Religion

[Alison]

For those who have been put in this situation and faced with the statement "Jesus killed animals, it's what they are for". Seriously!? I heard this at work the other day and said that I've actually heard both yes and no to this but don't know the real answer. I only knew that I didn't care if Jesus did or didn't kill animals but that I cared that I didn't contribute to the viscious process. I don't need to use Jesus as an excuse to make me feel it's okay to do it and eat it. I don't know what to correctly say to people like that. Any suggestions?

[Alison]

I'm so glad that I'm not alone in this thought and feeling relating to religion and vegetarianism. I think it's an easy "out" for people that do choose to eat meat. Thank you for all your replies to this and giving me more to say when faced with this topic again in the future.

[Mirabilis]

Interestingly, there are some very well-educated biblical scholars who know a heck of a lot more about the life of Jesus than I do, who theorize that Jesus was probably a vegetarian, based on both cultural context and on translational errors in the text. For example, in the story of the loaves and fishes, the early Greek text was translated into what we read today as "fishes," but the original Greek word was a word that could have meant fishes but more likely meant relishes, which where things like pickles, olives, condiments that were commonly eaten with bread by common folks in those times. That's just one of several examples. There's some fascinating reading on the subject in the book "Religious Vegetarianism" edited by Walters & Portmess.

Regardless, when people are convinced their god says it's OK or not OK to do X, reason of any kind rarely changes their minds. So my answer is usually something fairly snarky, like, "I guess my god didn't get the memo."

[Mr. Yellow Sunshine Pants]

Yeah, archaeologists also scraped for DNA inside barrels in the Jerusalem market where food was stored, and they found grain and seaweed (in the same barrels), not grain and fish. This passage can translate into "fishweed" (the Aramaic word for seaweed), but scribes translated it into "fish". (Yet, some so-called Xtians today eat fish on lent and even use a fish-shape saying "Ichthus" to represent Xtianity; I imagine that in 2000 years, people will worship Kurt Cobain, represent him using a computer, and equate his politics to George Bush's, or to the mainstream-morals of the empire he rebelled against. ;-P )

[Sue Hawks]

Great resources! I love this kind of thread. Everyone here is so well informed!

[Mirabilis]

And if I recall correctly from what I read, there was exactly ONE instance in the bible where he clearly ate fish, and it was just after the resurrection. Every other passage where he appears in a modern translation to eat fish has some serious questions as to whether the translation is accurate.

[Cassandra]

I think it's sad that some people would use religon to justify eating meat. As a Christian, I have to say that most Christians I've run into do not share this belief or at least the ones I've run into at church don't. There's not many vegetarians at my church but they are generally understanding and tell me which foods at church events don't have meat in them. There is one other vegetarian there. Don't take it personal. They are just using their religon as an excuse to pick on you being a vegetarian. Just take what they say with a grain of salt and ignore them.

[Kiz]

Hi Alison and friends,

This may be of interest to you:

On November 7, 2007 Best Friends Animal Society in the US organised a historic gathering of people of many diverse faiths in Washington, D.C. United by their compassion for animals, the diverse group came together to witness the unveiling and signing of ‘A Religious Proclamation for Animal Compassion’. The organisers are aiming for one million signatures, and already there are almost 7,000. A link to the Proclamation appears below, so you may wish to add your name to the list:

http://network.bestfriends.org/Petitions/Detail.aspx?gu=religion&am...

This webpage also, has links to many global religious groups who have declared their compassion for animals:

http://members.dodo.net.au/kritters

Changing peoples attitudes is such a slow process, but at least there is some progress being made out there.

Kind Regards,

Kiz.

