If Christians and Muslims stopped eating meat ...

[alinko]

What drives you to this belief? On what is it based?

Furthermore, given that both religious and atheist eat meat, and both religious and atheist are vegetarian, I struggle to see a correlation between eating meat and religious philosophy. For your hypothesis to hold any water, surely there must be a correlation to investigate? Is there a study that supports this hypothesis?

I also struggle to see the connection between the physical consumption of meat and the method one uses to kill the meat? How is the physical consumption of a dead animal, for example, lacking in mercy? Is eating the meat from a naturally-deceased animal - or one that has been killed by a "natural" predator - acceptable to you?
But at present I see no necessary relationship between the two.


So please feel free to provide some supporting evidence for your beliefs - at least an explanation of how the two variables (meat-eating and religious philosophy) are in any way connected?

right on , now that was cool

 

[sandy]

We - if being uncharitable - view it rather the other way around. (It's complicated, so neither version is really completely true.)
Some of it. The same is true of a lot of denominations, of course.
Nooooo....
To some degree, sure.
Prove it. (You suspect that God isn't able to identify an asshole?)
Sure: like Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson and Jim Bakker.
It's richer than a couple of them. The little ones.
No, they don't, you git.
I almost choked on your intolerance.
You forgot devious and evil.
Seemingly not. Otherwise, how could the baptismal Creed catch you off guard?

Catholics were not here first. Jesus was. Christianity was here way before some power-hungry men branched off into Catholicism. Catholics do have their own Bible. You can find it at any book store. Yes, the priests have you recite "I believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church" EVERY SINGLE TIME I have attended, EVERY Sunday after EVERY homily. Most Catholics just recite it like puppets never questioning what they are saying. What intolerance?

 

[Neverfly]

Most Catholics just recite it like puppets never questioning what they are saying. What intolerance?

What a funny statement coming from you...

 

[pjdude1219]

Catholics were not here first. Jesus was.

and the catholic church is the church he helped found with his consacration of peter

Christianity was here way before some power-hungry men branched off into Catholicism.

wrong catholicism grew out of the earliest traditions of the faith. its was catholics in part who sat at the council that came to make the nicene creed Catholics. Catholicism predates your silly cut up the bible what ever we want beliefs by well over thousand years.

do have their own Bible. You can find it at any book store.

no you can't because their is not a separate catholic bible.

Yes, the priests have you recite "I believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church" EVERY SINGLE TIME I have attended, EVERY Sunday after EVERY homily.

I have never heard them recited during mass. but the 4 marks of the faith are the foundations of christianity. Since your general disdain for old christianity I'll explain them to you.
One. Their is only one faith. one lord one baptism.
Holy .the church was set by god for a special purpose.
Catholic. does not refer to the roman catholic church as you believe but refers to the words meaning of universal. the teachings of christ are universal all of his followers in their totality. it is essentially a claim that christ's church is for all
Apostolic. a statement of the orgins and beliefs of the church. both the orthadox faiths and roman catholicism claim to succeed the Apostles

Most Catholics just recite it like puppets never questioning what they are saying.

bull shit. Catholics no the meaning of the 4 marks. unlike your bullshit church the catholic church educates its followers on the history of christianity.

What intolerance?

your dismissal of faiths far older than your own as not christian.

 

[wynn]

Some studies have claimed that eating meat promotes the development of intellect.

The "development of intellect" for what? Anger and fighting?

 

[wynn]

What drives you to this belief? On what is it based?

Furthermore, given that both religious and atheist eat meat, and both religious and atheist are vegetarian, I struggle to see a correlation between eating meat and religious philosophy.

There are different kinds of theism.

On the whole, they can be separated in two groups:
1. Those that either by doctrine, by practice, or both, espouse the consumption of meat (the Abrahamic religions).
2. Those that by doctrine and practice limit or prohibit meat-eating (in Hinduism).

Interestingly, there is the pattern that those in the first group espouse eternal damnation, and those in the second do not.

For your hypothesis to hold any water, surely there must be a correlation to investigate? Is there a study that supports this hypothesis?

If by "study" you mean "typical Western science study", then trying to explain the OP topic on its grounds is impossible from the onset, as such a study would not acknowledge the reality and relevance of religious application (since it would demand that such relevance yet be established).

