The "idea" of Catholicism is NOT in the Bible. Not anywhere. Catholics teach you have to work your way into Heaven. The Bible says "unless you are born again you cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven". Most Catholics think it's ok to drink alcohol. It's not. Most Catholics are hypocrites. My beliefs come from the Bible/New Testament, not my Pastors. That same Bible that Catholic school children are taught not to read. That their teachers and priests will interpret for them. Ugh.
If Christians and Muslims stopped eating meat ...
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
The "idea" of Catholicism is NOT in the Bible. Not anywhere. Catholics teach you have to work your way into Heaven. The Bible says "unless you are born again you cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven". Most Catholics think it's ok to drink alcohol. It's not. Most Catholics are hypocrites. My beliefs come from the Bible/New Testament, not my Pastors. That same Bible that Catholic school children are taught not to read. That their teachers and priests will interpret for them. Ugh.
yeah it is. its states multiple times that the church is viewed as to be for all ie. universal.
Yes catholics believe you have to be a decent person to get into heaven. the born again thing is refering to baptism.
It is ok to drink alcohol. fuck people in the bible made beer,
OMG. You really don't get it, do you? Born-again is spritual, not baptism. Born-again is saying the sinner's prayer, meaning it, and establishing a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It's getting people churched/saved. It's a whole new way of life, not a baptism. My beliefs are based on the Bible. Yours appear to be based on what the Pope, bishops, priests and nuns decided you should be taught. You give your power over to them when you do that. And I understand theology, God/Jesus Christ better than all of them combined.
wrong. I get it very well. that is a protestant twisting of the bible. it goes against a thousand years of christian theology.
no they aren't.
Actually my priest encouraged us to look into the history of the church and the theology on are own.
I generally listen to experts
So you under stand the theological history of christianity better than the hundreds of theologians who have studied it for close to 2000 years? that is the height of arrogance and an untruth. You understand nothing to true christianity rooted back unto the founding. all you know is crap protestants spout. an aberation that came about over a thousand years after the fact. I'm tired of people ignorant of the history of faith attack christian denominations that date back to the beginning the of the faith
I am not a Protestant. We do not twist the Bible. We live by the New Covenant--the New Testament. The Bible says "unless you are born-again you cannot go to Heaven". Born-again is NOT getting baptized. It's a whole new relationship with Jesus Christ. I understand that Jesus Christ died for my sins, rose again on the third day, and is alive and well living inside of me. To Catholics he is some dead guy who they hope to meet in Heaven. IF they do enough good works.
Lets see Sola scriptura, Sola fide, Sola gratia, Solus Christus, Soli Deo gloria all your belief. all protestant.
yeah you do.
no you don't live by the new testament you live by the parts of the bible you like. yes it says that and it mean by getting baptized and affriming your faith in christianity.
yes it is.
thats protestant heresy.
catholics believe he is still alive. if you keep repeating these falsehoods about the faith you will be reported for trolling and intentional pushing falsehoods.
Please show me in the Bible where it says that. Affriming? WTF??
its was the theological interpertation that came out of the first 7 ecumenical councils
What's it to you, anyway?
I'm not interested in someone's interpretation. Please show me in the Bible where it says that. It states very clearly what I have been posting.
Baptism symbolizes rebirth, that was the whole point of it. It's the same idea that modern evangelicals now call born-again. You just got rid of the ritual bath.
Bells
Staff member
I better start asking my pets why they have no religious beliefs then and demanding to know who their God happens to be!
You mean you're born an atheist until you 'dun gawn an' found religion'?
Now you're just making yourself sound like you're a donut with the middle bit sold on the side.
I'm sorry, what?
So, once you found God you stopped eating, taking any form of drugs or medication, stopped drinking, ended all your relationships and idols? Wait.. aren't you the one who kept drooling over the likes of George Bush and didn't you refer to some right wing nut bag as your idol? What's the name? The crazy one? Her name escapes me..
Indeed.
Except of course when it comes to illegal immigrants and poor people. Then faith and the teachings of Jesus goes out the window and pure unadulterated greed about how much they cost you comes to the fore.
Very Christian of you.
Swines have souls too Sandy. You should be out trying to save them instead of typing on sciforums.
Why not?
If it's good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for you!
No my dear.
To Catholics, 'he rose again on the third day and ascended into heaven and is seated by the right hand of the father.. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.. his kingdom will have no end.'.. I am shocked I remembered the actual words...:bawl:
So frankly, you have zero idea what you are talking about when you discuss other religions.
Me thinks you need to go and thump that Bible some more.
