Wombat wrote:
Just as a matter of curiosity, do Christian biblical literalists in the US (or anywhere) take the abominations of Leviticus seriously, and with them the dietry laws they underwrite? If not, why not?
There are some sects that do. Most don't. The reason is that most Christians are also Gentiles, and the only aspect of the Law required of Gentiles is abstention from meat sacrificed to idols, from meat that has been strangled, from the consumption of blood and from unchastity (the blood rule, by the way, is why meat in Western countries is traditionally bled...that hasn't always been the case).
Redwolf
...agus déanfaidh mé do mholadh ar an gcruit a Dhia, a Dhia liom!
Nanohedron wrote:Yes, indeed. I wasn't arguing what you had to say, Wombat, so much as pointing out something observed in relation to it. All for diversity's sake.
Nor was I arguing with you Nano. I just find the notion of ritual purity fascinating and I was delighted that you gave me the chance to inject a few reflections on it into this discussion.
I think it's a shame that many of us tend to write off ritual purity as irrational and just move on without trying to understand what function it serves and why people still lead lives governed by it. It's a shame for three reasons. It unnecessarily broadens the gap between the majority of westerners and many other people in the world, it blinds us to many formative features of our own past and it means we are unlikely to have a clear understanding of the role that ritual still plays in our lives.
Make no mistake; I would probably find it unbearably claustrophobic to be a brahman or an ultra-orthodox Jew. But I want to be able to converse with both on respectful neutral ground.
Wombat wrote:
Just as a matter of curiosity, do Christian biblical literalists in the US (or anywhere) take the abominations of Leviticus seriously, and with them the dietry laws they underwrite? If not, why not?
There are some sects that do. Most don't. The reason is that most Christians are also Gentiles, and the only aspect of the Law required of Gentiles is abstention from meat sacrificed to idols, from meat that has been strangled, from the consumption of blood and from unchastity (the blood rule, by the way, is why meat in Western countries is traditionally bled...that hasn't always been the case).
Redwolf
That's fascinating. I suppose this would be in keeping with the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people is just a brute fact.
Claus von Weiss wrote:
But I really can't stand this tolerance thing flesh eaters always go on about (as well as many vegetarians too - strangely enough). ..............
Meat is murder - and I won't "tolerate" murder.
If other vegetarians agreed with you about this they'd probably be less tolerant.
Since murder is a legal category and not a moral category, what you say is literally false. So you aren't returning to bluntness, you're lurching off into hyperbole.
Probably no single person has done more to further the cause of animal welfare in the last 30 years than Peter Singer, himself a vegetarian. Singer argues that killing a human (painlessly) is (typically) worse than killing a farm animal (painlessly) because humans (perhaps uniquely) have the capacity for reflective self consciousness and so are uniquely well-placed to appreciate just what it is that they are losing.
Most of the meat eaters on this thread would object to cruelty towards animals. So the tolerance displayed by most parties to this discussion on both sides is not a wishy-washy silliness but a sensible appreciation of the complexities of the issues involved and a realisation that rational people faced with the same facts can reach different conclusions.
... because humans (perhaps uniquely) have the capacity for reflective self consciousness and so are uniquely well-placed to appreciate just what it is that they are losing.
And this capacity for reflective self consciousness should also make them more aware of their responsibility towards the weak, shouldn't it?
Wombat wrote:
Just as a matter of curiosity, do Christian biblical literalists in the US (or anywhere) take the abominations of Leviticus seriously, and with them the dietry laws they underwrite? If not, why not?
There are some sects that do. Most don't. The reason is that most Christians are also Gentiles, and the only aspect of the Law required of Gentiles is abstention from meat sacrificed to idols, from meat that has been strangled, from the consumption of blood and from unchastity (the blood rule, by the way, is why meat in Western countries is traditionally bled...that hasn't always been the case).
Redwolf
That's fascinating. I suppose this would be in keeping with the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people is just a brute fact.
Not sure what you're asking here. Because Christ didn't come to abolish the Law, the people who were under the Law when he lived (i.e., the Jews) remained under the law. Thus, strictly speaking, a Jewish person who believed that Jesus was, indeed, the Messiah, was still required to observe the Law (and, in fact, many who call themselves Messianic Jews still do). The apostles considered that the entirety of the Law was too burdensome to impose on the Gentiles...essentially, that they did not have to become Jews to be followers of Messiah. Consequently, they were (and we are) only required to meet those minimum standards.
Redwolf
...agus déanfaidh mé do mholadh ar an gcruit a Dhia, a Dhia liom!
Wombat wrote:
Just as a matter of curiosity, do Christian biblical literalists in the US (or anywhere) take the abominations of Leviticus seriously, and with them the dietry laws they underwrite? If not, why not?
There are some sects that do. Most don't. The reason is that most Christians are also Gentiles, and the only aspect of the Law required of Gentiles is abstention from meat sacrificed to idols, from meat that has been strangled, from the consumption of blood and from unchastity (the blood rule, by the way, is why meat in Western countries is traditionally bled...that hasn't always been the case).
Wombat wrote:
Probably no single person has done more to further the cause of animal welfare in the last 30 years than Peter Singer, himself a vegetarian. Singer argues that killing a human (painlessly) is (typically) worse than killing a farm animal (painlessly) because humans (perhaps uniquely) have the capacity for reflective self consciousness and so are uniquely well-placed to appreciate just what it is that they are losing.
