|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
 Posted - 01/08/2004 : 20:52:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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.
If your site had talked "facts" then this would be a different story. But obviously you failed to read my reply when I thoroughly presented a case showing that the website was filled with nothing but made-up non-sense and lies. (ie, claiming that God was angry at the Israelites after entering the promised land because they ate animals, when it was clearly due to the fact that they intermarried). If you do not consider that site to be twisting the facts to its agenda, then I have obviously overestimated your understanding of "facts" and "agenda".
Post a site on vegetarianism that does not misquote the Bible so much, and I will be happy to re-consider my beliefs based on their evidence.
quote:
That way of thinking is typical of just about every Bible believer I've talked to.
Your clear misinterpretation of what I've written does not justify you placing me under a stereotype. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 23:10:38 [Permalink]
|
Renae wrote:quote:
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
Okay. A healthy vegetarian diet takes a lot more work than the "average" meat-eater's diet. It should not be surprising that people who don't care about what they eat (or why they eat it) die more often. I submit that if you compared vegetarians to people who actually plan their omnivorous diets, you wouldn't find as much of (or any) health benefits from avoiding meats. If anyone has actually run such studies, however, I am unaware of them.quote:
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.
No real straw man, since I made no attempt at implying that you thought cows and earthworms were equivalent. Actually, I think you missed my point.
I was, really, just trying to figure out where your particular moral lines are drawn. There's an entire continuum of values here, everything from the guy who shoots 74 pheasant in a single day for sport (not food), all the way to the people belonging to a certain small Hindu sect who gently sweep the ground in front of them as they walk, so as not to kill any insects. (Or even further, to Lisa Simpson's idol who was a "sixth degree vegan" who wouldn't eat anything which casts a shadow.  )
And the thousands of animals killed during plowing and harvesting of crops include snakes, mice, voles, and other creatures "higher" than earthworms, which can't get out of the way of the machinery quickly enough, run the wrong way, or simply get driven from their homes into habitats for which they are not suited. It's not just bugs and earthworms that get squished on large farms.
Of course, much of the same violence occurs when forests are flattened into pasture (or when any land is turned into homes, malls, roads, airports, etc.), but that's beside the point, which is this: If you're going to argue for vegetarianism on the basis of "higher" animal deaths, then you've pretty much got to argue for small, hand-worked garden tracts, and against massive factory-style vegetable farms. It all depends on where you draw the line about what sort of animal is "okay" to kill so you can have your food, and what sort isn't okay to kill.
And except for the extremes (other human beings on the one hand, and bacteria on the other), it's pretty much a personal choice about where one draws that line. There isn't much in the way of logic or evidence which will show that a cow's life is more morally valuable than, say, a groundhog's life.
In other words, once we (a society in which people can eat what we want, when we want to - as opposed to the millions of starving people who don't have a choice) get to the point of saying, "we can kill it and eat it, but should we do so?" we enter a realm which is completely ruled by personal preferences, and little more (the occassional "it's poisonous" answer doesn't count, of course).quote:
Criminy. I'm arguing for vegetarianism, and I eat poultry and fish. I spend too damn much time online.
Well, I'm probably more of a vegetarian than you are, and here I am pointing out the problems with vegetarian arguments. When I eat animals, the meal consists of French toast and a side of bacon. I get such a meal, on average, once a month or so (depends on how often we go out to eat). I am a really picky eater, and most meats just make me sick due to taste, smell, and/or texture. I don't even like eggs by themselves, but love French toast. Chewy bacon is quite unpleasant, as well, but the crispy stuff is heaven.
Of course, I consider such meals "treats," and survive just fine without them. On the other hand, I'd probably die a quick death if you told me I couldn't drink milk anymore. Thus, about 99% if the time I'm a lacto-vegetarian, and the other 1% I eat a very small part of a pig and a couple eggs. But my whacky near-vegetarian lifestyle wasn't created through either moral quandries or health concerns. I'm told by my father that I "ate normally" until I was around three, and then quit. My stepmother (married my dad when I was around 10) tells me that such events are common, and are about a child's attempts at getting power. I suppose, in that case, I "won," if you consider eating away from home to be a freakin' hassle to be "winning." It's actually a real pain in the ass, and I often wish I ate like "normal people" (or even like "normal" vegetarians).
