Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 I'm stoked that you've found this path and are passionate about it, but I'm pretty sure it's not any human beings place to damn anyone else to hell. I'm definitely more of the lead by example mindset. You will convert many more vegans that way. I was " converted " by someone who never judged me for a second when I was eating meat and dairy. I saw how happy and healthy she was from the inside out, so I started asking questions. She gave me straight truth, and never made me feel like I was wrong for not asking sooner. Now my fiance is starting to segue into a lot less meat and dairy, and hopefully will one day join me in being completely vegan. Do I think he's going to hell because he doesn't understand or share the same passions I do right now? Heavens no! He's a good person who is not yet ready to give up the meat and potatoes he grew up with. I wish it were different, but I love him no less. Factory farming is so hideous, it's hard to imagine how anyone could have that as their employ and not feel morally bereft. But you have to recognize how easy it is for the human mind to turn things off inside of it and convince yourself it's just survival. To a lot of factory farmers, they think this is the only way for them to make a living, to feed and clothe their families. Imagine growing up on a farm and never knowing anything different. It would be harder to recognize the lack of morality if it's all you've ever known. I'm not saying it's right and not saying that we shouldn't do everything we can to educate people and stop the torturing, but I don't think reserving a place in hell for these people is going to win them over and make them feel compelled to listen to what we have to say. You might consider taking that part out of your message to meat eaters if you want them to truly hear. If it offends me as a vegan that agrees with you, I can only imagine how much of a turn off it would be to someone who has not yet seen the light. James Allen [fluffy0752] .... As a Christian minister, I feel I'm doing what God wants me to do. God did not create animals for us to consume. You can rest assured that God loves His animal children just as much as His human children. There is a special place in hell reserved for those who hurt the animals... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 especially if, like me, they don't believe in hell. Jo > I'm not saying it's right and not saying that we shouldn't do > everything we can to educate people and stop the torturing, but I > don't think reserving a place in hell for these people is going to > win them over and make them feel compelled to listen to what we have > to say. You might consider taking that part out of your message to > meat eaters if you want them to truly hear. If it offends me as a > vegan that agrees with you, I can only imagine how much of a turn off > it would be to someone who has not yet seen the light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 I'm sure no one knows the reality of what happens after death, whatever our beliefs. But as meat eating is a hellish thing to do and the most powerful religionous order on earth ' The Catholic church advocates a hell existing, maybe " Hell having a special place for meat-eaters is not such not bad belief.> Simon > especially if, like me, they don't believe in hell. > > Jo > > I'm not saying it's right and not saying that we shouldn't do > > everything we can to educate people and stop the torturing, but I > > don't think reserving a place in hell for these people is going to > > win them over and make them feel compelled to listen to what we have > > to say. You might consider taking that part out of your message to > > meat eaters if you want them to truly hear. If it offends me as a > > vegan that agrees with you, I can only imagine how much of a turn off > > it would be to someone who has not yet seen the light. > > > > > To send an email to - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 But said most powerful religious order on earth does not consider meat eating hellish. So if for the sake of this argument you accept the Catholic church's word that hell exists, it would be illogical not to also accept their word that meat eating is not hellish, meaning that hell would not have a special place for them... And, of course, since power and the tendency to tell the truth do not generally go hand in hand, and indeed, might almost be said to be inversely proportional to one another, one might even consider that if the Catholic church says something is true, the fact that it is powerful makes it less likely to be so! Far better to work towards making meat-eating socially unacceptable or even illegal, and create for them all a hell on this earth! On a more serious note, I think we all judge meat eaters all the time, and, if we believe meat eating to be wrong, we are right to do so. If it angers me when meat eaters think they should have a right to eat meat (but not, hypocritically, that we should all have a right to murder and enslave whoever we like), it really angers me when vegans actually condone this view. If eating meat is wrong, the same way keeping slaves or murdering someone is wrong, then no one should have the right to do so. Only if veganism is a belief on the par with, say, belief that oranges taste better than bananas, or that pop music today is not as good as it used to be - in other words a matter of opinion - should people have a right to eat meat or not. But I doubt many on this list consider the veganism a matter of opinion on this level - most, I think, consider it a matter of the right thing to to do morally. John John - " simonpjones " <simonpjones Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:43 AM Re: Judging Meat eaters... > I'm sure no one knows the reality of what happens after death, whatever our > beliefs. > But as meat eating is a hellish thing to do and the most powerful > religionous order on earth ' The Catholic church advocates a hell existing, > maybe " Hell having a special place for meat-eaters is not such not bad > belief.> > > Simon > > > especially if, like me, they don't believe in hell. > > > > Jo > > > I'm not saying it's right and not saying that we shouldn't do > > > everything we can to educate people and stop the torturing, but I > > > don't think reserving a place in hell for these people is going to > > > win them over and make them feel compelled to listen to what we have > > > to say. You might consider taking that part out of your message to > > > meat eaters if you want them to truly hear. If it offends me as a > > > vegan that agrees with you, I can only imagine how much of a turn off > > > it would be to someone who has not yet seen the light. > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 jlankford74-- You give me hope. Mind you I was the proverbial Saul of Tarsus up until 2 yrs ago. So I derive the majority of my hope from me. ?Paster (or) Minister?