Hi,

I actually wanted to comment on the thread "Spirituality & Hunting Season" which is now closed... The discussion there was quite interesting.

In debating this topic, there seems not so much point in giving our personal opinions since there are practically an infinite number, but rather refer to acknowledged spiritual facts in scripture.

Myself, I am a vaishnava (Hare Krishna), and so try to follow Vedic scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gita. This explains life as being a spirit soul within a material body. Bodies die, but souls do not, and are transmigrated to new bodies at the end of each life.

In Vedic times (some thousands of years ago), only kshatrias (kings and knights) were allowed to hunt, in the interest of practicing their skills of protecting the general populace.

There is no such thing as a 'human soul' a 'dog soul', a 'cow soul'; simply a soul in a different body.

Anyone with any compassion should seek to live with the least possible violence inflicted on their fellow creatures. This means eating only a vegetarian diet, and, for the spiritually inclined, offering that food which is killed (vegetables) to God (Krishna).

It is a fact that vegetarian humans are more healthy than omnivorous humans, and take far fewer resources from the planet.

The only reason for eating meat is for the sense pleasure/taste, and those who have tasted well-cooked Krishna prasadam find that an easy thing to give up.

Yours,
Arjunanatha dasa

Dear Arjunanatha,

Thanks for visiting this forum and taking the time to share your thoughts. It's always interesting when someone from another faith tradition brings their wisdom to bear on a topic.

In the other thread on spirituality and hunting, the contention wasn't over whether or not vegetarianism is a good idea, but whether it was required by Jesus and the New Testament writers, and whether the Church had gone astray in allowing for the eating of meat.

I agree with your philosophy of living as nonviolently as possible, but don't understand how eating vegetables is less violent than eating animals--especially, as in your case, where no distinction is made between the kinds of souls enlivening entities. Eating lots of plants would seem to be doing more violence than eating one animal--at least from the plants' point of view. See what I mean?

Catholic Christians such as myself believe that there are different kinds of souls, and so that is an area where our beliefs differ. We do not believe that human beings are reincarnated as other kinds of animals, if they are even reincarnated at all.

May your religious beliefs bring you peace and growth in love. That's really what matters.

Phil

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Arjunanatha dasa:
[QB]Hi,

I actually wanted to comment on the thread "Spirituality & Hunting Season" which is now closed... The discussion there was quite interesting.


Hi Arjunanatha dasa,

Since I am the person responsible for initiating the discussion about vegetarianism, I'm glad to
hear that you found it quite interesting.

One of my primary questions in that discussion was
and still is, "Was Jesus a vegetarian?" In the book, "Famous Vegetarians" by Rynn Berry, Jesus Christ is listed as a vegetarian despite the fact that the Gospels mentioned that he ate a bit of fish. Berry goes on to speculate about that piece of information. (p. 51)

Other notable vegetarians listed in the above book are: Pythagoras, the Buddha, Mahavira, Lao Tzu and the Taoists, Plato, Socrates, Plutarch, Leonardo da Vinci, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Tolstoy, Annie Besant, Gandhi, George Bernard Shaw, Bronson Alcott, Sylvester Graham, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, Swami Prabhupada (founder of the Krishna movement), the McCartneys, Dennis Weaver, Malcolm Muggeridge, and Isaac Bashevis Singer, among others.

Thanks for contributing your ideas to our discussion on vegetarianism. I think it is a very important and timely topic.

Sincerely,

Tee

One of my primary questions in that discussion was
and still is, "Was Jesus a vegetarian?" In the book, "Famous Vegetarians" by Rynn Berry, Jesus Christ is listed as a vegetarian despite the fact that the Gospels mentioned that he ate a bit of fish. Berry goes on to speculate about that piece of information. (p. 51)

Why? Because it doesn't fit his model of real mystics and other cool people being vegetarians?

