G
Godscre
Guest
thank you for your humble information.
I thought God created us to be vegetarian as Gen. 1.29 states? Isn’t that a part of history?
- Status
I thought God created us to be vegetarian as Gen. 1.29 states? Isn’t that a part of history?
B
Brendan
Guest
God also created us to eat meat. We just did not until after the Fall. Note that Gen 1:29 does not LIMIT what we were created to eat, only what God gave us to eat at that particular time.
After all, God is perfect and all knowing. He was just as aware of Gen 9:1 as He was of Gen 1:29. We were created for both. And thus animals were created for both.
Note that the Jewish Kosher laws were not in force for Noah. He could eat pork, for example. That is why when Christ removed the Kosher laws, he was not removing a Moral precept, only a discipline established for the post Exodus Jews.
But the Moral Law, that we COULD eat anything that moves, would have existed for all time, including for Adam and Eve.
G
Godscre
Guest
Do you know all of the Jewish laws which Christ fulfilled when He died on the cross?
There are many. What’s your degree in (not that we need degrees to live according to the Holy Spirit).
A great video, “A Sacred Duty” can be seen online. It’s from a Jewish perspective.
Let me know what you think.
B
Brendan
Guest
He fullifulled THE Law, specifically He IS the fulfillment of the Law, and the establishment of the New Covenant.
My Undergrad is in Electrical Engineering ( which is my secular employment), my graduate degree is in Pastoral Ministry\Theology. I was in the Diaconate program for 3 years until kids #4 and 5 came along. I stepped back from Formation, but completed the course of Study prescribed for a Deacon.
As soon as the kids are older, I look at completing the formation program.
Here is the course of study
aodonline.org/SHMS/Academic+Programs+13375/Permanent+Diaconate+6001/Permanent+Diaconate+Program.htm
I also have a several of the courses towards an S.T.L (Licencate in Sacred Theology), mostly to make a productive use of my time while I’m waiting to get back into the Diaconate
Here is that program.
aodonline.org/SHMS/Academic+Programs+13375/Licentiate+in+Sacred+Theology+12190/Licentiate+in+Sacred+Theology+Course+of+Study.htm
B
Brendan
Guest
I’m down at the Seminary on Tues and Thurs. I’ll see if I can grab either Dr. (Janet) Smith or Dr. Lankovic, who are actual honest to goodness Moral Theologians with credientials from the Vatican.
I’ll get their take on hunting.
I’ll get their take on hunting.
4
4elise
Guest
And that is where the difference is - I do not ‘need’ venison stew -
Tonight I made barbque loaf for dinner (our loaf is tofu, navy bean, and wheat gluten) sliced thin in homemade barbque sauce and ta da very yummy animal free dinner
I was saying that the section of the CCC is under the 7th commandment - and wondered if perhaps this is why there is a difference
4
4elise
Guest
It will be interesting to see if they make a distinction between hunting for food or ‘sport’ hunting…
I know on these threads there is often a discussion of ‘what God told us we could eat’ ‘what Jesus ate’ — there are two reasons that I believe pertain to TODAY that impact this discussion - (1) there are readily available sources of protein that can generally be obtained for less money than meat (2) the impact of how meat comes to us today - the majority coming from factory farms —
This thread on ‘sport’ hunting has gone in many directions but at the risk of sounding like a I’m beating the same drum, over and over - when the catechism says that:
I wonder if you would every be willing to explore if your ‘need’ for venison stew is a need or a want?
Blessings
C
CWBetts
Guest
I have friends who hunt and fish, and as a result save a great deal of money on their grocery bill. It more than offsets licence and incidental costs (ammunition, fishing line, bait, etc). I would call that being a good steward.
G
Godscre
Guest
Didn’t the fishermen whom Jesus chose as His apostles ultimately left their fishing to follow Him? Just asking.
The people who kill animals to eat I respect more than those who pay others (big factory farms who pay little to the people who kill the animals who have suffered their whole lives.
One is worse than the other. I see being a good steward (morally speaking) as someone who protects those (animate and inanimate things) well. Not sure if money is the whole issue of being a good steward, with time and talent. Being a good steward is taking care of what God entrusted us with.
G
Godscre
Guest
B
Brendan
Guest
And if I do…?
