If Christians and Muslims stopped eating meat ...

right on , now that was cool

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What a funny statement coming from you...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

 

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

 

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.

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).

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.

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Although it's coincidence...

Yeah, what SHE said...

 

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

 

The OP merely poses a question:

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.

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...

The OP wasn't asking about atheists.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.)

Yeees.

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

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

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:

with the following:

Hey, presto.

 

it not in the bible the idea of it is.

wrong. Jesus has everything to do with catholicism.

Like all religions.

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.

 

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.