Harming Creation II: Exploiting, Killing, Consuming Animal

TomS · Post by **TomS** » Wed 25 August 2004 10:32 pm

mor ephrem wrote:
I don't think it necessarily must have only one meaning, but I think it is dangerous if we start reading different/alternate meanings into something which is pretty clear if you read the context.

I'm all about dangerous!

TomS · Post by **TomS** » Wed 25 August 2004 10:34 pm

mor ephrem wrote:
And since we have no proof that St. Peter was a vegetarian (we have no proof that he wasn't, but I think we can assume that he was a meat-eater),...

Exactly - and which of us is greater and more pious that St. Peter? If meat is good enough for him, then it is good enough for all of us.

gphadraig · Post by **gphadraig** » Thu 26 August 2004 6:07 am

TomS,

You ask in response to my post whether the text may have only one meaning. There is a danger and worse when an individual quotes a few words and attaches a meaning that measured against reading of that same text in context is not sustainable, surely? Again returning to your question does the text support, say, the eating by Christians of foods that had previously been forbidden to the followers of the Old Covenant?

Thank you anyway for taking me to a reflection on Acts 11, 5-11.

TomS · Post by **TomS** » Thu 26 August 2004 8:42 am

gphadraig wrote:
Again returning to your question does the text support, say, the eating by Christians of foods that had previously been forbidden to the followers of the Old Covenant?

Yes.

Mor Ephrem · Post by **Mor Ephrem** » Thu 26 August 2004 5:14 pm

TomS wrote:
Exactly - and which of us is greater and more pious that St. Peter? If meat is good enough for him, then it is good enough for all of us.

You won't find an argument from me: I love the stuff!

But what do you think of Romans 14.21?

gphadraig · Post by **gphadraig** » Fri 27 August 2004 6:15 pm

I suspect that like many fishermen he was more of a fish eater..........

Justin2 · Post by **Justin2** » Sat 28 August 2004 11:58 am

Tom, I've come to realize that you're prone to (often humorous, however sometimes confusing) hyperbolie when it comes to arguing. But I think that the bottom line is this: God has obviously not looked down upon the consumption of animal flesh. But he definitely does not hold it against those who don't eat it. And again, the monk thing. Even better than that, let's understand who the monks were trying to emulate. The Forerunner never ate meat (he never even ate "locusts"...the word locust comes from a word in the Semitic language family for the buds of a certain kind of plant), as far as I can tell, neither did the Prohpet Elias (Elisha), but just what the crows and the old ladies with sick sons fed him, heheh. Anyway, I guess I'm just trying to make the point that you can't argue the extreme of either side of this debate. It's not a sin to eat it, but it's not a sin to abstain from it, either.