And I must say, at this point, my health is pretty crappy. I don't do vegetarianism well at all, grabbing for high-fat, poorly-nutritious food much of the time (I don't like vegetables or fruits, either). It's easy to eat that way (short preparation times and little clean-up required), and popping the occassional multivitamin to keep my stores topped off is simple, too.
If I want to be able to see my son grow up, things are going to have to change, and soon. But it certainly isn't the very tiny amount of meat I eat that's going to kill me. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Woody D
Skeptic Friend
Thailand
285 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2004 : 01:09:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
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)
Renae, wish we could talk sometime, email or otherwise.
You've answered a personal delima I've pondered for a while.
Had been trying to get back to being a complete vegitarian as I was many, many years ago but when I see Woody eating I think he's doing what is natural to him, eating meat. Although you should see him with oranges, and alvacados, he loves them too. Anyway, I thought, exactly what you said, if he eats it them I was justifying myself eating meat. BUT you now showed me the light. Hallaullia.
Thank you. I might just put you in my mentor catagory, we'll see.
If you care to email me, it's Pntbrshi@aol.com
Thank you for your thoughts.
ps. I don't eat fish because of the horrid way they die. And no pigs because they are so intelligent. The thought of them knowing they are going to be killed is so sad to me. But somehow I think of chickens and cows as not as smart and besides there are so many of them, they are raised for food. I don't cook but when offered I do eat that sometimes. I'll be going to a country that has more choices and better fruits and vegetables than the USA so that will help for a while, until I get back here. But, Renae, please tell me how to dispel that stupid logic. |
www.Carabao.net
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs, I can do without the rock and roll.
Mick Shrimpton
|
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2004 : 06:54:16 [Permalink]
|
Dave, I was responding to the idea, which you implied again in your following post, that all animals exist at the same level of sentience and emotional ability. Later I'll try to find some good science for you on that.
I'm also weary of being labeled a hypocrite (not by you, but by many others) because of where I draw my moral line in terms of eating animals. I agree wholeheartedly that the morality of this issue is continuum, not an either/or, and I like your example. (I've broken up with boyfriends solely because they hunted.) People have a right to draw that line wherever they wish, but they lose me when they offer tortured logic or Biblical justification for doing so.
Ivan, all I can say is that OF COURSE your interpretation of the Bible is correct, and everyone who disagrees with you is misinterpreting it to suit their own agenda. It must be nice to have a hotline to the answers of the universe. /sarcasm off
Woody, I don't know how good a mentor I would be 'cause I do eat chicken and fish, but I'm happy to email a fellow animal lover! Mine is kayleighsong@yahoo.com.
I have to get to work early; mounds of boring paperwork are calling me. Ugh. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2004 : 07:09:49 [Permalink]
|
One very common misconception about the bible is that it is true.
I'm really sorry, I just couldn't resist. |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2004 : 07:25:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ivan, all I can say is that OF COURSE your interpretation of the Bible is correct, and everyone who disagrees with you is misinterpreting it to suit their own agenda. It must be nice to have a hotline to the answers of the universe. /sarcasm off
Everyone? Well...suit yourself...oh well, I could go on but it's not a big deal anyways. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2004 : 01:09:54 [Permalink]
|
Renae wrote:quote:
Dave, I was responding to the idea, which you implied again in your following post, that all animals exist at the same level of sentience and emotional ability. Later I'll try to find some good science for you on that.
Please... My point was that people can find all sorts of justifications for drawing the line of "sentience" in different places, as well. Anywhere from "all life might be sentient" (in which case we shouldn't even treat bacterial infections without a morality discussion), to "nothing is sentient except humans," an idea that my father holds (though not a hunter or otherwise cruel to animals, and with which I don't agree).