I also struggle to see the connection between the physical consumption of meat and the method one uses to kill the meat? How is the physical consumption of a dead animal, for example, lacking in mercy?

It had to be made dead, and the eater participates in this directly by killing the animal themselves, or indirectly by paying someone else to do it.

But at present I see no necessary relationship between the two.

Surely you have made the experience that different kinds of substances that one ingests result in different states of mind. The more blatant example are drugs, which can alter a person's state of mind dramatically.
You may have also noticed that sweet milk rice gives rise to a different state of mind than a dish with hot chillies.

Noticing these things, however, is a matter of how well-trained a person's sensitivities to food are, and this differs from one individual to another.

 

[Neverfly]

The "development of intellect" for what? Anger and fighting?

You seem very one track minded on this issue...

 

[John99]

*************
M*W: Some say that's what happened to the Neanderthals when they included meat in their diet. The added protein caused their brains to grow bigger and have more intellect. I've also read that the inclusion of meat in their diets caused them to die out due to autoimmune disease. So many theories, so little time.

Well they didnt know about farming, especially on any large scale and if they could farm they are still at the mercy of the weather - too cold, no rain, crops just dont grow.

They could walk around looking for edible stuff that randomly grew out of the ground but how long would that last? So i wouldn't call it a theory. Even in modern times, how would you feed billions of people on vegetables alone? I dont even know if it can be done.

I still have no idea what eating meat has to do with religion though.

 

[Neverfly]

*************
M*W: Some say that's what happened to the Neanderthals when they included meat in their diet. The added protein caused their brains to grow bigger and have more intellect. I've also read that the inclusion of meat in their diets caused them to die out due to autoimmune disease. So many theories, so little time.

Irony is that someone else quoted you and I saw this post. I had missed a page.

You had addressed something I hinted at in an earlier post in your repsonse to him, here.
Thanks. Although it's coincidence...

The "development of intellect" for what? Anger and fighting?

Yeah, what SHE said...

 

[Sarkus]

There are different kinds of theism.

On the whole, they can be separated in two groups:
1. Those that either by doctrine, by practice, or both, espouse the consumption of meat (the Abrahamic religions).
2. Those that by doctrine and practice limit or prohibit meat-eating (in Hinduism).

Interestingly, there is the pattern that those in the first group espouse eternal damnation, and those in the second do not.

So at present you have at best a weak correlation between religious philosophies and meat-eating, but one that fails to take in to account the swathes of atheists who contain both vegetarian and meat-eaters. Either your hypothesis needs to build these in or it is flawed from the outset.

Is it also not far more likely, and thus rational, to assume that religious practitioners are either meat-eaters or vegetarian because their religion allows / disallows it, rather than the religious philosophy following from what they eat?

Imagine a scenario where:
- If you walk through door A then you have to wear a hat.
- If you walk through door B then you don't have to, but you can if you want.
And now you are looking at the total population and asking if hat-wearing influences the choice of door you went through.
See the flaw? :shrug:

But the existence of vegetarian Christians / Muslims... hmmm, still a tricky one for you, isn't it?

If by "study" you mean "typical Western science study", then trying to explain the OP topic on its grounds is impossible from the onset, as such a study would not acknowledge the reality and relevance of religious application (since it would demand that such relevance yet be established).

First, there is no "Western science"... there is just science.
Secondly you propose a scientific hypothesis and now seem to say that it can not be tested by science, because science won't acknowledge some of the requirements? Rather begs the question of why you raised it in a science forum, no?
Thirdly - it can be tested... you merely have to get a scientifically relevant sample of Christians and Muslims who eat meat and get them to refrain from such.
And then study how their religious philosophy changes.
Presumably if they still follow their Christian / Muslim doctrine during the test then not much will change, but this is only a guess from me.

It had to be made dead, and the eater participates in this directly by killing the animal themselves, or indirectly by paying someone else to do it.

Why do you make this assumption? As I suggested, you have ignored the animals that die from natural causes or from "natural" predators - with us merely enjoying their "natural" misfortune.
These are surely cases that allow the consumption of meat without the need to address any notion of mercy with regard the animal's killing?