-- You do too. For Christianity that is. A path I left because of the sevire descrepancy between, word and deed. I would, agree with " jlankford74 " on the damnation part. This is a freindly rminder and nothing more so Please, please don't take it wrong. Judge not Lest by these thing ye also be judged... and Let him who is eithout sin cast the first stone. Do you agree with the statement, " Christ (as protrayed in the King James version of the 'Holy Bible') was a pacifist " ? Hopefully, David , " jlankford74 " <jlankford74> wrote: > I'm stoked that you've found this path and are passionate about it, > but I'm pretty sure it's not any human beings place to damn anyone > else to hell. I'm definitely more of the lead by example mindset. > You will convert many more vegans that way. I was " converted " by > someone who never judged me for a second when I was eating meat and > dairy. I saw how happy and healthy she was from the inside out, so I > started asking questions. She gave me straight truth, and never made > me feel like I was wrong for not asking sooner. Now my fiance is > starting to segue into a lot less meat and dairy, and hopefully will > one day join me in being completely vegan. Do I think he's going to > hell because he doesn't understand or share the same passions I do > right now? Heavens no! He's a good person who is not yet ready to > give up the meat and potatoes he grew up with. I wish it were > different, but I love him no less. > > Factory farming is so hideous, it's hard to imagine how anyone could > have that as their employ and not feel morally bereft. But you have > to recognize how easy it is for the human mind to turn things off > inside of it and convince yourself it's just survival. To a lot of > factory farmers, they think this is the only way for them to make a > living, to feed and clothe their families. Imagine growing up on a > farm and never knowing anything different. It would be harder to > recognize the lack of morality if it's all you've ever known. > > I'm not saying it's right and not saying that we shouldn't do > everything we can to educate people and stop the torturing, but I > don't think reserving a place in hell for these people is going to > win them over and make them feel compelled to listen to what we have > to say. You might consider taking that part out of your message to > meat eaters if you want them to truly hear. If it offends me as a > vegan that agrees with you, I can only imagine how much of a turn off > it would be to someone who has not yet seen the light. > > > > James Allen [fluffy0752] > > > > ... As a Christian minister, I feel I'm doing what God wants me to > do. God did not create animals for us to consume. You can rest > assured that God loves His animal children just as much as His human > children. There is a special place in hell reserved for those who > hurt the animals... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 You attract more bees with honey than vinegar... Not that I'd want to be attracting bee's anyway but if one was actually interested in the act of attracting bees, proverbial or otherwise, then one would do better at it with honey as bees have an irrational affinity for honey whereas they tend to dislike vinegar... , " simonpjones " <simonpjones@o...> wrote: > I'm sure no one knows the reality of what happens after death, whatever our > beliefs. > But as meat eating is a hellish thing to do and the most powerful > religionous order on earth ' The Catholic church advocates a hell existing, > maybe " Hell having a special place for meat-eaters is not such not bad > belief.> > > Simon > > > especially if, like me, they don't believe in hell. > > > > Jo > > > I'm not saying it's right and not saying that we shouldn't do > > > everything we can to educate people and stop the torturing, but I > > > don't think reserving a place in hell for these people is going to > > > win them over and make them feel compelled to listen to what we have > > > to say. You might consider taking that part out of your message to > > > meat eaters if you want them to truly hear. If it offends me as a > > > vegan that agrees with you, I can only imagine how much of a turn off > > > it would be to someone who has not yet seen the light. > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 John, Define, right. Define, wrong. Define, truth. In my understanding they are all social construct. Before slavery was considered " wrong " , it was considered " right " . In fact non-human nature has significant examples of slavery, except we don't call it that we call it symbiosis when the arrangement is relatively two way or parasitism if it's relatively one-sided. The truth... That's even harder because it seems to me to be pinned superficially to the notion of " right " , which is itself in question. Non-human omnivores, like non-vegan humans, think carnivory is perfectly expectable. And it is if you're severely short-sighted. I wouldn't consider a predominantly carnivorous omnivore like a wolf to be " wrong " , for wolves there is no wrong or right, there is sustainment by any means available or death. Humans are no less subject to this imperative than wolves, luckily for use we can subsist on a completely herbivorous diet. It is no less " right " morally for omnivorous humans to consume meat than it is for herbivorous humans not to. We have to broaden our scope of understanding and our range of argument. I cringe at the thought of an animal suffering for my benefit. But I can watch a wild dog disembowel a still kick wildebeest in perfect comfort. Ultimately, I wouldn't want to see the whole of humanity go omnivorous. In fact, I think, specializing would be a detriment to the survival of our species. The reason we've been so successful to date is because of our penitent for generality. The generalists are the most likely to survive extinction level circumstances, on an individual species bases. Conversely the predators are the first to start dropping. But! This is primarily because their food stock populations (herbivores) plummet, because Their food stock populations ( " photovores " ) plummet. If humans as a species were to limit themselves exclusively to the consumption of plants to the point of loosing the capability to consume flesh we would be in direct completion with the second largest consumption group on the planet, which is very bad odds. The reason I choose to be a " virtual " herbivore is because, 1) Plants are an optimal source of nutrition. Meaning I get everything I need with relatively little of what I don't. 2) The food-animal industry is sloppy and at least 10 times less efficient than the plant food industry (which has serious issues of its own). 3) The in efficiencies in the food animal industry have long-term environmental ramifications, we've only just begun to understand and when we do it will be too late. 4) The only way to end an inherently violent practice is through non-violent non-compliance... veganism... a boycott of the food-animal industry. A shift, and in some cases a reduction of the economies and technologies to levels that are sustainable until the sun boils the atmosphere and the oceans off and glazes the ground we walk on. Hopefully by then we will have found a new ball of clay to exist on. IMHO, David , " John Davis " <mcxg46@d...