Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 1:05 AM
24 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), xongsmith (5 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,116 Year: 12,152/19,786 Month: 1,933/2,641 Week: 442/708 Day: 1/135 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith vs Science
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 67 of 186 (788574)
08-02-2016 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Tangle
08-02-2016 2:42 AM


Food and meat issues.
Notice that the Hindu bans are for spiritual and soul issues.

Putting thinking creatures in pain and taking life.

https://www.quora.com/...-are-they-different-from-each-other

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2711054/


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Tangle, posted 08-02-2016 2:42 AM Tangle has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 71 of 186 (788586)
08-02-2016 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by New Cat's Eye
08-01-2016 7:42 PM


Cat Sci made a sarcastic remark about science and religious text.
quote:

Pork is an unclean meat and you shouldn't eat that?

Well Paul talked about "conscience" in Romans 14.

But here are some texts that seem to know that there is no scientific difference between a human and an animal and its ability to "feel" stuff. The Politically Incorrect star was on CNN's Larry King show back in 2008, and he talked about how Christians feel they have dominion over animals and can treat them however they want because they supposedly don't have "a soul" - "whatever that means". The guest made it clear that there was no scientific basis to defend the abuse.

Well I am please to tell Cat Sci and the 2008 Larry King guest that there is scripture that aligns with science in that it considers animals brains to be the same type of thing as humans.

Quotes taken from this source.
https://www.quora.com/...-are-they-different-from-each-other

quote:

"Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to the attainment of heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun the use of meat. Having well considered the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty of fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh."
(Manu-samhita 5.48-49)
....
"Men gifted with intelligence and purified souls should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated. It is seen that even those men who are endued with learning and who seek to acquire the greatest good in the shape of liberation, are not free of the fear of death. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.20)
....
"He who purchases flesh, kills living creatures through his money. He who eats flesh, kills living beings through his eating. He who binds or seizes and actually kills living creatures is the slaughterer. These are the three sorts of slaughter through each of these acts. He who does not himself eat flesh but approves of an act of slaughter, becomes stained with the sin of slaughter. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.38-39)
....
"Abstention from cruelty is the highest Religion. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest self-restraint. Abstention from cruelty is the highest gift. Abstention from cruelty is the highest penance. Abstention from cruelty is the highest sacrifice. Abstention from cruelty is the highest power. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest friend. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest happiness. (Mahabharata, Anu.116.38-39)

....
"Gifts made in all sacrifices [rituals], ablutions performed in all sacred water, and the merit which one acquires from making all kinds of gifts mentioned in the scriptures, all these do not equal in merit abstention from cruelty." (Mahabharata, Anu.116.40)


"unclean" is one thing.

Ritual "purity" is one thing.

quote:

"Hence a person of purified soul should be merciful to all living creatures. That man, O king, who abstains from every kind of meat from his birth forsooth, acquires a large space in the celestial region. (Mahabharata, Anu.116.32-35)

The Hindu religion and its closely-related offshoots are over 20% of the world's population.
The Buddhism offshoot has forbidden meats, but allows pig consumption. But the concept of Karma makes many vegetarians automatically.

"Christianity" has been twisted, for sure, but if you consider Paul's words in Romans 14, then that is another large faith (the religion of the founders has been lost admittedly) that seems to consider conscience as opposed to ritual impurities and legal technicalities (see Romans 14:14ff).

Don't trash all religions for the absurd directions they went in. They all have bans on food (unless severely twisted) and clearly there was an origin of concern for life (free of unscientific absurdities like saying "dogs/pigs don't have a soul like us humans").

I think so anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-01-2016 7:42 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 2:04 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 75 of 186 (788611)
08-02-2016 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2016 2:04 PM


Re: Cat Sci made a sarcastic remark about science and religious text.
I was quoted as saying "Well Paul talked about "conscience" in Romans 14"
CatSci said
quote:

Which verse? I didn't find the word "conscience" in Romans 14.