Jesus multiplied loaves and fish; Jesus ate Lamb at the Passover meals; Jesus ate fish with is Disciples; there is not one word from any of the Gospels, nor from any New Testament writings in which it is forbidden for Christians to eat meat. Nothing in the extra-canonical Tradition either.

So, someone, somewhere show me some credible evidence for this? And while you're at it, explain Peter's vision in Acts wherein he is told that no food is unclean, and his vision included some pretty meaty animals.

Phil

Why? Because it doesn't fit his model of real mystics and other cool people being vegetarians?

Steve Jobs is a vegetarian so I would never think less of the Lord should he have regularly eaten meat.

Originally posted by Phil:

One of my primary questions in that discussion was
and still is, "Was Jesus a vegetarian?" In the book, "Famous Vegetarians" by Rynn Berry, Jesus Christ is listed as a vegetarian despite the fact that the Gospels mentioned that he ate a bit of fish. Berry goes on to speculate about that piece of information. (p. 51)

Why? Because it doesn't fit his model of real mystics and other cool people being vegetarians?


Rather than vilify his motives, why not read the short section in the book? Pages 51 to 54....It can probably be found at your local bookstore or library.

Jesus multiplied loaves and fish;

yes

Jesus ate Lamb at the Passover meals;

Is this a fact or something someone is implying because he was there?

Jesus ate fish with is Disciples;

perhaps, a bit

there is not one word from any of the Gospels, nor from any New Testament writings in which it is forbidden for Christians to eat meat. Nothing in the extra-canonical Tradition either.

Is there anything in the New Testament about birth control or myriad other controversial Church issues? Does the New Testament forbid Catholics to eat meat on Fridays during Lent?


So, someone, somewhere show me some credible evidence for this?

Does this imply that Berry is not credible?

I don't know that we will ever definitively know
whether or not Jesus was, in fact, a vegetarian...
I don't think Peter's visions apply to this question.

I see where you are coming from Phil. Your position has some merit. Perhaps someone else here will be able to supply your 'credible' evidence.

Tee

I don't know that we will ever definitively know
whether or not Jesus was, in fact, a vegetarian...

Oh, but that's a very weak point--because we can't know for sure, then there's a possibility that he was, goes the argument. But with absolutely no evidence for this in any of his teachings nor in any stories about him, why would one want to even begin to seriously entertain this point? Because spiritual people are supposed to be vegetarians?

I don't think Peter's visions apply to this question.

Perhaps not directly to the issue of Jesus' diet, but certainly to the issue of whether Christians are supposed to be vegetarians. See Acts 10: 9-23. There's no doubt that this story is saying to the Church that it's OK to eat meat--even non-kosher kinds.

Originally posted by Phil:
I don't know that we will ever definitively know
whether or not Jesus was, in fact, a vegetarian...

Oh, but that's a very weak point--because we can't know for sure, then there's a possibility that he was, goes the argument. But with absolutely no evidence for this in any of his teachings nor in any stories about him, why would one want to even begin to seriously entertain this point? Because spiritual people are supposed to be vegetarians?

Just wanted to respond with a quote from Rynn Berry's book, which is also a cookbook, by the way.........

"Although the evidence for Jesus' vegetarianism is largely circumstantial, it is nonetheless compelling. Even Dr. Hugh Schonfield, writing in The Passover Plot--probably the most rigorous and demythologized life of Jesus ever written--asserts that Jesus belonged to a strict vegetarian branch of the Essenes in northern Judea-The Nazoreans. Schonfield writes:"The name borne by the earliest followers of Jesus was not Christians, they were called 'Nazoreans' (Nazarenes), and Jesus himself was know as the 'Nazorean.'" (p. 53)

In the above context, Nazorean does not refer to a place but refers to a group who followed a vegetarian style of life.