> wrote: > But said most powerful religious order on earth does not consider meat > eating hellish. So if for the sake of this argument you accept the Catholic > church's word that hell exists, it would be illogical not to also accept > their word that meat eating is not hellish, meaning that hell would not have > a special place for them... > > And, of course, since power and the tendency to tell the truth do not > generally go hand in hand, and indeed, might almost be said to be inversely > proportional to one another, one might even consider that if the Catholic > church says something is true, the fact that it is powerful makes it less > likely to be so! > > Far better to work towards making meat-eating socially unacceptable or even > illegal, and create for them all a hell on this earth! > > On a more serious note, I think we all judge meat eaters all the time, and, > if we believe meat eating to be wrong, we are right to do so. If it angers > me when meat eaters think they should have a right to eat meat (but not, > hypocritically, that we should all have a right to murder and enslave > whoever we like), it really angers me when vegans actually condone this > view. If eating meat is wrong, the same way keeping slaves or murdering > someone is wrong, then no one should have the right to do so. Only if > veganism is a belief on the par with, say, belief that oranges taste better > than bananas, or that pop music today is not as good as it used to be - in > other words a matter of opinion - should people have a right to eat meat or > not. But I doubt many on this list consider the veganism a matter of opinion > on this level - most, I think, consider it a matter of the right thing to to > do morally. > > John > > John > > > - > " simonpjones " <simonpjones@o...> > > Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:43 AM > Re: Judging Meat eaters... > > > > I'm sure no one knows the reality of what happens after death, whatever > our > > beliefs. > > But as meat eating is a hellish thing to do and the most powerful > > religionous order on earth ' The Catholic church advocates a hell > existing, > > maybe " Hell having a special place for meat-eaters is not such not bad > > belief.> > > > > Simon > > > > > especially if, like me, they don't believe in hell. > > > > > > Jo > > > > I'm not saying it's right and not saying that we shouldn't do > > > > everything we can to educate people and stop the torturing, but I > > > > don't think reserving a place in hell for these people is going to > > > > win them over and make them feel compelled to listen to what we have > > > > to say. You might consider taking that part out of your message to > > > > meat eaters if you want them to truly hear. If it offends me as a > > > > vegan that agrees with you, I can only imagine how much of a turn off > > > > it would be to someone who has not yet seen the light. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 - " John Davis " <mcxg46 Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:14 AM Re: Judging Meat eaters... > But said most powerful religious order on earth does not consider meat > eating hellish. So if for the sake of this argument you accept the Catholic > church's word that hell exists, it would be illogical not to also accept > their word that meat eating is not hellish, meaning that hell would not have > a special place for them...? < Yes but the point I was trying to make was..Rev Jim..who made the statement here; hell holds a special place for meat-eaters wouldn't be a bad statement (in my oppinion) if it was preached and accepted by the Catholics, as even some of todays accepted science will be seen as myth or untrue in the furture.> > > And, of course, since power and the tendency to tell the truth do not > generally go hand in hand, and indeed, might almost be said to be inversely > proportional to one another, one might even consider that if the Catholic > church says something is true, the fact that it is powerful makes it less > likely to be so!> When refering to after death. Who knows? My view is ..we condemn ourselves to hell on earth, by killing animals and eating them. > On a more serious note, I think we all judge meat eaters all the time, and, > if we believe meat eating to be wrong, we are right to do so. If it angers > me when meat eaters think they should have a right to eat meat (but not, > hypocritically, that we should all have a right to murder and enslave > whoever we like), it really angers me when vegans actually condone this > view. If eating meat is wrong, the same way keeping slaves or murdering > someone is wrong, then no one should have the right to do so. < I agree with you..if something is wrong harmful,hurtful,causes pain and suffering, then it has to be unacceptable, whatever the opinions are.> should people have a right to eat meat or > not. But I doubt many on this list consider the veganism a matter of opinion > on this level - most, I think, consider it a matter of the right thing to > do morally Yeah In my opinion accepting meat-eating is almost like accepting a phycho-path's opinion..that killing people is ok. Simon > > > - > " simonpjones " <simonpjones > > Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:43 AM > Re: Judging Meat eaters... > > > > I'm sure no one knows the reality of what happens after death, whatever > our > > beliefs. > > But as meat eating is a hellish thing to do and the most powerful > > religionous order on earth ' The Catholic church advocates a hell > existing, > > maybe " Hell having a special place for meat-eaters is not such not bad > > belief.> > > > > Simon > > > > > especially if, like me, they don't believe in hell. > > > > > > Jo > > > > I'm not saying it's right and not saying that we shouldn't do > > > > everything we can to educate people and stop the torturing, but I > > > > don't think reserving a place in hell for these people is going to > > > > win them over and make them feel compelled to listen to what we have > > > > to say. You might consider taking that part out of your message to > > > > meat eaters if you want them to truly hear. If it offends me as a > > > > vegan that agrees with you, I can only imagine how much of a turn off > > > > it would be to someone who has not yet seen the light. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 So what you're saying is that wolves are psyco-paths? Or are you saying that huamns aren't animals? And therefore not subject to the same laws of nature that wolves and sheep are? By sheep I'm refering to the non-manipulated species, which actually seldom come in contact with wolves making the the wolf vs. sheep problem, almost entirly a result of human meddling. Non-the-less, wolve eat meat, regardless of the sourse animal. David > > Yeah In my opinion accepting meat-eating is almost like accepting a > phycho-path's opinion..that killing people is ok. > > Simon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 I would never argue to meat eaters that they're going to hell. They're defensive enough about their eating habits without getting jumped on by righteous vegans - a soft sell is more effective and therefore more beneficial to animals. But deep down, in secret, dark place hidden in my soul, I do believe they're doing evil and if such a place as hell does exist they're at least going to do some time there. Love, Anna > " Peter " <metalscarab > > >Re: Judging Meat eaters... >Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:56:49 -0000 > >especially if, like me, they don't believe in hell. > >Jo > > I'm not saying it's right and not saying that we shouldn't do > > everything we can to educate people and stop the torturing, but I > > don't think reserving a place in hell for these people is going to > > win them over and make them feel compelled to listen to what we have > > to say. You might consider taking that part out of your message to > > meat eaters if you want them to truly hear. If it offends me as a > > vegan that agrees with you, I can only imagine how much of a turn off > > it would be to someone who has not yet seen the light. > > _______________ Get reliable access on MSN 9 Dial-up. 3 months for the price of 1! (Limited-time offer) http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 Hi Simon > I'm sure no one knows the reality of what happens after death, whatever our > beliefs. > But as meat eating is a hellish thing to do and the most powerful > religionous order on earth ' The Catholic church advocates a hell existing, > maybe " Hell having a special place for meat-eaters is not such not bad > belief.> Being powerful doesn't make them right. I somehow doubt that even the Catholic church could rival the power of McDonalds or other big businesses. BB Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 Hi David > Do you agree with the statement, " Christ (as protrayed in the King > James version of the 'Holy Bible') was a pacifist " ? Oooh - so many ways to answer this.... From the theological standpoint.... what could possibly drive anyone to want to use the KJV as an authoritative version of the bible? It's filled with James's own personal prejudices and has several very dubious translations because of that. Personally I'm not too keen on any of the regular English translations, but if we have to pick one, couldn't we go with something which was done with slightly less biased intent such as the NIV? But then, if we're discussing what Jesus was or wasn't, is it really valid to just take the sources of his life as authorised by Iraneaus? Shouldn't we really look at the whole range of source material.... i.e. the dozen or so gospels that Iraneaus wasn't so keen on? Philosophically speaking... working on the basis that the protrayal of Jesus in the bible is more as an archetype than an individual, surely he can be anything you want him to be. Mythologically speaking... Did Jesus really exist? If he did, is the story about just one individual, or about an amalgam of individuals, each of whom had something to offer, but have been slotted together into one nice story? If there was a single individual, how much of what is contained in the bible actually an accurate depiction of his life, and how much has become distorted through the merging of that individual's story with popular mythologies to make the Avatar concept acceptable to people living in the 2nd century? How much has become distorted purely through translation? Historically speaking... I would say that one thing points very clearly to Jesus (as portrayed in the Bible) as *not* being a pacifist, and that is his acceptance of the appelation " Rex Ieudea " . By accepting such a title, in the period and era he was living in, he was making a statement that he intended to challenge the ruling classes, and such a statement in that period is effectively the same as declaring he wanted armed conflict. BB Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 - " Peter " <metalscarab Thursday, March 18, 2004 4:35 PM Re: Judging Meat eaters... > Hi Simon > > > I'm sure no one knows the reality of what happens after death, whatever > our > > beliefs. > > But as meat eating is a hellish thing to do and the most powerful > > religionous order on earth ' The Catholic church advocates a hell > existing, > > maybe " Hell having a special place for meat-eaters is not such not bad > > belief.> > > Being powerful doesn't make them right. I somehow doubt that even the > Catholic church could rival the power of McDonalds or other big businesses. > It wouldn't suprise me if McDonalds owners were Catholics...both are bad business's in my opinion. Simon > > > > > To send an email to - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 The point I was making was referring to a point some one else was making about peoples opinions and their right to have them. If a meat eater who should be enlightened enough to know how cruel and wrong meat eating is and doesn't get it....or is of a non-caring attitude towards it...should their opinions be respected? Should they be allowed to be called part of the civilized human race? I was refering to the psyco-paths that kill people for kicks....and not those that work in slaughter-houses and butchers etc. As a psyco-path's opinion might be that it is his/her right to kill people if they please. Should that opinion be respected? Simon > So what you're saying is that wolves are psyco-paths? Or are you > saying that huamns aren't animals? And therefore not subject to the > same laws of nature that wolves and sheep are? By sheep I'm refering > to the non-manipulated species, which actually seldom come in contact > with wolves making the the wolf vs. sheep problem, almost entirly a > result of human meddling. Non-the-less, wolve eat meat, regardless > of the sourse animal. > > David > > > > > Yeah In my opinion accepting meat-eating is almost like accepting a > > phycho-path's opinion..that killing people is ok. > > > > Simon > > > > > > To send an email to - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 It's knowing the difference between opinion and judgement ...judge the deed not the doer.....the sin not the sinner. My opinion is that eating meat is a savage thing to do, so I could say that a person who eats meat was a savage..like someone who drives a bus is a bus driver. Simon - " David Brown " <quickformgreen Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:45 PM Re: Judging Meat eaters... > John, > > Define, right. Define, wrong. Define, truth. In my understanding > they are all social construct. Before slavery was > considered " wrong " , it was considered " right " . In fact non-human > nature has significant examples of slavery, except we don't call it > that we call it symbiosis when the arrangement is relatively two way > or parasitism if it's relatively one-sided. > > The truth... That's even harder because it seems to me to be pinned > superficially to the notion of " right " , which is itself in question. > > Non-human omnivores, like non-vegan humans, think carnivory is > perfectly expectable. And it is if you're severely short-sighted. I > wouldn't consider a predominantly carnivorous omnivore like a wolf to > be " wrong " , for wolves there is no wrong or right, there is > sustainment by any means available or death. Humans are no less > subject to this imperative than wolves, luckily for use we can > subsist on a completely herbivorous diet. It is no less " right " > morally for omnivorous humans to consume meat than it is for > herbivorous humans not to. We have to broaden our scope of > understanding and our range of argument. I cringe at the thought of > an animal