, I'll get the smug, 'You don't understand' crap I usually get from Christians. Which is why, IMO, arguing the Bible is a self-serving and pointless exercise.
Now that's an assumption.
quote:
So I suggest you do your own google on "Bible contradictions" and see what you can find.
Done that...and what I've found is a lot of people who make illogical arguments to feed their own hidden agendas.
quote:
As Woody said, I mean no negativity toward Hippy or Ivan, who both make valid points.
Don't worry about it...getting worked up is part of the debate.
|
 |
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 02:22:30 [Permalink]
|
First of all, everyone from the Pope to YOU interprets the Bible to suit their own agenda. I bet if you were a vegetarian, you could find a Bible verse to support it. Why don't you try anyway, just to see if you can find one.
Second, if you're going to call the Bible for what it is:
1. The bible is OLD. 5,000 years old, or whatever.
2. The Bible is ARCHAIC. It's of another time--not another generation, but another time. It was written before Hitler, before electricity, before feminism, before civil rights, before modern psychology, etc. AND before we understood animals the way we do now.
3. The Bible is SEXIST.
4. The Bible is BLOODY and VIOLENT.
5. The Bible is CONTRADICTORY.
6. The Bible is BORING. (Renae's editorial comment) 
The problem is, ivan, that you think there's One Right Way to interpret the Bible. There isn't. If there were, we wouldn't have different Christian churches and denominations, would we?
Serious question: Why do you give credibility to something so archaic? And please don't give me the 'some things are timeless' line. |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 07:37:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
First of all, everyone from the Pope to YOU interprets the Bible to suit their own agenda.
I agree (although I think the pope is full of it)...but there are some "interpretations" that are more correct than others...I strive for correctness.
quote:
The bible is OLD. 5,000 years old, or whatever.
So?
quote:
The Bible is ARCHAIC. It's of another time--not another generation, but another time. It was written before Hitler, before electricity, before feminism, before civil rights, before modern psychology, etc. AND before we understood animals the way we do now.
Things change....places change. People do not change.
Read proverbs. There is certainly a lot in that book alone that is still relevant today.
quote:
The Bible is SEXIST.
Actually, it is rather un-sexist. In fact, Jesus himself preached equality between man and woman.
quote:
The Bible is BLOODY and VIOLENT.
Irrelevant. So is a lot of the rest of our history.
quote:
The Bible is CONTRADICTORY.
See other thread.
quote:
The Bible is BORING.
Oh jeez! What can I say? Great thesis! I'm converted!
quote:
The problem is, ivan, that you think there's One Right Way to interpret the Bible. There isn't. If there were, we wouldn't have different Christian churches and denominations, would we?
As I've said, people have hidden agendas, so they warp the Bible to their own needs. That's where a lot of the denominations come from...others differentiate in ways that are unimportant.
quote:
Serious question: Why do you give credibility to something so archaic? And please don't give me the 'some things are timeless' line.
The same reason you give credibility to the rest of history. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 07:52:24 [Permalink]
|
Let me get this straight: You believe there is one correct interpretation of the Bible, and you're closer to that correctness because....? You have a hotline to God? You've memorized Bible quotes? You went to Bible study last night? You're good buds with the Pope?
You might be interested in this interpretation of what the Bible has to say about vegetarianism:
http://www.all-creatures.org/hr/hrabib.htm
But that's probably not as "correct" as YOUR interpretation, right?
I volunteer for a vegetarian organization. For many vegetarians, eating animals is not mere 'preference'; it's instead a moral issue. Many vegetarians I know express their respect for the environment and their love of animals by not eating meat of any kind. It's a decision I respect tremendously and one I wish I could make.
Why can't you just admit that the Bible is used to justify everything from deeply moral behavior to absolute bullshit and everything in between?
Never mind. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 08:20:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
First of all, everyone from the Pope to YOU interprets the Bible to suit their own agenda. I bet if you were a vegetarian, you could find a Bible verse to support it. Why don't you try anyway, just to see if you can find one.
Second, if you're going to call the Bible for what it is:
1. The bible is OLD. 5,000 years old, or whatever.
The Pentauch (First few books of the Old Testament) is reportedly 5,000 years old. Much of the New Testament dates from approximately 100 CE. It has been heavily edited throughout it's history. Last time in 1309.
quote:
2. The Bible is ARCHAIC. It's of another time--not another generation, but another time. It was written before Hitler, before electricity, before feminism, before civil rights, before modern psychology, etc. AND before we understood animals the way we do now.