Also, in the mid-19th century, Ernest Renan, professor of religion at the University of Paris, published the book, "The Life of Jesus" in which the idea that Jesus might have been an Essene may have been popular. Apparently Essenes were often known for their vegetarianism. (p. 52)

....I don't think spiritual people are 'supposed to be vegetarians.' (Didn't St. Theresa live on light and the Eucharist?)

However, I do think there is ample evidence that Jesus was a non-violent person. Vegetarianism and
non-violence go hand in hand. Vegetarianisms concern for other species displays a great deal of non-violence. It also demonstrates a concern for other humans by limiting the amount of the earth's resources used in ones diet. It takes a great deal of resources to feed animals and to come up with a single pound of meat.....and eating meat affects our processing of kundalini energy...n'est pas?


I don't think Peter's visions apply to this question.

Perhaps not directly to the issue of Jesus' diet, but certainly to the issue of whether Christians are supposed to be vegetarians. See Acts 10: 9-23. There's no doubt that this story is saying to the Church that it's OK to eat meat--even non-kosher kinds.


Perhaps this had more to do with assimilating Gentiles into the Community than eating meat?

Anyway, how did we, as Catholics, ever develop the idea of not eating meat on Fridays during Lent?....and previously on all Fridays throughout the year? Was it the idea of personal sacrifice only?

The point you made about not believing anyone you read is a very good one Phil.

I just think that there are traditions that do believe that Jesus was a vegetarian and that this idea merits further thought. Do we know for sure that Jesus was a virgin? Yet, we are taught to believe so.....

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Tee

Jesus belonged to a strict vegetarian branch of the Essenes in northern Judea-The Nazoreans. Schonfield writes:"The name borne by the earliest followers of Jesus was not Christians, they were called 'Nazoreans' (Nazarenes), and Jesus himself was know as the 'Nazorean.'" (p. 53)

There are absolutely no sources which uphold either of these points. The earliest name for Christians was not Nazoreans, but followers of the Way.

Consider, too, Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son in Lk. 15. The Father in the story represents Jesus, and also God the Father. What does he say when the son returns? "Kill the fatted calf." The way to celebrate is with a good steak!

Also, in the mid-19th century, Ernest Renan, professor of religion at the University of Paris, published the book, "The Life of Jesus" in which the idea that Jesus might have been an Essene may have been popular. Apparently Essenes were often known for their vegetarianism. (p. 52)

I read that. Just because the great Ernest Renan made that point doesn't mean anything, really. It's all conjecture. Jesus might just as well have been running a carpentry shop all those years. There are many, many divergences between his teachings and the Essenes, who were more of the ilk of John the Baptist.

....I don't think spiritual people are 'supposed to be vegetarians.' (Didn't St. Theresa live on light and the Eucharist?)

That's Therese Neumann, who is not a Saint.

However, I do think there is ample evidence that Jesus was a non-violent person. Vegetarianism and
non-violence go hand in hand.

Vegetarians also generally wear clothes, which Jesus was known to do. How's that for another correlation!

eating meat affects our processing of kundalini energy...n'est pas?

Yes, sometimes very much for the better.

Anyway, how did we, as Catholics, ever develop the idea of not eating meat on Fridays during Lent?....and previously on all Fridays throughout the year? Was it the idea of personal sacrifice only?

Remembering Christ. Sacrifice.

Do we know for sure that Jesus was a virgin? Yet, we are taught to believe so.....

Here we go again: a common debate fallacy! If you can't disprove a point, then it's just as likely to be true as the alternative. Fallacy.

Why not keep going: you could also assert, in the absence of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, that Jesus . . .
--ate only pomegranites on Wednesdays;
--never bathed--why wash away his sacred sweat?
--had genes that produced all the Vitamin C he needed;
--etc. etc.

--------------

Bottom line: one can be a vegetarian or not for a lot of good and some bad reasons. It is not required by Christianity, and there is no sound evidence to support Jesus himself being a vegetarian. There is only conjecturing based on vaporous premises and assumptions.