[pradtf]

allison,

it is really a poor effort to pull the jesus ate fish therefore we should too. jesus did a lot of other things that so-called christians don't seem to pay much attention to. it merits about as much credibility as the desperate hitler was a vegetarian (which he most certainly wasn't, btw).

many things in the bible are allogorical in the first place and by the time you get through the multitude of translations, rewrites, simplification for the common populace, one has to be a bit careful about basing arguments from that good book.

for instance, some people like to point to the scene in the market where jesus 'violently' chased out the vendors and use this to paint jesus as a 'non-non-violent person' (even though he clearly stated the turn the other cheek bit). what these people don't realize is that jesus really wasn't being violent at all - he was merely protesting against capitalism.

if people really want to believe in the bible seriously then it might be an idea to take a long hard look at genesis 1:29 and 1:30:

Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

so just what part in there don't they understand?

in friendship,
prad

[Sue Hawks]

That is a great resource! I love the Genesis passage. Thanks for leading us there. I just want to add something that is slightly off the trail of thought, but it is this idea that Jesus's remark to turn the other cheek was a statement for passivity and peaceful acquiescence. Actually, it might be better to say it was a means of passive aggression. Don't let your pre-disposed ideas about the term passive aggression get in the way here. Jesus was a revolutionary, a radical. He was so brilliant, and I will share with you on the more likely meaning of the "turn the other cheek " statement here:

This is from my blog spiritualdeepdish.wordpress.com - an article I wrote called Jesus was a radical...

The famous quotes we so often hear people refer to time and time again have lost their true meaning and impact over the distance of thousands of years of repetition. The behaviors of society have so drastically changed from Jesus’ day that we are left completely oblivious to the true meanings of the message of this often misinterpreted being from the past. For example:

When someone slaps you on the right cheek,

Give them the left as well.

When we hear these words we think it is a statement of complete acquiescence, but nothing could be further from the truth as shown by Robert W. Funk in Honest to Jesus.


“A blow to the right cheek would require a left-handed slap, which would be intended not to injure but to humiliate. The left hand was not used in Jesus’ society, since it was used for unclean tasks. *Let's just say they didn't have toilet paper~ my addition* At Qumran to gesture with the left hand was punishable by ten days of penance. So a backhanded slap to the right cheek was an insult delivered from a superior to an inferior…master to slave, husband to wife, parent to child, Roman to Jew. It’s message: Get back in your place. Don’t put on airs.

To turn the other cheek under the circumstances was an act of defiance. The left cheek invited a right hand blow that might injure. The humiliation of the initial blow was answered with a non-violent, very subtle but quite effective challenge. The act of defiance entailed risk; it was symbolic, to be sure, but for that reason appealed to those who were regarded as subservient inferiors in Jesus’ world.” (Funk, Honest to Jesus, pg 155)

The truth is none of us today are really equipped with the real truth of who Jesus was or what he stood for. So to use his name in an argument for eating meat or war or anything is suspect at best.

[pradtf]

this is great, sue - so is your blog!
i hadn't thought about the historical context of the cheek business, so thank you!
jesus was indeed a radical, a revolutionist and a visionary.

you may enjoy looking at these 2 'alternative' perspectives (if you haven't already):

1. clint clark's work The Galilean A Human Rights Activist (http://pianonanny.com/portfolio/ebook.html)
i haven't seen it myself because i don't run microsoft stuff (you need microsoft reader for this ebook), but clint did send me his very detailed work The Gospel Writers where he 'discovers' who jesus really was and it was quite interesting.

2. the essene works by abba narariah on http://essene.org where there is some fascinating stuff about jesus (who was an essene) that 'conventional christians' want to deny and cover up like vegetarianism, equality of the sexes, reincarnation etc

my mother has recently been doing a lot of reading on jesus and the indian connection which is also very interesting, so it seems that there is a lot beyond the standard dogma.

in friendship,
prad

[Sue Hawks]

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! I will check these out!

Sue

[Kiz]

Wow, that's really great!

Sue, I love your article. Definitely an idea that I want to pursue much more closely.

Prad, I bought a copy of the "Gospel of the Holy Twelve" a couple of years ago. It's a great text, with some important deviations from the accepted version of the gospel.

There's a group in Germany (and the US) under the name of Universal Life. They refer to themselves as the Original Christians. I really dig their style, and they use the Essene Bible too. Their idea of peace encompasses all creation. They've sent me some excellent DVDs and booklets:

www.universelles-leben.org/english/index.html

Kind Regards,

Kiz.