The concepts the Bible expresses are of a time 1900 years in the past. The moral code reflects that. It is most definately archaic, but sections of it are timeless as the beneficial moral code that those sections express. Codes such as "murder is wrong" and "be nice to one another" societal morals are examples of timeless concepts.
quote:
3. The Bible is SEXIST.
So was society of the time that the Bible was written.
quote:
4. The Bible is BLOODY and VIOLENT.
Sections of it are but so was the world of that time. Sections of the Bible are not violent.
quote:
5. The Bible is CONTRADICTORY.
Mostly due to the wanton editing it has suffered through the ages and the fact that it is a work by more than one author.
quote:
6. The Bible is BORING. (Renae's editorial comment)
Dead on, here. It is very boring in the Old Testament where it is just doing lineages. There are some interesting stories pushed into the overbearing language and plodding pace.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 10:39:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You believe there is one correct interpretation of the Bible, and you're closer to that correctness because....? You have a hotline to God? You've memorized Bible quotes? You went to Bible study last night? You're good buds with the Pope?
Woah woah woah....you've obviously misinterpreted me! I certainly am not saying, "The bible has one interpretation and I know it!" I simply strive not to misquote the bible and read it out of context. Every person should, and the ones who don't obviously don't. Reading it out of context for your own purposes is what you shouldn't do...and I try not to. I am not putting myself on a higher plane than anyone else...so please don't accuse me of doing so.
quote:
But that's probably not as "correct" as YOUR interpretation, right?
The quote I provided was not an interpretation...which is something you seem to misunderstand. If it is written in the Bible that we can use animals for food, [b]than the Bible condones eating meat[b]. You cannot argue vegetarianism without ignoring that verse. That is where the mis-interpretation comes.
Funny how the vegetarians don't become vegetarian from reading the Bible...but instead they decide that the Bible preaches vegetarianism after becoming part of the group themselves....once again "making" the Bible suit their own agendas.
quote:
Why can't you just admit that the Bible is used to justify everything from deeply moral behavior to absolute bullshit and everything in between?
It doesn't. People simply think it does.
quote:
Never mind.
Ok. I won't.
quote:
Dead on, here. It is very boring in the Old Testament where it is just doing lineages.
Well...I agree with you there...those lineages certainly get tedius after a while! 
|
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 10:42:06 [Permalink]
|
[edit]
Ranae, why do you assume I pay attention to the Pope? (you've asked me about him twice now) He is part of the Catholic church, which I am not a part of. Not only do I not care about him, but I also feel that his position is completely unbiblical (which it is), as well as the many other aspects of the Roman Catholic Church.  |
| Edited by - ivanisavich on 01/08/2004 10:42:20 |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 13:39:39 [Permalink]
|
Disclaimer: This post is simply here to refute that absolutely ridiculous "humane religion" website Ranae gave a link to.
Btw...This is in no way an attack at you, Ranae. I respect your beliefs and opinions...I just thought that I would go through a specific example illustrating that the Bible has a direct message, and cannot be interpreted to say "anything".
...let me go through some of the stuff it said...
quote:
(emphasis mine)
There is no logical correlation between any kind of dominion and the consumption of the flesh of other beings. That is man's self-serving interpretation of dominion. The bible, itself, refutes this argument for dominion/carnivorism.
Ok...these guys lost all credibility right here. I mean, did they somehow forget that animals eat other animals too? So a shark eating a fish (of which you could say it has "dominion" over) is not a logical situation...just one that humans invented? Sheesh!
These people really aren't using their heads....or maybe it's just that...*cough* *cough* they're misinterpreting the facts to suit their own agenda *cough*...
But I will still continue...
quote:
The verse of scripture immediately following the appointment of humans as caretakers for the rest of creation is followed by strict dietary instructions that limit all food consumption to non-flesh foods.
I agree. There was no meat consumption in the garden...but just because carnivorism was instated afterwords doesn't mean it is wrong.
quote:
Having decreed the kind of food that was to sustain life on earth, the bible does not discuss diet again until the ninth chapter of Genesis. And by then the known world had already been destroyed by the great Flood. The scripture juxtaposes the report of that catastrophe with the information that the world had been defiled by the human beings to whom stewardship of the earth had been given.
Oh geez! I'm sure God was just furious when he saw all those people eating animals! Of course their murderous ways towards each other had nothing to do with his fury...
quote:
Just as life after the Fall in Eden was lived at a much lower level of existence, life after the Flood had deteriorated even further. The violence of the pre-Flood world reached the point where earth's inhabitants had begun to feed on the flesh of each other. And Noah and his family, conditioned by that society, continued its carnivorism.
Eeeevil! Pure eeevil! Those poor cows! What did they do to deserve such a horendous death between Noah's chops? Oh what has the world come to!
quote:
All creatures will fear and dread mankind, because human beings will abuse them. Obviously, the God of creation is not commending humans for their violent and abusive behavior.