And as such you still need to address the link between the act of consumption of the animal and the method of death (merciful or otherwise).

Surely you have made the experience that different kinds of substances that one ingests result in different states of mind. The more blatant example are drugs, which can alter a person's state of mind dramatically.
You may have also noticed that sweet milk rice gives rise to a different state of mind than a dish with hot chillies.

Yes, I am aware of these things... and these things are scientifically understood.

I can happily report that after eating meat I feel no difference with regard my religious philosophy. None of my friends do, either.

Further - if you are open, as you seem, to the idea that religious philosophy is driven by the chemicals within one's brain - who is to say which philosophy is correct - as they are determined by a non-religious cause (the chemicals in the brain/body).
It would be a major scientific breakthrough, mind, to prove that religious philosophy has zip to do with indoctrination and more to do with food intake.

But again - you STILL have to account in your hypothesis for those with atheist tendencies who have the same chemicals from eating / not-eating meat, as well as vegetarian Christians / Muslims.

Noticing these things, however, is a matter of how well-trained a person's sensitivities to food are, and this differs from one individual to another.

And how would you assess who is "sensitive" enough or not? Will it be a case of those that notice a change that induces them to change their philosophy ARE sensitive enough... and those that don't are clearly NOT sensitive?

Please... the more you go on about this the more you are demonstrating how tenuous is the initial hypothesis and likewise your grasp of science.

 

[wynn]

So at present you have at best a weak correlation between religious philosophies and meat-eating, but one that fails to take in to account the swathes of atheists who contain both vegetarian and meat-eaters. Either your hypothesis needs to build these in or it is flawed from the outset.

The OP merely poses a question:

If Christians and Muslims stopped eating meat, what would happen to their religion/philosophy?

Would they still endorse eternal damnation for everyone who doesn't accept their ways?

I have never yet stated that being a vegetarian would automatically and instantly make one give up the doctrine of eternal damnation.

Testing this in reality is probably impossible. I don't think we could get large enough numbers of Christians and Muslims to refrain from meat eating. So it remains to reason about this with philosophical and ethical arguments.

Further - if you are open, as you seem, to the idea that religious philosophy is driven by the chemicals within one's brain - who is to say which philosophy is correct - as they are determined by a non-religious cause (the chemicals in the brain/body).
It would be a major scientific breakthrough, mind, to prove that religious philosophy has zip to do with indoctrination and more to do with food intake.

I didn't say driven, merely affected. There is a difference.

Secondly, what you state above already presupposes the supremacy of the view that man is matter - which yet stands to be proven...

But again - you STILL have to account in your hypothesis for those with atheist tendencies who have the same chemicals from eating / not-eating meat, as well as vegetarian Christians / Muslims.

The OP wasn't asking about atheists.

Please... the more you go on about this the more you are demonstrating how tenuous is the initial hypothesis and likewise your grasp of science.

I am not trying to convince you. I wish to see that Christians and Muslims who espouse eternal damnation would give some reason why it is allright to eat animals for the sake of pleasing one's tongue. What kind of God or knowledge of God are they working with that makes it seem allright to eat meat. I mean, they claim knowledge of God to a degree where they feel confident to declare eternal damnation to everyone who doesn't believe as they do - and they will say so to a person's face, even kill them in the name of that confidence. I don't see why a person with such confidence would indulge in worldy pleasures. I wrote about this in an earlier post in this thread, in response to 786.

I have been told by Christians before that my vegetarianism is merely "bleeding heart compassion for animals",but they never explained why this is so, and why they think there is nothing wrong with meat eating. To me, it just seems completely counterituitive to believe in God, in love, in mercy, in happiness - and then kill animals just to please one's tongue.

 

[sandy]

...catholic...

Show me the word "Catholic" in the Bible. You can't because it's not there. Jesus has NOTHING to do with Catholicism. It's a man-made religion. Pure, raw, Bible-based Christianity scares the crap out of all the brainwashed denominational sheep.

 

[Bells]

Show me the word "Catholic" in the Bible. You can't because it's not there. Jesus has NOTHING to do with Catholicism. It's a man-made religion. Pure, raw, Bible-based Christianity scares the crap out of all the brainwashed denominational sheep.