"Sentience" is, by necessity, vaguely defined, since there are several apparently independent aspects of "having a brain" which go into it, including self-awareness, response to outside stimuli, and others. Since it is vague, people can choose, based upon personal preferences, where to draw the "sentient" line, often times in the same place they draw the "moral-to-kill-and-eat" line. In practical terms, it often boils down to "if animal X appears to me to be more stupid than animal Y, I don't have a problem with killing and eating animal X." (And much the same for plants.)quote:
I'm also weary of being labeled a hypocrite (not by you, but by many others) because of where I draw my moral line in terms of eating animals. I agree wholeheartedly that the morality of this issue is continuum, not an either/or, and I like your example. (I've broken up with boyfriends solely because they hunted.) People have a right to draw that line wherever they wish, but they lose me when they offer tortured logic or Biblical justification for doing so.
And my point is that people who object to such tortured logic or Biblical justifications often have no better rationale for their own moral line. Unless you're at one of the true extremes, it's a personal choice, based upon emotion.
To summarize what got us started on this particular point, when asked why we should not eat animals, you said, if I remember correctly in essence, "because we can choose not to." My position is that such an argument is not truly more logically or morally justifiable than most other emotionally-dependant reasons for or against vegetarianism. |
- 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 - 01/10/2004 : 07:22:39 [Permalink]
|
No Dave, when asked why we shouldn't eat animals, I've given several reasons, some emotional and some rational. I've mentioned sentience, health reasons, moral reasons, and even offered a religious perspective.
I also agreed with you that this exists on a moral continuum, and that reasonable people could draw the line at various places on it. Accepting that premise, though, means that not every place on that continuum is equally moral (and by moral, I mean kind, compassionate, empathetic, self-sacrificing, etc.)
Far too many people use circular logic to defend eating animals. The argument runs something like: "Animals were put here to sustain us." Well, how do we KNOW that? Answer: "They're raised for that," or "We eat them". That, to me, is circular. Then, many times, they throw in a Bible quote, almost as an afterthought.
These are some of my most deeply held beliefs. I have a deep love for animals. If I had the money, I'd open a refuge for abused, sick and unwanted animals. My xF lived in fear I'd be hit by a car, because I tend to rush into the street to try to protect strays. I spent thousands of dollars (while being unemployed) on medical care for my precious furbaby.
So when somebody blithely posts that God put animals here for us to eat, the circular and self-serving nature of this belief rankles me.
So sue me.
|
|
|
|
PruplePanther
Skeptic Friend
USA
79 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2004 : 08:16:28 [Permalink]
|
The biggest misconception about the bible is that it is worth anything beyond its value as crude history.
Ditch it. Dump it. File it. Throw it away. Bury it. Do anything except read it, study it, value it, teach it, argue about it, or worship it...ascribing to it mystical properties.
Except for its historical value, the bible is junk. Dangerous junk. Deadly junk. The stuff from which wars are born. Better that the bible should be erradicated than that it should continue to be studied. |
"If I don't know where we are, I can't plot a course home." Major Carter, SG-1 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2004 : 17:24:56 [Permalink]
|
Renae wrote:quote:
Dave, when asked why we shouldn't eat animals, I've given several reasons, some emotional and some rational. I've mentioned sentience, health reasons, moral reasons, and even offered a religious perspective.
I concur, but I was talking about just one or two of those many reasons. On the others, I largely agree with you.quote:
I also agreed with you that this exists on a moral continuum, and that reasonable people could draw the line at various places on it. Accepting that premise, though, means that not every place on that continuum is equally moral (and by moral, I mean kind, compassionate, empathetic, self-sacrificing, etc.)