Uh huh...sure, and just how will these creatures be able to comprehend man's actions and then "fear" man? Of course a rabbit will run from you if you chase it, but not because it is thinking, "Oh! Those humans! They always abuse us!"
quote:
This perversion of God's intent would also be apparent in man's continued carnivorism.
Perversion is a big word for a writer with such little knowledge...must've used a thesaurus.
quote:
(emphasis mine)
"Every living thing shall be meat for you; even as the green herb, have I given you all things." This verse of scripture is not an approval of carnivorism. It is a statement of fact: human beings will continue to consume the flesh of other creatures.
So by telling people that they shall eat meat because he gave it to them he is not condoning the action, but only stating a fact? That makes less sense than the rest of the arguments on this site.
quote:
The words have I given in the above-quoted scripture should read have I made.
Changing the Bible's text to suit your own beliefs, anyone?
quote:
This is the way that phrase is translated in other parts of the bible, and in this instance it would make it plain that God is not "giving" his creatures to man for food.
I would like to see those "other parts" in full context before I even begin to discuss a possible mistranslation.
quote:
Rather, the bible is reiterating that the Lord "made" all things: the green herbs of the fields as well as all living creatures.
Well, only once you change the actual text to suit your needs.
quote:
It is man who decided that he had a right to consume the bodies of other creatures. And in order to further bolster this claim for the right to eat other beings, he introduced sacrificial religion into the world.
Why do I suddenly have a feeling that these people have never actually read the Bible? Heck, wasn't it God himself who refused Cain's vegetable offering and only accepted Abel's animal offering?
If "God wants us to be vegetarians" as this site seems to claim, wouldn't it have been the other way around?
Back to basics folks.
quote:
Human beings have depicted God as enjoying the smell of burning flesh. The bible is replete with passages that describe the pleasure He took in the smell of animals being roasted on the altar. But of course it was the priests and the people, not God, who consumed their flesh.
What does that have to do with anything? Isn't it the act of killing animals for their food that we're discussing here? Actually eating the animal has nothing to do with anything...or else I'd have to assume that you disagree with eating |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 17:39:58 [Permalink]
|
ivanisavich wrote:quote:
I see no correlation between the description of the Promised Land being "flowing with milk and honey" and any possibility that God was a vegetarian.
Well, it certainly proves that God wasn't Vegan.
I also enjoyed the conflation of the two meanings of the word 'butchery' in the site quoted. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 18:13:50 [Permalink]
|
Oh, how typical, Ivan.
I give you a link to an interpretation of the Bible that doesn't fit your beliefs, and you dismiss it as a MISinterpreation. Jeez.
Perhaps the people that WROTE the Bible already ate meat and twisted whatever Jesus and his Apostles, Disciples, and Backup Singers supposedly said in order to reflect that it's OK to eat meat.
Two simple questions:
1. Is love the primary message of God/Jesus/the Bible?
and
2. Is it more loving to eat animals or more loving to spare their lives and treat them humanely? |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 18:27:04 [Permalink]
|
And because I have Obsessive Posting Disorder (OPD) (tm), I have to address a couple of your anti-vegetarianism points:
1. If animals eat each other, why can't we?
Because we have higher-level brain processes that allow us to feel empathy and to reason at a higher level, and therefore we can choose NOT to. Besides, is it OK for us to do everything animals do? Like poop in public? Or lick our private parts? (Sorry for the vulgarity)
2. If we're meant to eat animals, why are they so unhealthy for us? High-protein diets are linked to calcium loss and kidney problems. High-fat diets lead to cardiovascular problems. Vegetarians have lower rates of many, many diseases. (no, I'm too tired and hungry to look up links so look 'em up yourself.)
The website isn't mine, nor does it reflect my religous beliefs (because I have virtually none). I was just showing you how easy it is to find a contradictory interpretation from the one you offered--AND one which makes equally as much sense to me as the one you offered.
I ask about the Pope because he seems to be the authority (at least the only one I can think of) on Christianity. |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 19:14:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Oh, how typical, Ivan.
Well, seeing as how this is the first time I've refuted a website you've given me, I don't see how this is typical of me.
quote:
I give you a link to an interpretation of the Bible that doesn't fit your beliefs, and you dismiss it as a MISinterpreation. Jeez.
I explained to you quite thoroughly why it is a misinterpretation. It completely changes the facts for its own purpose, disregarding the Bible's true intent. If you continue to ignore that, then I do not know what else I can say in order for you to see the facts.
quote:
Perhaps the people that WROTE the Bible already ate meat and twisted whatever Jesus and his Apostles, Disciples, and Backup Singers supposedly said in order to reflect that it's OK to eat meat.