I did see this though:

quote:
"One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables."



I mentioned the issue of Romans 14:14 because I thought you were making fun of the clean/unclean concept. It turns out that you actually have your own theories about the concept, and you accept it based on your theories (of sickness issues and safety of meat). Historians say there is no evidence that food safety was the concern of ancient peoples especially the Hebrews with regard to pork and its parasites. It is often repeated by many that the concern is parasites and such. Again, the historians say there is no evidence that this was the concern.

You responded to my post (which I wouldn't have made had I known you were sorta making a point of the text NOT being scientifically absurd in this area) about Romans, and quoted 14:2.

quote:

2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

Yes, vegetarians were simply described as "weak" in Romans. The consceince part was in 1 Corinthians 8:12

quote:

12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.


Romans 15:1 concludes the part started in 14:1-2

quote:

We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.

Remember that I thought you were making fun of the "clean" issue. The better word is "pure" anyway.
I posted Romans 14:14 just to clarify that the issue isn't even part of (the original and modern so-called)Christianity anyway.

quote:

14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

quote:

[CatSci]
Animals can't sin. Jesus died for humans, not the other animals.

The early Jewish Christians tied his death (c. 30 A.D.)to the end of eating animals, and the Temple destruction (70 A.D.) to the end of animal sacrifice.

quote:

[CatSci]
Let me get this straight: Humans are no different from animals. Animals eat each other, including humans, but humans are not supposed to eat animals?

It sounds to me like you are saying we are the same but at the same time saying that we must be different.


I was quoting what religions and their sacred texts say. I don't think they feel that a trained dog should eat the same food that a wild dog does. It's all about enlightenment I suppose.

quote:

So if animals do have a soul, should we then hold the lion accountable when it murders and eats a gazelle?

Lions can actually be quite nice. Tigers too. They actually can form friendships with animals they normally eat, and this happens in the wild. A wild Tiger formed a friendship with a young ram, but the friendship ended when it got tired of the ram playfully butting him endlessly. He threw the ram away (with his mouth), and human observers later decided to separate the 2. Wild lions can be friendly with humans too, even though they are hungry meat-eaters. But they can't digest carbohydrates (most can't anyway), so they seem to need to eat meat. About 14/17 house cats (85%) can digest carbohydrates, and can survive on a plant-based diet. But not all of them can.

quote:

Yeah I don't get it. We are animals, and we have K9's designed for tearing flesh. We've evolved eating meat.

So what now? Now that's bad thing?


Even the right-wing anti-vegetarian Dr. Michael Savage recently had to admit that vegetarians had more bioavailability of L-CARNITINE than meat-eaters. I remember when he claimed that vegetarians couldn't get enough.

Meat eating was a latecomer and it isn't necessary (it is a more efficient way to get protein, but nothing more)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 2:04 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 3:36 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 79 of 186 (788618)
08-02-2016 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2016 3:36 PM


Re: Cat Sci made a sarcastic remark about science and religious text.
quote:

[CatSci]
So that's not about being a vegetarian. Paul was responding to concerns of the people of the new church in Corinth, where they were wondering about eating the animals that the locals had sacrificed to their gods.

Paul was explaining that since the sacrifices to other gods mean nothing to the one true God, then it doesn't really matter if you eat that meat. But, if you are upsetting people by doing it, then you shouldn't eat that meat as a means to avoid upsetting people. It didn't really have anything to do with eating meat, in and of itself.


Romans 14 was about total abstinence from food.

Here is what Jerome said. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm see section 18 1:18

quote:

But after the deluge, together with the giving of the law which no one could fulfil, flesh was given for food, and divorce was allowed to hard-hearted men, and the knife of circumcision was applied, as though the hand of God had fashioned us with something superfluous.But once Christ has come in the end of time, and Omega passed into Alpha and turned the end into the beginning, we are no longer allowed divorce, nor are we circumcised, nor do we eat flesh, for the Apostle says, It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine.