Can we please move on. I'd like to hear more from Arjunanatha dasa and others about their faith and spirituality!

Phil

Bottom line: one can be a vegetarian or not for a lot of good and some bad reasons. It is not required by Christianity, and there is no sound evidence to support Jesus himself being a vegetarian. There is only conjecturing based on vaporous premises and assumptions.


Yes, one can be a vegetarian or not for a lot of good and some bad reasons. I never suggested that it was required by Christianity. The idea of 'sound' evidence would be one that the individual would have to decide upon depending on their definition of 'sound.' Berry agrees that the evidence is 'largely circumstantial.' I have nothing invested in proving the idea one way or the other. Nor do I agree with your attempts to close the discussion with a final decree. Saying we just don't know is good enough for me.

Can we please move on. I'd like to hear more from Arjunanatha dasa and others about their faith and spirituality!

Arjunanatha dasa has been welcome to join in at any point in this discussion. It's not me keeping him out of it.

Moving on seems to be your way of enforcing your
definitive answers to discussion points.

Theresa Neumann wasn't a saint?????

Tee

Berry agrees that the evidence is 'largely circumstantial.' I have nothing invested in proving the idea one way or the other. Nor do I agree with your attempts to close the discussion with a final decree. Saying we just don't know is good enough for me.

Uraqt et al, just a reminder that our only definitive sources on Jesus are the Gospels and other writings from the early Church. There really aren't any other historical sources to go by, thanks in large part to the Romans, who destroyed everything in Jerusalem around 70 A.D.

So to place any conjecturing about anything regarding Jesus on a more or less equal plane with Biblical sources is just poor scholarship. Once one opens that door, any hypothesis about anything regarding Jesus is up for grabs. I really don't want us to go there, OK?

Moving on seems to be your way of enforcing your
definitive answers to discussion points.

Truly, I see no value in pointless discussions.

Theresa Neumann wasn't a saint?????

Well, in the sense that we all are, she was. But no, she has not been canonized.

Phil

Uraqt et al, just a reminder that our only definitive sources on Jesus are the Gospels and other writings from the early Church. There really aren't any other historical sources to go by, thanks in large part to the Romans, who destroyed everything in Jerusalem around 70 A.D.

Phil,

Our sources on the historical Jesus may be limited but our sources on Jesus the Christ are not. As I understand it, Christ is present among us even today and to pretend that the only definitive sources about him are the Gospels is putting him in a past tense instead of a present tense. It reminds me of a sort of Biblical idolatry. It's also my understanding that he reveals himself to us through other people, our inner guidance, various Churches, and our living of day to day life, among other things. Where can we be that
Christ/God is not? Now, this doesn't definitively answer questions about the historical Jesus but
it sure places the questions in a different light.

Also, Berry does mention other sources but I have no idea how credible they may be.



So to place any conjecturing about anything regarding Jesus on a more or less equal plane with Biblical sources is just poor scholarship. Once one opens that door, any hypothesis about anything regarding Jesus is up for grabs. I really don't want us to go there, OK?

And to pretend that the Bible is the only credible source reeks of Biblical idolatry, imho, anyway....but I won't go there because you don't want us to...here, at least....that is another reason why I saw the need for an overflow area where our conversations would not be restricted, modified, closed, or shortened by you. Do you see what I mean? You keep closing off any real true discussion with your 'answers'...anyway, that's the way I see it sometimes.....

Moving on seems to be your way of enforcing your
definitive answers to discussion points.

Truly, I see no value in pointless discussions.


People connecting and sharing ideas is not pointless, imho. Who knows when that sharing will
bear good fruit in the future? What about the emotional connections that develop in the process of sharing? Don't they count?

Do people always have to have the 'right' answers?
Does someone always have to come across as the 'superior' with the definitive 'answers'? Do we have to have a debate board? Does someone always have to be on top?

Theresa Neumann wasn't a saint?????

Well, in the sense that we all are, she was. But no, she has not been canonized.