C
CWBetts
Guest
Keeping populations healthy, communing with nature (God’s creation). I think what all the anti-hunters have to realize is that animal life and human life is not the same. This is why the treatment of animals is grouped with “do not steal” rather than “do not kill” We are not to squander our resources (and that is PRECISELY what animals are–resources)
S
severus68
Guest
You need or you want or desire? Is venison stew necessary for you to live so it justifies suffering ?
4
4elise
Guest
then you do
4
4elise
Guest
Carl, that is exactly the point, isn’t it? When unnecessary - (and this is where the difference seems to be for many of us) then the issue of the unnecessary suffering/death of animal can not be justified as a use of resources given the text of the CCC
And just fyi I don’t think anyone here is ‘anti-hunter’
- the strongest position may be ‘anti-hunting’ but I think the other vegetarians and vegans among us find less difficulty (because animals live a more ‘natural’ life) with meat that comes from someone hunting then from factory farms -
4
4elise
Guest
F
fultonfish
Guest
Animals living natural lives hardly experience stress free existences. They are predators or are prey. Some are both. Always on the lookout either for a meal or to avoid being a meal for some other animal.
The very idea of free range chickens is absurd. They wouldn’t last very long with the number of predators out there, ranging from raptors to foxes, not to mention other chickens bent on cannibalism. Not to mention the diseases that chickens get. All animals in the wild are vulnerable to all sorts of illnesses and accidents.
Too much romanticism of animals in the wild, reading books and telling creative stories to their children, devising animal hospitals and clinics. About the only charitable thing they do organize are soup kitchens, at the expense of other animals.
Animals do defend themselves usually by employing incredible violence. Saw a male lion kill a hyena; saw a hippo try to kill a dog. Nature is violent.
The very idea of free range chickens is absurd. They wouldn’t last very long with the number of predators out there, ranging from raptors to foxes, not to mention other chickens bent on cannibalism. Not to mention the diseases that chickens get. All animals in the wild are vulnerable to all sorts of illnesses and accidents.
Too much romanticism of animals in the wild, reading books and telling creative stories to their children, devising animal hospitals and clinics. About the only charitable thing they do organize are soup kitchens, at the expense of other animals.
Animals do defend themselves usually by employing incredible violence. Saw a male lion kill a hyena; saw a hippo try to kill a dog. Nature is violent.
B
Brendan
Guest
To follow Him, no.
We can see from the Gospel of John (21) that after that Peter, James and John spent the time between the Resurrection and Penetecost returning to their fishing.
On one of those nights, they caught nothing and Christ appeared. He instructed them to cast their nets on the other side and they caught a huge catch, 153 fish. Peter dragged the net ashore.
There, Christ offered them a breakfast of fish cooking over a charcoal fire, along with some bread.
So that shows us two things. First, that Peter, James and John, after having recieved the fullness of Christ’s teachings, contined to practice fishing.
Secondly, Christ offered them fish for breakfast. That shows us the level of ‘necessity’ required to eat flesh. Christ has no absolute need for anything. It was not a matter of self defense that forced Christ to feed the Apostles fish. There is no objective need, but rather the need was subjective. The lesson here is that one might use their God given skills to obtain food, and that one can eat flesh, since it is part of the Providence of God.
And again, it shows that Dr. Jones assessment is incorrect. She attributes the killing of animals for food to be a sinful act, but where the cupability may be reduced if there is no other source of protein. Christ is sinless, He cannot perform an inheretnly sinful act, and ‘self defense’ cannot apply to a omnipotent person. Any source of protein could have been provided to the Apostles, but Christ chose to allow the Apostles to kill to obtain it.
And since I strive to emulate Christ in all things, I will take this lesson to and emulate Him
4
4elise
Guest
No one has claimed otherwise.
But man, created in God’s image is called to something greater… and that is why the section of the CCC that I’ve referenced finds the causing of unnecessary suffering or death of animals contrary to human dignity.
B
Brendan
Guest
One other point.
St. Paul tells us, in 2 Tess 3, that the Apostles worked to earn their keep when they traveled from town to town.
St. Paul’s trade was tentmaking.
St. Peter’s was fishing. That might explain why St. Peter spent a lot of his ministry in Antioch, a port city and only moved on to Rome in his older years
St. Paul tells us, in 2 Tess 3, that the Apostles worked to earn their keep when they traveled from town to town.
St. Paul’s trade was tentmaking.
St. Peter’s was fishing. That might explain why St. Peter spent a lot of his ministry in Antioch, a port city and only moved on to Rome in his older years
- Status