Here is the early church father (from the 2nd century!) Clement of Alexandria.

quote:

Now breathing together (σύμπνοια 3553 is properly said of the Church. For the sacrifice of the Church is the word breathing as incense 3554 from holy souls, the sacrifice and the whole mind being at the same time unveiled to God. Now the very ancient altar in Delos they celebrated as holy; which alone, being undefiled by slaughter and death, they say Pythagoras approached. And will they not believe us when we say that the righteous soul is the truly sacred altar, and that incense arising from it is holy prayer? But I believe sacrifices were invented by men to be a pretext for eating flesh. 3555 But without such idolatry he who wished might have partaken of flesh.

For the sacrifices of the Law express figuratively p. 532 the piety which we practice, as the turtle-dove and the pigeon offered for sins point out that the cleansing of the irrational part of the soul is acceptable to God. But if any one of the righteous does not burden his soul by the eating of flesh, he has the advantage of a rational reason, not as Pythagoras and his followers dream of the transmigration of the soul.
http://st-takla.org/books/en/ecf/002/0020416.html


Read on and you will see that he gives a reason for the Jews not eating pork that is not based on health issues.

Clement also said (though not here) that Matthew was a vegetarian. I already quoted it in another thread.

quote:

How do you feel about vegetable sacrifice? Like when the plants from Palm Sunday are burnt to make the soot for Ash Wednesday?

Vegetarians ever complain about this?

Has a Hindu complained?

Did the early Jewish Christians ever complain?

I don't know.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 3:36 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 4:59 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 82 of 186 (788626)
08-02-2016 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by herebedragons
08-02-2016 5:27 PM


Re: Cat Sci made a sarcastic remark about science and religious text.
quote:

[LamarkNewAge]
Meat eating was a latecomer and it isn't necessary

[CatSci]
What do you mean a latecomer? Apes have been eating meat long before humans evolved.
[herebedragons]
Yea, don't you remember, even T-rex was a vegetarian.


Reptiles from 65 million years ago are so like humans (uh huh).

Reminds me of Dr. Michael Savage trying to tell people that it SHOULD be illegal to eat dogs. Callers kept calling up and arguing that "half the world lives on this stuff" and often China was used as an example. Savage was nearly exasperated at all the b.s. logic. "No matter what I say, [the responce is] 'just like China' , 'just like China'. People would say but "most of the world eats dogs", and Savage would respond, "I KNOW they do, but I'm saying they are barbarians".

Anyway.

CatSci made a statement that might be false anyway.

Here is hit one on google when I type "apes meat eaters" into engine.

quote:

DO APES EAT MEAT?

Not really. Chimps do, but chimps are the closest of all of the apes to humans.

The Hominid line is often to thought to be Homo only. Not so. Hominids include chimps (2 species), gorillas (2 species) and orangutans. Beyond that, they’re all a bunch of monkeys, including gibbons, who straddle the monkey-ape line. Which apes are closest to humans? Chimps. After that, gorillas. Then possibly orangutans.

However, none of these are in the Homo line. The Homo line at present includes only humans, and I would argue Bigfoots, yetis, etc.

All non-human apes are basically vegetarians. Chimps are mostly vegetarian, but they will eat meat once in a while. Gorillas are completely vegetarian. So are orangutans.

An interesting thing is the occipital ridge. That is the coned head on the top of a gorilla’s head. The occipital and nuccal ridge develops in order to support very strong jaw muscles. It’s not easy to eat plants all day long. You need strong jaw muscles. Try eating trees and bushes all day and you will see what I mean. Gorillas chomp plants all day, so the occipital ridge of coned head developed to support very strong jaw muscles.