Thanks. I didn't know that.

Tee

"Although the evidence for Jesus' vegetarianism is largely circumstantial, it is nonetheless compelling. Even Dr. Hugh Schonfield, writing in [i]The Passover Plot--probably the most rigorous and demythologized life of Jesus ever written-[/i]

LMAO! Not at you, Uraqt, but at the author of this quote. The Passover Plot is probably the most blasphemous book ever written, so to call it a "rigorous and demythologized life of Jesus" is way over the top, imho. If the reader doesn't know what this book is about, the author maintains that Jesus faked the crucifixion (scourging and all), then made off with Mary of Magdala for decades of marital bliss after first appearing to his Apostles. Read all about it on Amazon.com, where its review average is only one star.

I loved your point about "Bring out the fatted calf," Phil. Glad the Father didn't shout, "Bring on the tofu!" Or the millet casserole! Yessirree, a steak dinner! What a funny example for Jesus the vegetarian to use.

Uraqt, I can't make heads or tails of your quotes and italics. It seems you're including two or three exchanges in each section. Check the faq link if you need help using these tags. Just a tip.

Chris

Originally posted by Concerned Catholic:

"Although the evidence for Jesus' vegetarianism is largely circumstantial, it is nonetheless compelling. Even Dr. Hugh Schonfield, writing in [i]The Passover Plot--probably the most rigorous and demythologized life of Jesus ever written-

LMAO! Not at you, Uraqt, but at the author of this quote. The Passover Plot is probably the most blasphemous book ever written, so to call it a "rigorous and demythologized life of Jesus" is way over the top, imho. If the reader doesn't know what this book is about, the author maintains that Jesus faked the crucifixion (scourging and all), then made off with Mary of Magdala for decades of marital bliss after first appearing to his Apostles. Read all about it on Amazon.com, where its review average is only one star. [/i]

Thanks Chris. I didn't know that. The book I am quoting from is a book about famous vegetarians but it is also a cookbook.....

I loved your point about "Bring out the fatted calf," Phil. Glad the Father didn't shout, "Bring on the tofu!" Or the millet casserole! Yessirree, a steak dinner! What a funny example for Jesus the vegetarian to use.

So, Chris, then, you don't think there's chance that Jesus was a vegetarian either?

Uraqt, I can't make heads or tails of your quotes and italics. It seems you're including two or three exchanges in each section. Check the faq link if you need help using these tags. Just a tip.

I was digressing a bit between topics. If you follow the previous exchanges between me and Phil, it makes it easier to follow.

Thanks for the info Chris.

Tee

Thanks Chris. I didn't know that. The book I am quoting from is a book about famous vegetarians but it is also a cookbook.....

Uraqt, you have been arguing for the possibility of Jesus being a vegetarian using a cookbook as your resource? A cookbook that cites The Passover Plot as its reference? Calling my emphasis on the primacy of Biblical resources concerning Jesus "Biblical idolatry" while you do so?

Sigh.

Here's my problem with this and other similar discussions. Just because someone has an opinion about something doesn't mean it's worthy of serious consideration--even if it's published in a cookbook. Nor does it mean that this web site has a responsibility to sponsor the discussion.

Somehow I had skimmed over "The Passover Plot" reference, Chris. Thanks for pointing it out. That is truly a blasphemous work. I recall when it came out years ago.

Phil

I'd like to jump in now and give the definitive answer to this raging and interesting debate - but I'm as clueless as anyone. I've often wondered, as probably some of you have, what the first place I would visit if I had access to a time machine. Watching the life of Jesus would certainly be near the top (after seeing the dinosaurs of course). Then we could have real answers to our nagging question!

One of the most difficult things in life is dealing with open questions. Leaving them hanging is uncomfortable, but filling them prematurely without the hard and necessary facts might "taste great" but it's usually "less filling" in the long run. Shall we flip a coin?