From your point of view, perhaps, but perhaps not from another. As I've said, morality itself is flexible from person to person. Obviously, the people who go hunting and who are intent only on a high body count don't feel moral outrage at themselves.quote:
Far too many people use circular logic to defend eating animals. The argument runs something like: "Animals were put here to sustain us." Well, how do we KNOW that? Answer: "They're raised for that," or "We eat them". That, to me, is circular. Then, many times, they throw in a Bible quote, almost as an afterthought.
On this also, I agree. My main point has been that less-than-spectacular arguments are used on both sides of the debate.
But I'd also like to toss out the idea that many animals would eat us if given the chance. Get the bastards first! The Tick, a comic book, once had a short story line about a man-eaing cow. "I'd seen that look in a cow's eyes before. This cow had tasted human blood!" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2004 : 09:04:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by PruplePanther
The biggest misconception about the bible is that it is worth anything beyond its value as crude history.
Ditch it. Dump it. File it. Throw it away. Bury it. Do anything except read it, study it, value it, teach it, argue about it, or worship it...ascribing to it mystical properties.
Except for its historical value, the bible is junk. Dangerous junk. Deadly junk. The stuff from which wars are born. Better that the bible should be erradicated than that it should continue to be studied.
Your opinion is duely noted.
I still see value in the study I put into it as it allows me to see where the zealots misinterpret, quote out of context, and ignore refuting sections to fit their agendas. It has value in teaching a moral code through parables to the faithful of the document. In that regard, it is just as valuable as any religious text. One of a moral code worth emulating, even if the dogma of the religion goes counter to the text.
The dogma causes the wars, the text doesn't. Likewise, destroying the mistakes of the past tends to condemn the future to repeat those mistakes. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2004 : 12:45:29 [Permalink]
|
Hello all,
Renae: It is clear from the Bible that eating meat is allowed,
1 Timothy 4:3 and Genesis 9:3. Unless you have other Scripture to bring up, that question is answered. In this post and in this post only I will give you my opinion morals of killing and eating animals. First, though, I would like to say that correct Biblical doctrine is obtained by looking at all Scripture and historical context that pertains to a particular subject. The people that twist the Bible do it by ignoring certain verses, or by inserting their own moral opinions as Scripture. I do not claim to have perfect doctrine, and there's probably something that I have wrong, but I don't know what it might be.
I have owned poultry and livestock before, and I've killed and eaten them. Here is my experience:
Chickens: they didn't seem to know what was going on until about five seconds before we very cleanly chopped of their heads. After that we had to keep the other chickens away from the execution site or else they would try to eat the heads. The others didn't seem at all concerned about their fellow's fate.
Turkeys: we had two of these. We were going to kill one of them, but the other one saw what was going on and appeared to be distressed. So we let her go and waited until we could kill both of them together. Again, a clean chop to the head. If we ever had a flock of turkeys I would be suprised if they formed a similar relationship, and if that was the case we might not eat turkeys.
Goats: I never actually killed one of these, but my dad said that if you shoot them in the head they never see it coming.
I apologize if such blatant talk makes you uneasy, but I want you to understand that I know what I'm talking about, and I am concerned animal's welfare. Now for my opinion: meat gives you a huge amount of protein, which is neccessary if you're going to do hard work (which I think that everyone should do). If we didn't kill animals, then we would either have to keep them in the wild, or we would have to domesticate them. Their life in the wild is much harsher than life on a farm, and in the wild the two most likely causes of death(I think) are starvation or being hunted down and eaten, sometimes while still alive. It is needless to say that decapitation is more merciful than either of these. If we domesticated them, than we would have to house and feed them. If we didn't kill them, but instead took care of them until they died, then their population would grow to huge numbers, and we wouldn't be able to support them. We'd probably have to let some go, and then there would be domesticated animals in the wild, and you know what happens to them. We haven't ended hunger in humans yet, I don't see why we should divert huge amounts of resources to keeping a small percentage of the world's animals domesticated without killing them. Now, you'd probably say that many animals eat more food in grain than they produce in meat. Believe me, if I have food and I have the option of giving it to a hungry animal or a hungry person, I'm going to give it to the person, every time. I don't have the resources to send grain to Central America or to Africa. I probably have less material wealth than anyone on this entire webpage.