Which is hypothesising that eating meat affects one's religious philosophy. :shrug:
You might claim you're not talking about atheists - but you can't hypothesise such a grand idea and just ignore those that don't fit the idea.
Not really... just a matter of understanding what a driver is. Things can be affected by many drivers... some of greater significance than others.
Not really - it was just following on from what you considered support for your idea - that what we eat can affect how we feel, and therefore think.... I am not presupposing anything that you did not already bring to the table. Nice try, though.
But the question you raised in the OP is based on flawed thinking precisely because of people like atheists.... One can not just simply ignore anything that makes the question look stupid.
Fine - then I would suggest you reword the OP to something that actually asks this question, rather than pose some bizarrely thought out hypothesis that is flawed from the outset.
I think you realise by now how poorly the OP is worded, and how flawed the very idea you ask about?
To be honest I would suggest you amend the OP to include what you write below, to clarify the purpose of this thread:
Precisly because God allows them to. Animals were created for Man. Why should Man not indulge of what God has provided.
Would it not be a p****d-off God that provides food only for Man to go "Sorry God, don't want it." What a waste of a day's work for God! He could have provided something else in that day - like an amusement park?
Basically their doctrine does not forbid eating meat - so they eat meat.
If you get them to stop eating meat you will merely end up with vegetarian Christians/Muslims, many of whom would be rather annoyed.
Well, given that Jesus ate fish, hung around with fishermen and even told them where/when the big haul would be, told parables of people slaughtering their fatted calf for when their prodigal son came back etc... I'm guessing Jesus wasn't advocating vegetarianism.
Therefore, if the Son of God was okay with it, surely God must be.
And you have to bear in mind that Christianity does not require total devotion to God to the exclusion of all else. Christianity is primarily about how you treat fellow Man, as I understand it. Animals have no souls as far as Christianity is concerned.
Furthermore, you haven't explained why killing animals necessarily lacks mercy - and if you have issue with why Man kills animals, what about carnivores in the wild? Any issue with them?
I don’t know enough about Islam that portion of the question. The one thing I do know is that implicit in the way one must kill animals in Halal indicates a clear sense that the animals suffer and are experiencers. This is less clear in Christianity.
So Christianity….
The distinct separation between humans and animals in Christianity, coupled with the high priority given to transcendence – God, Heaven, afterlife – makes for a much greater distance between humans and nature than in many pagan and indigenous religions – where humans are seen as one kind of entity amongst many, all sentient. I think this separation from and domination of nature can be seen even in the secular inheritors of Christianity – and Judaism of course via the OT – where utilitarian and technological relationships with nature are seen as sufficient. If Christianity had had specific injunctions against eating meat and coupled these with some sense of respect for nature via animals, I think Christians would be more humble right off the bat. As one member of one species made by God. Further once you accept animals as conscious experiencers perhaps as loved by God as you, this world matters, the ecosystems supporting those animals matter more.
I think without this sharp line between humans and animals, people are more present in their bodies. Value is not solely on what makes us different – our verbal minds for example – but what we have in common – emotions, immanence, suffering, desires, etc. Since animals come with a variety of skills, we cannot simply make rash evaluations of our fellow humans. There is not one correct way of being, clearly, and so one can simply do a quick assessment of how strong or smart another human is. Animals from newts to owls, to mice to wolves present widely different approaches to success. So it would be with our fellow humans.
Sorry, this is a bit slapdash.
My overall sense is that both Christians and their humanist atheist progeny would be more humble, more cautious in dealing with ecosystems, more open to variation in human behavior, more connected to their bodies and more complicated in their self-relations.
Would they still endorse eternal damnation......?
I suppose they might be less likely to, but if it was still considered 'the way things are' in the religion, I assume they would still think so.
Last edited:
I stop eating meat at least 2 or 3 times a day and I still don't have a religion.
I wish I could find it, but did you ever see that photograph, I believe taken in an area of India where fat cows roam the streets, of a little wisp of a starving child next to one of those walking T-bones. I could bring in a qualified butcher, stoke up the BBQ, and that kid's philosophy won't change and he'll eventually die. So don't you just want to smack somebody in the head for allowing such a thing to occur as in that photo? I endorse total damnation for those that starve a kid to save a steer.(Just wanted to get my damnation in before my opponents did)
Honestly
Sarkus, PE,
I think there is something illogical about the implicit position in PE's example and the laid out position in Sarkus' post.
Let's say, for example, that eating meat affected the way one viewed other creatures, both human and non-human. The effect is not directly on the main tenets of one's philosophy, but if it affected the way one empathized with others, then certain secondary tenets of a philosophy might be less appealing - especially those involving the suffering of other people, for example.