2.4 million years ago, humans split from other apes and lost the occipital crest. This made it harder to eat plants all day and required better foraging skills. At this time, humans or Homo started eating a lot more meat and a lot less plants. The occipital ridge was lost because believe it or not, it’s easier to eat meat than it is to eat plants all day. The loss of the occipital ridge created increased space for brain development, as the occipital ridge takes up space where the brain should be with pure bone.
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/...4/18/do-apes-eat-meat


Maybe we better start by looking at Mammals?

Maybe we better start by looking at the last 20 million years or so?

Maybe we better look at our ancestors from that period too?

Maybe we better see what our bodies get from certain foods (like how much L Carn)?

T-Rex is so so new age.

WWJD?

Ask James and the Jewish Christians from the first century.

Even Catholics like Jerome and Clement of Alexandria agree with me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2016 5:27 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 83 of 186 (788628)
08-02-2016 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2016 4:59 PM


Re: Cat Sci made a sarcastic remark about science and religious text.
I said, "Romans 14 was about total abstinence from food."

quote:

[CatSci]
No, it isn't.

It's about not judging other people, keep it between you and God. It's about "live and let live", don't get in other people's way. If someone wants to eat meat, that's cool. If they don't, that's cool too.

However, if your actions are causing distress to others then you should stop doing them and instead work towards peace.


Paul came down on a vegetarian conclusion. You are using his stated logic and teaching techniques as an excuse to disagree with his conclusion. You did the same thing with 1 Corinthians 8:10-13.

Then when I was talking about Clement of Alexandria.

quote:

[CatSci]
No. Bring the argument here in your own words.

[LamarkNewAge said Clement of Alexandria said that]"...a reason for the Jews not eating pork that is not based on health issues."
[CatSci then responded]
That literally doesn't matter to the point I made.


It matters because the "health issue" for not eating pork is a modern invention.

And you still have to deal with the fact that even the gentile European Christians (in the Roman Catholic orbit) disagree with you at times. There were still many Jewish Christians around who kept the knowledge of the strict 1st century vegetarian commands of Jesus, James, Paul, and the rest.

The 1st century Jewish Christians (and the following centuries) were unanimous on meat being prohibited.

It is clear when reading Paul as well. (though James and his followers were the most powerful reason for the unanimity on eating meat being strictly prohibited) (the reason for not eating meat was very very clear. The Temple destruction also meant the end of sacrifice in Jerusalem so NO MORE ANIMAL KILLING for sacrifice as well as the previous food ban)

Amazing (and I do mean amazing) that even a 4th-5th century Roman Catholic like Jerome sees it. But he was a genuine scholar.

That fact alone settles the issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 4:59 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Thugpreacha, posted 08-02-2016 6:51 PM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 10:30 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 85 of 186 (788632)
08-02-2016 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Thugpreacha
08-02-2016 6:51 PM


Phat?
Your post seems unconnected to this discussion.

As far as my posts are concerned, anyway.

Re read what I typed, and pay close attention to the posts you read (which you think were my posts?).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Thugpreacha, posted 08-02-2016 6:51 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 88 of 186 (788637)
08-02-2016 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Tangle
08-02-2016 7:11 PM


Re: Topic Remix
quote:

do you not ever join the dots?

Look at the problem I have with about a half-dozen or so posters.

I'm almost not allowed to talk about the vegetarian issues related to prophecy, the new covenant/testament, Jesus, and the Temple destruction.

Never mind that all the Jewish Christians all saw them as very closely connected.

Nevermind that the Roman Catholic scholar Jerome of the 5th century clearly saw it as connected.

Nevermind Clement of Alexandria (essentially a Roman Catholic and a gentile for sure) saw the connection.

I show that even the (almost pagan) Manicheans were strict vegetarians because of their connection to the Elkesaites (a 100/101 A.D. Jewish Christian sect that had features that connected them to the Jerusalem Jewish followers of James from 30-62 A.D. and then after that when they fled to Pella in TransJordan), and I get either blank stares or posts shouting at me because people can't connect dots.

I'm never allowed to connect obvious dots.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Tangle, posted 08-02-2016 7:11 PM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019