Hello from the Mojave desert. Glad to see you back uq.

I decided to drop in and see what ya'll are up to and here you are trying to figure out if Christ was vegetarian or not again...
I seem to remember reading somewhere in the NT that it isn't what we put into our mouths that is so very important but what we allow to come out that we should watch. Sorry can't remember chapter and verse here... Phil?

Well with that semi-literate comment, I will return to my wanderings. Catch you all later..
Peace,
Wanda

Hi Everyone!

Hopefully, this will be my last post about vegetarianism and Jesus. (Whew!)

Phil wrote:
"Uraqt, you have been arguing for the possibility of Jesus being a vegetarian using a cookbook as your resource? A cookbook that cites The Passover Plot as its reference? Calling my emphasis on the primacy of Biblical resources concerning Jesus "Biblical idolatry" while you do so?

Sigh."

Phil, I am not arguing for the possibility of Jesus being a vegetarian. I am saying that I don't think we know for sure either way.

I have often found Truth in places where I least expect it, so, if Truth be found, in a cookbook, so be it! I'm more concerned about the pursuit of Truth than the place I find it in.....I have also
often found lies in place that I expected to find Truth, places that were considered credible and reliable by most people (see the pedophile crisis in the Catolic Church).....so, for me, the place
doesn't count. The possibility of Truth does.

Phil wrote:
"Here's my problem with this and other similar discussions. Just because someone has an opinion about something doesn't mean it's worthy of serious consideration--even if it's published in a cookbook. Nor does it mean that this web site has a responsibility to sponsor the discussion."

Ok, I understand your problem with this so I won't pursue it at this website. I just think you are
narrowing the parameters of the "discussion" to fit a common image. However, it's your board. That's okay with me but that's part of why I mentioned an overflow group--a place where you wouldn't be alienated by overflow discussions that don't follow the parameters set by you.....and not be able to control them.

Was Origen's idea of women being the 'gates of hell' worthy of serious consideration? When people decide what is worthy of serious consideration, they sometimes limit it to suit themselves and their somewhat narrow parameters and concerns.
Look at the Church Fathers! It may not be worthy to you but it might be worthy to me.....or someone else.....but I understand your narrow parameter viewpoint.

Phil wrote:
"Somehow I had skimmed over "The Passover Plot" reference, Chris. Thanks for pointing it out. That is truly a blasphemous work. I recall when it came out years ago."

Phil and Chris,

I haven't read "The Passover Plot" but when someone labels something blasphemous, I think it probably says an equal amount about that person and their standards of judgment and about the work itself.....would we label other works of the imagination blasphemous? I'm not defending it or agree with it. What's wrong with imagining Jesus as a real human being? Having sex and all? Would that make it too messy?


Wanda,

Thanks for the warm welcome. Good to hear from you. Enjoy the Mohave Desert!


Tee

from Brad: One of the most difficult things in life is dealing with open questions. Leaving them hanging is uncomfortable, but filling them prematurely without the hard and necessary facts might "taste great" but it's usually "less filling" in the long run. Shall we flip a coin?

I completely agree, especially when/if one is dealing with what we might call an "open question." For example, is there life on other planets? That's an open question. One could provide reasons why there might or might not be, and the question would still remain open. One might even insist that his or her side is right using the strongest possible arguments, but the question is still open anyway because the only way to close it is to examine all planets and show that there is no life on any of them.

Concerning Jesus, there are many open questions. How tall was he? What color were his eyes? What was his schooling like? Where was he all those years before he began his public ministry? These are all open questions, as the New Testament tells us very little about these matters. One could speculate based on Jewish culture and prevailing norms, but it would be only speculation.

Discounting Biblical sources concerning the teaching and practice of Jesus would be like discounting scienctific teaching when trying to answer the question of if the world is round. Suppose someone were to say, "Oh sure, we know what science has to say about that, but science is obviously biased in this matter." What would we think about such a statement? You can't resolve the issue without an appeal to science, and just because science has something definitive to say in response doesn't mean that scientists are close-minded, rigid, dogmatic, etc.