suffering for my benefit. But I can watch a wild dog > disembowel a still kick wildebeest in perfect comfort. > > Ultimately, I wouldn't want to see the whole of humanity go > omnivorous. In fact, I think, specializing would be a detriment to > the survival of our species. The reason we've been so successful to > date is because of our penitent for generality. The generalists are > the most likely to survive extinction level circumstances, on an > individual species bases. Conversely the predators are the first to > start dropping. But! This is primarily because their food stock > populations (herbivores) plummet, because Their food stock > populations ( " photovores " ) plummet. If humans as a species were to > limit themselves exclusively to the consumption of plants to the > point of loosing the capability to consume flesh we would be in > direct completion with the second largest consumption group on the > planet, which is very bad odds. > > The reason I choose to be a " virtual " herbivore is because, 1) Plants > are an optimal source of nutrition. Meaning I get everything I need > with relatively little of what I don't. 2) The food-animal industry > is sloppy and at least 10 times less efficient than the plant food > industry (which has serious issues of its own). 3) The in > efficiencies in the food animal industry have long-term environmental > ramifications, we've only just begun to understand and when we do it > will be too late. 4) The only way to end an inherently violent > practice is through non-violent non-compliance... veganism... a > boycott of the food-animal industry. A shift, and in some cases a > reduction of the economies and technologies to levels that are > sustainable until the sun boils the atmosphere and the oceans off and > glazes the ground we walk on. Hopefully by then we will have found a > new ball of clay to exist on. > > IMHO, > David > > > > > > , " John Davis " <mcxg46@d...> wrote: > > But said most powerful religious order on earth does not consider > meat > > eating hellish. So if for the sake of this argument you accept the > Catholic > > church's word that hell exists, it would be illogical not to also > accept > > their word that meat eating is not hellish, meaning that hell would > not have > > a special place for them... > > > > And, of course, since power and the tendency to tell the truth do > not > > generally go hand in hand, and indeed, might almost be said to be > inversely > > proportional to one another, one might even consider that if the > Catholic > > church says something is true, the fact that it is powerful makes > it less > > likely to be so! > > > > Far better to work towards making meat-eating socially unacceptable > or even > > illegal, and create for them all a hell on this earth! > > > > On a more serious note, I think we all judge meat eaters all the > time, and, > > if we believe meat eating to be wrong, we are right to do so. If it > angers > > me when meat eaters think they should have a right to eat meat (but > not, > > hypocritically, that we should all have a right to murder and > enslave > > whoever we like), it really angers me when vegans actually condone > this > > view. If eating meat is wrong, the same way keeping slaves or > murdering > > someone is wrong, then no one should have the right to do so. Only > if > > veganism is a belief on the par with, say, belief that oranges > taste better > > than bananas, or that pop music today is not as good as it used to > be - in > > other words a matter of opinion - should people have a right to eat > meat or > > not. But I doubt many on this list consider the veganism a matter > of opinion > > on this level - most, I think, consider it a matter of the right > thing to to > > do morally. > > > > John > > > > John > > > > > > - > > " simonpjones " <simonpjones@o...> > > > > Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:43 AM > > Re: Judging Meat eaters... > > > > > > > I'm sure no one knows the reality of what happens after death, > whatever > > our > > > beliefs. > > > But as meat eating is a hellish thing to do and the most powerful > > > religionous order on earth ' The Catholic church advocates a hell > > existing, > > > maybe " Hell having a special place for meat-eaters is not such > not bad > > > belief.> > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > especially if, like me, they don't believe in hell. > > > > > > > > Jo > > > > > I'm not saying it's right and not saying that we shouldn't do > > > > > everything we can to educate people and stop the torturing, > but I > > > > > don't think reserving a place in hell for these people is > going to > > > > > win them over and make them feel compelled to listen to what > we have > > > > > to say. You might consider taking that part out of your > message to > > > > > meat eaters if you want them to truly hear. If it offends me > as a > > > > > vegan that agrees with you, I can only imagine how much of a > turn off > > > > > it would be to someone who has not yet seen the light. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 I agree...but no good using a feather against a sword..> S - " David Brown " <quickformgreen Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:55 AM Re: Judging Meat eaters... > You attract more bees with honey than vinegar... > > , " simonpjones " <simonpjones@o...> > wrote: > > I'm sure no one knows the reality of what happens after death, > whatever our > > beliefs. > > But as meat eating is a hellish thing to do and the most powerful > > religionous order on earth ' The Catholic church advocates a hell > existing, > > maybe " Hell having a special place for meat-eaters is not such not > bad > > belief.> > > > > Simon > > > > > especially if, like me, they don't believe in hell. > > > > > > Jo > > > > I'm not saying it's right and not saying that we shouldn't do > > > > everything we can to educate people and stop the torturing, but > I > > > > don't think reserving a place in hell for these people is going > to > > > > win them over and make them feel compelled to listen to what we > have > > > > to say. You might consider taking that part out of your > message to > > > > meat eaters if you want them to truly hear. If it offends me > as a > > > > vegan that agrees with you, I can only imagine how much of a > turn off > > > > it would be to someone who has not yet seen the light. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 Dear Simon, Never say Never or in your case Never say No One knows the reality of what happens after death. I am a Christian after I have looked for evidences, and I KNOW what happens after "death". A real "death" does not exist, as the soul never disappears. Can you thing more about? About meat eating, that was not so at the begin of the human existance: Read the bible (very first chapter, Old Testament). At the end not only meat will be not "necessary", but just any food. Til then we have a long way and the arrival of the Lord Jesus Christ a second time, before. (To Jesus Christ you don't make any thoughts, maybe as opposition to everything what is related to the Church). But I want to repet: Never say NO ONE.simonpjones <simonpjones wrote: -"Peter" Thursday, March 18, 2004 4:35 PMRe: Judging Meat eaters...