Just because atheists can be vegetarians and meat eaters but still they do not have religious beliefs does not really counter the possibility that meat eating might affect certain portions of one's general outlook. For example we might find that vegetarian atheists, while not religious of course, might be more likely to think in terms of rehabilitation for criminals than punishment or more likely to be against war as an option
than their meat eating peers.
IOWs the not-eating meat could have certain effects, such as the ones asked about in the OP, but not others - such as suddenly making one religious.
I think there is something illogical about the implicit position in PE's example and the laid out position in Sarkus' post.
Let's say, for example, that eating meat affected the way one viewed other creatures, both human and non-human. The effect is not directly on the main tenets of one's philosophy, but if it affected the way one empathized with others, then certain secondary tenets of a philosophy might be less appealing - especially those involving the suffering of other people, for example.
Just because atheists can be vegetarians and meat eaters but still they do not have religious beliefs does not really counter the possibility that meat eating might affect certain portions of one's general outlook. For example we might find that vegetarian atheists, while not religious of course, might be more likely to think in terms of rehabilitation for criminals than punishment or more likely to be against war as an option
than their meat eating peers.
IOWs the not-eating meat could have certain effects, such as the ones asked about in the OP, but not others - such as suddenly making one religious.
Doreen, I have no issue with the ideas you propose - but unless you are going to provide some evidence (and I have none, hence my inability to see a correlation)...? You may find them irrational, perhaps, if you are aware of information that I am not?
As for being illogical? Why? Nothing you state suggests that my position is illogical.
There are many views that may all be logical - you have one, I have one. To claim that a position is "illogical" implies you have proof of impossibility? Care to share such?
Further, I can clearly see a correlation between the philosophy one holds and whether you eat meat - the philosophy driving the diet... But the other way round...? No - you'll need to actually provide something more than "Let's say, for example..." or "we might find...", "might be more likely..." etc.
Further, what you are proposing is that some tenets of Christianity are nothing more than the result of diet, rather than due to being the word of their God.
I find that a touch disrespectful, to be honest.
Would you also agree that if you take a vegetarian Hindu and get them to eat meat all the time, their philosophy will change as well - that they'll suddenly have a greater disrespect for animals?
So please - just find me some evidence that supports that diet affects religious philosophy rather than the other way round.
As for being illogical? Why? Nothing you state suggests that my position is illogical.
There are many views that may all be logical - you have one, I have one. To claim that a position is "illogical" implies you have proof of impossibility? Care to share such?
Further, I can clearly see a correlation between the philosophy one holds and whether you eat meat - the philosophy driving the diet... But the other way round...? No - you'll need to actually provide something more than "Let's say, for example..." or "we might find...", "might be more likely..." etc.
Further, what you are proposing is that some tenets of Christianity are nothing more than the result of diet, rather than due to being the word of their God.
I find that a touch disrespectful, to be honest.
Would you also agree that if you take a vegetarian Hindu and get them to eat meat all the time, their philosophy will change as well - that they'll suddenly have a greater disrespect for animals?
So please - just find me some evidence that supports that diet affects religious philosophy rather than the other way round.
Last edited:
.
i'm a muslim, also many others here, did you saw me saying bd things about your relegion, about christanity, did i attacked anyone because of his relegion?
i didnt, cause i'm not like you, i'm better than that in relegion discussions topics, i never insulted some one beleifs, or relegion, but on the copntrary, some of you, or i don't know, i cant say most, and i cant say some, are doing it all the time, just they hear the word "islam", and boom,
gosh, pleas stop those useless topics,
anyway, you can find very agressive vegeterians, why you think vegeterians are nto aggressive, nothing different, that depend on the way he have been rasied with, also on the kind of relations in his family,
not because of meat!
i eat meat, yes, did i kill some one? or i don't know, just hitted someone for no reason, or just for fun?
oh pelas!
that's just rediculus
i'm a muslim, also many others here, did you saw me saying bd things about your relegion, about christanity, did i attacked anyone because of his relegion?
i didnt, cause i'm not like you, i'm better than that in relegion discussions topics, i never insulted some one beleifs, or relegion, but on the copntrary, some of you, or i don't know, i cant say most, and i cant say some, are doing it all the time, just they hear the word "islam", and boom,
gosh, pleas stop those useless topics,
anyway, you can find very agressive vegeterians, why you think vegeterians are nto aggressive, nothing different, that depend on the way he have been rasied with, also on the kind of relations in his family,
not because of meat!
i eat meat, yes, did i kill some one? or i don't know, just hitted someone for no reason, or just for fun?
oh pelas!
that's just rediculus
Ec-fucking-scuse me?