The teaching and practice of Jesus in the New Testament gives no evidence of him being a vegetarian; quite the contrary. It's not an open question at all. Even if one interjects the most critical forms of Biblical interpretation, there's no getting around the fact that the early Church did not remember Jesus as a vegetarian, but as one who ate meat and taught others that it was not wrong to do so--even non-kosher meats.

Back to Uraqt, now: Phil, I am not arguing for the possibility of Jesus being a vegetarian. I am saying that I don't think we know for sure either way.

That's not correct, for reasons explained above. Unless one discounts the stories and teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, this is not an open question. And if one regards Scripture as only marginally relevant to the issue, then there is really no point to the discussion--except that one just likes to discuss, perhaps.

However, it's your board. That's okay with me but that's part of why I mentioned an overflow group--a place where you wouldn't be alienated by overflow discussions that don't follow the parameters set by you.....and not be able to control them.

I can't imagine why you would think there should be any forum or thread on this board that should not fall under my "control" or responsibility. That's not how it works here, Uraqt. Stay with the discussion and state your opinions and make your points. This thread has not been locked; no topic taboo; disagreeing with me is OK. Just know that if I disagree with you or anyone, I can share that as well, and why. That's how things work on a forum.

Re. Passover Plot: I am happy to accept your point that my judgment of it as blasphemous says as much about me as the book. I do regard this work as blasphemous and make no apologies for it. If being "open-minded" means one should somehow condone that kind of trash, then I am very proud to be called close-minded.

Phil

Phil and Chris,

I haven't read "The Passover Plot" but when someone labels something blasphemous, I think it probably says an equal amount about that person and their standards of judgment and about the work itself.....would we label other works of the imagination blasphemous? I'm not defending it or agree with it. What's wrong with imagining Jesus as a real human being? Having sex and all? Would that make it too messy?


What are you saying? If someone says Hitler or OBL are evil, that means the person who says it is evil? You sound like you're saying there's something wrong with the judgment of Phil and I.

And whoever said anything about Jesus not being a real human being? That's a pretty big non-sequitor to throw in. I never said anything about that.

What about Jesus and sex? Where did that come from. Why does that make him more human than if he didn't? And are you suggesting he was married? We know he wasn't. In which case, are you suggesting he was an adulterer or fornicator?

I don't follow a lot of your points, Uraqt.

Chris

Chris wrote:
I don't follow a lot of your points, Uraqt.

Nor I yours.

Thanks for the opportunity for 'discussion' with you. If you noticed, I did my best to respond to your questions yesterday. I do see that you didn't respond to my question about your personal opinion about Jesus being a vegetarian.

I've learned from past experience that I'd rather not pursue any further course of 'discussion' with you.

Thanks anyway.

Tee

Back to Uraqt, now: Phil, I am not arguing for the possibility of Jesus being a vegetarian. I am saying that I don't think we know for sure either way.

That's not correct, for reasons explained above. Unless one discounts the stories and teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, this is not an open question. And if one regards Scripture as only marginally relevant to the issue, then there is really no point to the discussion--except that one just likes to discuss, perhaps.


Phil, I don't think Scripture is being discounted when one views this as an open question. I also do not think Scripture is being regarded as marginally relevant to the issue. Whether we are looking at science or religion, answers often come from outside the field....by people who are not the 'experts.' So-called 'experts' are too often mired in petty inter-controversial aspects of an issue.

Tony DeMello once said that we could use the Bible to prove that pigs could fly. I think this is quite true.

I understand your reasoning. I just don't agree with it.


Phil wrote:
However, it's your board. That's okay with me but that's part of why I mentioned an overflow group--a place where you wouldn't be alienated by overflow discussions that don't follow the parameters set by you.....and not be able to control them.