> Hi Simon>> > I'm sure no one knows the reality of what happens after death, whatever> our> > beliefs.> > But as meat eating is a hellish thing to do and the most powerful> > religionous order on earth ' The Catholic church advocates a hell> existing,> > maybe "Hell having a special place for meat-eaters is not such not bad> > belief.>>> Being powerful doesn't make them right. I somehow doubt that even the> Catholic church could rival the power of McDonalds or other bigbusinesses.> It wouldn't suprise me if McDonalds owners were Catholics...both are badbusiness's in my opinion.Simon>>>>> To send an email to - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 So right and wrong are a matter of personal oppinion then? Are wolves savages? , " simonpjones " <simonpjones@o...> wrote: > It's knowing the difference between opinion and judgement ...judge the deed > not the doer.....the sin not the sinner. My opinion is that eating meat is a > savage thing to do, so I could say that a person who eats meat was a > savage..like someone who drives a bus is a bus driver. > > Simon > - > " David Brown " <quickformgreen> > > Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:45 PM > Re: Judging Meat eaters... > > > > John, > > > > Define, right. Define, wrong. Define, truth. In my understanding > > they are all social construct. Before slavery was > > considered " wrong " , it was considered " right " . In fact non-human > > nature has significant examples of slavery, except we don't call it > > that we call it symbiosis when the arrangement is relatively two way > > or parasitism if it's relatively one-sided. > > > > The truth... That's even harder because it seems to me to be pinned > > superficially to the notion of " right " , which is itself in question. > > > > Non-human omnivores, like non-vegan humans, think carnivory is > > perfectly expectable. And it is if you're severely short- sighted. I > > wouldn't consider a predominantly carnivorous omnivore like a wolf to > > be " wrong " , for wolves there is no wrong or right, there is > > sustainment by any means available or death. Humans are no less > > subject to this imperative than wolves, luckily for use we can > > subsist on a completely herbivorous diet. It is no less " right " > > morally for omnivorous humans to consume meat than it is for > > herbivorous humans not to. We have to broaden our scope of > > understanding and our range of argument. I cringe at the thought of > > an animal suffering for my benefit. But I can watch a wild dog > > disembowel a still kick wildebeest in perfect comfort. > > > > Ultimately, I wouldn't want to see the whole of humanity go > > omnivorous. In fact, I think, specializing would be a detriment to > > the survival of our species. The reason we've been so successful to > > date is because of our penitent for generality. The generalists are > > the most likely to survive extinction level circumstances, on an > > individual species bases. Conversely the predators are the first to > > start dropping. But! This is primarily because their food stock > > populations (herbivores) plummet, because Their food stock > > populations ( " photovores " ) plummet. If humans as a species were to > > limit themselves exclusively to the consumption of plants to the > > point of loosing the capability to consume flesh we would be in > > direct completion with the second largest consumption group on the > > planet, which is very bad odds. > > > > The reason I choose to be a " virtual " herbivore is because, 1) Plants > > are an optimal source of nutrition. Meaning I get everything I need > > with relatively little of what I don't. 2) The food-animal industry > > is sloppy and at least 10 times less efficient than the plant food > > industry (which has serious issues of its own). 3) The in > > efficiencies in the food animal industry have long-term environmental > > ramifications, we've only just begun to understand and when we do it > > will be too late. 4) The only way to end an inherently violent > > practice is through non-violent non-compliance... veganism... a > > boycott of the food-animal industry. A shift, and in some cases a > > reduction of the economies and technologies to levels that are > > sustainable until the sun boils the atmosphere and the oceans off and > > glazes the ground we walk on. Hopefully by then we will have found a > > new ball of clay to exist on. > > > > IMHO, > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > , " John Davis " <mcxg46@d...> wrote: > > > But said most powerful religious order on earth does not consider > > meat > > > eating hellish. So if for the sake of this argument you accept the > > Catholic > > > church's word that hell exists, it would be illogical not to also > > accept > > > their word that meat eating is not hellish, meaning that hell would > > not have > > > a special place for them... > > > > > > And, of course, since power and the tendency to tell the truth do > > not > > > generally go hand in hand, and indeed, might almost be said to be > > inversely > > > proportional to one another, one might even consider that if the > > Catholic > > > church says something is true, the fact that it is powerful makes > > it less > > > likely to be so! > > > > > > Far better to work towards making meat-eating socially unacceptable > > or even > > > illegal, and create for them all a hell on this earth! > > > > > > On a more serious note, I think we all judge meat eaters all the > > time, and, > > > if we believe meat eating to be wrong, we are right to do so. If it > > angers > > > me when meat eaters think they should have a right to eat meat (but > > not, > > > hypocritically, that we should all have a right to murder and > > enslave > > > whoever we like), it really angers me when vegans actually condone > > this > > > view. If eating meat is wrong, the same way keeping slaves or > > murdering > > > someone is wrong, then no one should have the right to do so. Only > > if > > > veganism is a belief on the par with, say, belief that oranges > > taste better > > > than bananas, or that pop music today is not as good as it used to > > be - in > > > other words a matter of opinion - should people have a right to eat > > meat or > > > not. But I doubt many on this list consider the veganism a matter > > of opinion > > > on this level - most, I think, consider it a matter of the right > > thing to to > > > do morally. > > > > > > John > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > - > > > " simonpjones " <simonpjones@o...> > > > > > > Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:43 AM > > > Re: Judging Meat eaters... > > > > > > > > > > I'm sure no one knows the reality of what happens after death, > > whatever > > > our > > > > beliefs. > > > > But as meat eating is a hellish thing to do and the most powerful > > > > religionous order on earth ' The Catholic church advocates a hell > > > existing, > > > > maybe " Hell having a special place for meat-eaters is not such > > not bad > > > > belief.> > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > especially if, like me, they don't believe in hell. > > > > > > > > > > Jo > > > > > > I'm not saying it's right and not saying that we shouldn't do > > > > > > everything we can to educate people and stop the torturing, > > but I > > > > > > don't think reserving a place in hell for these people is > > going to > > > > > > win them over and make them feel compelled to listen to what > > we have > > > > > > to say. You might consider taking that part out of your > > message to > > > > > > meat eaters if you want them to truly hear. If it offends me > > as a > > > > > > vegan that agrees with you, I can only imagine how much of a > > turn off > > > > > > it would be to someone who has not yet seen the light. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 So you would choose violance to establish a peaceful ideology. I detect a serious doctrine flaw. One that spelt disaster for marxist communism (a fundumentally sound idea). Iterestingly enough, Gandhi found that you feather was actually superior to the sword in the same way veganism can bring down the food animal industry. Non-violent non-compliance. Yes Gandhi and most proponents of non-violent means were assasinated but they realized that the " cause " was bigger than they were and there death would actually serve to strengthen thier message. And they were right. , " simonpjones " <simonpjones@o...> wrote: > I agree...but no good using a feather against a sword..> > > S > - > " David Brown " <quickformgreen> > > Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:55 AM > Re: Judging Meat eaters... > > > > You attract more bees with honey than vinegar... > > > > , " simonpjones " <simonpjones@o...> > > wrote: > > > I'm sure no one knows the reality of what happens after death, > > whatever our > > > beliefs. > > > But as meat eating is a hellish thing to do and the most powerful > > > religionous order on earth ' The Catholic church advocates a hell > > existing, > > > maybe " Hell having a special place for meat-eaters is not such not > > bad > > > belief.> > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > especially if, like me, they don't believe in hell. > > > > > > > > Jo > > > > > I'm not saying it's right and not saying that we shouldn't do > > > > > everything we can to educate people and stop the torturing, but > > I > > > > > don't think reserving a place in hell for these people is going > > to > > > > > win them over and make them feel compelled to listen to what we > > have > > > > > to say. You might consider taking that part out of your > > message to > > > > > meat eaters if you want them to truly hear. If it offends me > > as a > > > > > vegan that agrees with you, I can only imagine how much of a > > turn off > > > > > it would be to someone who has not yet seen the light. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 I would say that every " civilised " human, could use some enlightenment on one issue or another (myself included and then some). And in a " civilised " society respect of opinion is more often a matter of numbers, not fundumental truths (if such a thing even exists). If the majority of a " civilised " society believed that human sacrifice and canibalism was acceptable behavior then it was exceptable behavior. The question is why was it considered exceptable behavior. Was there an underlying matiral need for dietary supplument, or was it purely social? If you were trapped in a box with a rabbit and told that only one of you could come out alive; would you kill the rabbit or would you starve yourself to death for the sake of the rabbit. Mind you the rabbit would starve to death long before you did, so would you commit yourself to watching the rabbit die slowly or end its life mercifully? Would you, if all you had to eat were rabbits (hypotetical desert isle where rabbits were miraculously sustained by the air but you weren't), sustain yourself with their flesh? Or would you starve yourself for thier sake. , " simonpjones " <simonpjones@o...> wrote: > > The point I was making was referring to a point some one else was making > about peoples opinions and their right to have them. If a meat eater who > should be enlightened enough to know how cruel and wrong meat eating is and > doesn't get it....or is of a non-caring attitude towards it...should their > opinions be respected? Should they be allowed to be called part of the > civilized human race? > > I was refering to the psyco-paths that kill people for kicks....and not > those that work in slaughter-houses and butchers etc. As a psyco- path's > opinion might be that it is his/her right to kill people if they please. > Should that opinion be respected? > > Simon > > > > > So what you're saying is that wolves are psyco-paths? Or are you > > saying that huamns aren't animals? And therefore not subject to the > > same laws of nature that wolves and sheep are? By sheep I'm refering > > to the non-manipulated species, which actually seldom come in contact > > with wolves making the the wolf vs. sheep problem, almost entirly a > > result of human meddling. Non-the-less, wolve eat meat, regardless > > of the sourse animal. > > > > David > > > > > > > > Yeah In my opinion accepting meat-eating is almost like accepting a > > > phycho-path's opinion..that killing people is ok. > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 Hi, Oh dear. No, you do not know for certain what happens after death. You think you do, and you may be right, but there is simply no way to know anything for certain, let alone something so hard to find out about as what happens after death, which, by its very nature is entirely beyond the scope of our comprehension. You can't know for certain that you have hands at the end of your arms. Or even that you have arms. You can't know for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that it rose yesterday, or even that that big yellow thing actually exists at all. Nothing can be known for certain. And - if you will forgive me a paradox - anyone who claims certain knowledge is certainly at risk of error. John - " ioannis Tsoucas " <itsoucas Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:46 PM Re: Judging Meat eaters... > Dear Simon, > > Never say Never or in your case Never say No One knows the reality of what happens after death. > > I am a Christian after I have looked for evidences, and I KNOW what happens after " death " . A real " death " does not exist, as the soul never disappears. Can you thing more about? > > About meat eating, that was not so at the begin of the human existance: Read the bible (very first chapter, Old Testament). At the end not only meat will be not " necessary " , but just any food. Til then we have a long way and the arrival of the Lord Jesus Christ a second time, before. (To Jesus Christ you don't make any thoughts, maybe as opposition to everything what is related to the Church). But I want to repet: Never say NO ONE. > > simonpjones <simonpjones wrote: > > - > " Peter " > To: > Thursday, March 18, 2004 4:35 PM > Re: Judging Meat eaters... > > > > Hi Simon > > > > > I'm sure no one knows the reality of what happens after death, whatever > > our > > > beliefs. > > > But as meat eating is a hellish thing to do and the most powerful > > > religionous order on earth ' The Catholic church advocates a hell > > existing, > > > maybe " Hell having a special place for meat-eaters is not such not bad > > > belief.