Must... Resist... Temptation..

Aaarrgghhhh... I cannot...:bawl:

Sandy, all religion is "man-made".

The Bible, that "pure, raw, Bible-based Christianity", like every other religion on this planet, past and present, is is man made.

That Bible that you thump a few times a week was written by men. Its content, from man.

 

[sandy]

Must... Resist... Temptation..
Aaarrgghhhh... I cannot...:bawl:
Sandy, all religion is "man-made".
The Bible, that "pure, raw, Bible-based Christianity", like every other religion on this planet, past and present, is is man made.
That Bible that you thump a few times a week was written by men. Its content, from man.

Following Jesus Christ and believing in Him goes back to the days of Jesus. Christianity is Christ-made, Christ-based. All denominations are man-made. Christianity and Judaism are not.
I don't thump a Bible a few times a week. I live it every day.

 

[Bells]

Following Jesus Christ and believing in Him goes back to the days of Jesus. Christianity is Christ-made, Christ-based.

And Jesus Christ was a man. Born of flesh and blood from a woman, apparently in a manger with farm animals looking on.

All denominations are man-made.

All religious belief is man made.

Christianity and Judaism are not.

Judaism is an Abrahamic religion. It is a denomination.

I don't thump a Bible a few times a week. I live it every day.

Wow. You live it every day huh? A bit like 'Groundhog Day'?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

James doesn't espouse eternal damnation for all who don't think like he does, does he.

No he doesn't. If he did he would have banned people's assess a long time ago without giving them any slack at all. But again I'm curious as to how diet relates to ideas of eternal damnation? I mean has some study been done to show that only meat eaters believe in eternal damnation? What of all the atheist vegetarians?

 

[sandy]

And Jesus Christ was a man. Born of flesh and blood from a woman, apparently in a manger with farm animals looking on.
All religious belief is man made.
Judaism is an Abrahamic religion. It is a denomination.
Wow. You live it every day huh? A bit like 'Groundhog Day'?

Religious belief is not man-made. God creates us with a hole in our souls that only He can fill. Most people spend their entire lives trying to fill it with food, drugs, alcohol, relationships, addictions, idols etc. I live my faith every day. The Bible says to be "fishers of men" but also not to cast our pearls before swine.

 

[GeoffP]

Catholics were not here first.

Debatable, depending on your religious outlook. I sort of prefer Catholicism because we kept all the neat buildings, but then again no church is a static thing. (Apologies to any Protestants watching. You're not going to hell.)

Jesus was.

Yeees.

Christianity was here way before some power-hungry men branched off into Catholicism.

Yes to the Christianity, not necessarily to the branching off. This sounds like your personal opinion.

Catholics do have their own Bible.

At best, there's an extra book or two. Maccabees, innit?

Yes, the priests have you recite "I believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church" EVERY SINGLE TIME I have attended, EVERY Sunday after EVERY homily.

Then you have gone to a very rare church. I've attended mass in about a dozen different churches and have never heard the Creed pronounced except at a baptism.

For my next - clearly Satanic - trick, I shall now contrast this sentence:

Most Catholics just recite it like puppets never questioning what they are saying.

with the following:

What intolerance?

Hey, presto.

 

[pjdude1219]

Show me the word "Catholic" in the Bible.

it not in the bible the idea of it is.

You can't because it's not there. Jesus has NOTHING to do with Catholicism.

wrong. Jesus has everything to do with catholicism.

It's a man-made religion.

Like all religions.

Pure, raw, Bible-based Christianity scares the crap out of all the brainwashed denominational sheep.

Because it promotes extremism. and first of catholicism is bible based and its followers aren't sheep like. You how ever continue to spout the bigotry, lies, and insanity that you have unquestioningly took from your pastor.

 

[pjdude1219]

Religious belief is not man-made. God creates us with a hole in our souls that only He can fill. Most people spend their entire lives trying to fill it with food, drugs, alcohol, relationships, addictions, idols etc. I live my faith every day. The Bible says to be "fishers of men" but also not to cast our pearls before swine.

The bible also said your dad could sell you into slavery for some reason I doubt you'd follow that part. Your hypocritical use of the bible shows just how badly you pick and choose to meet your own prejudices.