Yeah...that must've been it. Jesus was simply a vegetarian with a knack for public speaking who was a victim of the twisted truth historians write about. I'm beginning to wonder if you had a part in creating that website Ranae...
quote:
Two simple questions:
1. Is love the primary message of God/Jesus/the Bible?
Yes. Simply put, God's love for humans, and how they should accept this undeserving gift of grace. The Bible is not about how we should love and take care of the planet.
quote:
Is it more loving to eat animals or more loving to spare their lives and treat them humanely?
Ask that to the lions who are currently munching on gazelle over in Africa. It is not our job to love animals, but we do so anyways. Therefore, neither is the right answer because it depends on your preference (a message I've been preaching, yet that you've been disregarding since the beginning of this thread).
quote:
Because we have higher-level brain processes that allow us to feel empathy and to reason at a higher level, and therefore we can choose NOT to.
Of course we can choose not to. But that does not make your chioce right or wrong.
quote:
Besides, is it OK for us to do everything animals do? Like poop in public? Or lick our private parts? (Sorry for the vulgarity)
Your comparison of getting nurishment from the protein and other nutrients in meat to pooping in public is absurd. You seem to forget that eating has a detremental effect on the longevity of our lives, whereas pooping in public does not.
quote:
If we're meant to eat animals, why are they so unhealthy for us? High-protein diets are linked to calcium loss and kidney problems. High-fat diets lead to cardiovascular problems.
Everything is bad for us if you don't eat in moderation and excercize variety. You need your fruits and vegetables just as much as you need your dairy, your meat and your grains.
quote:
The website isn't mine, nor does it reflect my religous beliefs (because I have virtually none).
Ok, then I retract my statement above alleging your involvement in the website. (Although I was being sarcastic anyways )
quote:
I was just showing you how easy it is to find a contradictory interpretation from the one you offered
Well, you're right about that...they are easy to find. But we're looking for quality and not quantity here. Any website like the one you brought forth is irrelevant once refuted. What we are looking for are different credible interpretations of the Bible that are contradictory.
quote:
I ask about the Pope because he seems to be the authority (at least the only one I can think of) on Christianity.
Well, as stated above, that is another "common misconception". The idea of having a pope is completely non-biblical, and because a lot of what he says is based on Roman Catholic beliefs, it does not always reflect what the Bible says. So he is not an authority on Christianity, he is an authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Big difference, but don't worry about it .
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 19:35:57 [Permalink]
|
Renae wrote:quote:
Or lick our private parts? (Sorry for the vulgarity)
If I could do that, I wouldn't leave the house.
Seriously, the "we can choose not to eat meat" is only a moral argument, and morals fluctuate all over the place. Certainly, when faced with starvation as the only other option, one should eat meat, unless one is so morally obsessive that they'd die for their beliefs. Morality isn't universal, except in the minds of those who would impose their morality upon others.
It should also be noted, here, that both plowing fields and harvesting crops kill thousands of animals. Unless you can survive on what you grow and pick with your own hands, your veggies have been paid for with blood. And don't forget that trowels and hoes can kill earthworms.quote:
2. If we're meant to eat animals, why are they so unhealthy for us? High-protein diets are linked to calcium loss and kidney problems. High-fat diets lead to cardiovascular problems.
And unsupplemented all-plant diets can lead to other health problems (B-12 deficiency, for example). Plus, a "healthy diet" is neither high protein nor high fat, but moderate in both (along with carbs), so it's important to avoid conflating non-vegetarianism with, for example, "the Protein Power Diet."
We've got bits and pieces of both carnivore and herbivore anatomy, and digest much of meats and plants just fine (though we're definitely lacking the ability to digest cellulose). Health problems come about due to over-indulgence and lack of exercise, primarily. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 19:43:24 [Permalink]
|
| Thank you Dave. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 20:08:14 [Permalink]
|
Let me get this straight:
Ivan, when YOU talk about the Bible, you're talking facts. When someone else talks about the Bible, they're misinterpreting it, or twisting it to justify their agenda.
That way of thinking is typical of just about every Bible believer I've talked to. You forget, though: the Bible isn't historical fact, right? By definition, then, it's open to interpretation.
Dave, I'm aware of the nutritional stuff. It's easy to take B-12 supplements, though, but not so easy to reverse hardened arteries. Vegetarians have lower rates of lots of things:
http://www.nbc4.com/health/2245593/detail.html
quote:
Vegetarians have been reported to have healthier body weight than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from heart disease, lower blood cholesterol levels and lower rates of high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and prostate and colon cancer," said Cynthia Sass, a registered dietitian and ADA spokeswoman.
It's illogical to compare earthworms to cows; the level of awareness, emotion, pain, perception, etc. are nowhere near the same, nor was I suggesting they were. You're creating a straw man; not your usual style.
Criminy. I'm arguing for vegetarianism, and I eat poultry and fish. I spend too damn much time online.  |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