This reminds me of a book thoughts of the Dali Lama that I once had. Strictly vegetarian, of course, as he holds that all life is sacred. But pragmatic as well. He said something in the book along the lines of "Well, of course killing is wrong..but if one had to kill to eat, perhaps killing a cow is better than a chicken". Because one cow can feed many, whereas it takes a lot more chickens to feed a family, and therefore, a lot more killing.
.
While I would prefer that everyone were a vegetarian, I don't think it's the highest priority. Didn't some gentleman say that it's not what goes into the mouth but what comes out of it that makes a person? In other words, what we eat isn't as important as how we treat each other, and if we can extend that to include all animals and even carrots, great, but most of the problems in the world right now involve how we treat each other. Let's fix that first.
Mahatma Gandhi was a vegetarian, but so was Adolf Hitler. I'll take a kind, loving meat-eater who contributes towards a peaceful planet any day over an agressive, hostile vegetarian who spreads their anger and hostility. Of course, a planet full of kind, loving vegetarians would be even better, but heck, we can't have everything all at once.
I think most (but not all) vegetarians are fairly tolerant of meat-eaters because they intuitively understand that violence and aggression in any form are not healthy, whether directed toward animals or directed in self-righteous anger and judgment toward meat-eaters.
Redwolf wrote:
There are some sects that do. Most don't. The reason is that most Christians are also Gentiles, and the only aspect of the Law required of Gentiles is abstention from meat sacrificed to idols, from meat that has been strangled, from the consumption of blood and from unchastity (the blood rule, by the way, is why meat in Western countries is traditionally bled...that hasn't always been the case).
Redwolf
That's fascinating. I suppose this would be in keeping with the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people is just a brute fact.
Not sure what you're asking here. Because Christ didn't come to abolish the Law, the people who were under the Law when he lived (i.e., the Jews) remained under the law. Thus, strictly speaking, a Jewish person who believed that Jesus was, indeed, the Messiah, was still required to observe the Law (and, in fact, many who call themselves Messianic Jews still do). The apostles considered that the entirety of the Law was too burdensome to impose on the Gentiles...essentially, that they did not have to become Jews to be followers of Messiah. Consequently, they were (and we are) only required to meet those minimum standards.
Redwolf
Thanks very much Redwolf (and Walden.) That does answer my question but raises others. I don't want to keep veering off topic but I can't resist one more. Your answer suggests that, although not compulsory to observe the law, it would be vastly preferable to do so. (The fact that laws are too burdensome doesn't make observing them any less desirable.) Is my reasoning correct here?
... because humans (perhaps uniquely) have the capacity for reflective self consciousness and so are uniquely well-placed to appreciate just what it is that they are losing.
And this capacity for reflective self consciousness should also make them more aware of their responsibility towards the weak, shouldn't it?
Of course it should. Nothing I said on my behalf, or Singer's, contradicts this or is even in tension with it.
Part of what the more moderate vegetarian believes is that the precise extent of our responsibilities to animals is not blindingly obvious. Nobody moderate, vegetarian or omnivore, thinks that we have a right to inflict needless pain and suffering on animals. After that dispute sets in. Singer's point was that animals do not suffer from the foreknowledge of what death entails in the way that humans do and that one of the main reasons we talk of humans having a right to life is this particular suffering. Singer certainly believes that it is prefereable not to kill animals for food but he would not recognise anything as strong as a responsibility. (Strictly speaking Singer can't believe in absolute obligations of any kind but he often talks as though he can when he thinks that the exceptions are too few to be worth mentioning.)
My point was just this. If you are going to sneer at moderate vegetarians, at least do them the courtesy of first reading their arguments and responding to what they actually say and not to words you put into their mouths that they would never say. Your rhetorical question simply reinforces the impression that you can't be bothered trying to understand them.
Claus von Weiss wrote:When I see a living, feeling fellow being mistreated or killed, I won't stand watching, saying "I wouldn't do this, but I must accept that others feel different about it". Crap! I'd do what I can to stop this happening, and if needs be I'd actually "kick ass" to do so.
Well that's the difference between you and us isn't it.
The vast majority of the posters on this thread have stated their points of view, yet are grown-up enough to listen to the opinions of others.
In your case because you are convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong, you are justified in carrying out acts of violence in order to effect other peoples legaly held rights.
This is called terrorism.
Stu H
9/11/04
If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it's probably me - playing a whistle!
Claus von Weiss wrote:When I see a living, feeling fellow being mistreated or killed, I won't stand watching, saying "I wouldn't do this, but I must accept that others feel different about it". Crap! I'd do what I can to stop this happening, and if needs be I'd actually "kick ass" to do so.
Well that's the difference between you and us isn't it.
The vast majority of the posters on this thread have stated their points of view, yet are grown-up enough to listen to the opinions of others.
In your case because you are convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong, you are justified in carrying out acts of violence in order to effect other peoples legaly held rights.
This is called terrorism.
Stu H
9/11/04
wow.
i don't know..maybe we should drop this (for now). We'll just let the veggie-eaters be, and veggie-eater, let us meat-eaters be.