> > > > > Being powerful doesn't make them right. I somehow doubt that even the > > Catholic church could rival the power of McDonalds or other big > businesses. > > > > It wouldn't suprise me if McDonalds owners were Catholics...both are bad > business's in my opinion. > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 Hi David, > Define, right. Define, wrong. Define, truth. In my understanding > they are all social construct. Before slavery was > considered " wrong " , it was considered " right " . In fact non-human > nature has significant examples of slavery, except we don't call it > that we call it symbiosis when the arrangement is relatively two way > or parasitism if it's relatively one-sided. I do not need to define right or wrong, which are, of course, entirely subjective constructs, or at least, if there is an inherent morality in the universe, we currently lack the ability to detect it. What I said was that if one considers meat-eating wrong, one cannot at the same time consider someone right to eat meat - though they may of course be right in any other number of ways and definitions of the term. And indeed, I feel that it is counter-productive to the vegan movement that vegans do not state this more clearly. Some people might think it right to keep slaves, and some think women should not have the vote. But those who fought for the abolition of slavery, and to gain women the vote, did not do so by saying 'I believe this, but you have a perfect right not to, and to keep on working those slaves'. > Non-human omnivores, like non-vegan humans, think carnivory is > perfectly expectable. And it is if you're severely short-sighted. I > wouldn't consider a predominantly carnivorous omnivore like a wolf to > be " wrong " , Please see my other email for why I do not consider a wolf wrong to kill. Although, by my personal definition of right and wrong, I hold nature to be very wrong indeed. The second favourite email tagline I have read was 'I hope that god exists, so that I can spit in his face'. And I feel very much the same about nature, though one might, I suppose, as well rail against the rain for being wet! John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 Hi, > So what you're saying is that wolves are psyco-paths? Or are you > saying that huamns aren't animals? And therefore not subject to the > same laws of nature that wolves and sheep are? I think you make a fundamental error here. We are animals, but that does not mean we are subject to all the same environmental restrictions that wolves and sheep are. After all, wolves and fish are both animals, but they are subject to varying laws of nature. Wolves do not have the sense of self that enables them to consider the feelings of others, and have no choice but to kill to survive. We have that sense of self, and so we have that choice. So to call a wolf psychopathic for killing is senseless, but to call a human who kills psychopathic is not. Or, to put it another way, to call a wolf cruel is meaningless. On the other hand, to call the act a wolf has no choice but to perform cruel is entirely valid. John - " David Brown " <quickformgreen Thursday, March 18, 2004 1:16 PM Re: Judging Meat eaters... > So what you're saying is that wolves are psyco-paths? Or are you > saying that huamns aren't animals? And therefore not subject to the > same laws of nature that wolves and sheep are? By sheep I'm refering > to the non-manipulated species, which actually seldom come in contact > with wolves making the the wolf vs. sheep problem, almost entirly a > result of human meddling. Non-the-less, wolve eat meat, regardless > of the sourse animal. > > David > > > > > Yeah In my opinion accepting meat-eating is almost like accepting a > > phycho-path's opinion..that killing people is ok. > > > > Simon > > > > > > To send an email to - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 What I meant " Who really knows" what happens to us after death...we can believe lots of things. As you are a Christian I am suprised you don't believe that you die,as in the bible Rev: it says we die and some we be resurrected after a thousand yrs and some after 2 thousand yrs. Are you saw you are a not a Catholic?. Remember even Jesus died and was resurrected. Please don't confuse Catholicism with Christianity. I'm glad you have read the Genesis reference regarding food.I keep having to remind Christians of what it actually says. We can help to make earth as near to the Eden way of life. S - ioannis Tsoucas Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:46 PM Re: Judging Meat eaters... Never say Never or in your case Never say No One knows the reality of what happens after death. I am a Christian after I have looked for evidences, and I KNOW what happens after "death". A real "death" does not exist, as the soul never disappears. Can you thing more about? About meat eating, that was not so at the begin of the human existance: Read the bible (very first chapter, Old Testament). At the end not only meat will be not "necessary", but just any food. Til then we have a long way and the arrival of the Lord Jesus Christ a second time, before. (To Jesus Christ you don't make any thoughts, maybe as opposition to everything what is related to the Church). But I want to repet: Never say NO ONE.simonpjones <simonpjones wrote: -"Peter" Thursday, March 18, 2004 4:35 PMRe: Judging Meat eaters...> Hi Simon>> > I'm sure no one knows the reality of what happens after death, whatever> our> > beliefs.> > But as meat eating is a hellish thing to do and the most powerful> > religionous order on earth ' The Catholic church advocates a hell> existing,> > maybe "Hell having a special place for meat-eaters is not such not bad> > belief.>>> Being powerful doesn't make them right. I somehow doubt that even the> Catholic church could rival the power of McDonalds or other bigbusinesses.> It wouldn't suprise me if McDonalds owners were Catholics..! .both are badbusiness's in my opinion.Simon>>>>> To send an email to - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 As I said in my last post regarding this subject.....The point I was refering to was the one about respecting opinions.Point being: if we are to respect a meat- eaters opinion that meat eating is alright..Should we also respect a psyco-paths opinion that killing people for kicks is ok too. I was not saying meat eaters are pysco-paths ( though I wouldn't entirly disagree with the asscociation). - " John Davis " <mcxg46 Friday, March 19, 2004 10:08 AM Re: Re: Judging Meat eaters... > Hi, > > > So what you're saying is that wolves are psyco-paths? Or are you > > saying that huamns aren't animals? And therefore not subject to the > > same laws of nature that wolves and sheep are? > As I said in my last post regarding this subject.....The point I was refering to was the one about respecting opinions. Point being: if we are to respect a meat- eaters opinion that meat eating is alright..Should we also respect a psyco-paths opinion that killing people for kicks is ok too. I was not saying meat eaters are pysco-paths ( though I wouldn't entirly disagree with the asscociation).> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.