I can't imagine why you would think there should be any forum or thread on this board that should not fall under my "control" or responsibility. That's not how it works here, Uraqt. Stay with the discussion and state your opinions and make your points. This thread has not been locked; no topic taboo; disagreeing with me is OK. Just know that if I disagree with you or anyone, I can share that as well, and why. That's how things work on a forum.

I'm not using the word 'control' in the same way as you are hearing it.

Yes, it is your responsibility to operate a fair, just board where a variety of opinions are respected..... where people can peacefully state their disagreements.

Phil wrote:
Re. Passover Plot: I am happy to accept your point that my judgment of it as blasphemous says as much about me as the book. I do regard this work as blasphemous and make no apologies for it. If being "open-minded" means one should somehow condone that kind of trash, then I am very proud to be called close-minded.


Since I haven't read it, I can't make an informed comment about it, so I won't......I don't think I said anything about open or closed minded, nor implied it.

Tee

[QUOTE]Originally posted by uraqt:
[QB]Chris wrote:
I don't follow a lot of your points, Uraqt.

I do see that you didn't respond to my question about your personal opinion about Jesus being a vegetarian.

You mean my comment about Jesus calling for a steak dinner was too ambiguous for you?

OK, here's the straight and narrow: No, I don't think Jesus was a vegetarian. There's absolutely no evidence for it in the Bible, and nothing outside the Bible that sheds any real light on the topic, imho. This doesn't seem to keep you from "pressing on," however.

I've learned from past experience that I'd rather not pursue any further course of 'discussion' with you.

Wow again! The ice in that post is freezing me, especially your little ' ' around the word discussion.

Now let's see where we are, here. You throw out some kind of judgment concerning me and Phil calling Passover Plot blasphemous, then say you don't want to 'discuss' it when I ask what you meant. Surely you meant something, though--not very flattering, I'm guessing. But now that you're called on it, you won't 'discuss' it.

Then there were these new hum-dingers to Phil:
Tony DeMello once said that we could use the Bible to prove that pigs could fly. I think this is quite true.

I understand your reasoning. I just don't agree with it.

I'd like to see you use the Bible to prove to us that pigs can fly, especially since you think Fr. DeMello's words to be "quite true." Seems from this and some of your other comments that you don't hold the good book in very high esteem.

And what, might we ask, do you find to disagree with concerning Phil's reasoning? You give a glib, rather condescending answer, but no real explanation. You think there are non-Biblical resources that provide a clue to whether Jesus was a vegetarian? OK, let's have them. Don't just say you disagree; express your disagreement. That's what we do on a forum.

Now you can choose to not 'discuss' things with me. Fine. But that doesn't prevent me from telling you what I think of your posts and opinions, especially when in an earlier post you insinuate something about my judgment for calling "Passover Plot" blasphemous. So don't 'discuss' things with me. I don't take that as any kind of restriction on my posting here, including my right to reply to points that you post.

Chris

OK, Chris and Uraqt, let's tone it down a bit. Let's just drop anything that starts to approach a personal confrontation. There's a place for that on a forum at times, but this time it doesn't seem to be moving toward any positive resolution. Both of you feel free to contact me via email or private message if you'd like.

--------------

What I'd invite now is anyone who has something to say about the larger issue of vegetarianism and spirituality to jump right in.

Unless someone has some kind of substantive information on Jesus-as-vegetarian, I'd suggest we just let that discussion drop. We've worked it over pretty good on two threads now.

Phil

What I'd invite now is anyone who has something to say about the larger issue of vegetarianism and spirituality to jump right in.

Jump right in? Without a net? Well, fortunately I love vegetables: carrots, onions, brocolli, cabbage, tomatoes, peas, beans, lettuce, spinach, parsley, sage, rosemary and...well...you know...they're all good. But so is a thick, juicy, tender cut of steak. Rarely do I eat them (heh, heh), but I do. Wanna beef about that?