Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by aaqucnaona, Dec 13, 2011.
Hah! Good call.
I was surprised by the response from Jan. I look forward to a reply.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
But you did know my perspective, because I gave it.
I'm not accusing you of anything, just merely pointing out your state of
mind regarding religion, and how you asociated to what I said.
This, to me, is the problem when conversing with club atheists. They don't
hear what is being said.
At least you have acknowledge that.
Duly noted, and apreciated.
I'm currently watching
True... [''i lurve yoo Sooky Stackhouse'']...Blood, where everybody has this southern american accent (which happens to be my favorite one). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You and me both.
If I'm hungry, and I kill a bird to quell my hunger, that bird has been sacrificed for something. Similarly, the animals that are killed in the slaughter houses, are killed for something, therefore they are being sacrificed.
That there is no religious ritual, reflects the person or organisation, and their
spiritual position. So animal sacrifice is rife throughout the world.
Think about it. If the animal didn't have a soul, much like a rock, or bottle, there would be no need of ritual.
Not taking the life of others for selfish purposes, is sign of good intelligence, because it shows compassion, and empathy. The problem is, we generally don't have much choice. Even plants and trees are alive, so as a vegetarian, I am still responsible for taking life which goes against the instruction ''thou shalt not kill''. So God allows us to kill for the purpose of food and shelter, hence ''sacrifice'' or ''offering''. If we follow the rules and regs, the souls of the sacrificed become human in there next birth. This is a boon for the soul of the animal, and there is no karmic reaction for the people who partake in the sacrifice, or fruits of the sacrifice.
Vegetables and fruits are designated foodstuffs for most humans, and as such do not suffer any karmic reaction.
By ''scripture'', I mean writings that are a from God, or spoken/written from a devotee of God.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
AI seems to understand that he/she was stereo-typing, as a default to what I said. Unless we set up some kind of mutal ground, our converstation will go nowhere.
K. U did seem over the top, but maybe I overreacted. No harm done.
Btw, I like ur cool respone, its amazing u get more worked up over ideological differences with me that with an ad hom., I think this is where u really see the difference between ytube and sciforums.
My respect for this forum has increased twofold.
If u are a vegetarian [ur statement did make it clear whether it was hypotheticial or real], I have a question, just to know ur ideas on this.
If chickens were gentically modefied to lay unfertilsed eggs [have no embryoes, will never hatch] would u equate it to milk and eat them?
Similiarly, if stem cells could be cultured to produce meat [just muscle cells, nothing else, hence no animal killed], would u eat it?
Ps, I am a vegeterian and I would say yes to both.
I wouln't want to eat the chicken period.
However if I was in a situation where eating meat was for my survival, and
there was absolutely nothing else, I would have to eat it.
Ordinarily, no, but if the situation called for it, then yes.
I have no desire to eat meat, and find the smell of frying cows, pigs, sheep, etc.. very distasteful.
I dislike the smell myself. But those eggs would not be chickens, they would never hatch, they have no embroyes in them to hatch. Why not, then?
Similiarly, meat cultures grown from a lump of stem cells isnt an animal, ur arent killing a conscious living being. Whats the problem with that either?
And yes, in a life or death situation, we would all be like bear gyrlls.
He was wondering about your meaning of words. He notices that you refer to Jesus and the Vedas, ritual sacrifice and casual dining, and the seemingly esoteric idea of liberating animals of their souls. So He would like to know more about these ideas because He sees that You/He/She are/is inviting etymology possibly or perhaps poetic allusion or maybe something possibly of unconventional roots perhaps maybe like Hermetics or something out of the pseudepigrapha or the more modern ideas of Jesus in India.
But don't hold Him to any specifics in those areas as He considers stereotyping to be debasing and disordered to His thinking, not to mention that He would be doing You/He/She a huge disservice as there appears to be substantially more going on with You/He/She than meets the eye.
And He thanks you in advance for reading His post.
When you see Him, maybe you could ask Him to respond to the post I made in
response to His request. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If I'm going to eat meat, then I would eat meat from the natural animal. ha
As it stands, I do not have a taste for meat, period.
So u are ready to kill and eat and animal, but refuse to eat it when its grow in a cell culture, withour constituting an animal? Whats the basis of that reasoning?
If u can eat and animal to save ur own life, why not eat it in the absence of that threat both to u and that animal [which, in my example, would exist; its just a culture of cells].
If this were not true, and u accepted my statement above, would u eat said [non fertile eggs, cell culture of muscle] artifically made animal products?
Btw, sorry if u think this to be uncomfortablly probing. U dont have to answer.
From my perspect, there's no difference. If the animal is alive, then it has a soul, no different in quality to me.
An animal ''grown'', as you put it, wouldn't, IMO, taste as nice as a wild one.
I may of course be wrong, but if fruit and veg are anything to go by, then I doubt it.
But of course if I was a carnivore, and there was no other type of meat available, I would undoubtedly eat it.
I agree with you on principle, but I doubt that lab-grown meat would be used for altruistic purpose.
Given the choice, no, but without choice yes.
K. A final question, is ur view on non vegetarianism based on or influenced by your theism. If so how?
The idea of taking another life, for my personal pleasure didn't and doesn't
appeal to me.
U hit it right on target there. My initial reason for vegetarianism was the dogmatic restriction in my [now a vestige of] religion agaisnt non vegetarianism. When I choose atheism as my perspective [as a scientific, rational, temporary and falsifiable stand or consensus on God], I was faced by the question, if no god, what do do this or that?
Which is when I looked into history of religion, hence this very OP, and the scientific basis of human morality in sociobiology, something that is a product not of a supernatural or divine origin but of psychology/neurology [genetic determinism] and social sciences.
Thereby I made firm, my already prexisting respect for life and decided that I wouldnt kill an animal or any other life form just for my pleasure; but I would do so in a life or death situation or if I am harmed or at a risk of harm from that lifeform. And I think that is a better way to think about it that to use my theology as the basis to be a vegetarian.
What do u think about this? Do u agree that human morality is the result of nature and nurture; not some divine gift?
What do u think about this? Do u agree that human morality is the result of nature and nurture; not some divine gift?[/QUOTE]
How old is morality, and do you talk about human or about the whole animal kingdom?
It appeals to God, evidently. The Bible is full of animal sacrifices. He loves burning flesh.
I think human morality is a result of our altruistic genes combined with our upbringing.
I think animal morality in general is more genetic than in humans, but the traits of altruism are quite universal among ants and termites, bees, lions and elephants and apes including humans.
So morality in this sense is as old as the earliest insect societies. For us humans, it is atleast at old as Lucy, who was a intelligent social bipedal primate, much like us.
Separate names with a comma.