You've given me your opinion, I've given you mine. Unless you have Scripture to bring up, I think that's about all there is to say on this subject. Besides that, I think that there are more important questions that you could be asking.
Panther: The Bible teaches pacifism. Just because degenerates use it convince the masses go to war doesn't mean we should throw it away. This thread is not about Biblical validity, it's about what the Bible says.
Ivan: we do not see eye to eye, but it appears that most of our differences so far are less important than other things we could talk about.
Later all,
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
PruplePanther
Skeptic Friend
USA
79 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2004 : 08:18:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by PruplePanther
The biggest misconception about the bible is that it is worth anything beyond its value as crude history.
Ditch it. Dump it. File it. Throw it away. Bury it. Do anything except read it, study it, value it, teach it, argue about it, or worship it...ascribing to it mystical properties.
Except for its historical value, the bible is junk. Dangerous junk. Deadly junk. The stuff from which wars are born. Better that the bible should be erradicated than that it should continue to be studied.
Your opinion is duely noted.
I still see value in the study I put into it as it allows me to see where the zealots misinterpret, quote out of context, and ignore refuting sections to fit their agendas. It has value in teaching a moral code through parables to the faithful of the document. In that regard, it is just as valuable as any religious text. One of a moral code worth emulating, even if the dogma of the religion goes counter to the text.
The dogma causes the wars, the text doesn't. Likewise, destroying the mistakes of the past tends to condemn the future to repeat those mistakes.
Bible is very very dangerous. Newest part is 2000years old. As far as i know, newest part of newest religion...except for Mormon...is 1500years old. Time to scrapt them all. Maybe furshur is right in his new thread...it's time to rewrite the Bible. CONDENSE it into a page or two. Send the rest to the ancient archaic history section of some very dusty library.
Argue is too dangerous. The "fundies" as they are called here are ready but not able to kill the rest of us. Just the same as the old time Muslims did 1200years ago. Do you REALLY want that kind of mentaltiy, Valiant? If so then you must be very very valorous. Arguing about Bible just stirs up more and more vindective. More and more hatred. Bad. Better to scrapit. i stand by my comment, Valiant Moderator.  |
"If I don't know where we are, I can't plot a course home." Major Carter, SG-1 |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2004 : 09:20:49 [Permalink]
|
If I hear/see/read "It's clear from the Bible" ONE MORE TIME, I'll scream.
NOTHING IS CLEAR FROM THE BIBLE. Some interpretations are kinder than others, some more reasonable than others, some more logical than others. But all, by definition, are interpretations.
I'm actually beginning to find this funny. You and ivan both cite quotes that support you doing what you want to do anyway: eat meat. Then you proceed to say that OTHERS (others, certainly not YOU) interpret the Bible to suit their own agenda.
I'm now convinced that religion is among the most self-serving of all human behaviors.
If Christians only knew how their adherence to a 5,000 year old book of fables actually drove away potential converts like me, rather than drawing them closer...
|
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2004 : 15:22:34 [Permalink]
|
Renae:
I don't know about other so-called "Christians", but I'm not interested in a convert who isn't interested in the Bible. I'm not looking for your money. Christianity is based on the Bible, not the other way around. Admitttedly, much of the Bible isn't clear, but eating meat is one thing that is clearly taught from the Bible. And for your information, there are several doctrines I hold that one part of me wishes I didn't have to keep. For instance, I recently came under the conviction that we aren't supposed to keep images of people, animals, and heavenly bodies, in accordance with the Second Commandment. That means no pictures of family, no television, no movies. The only video games I play now are ones that use machines instead of people. I think it's ridiculous, but then again, I've been surrounded by images since I was young, so I can't have an unbiased opinion. My point is, I do not interpret the Bible according to my own desires.
I hope you'll stop treating me like a stereo-type and really listen to me.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
