Killing Animals for "Sport"

[4elise]

I’m a healthy nursing mother and athlete on a vegan diet. Who is not recommending it for nursing mothers? I’ve never heard that. The China Study cites a lot of peer reviewed research that seems to indicate that a vegan diet is very healthy, as does Dr. Joel Furhman in his work.
It’s easy to get enough protein, calcium, iron, etc. from my diet, which includes large amounts of leafy greens. I have to supplement B-12, but that’s it.

Congratulations by the way! :extrahappy:

 

[CWBetts]

You need to reread what you type before posting. You are just being downright nasty. You are unable to put forward your position in a dscussive manner. You make offensive remarks instead.

There is nothing said about the reason for Jesus eating meat. I quote:_

“A group of Apostles have gone out to fish, following the lead of Peter. The author (writing 60 or 70 years later) wants to present Peter as leader of the newly formed church. As you know, John’s gospel is full of symbolism and today’s passage is an excellent example of this. Fishing symbolizes the Church’s movement to bring Good News to others. The boat symbolizes the Church into which Jesus wishes to gather people. The fishing is done at night, which in John’s Gospel, means unbelief or life without Jesus. Without Jesus, they catch no fish. At daybreak, Jesus appears and under his direction, an exceptionally big catch occurs. The obvious point is that successful evangelization only occurs when our efforts depend on Jesus. One hundred and fifty-three fish represent every type of fish. The Church is open to all kinds of people. The net does not tear despite the big load of fish. This is a reference to the unity of the Church. God’s Will is that the Church remains in unity despite its vast and diverse membership. The Lord is first recognized by “the Disciple Jesus loved,” John (love helps us to recognize Christ’s presence). The meal of bread and fish, prepared by Jesus, has obvious Eucharist overtones. Listen to the words of Jesus; “He took the bread” and “gave it” to them.”

I always get angry when people selectively use the Scriptures to push a non-Scriptural agenda.

 

[4elise]

I always get angry when people selectively use the Scriptures to push a non-Scriptural agenda.

I believe those of us who have made a faith based choice not to eat meat were in fact only responding to someone else using Scripture to suggest that since the Israelites and Jesus ate quail / fish - we too - are accorded the same license to do so - with no need to examine our current resources ---- this too is a non-Scriptural agenda.

I find it upsetting when someone posts that another has ‘inferred’ something which they obviously have not - it upsets me when someone makes statements about the ‘unhealthy’ nature of a vegan diet - even given the clear information indicating otherwise - and then goes further to ‘imply’ that someone is guilty of child abuse. I try to measure my reply and offer information and links - and when I fell ‘angry’ I always to really measure my words and re-read the post first before hitting submit try to ensure that what I am trying to say is clear - trying to avoid insulting others, it really seems to help advance the discussion

Blessings, .

 

[severus68]

I always get angry when people selectively use the Scriptures to push a non-Scriptural agenda.

I try not to get too angry with responses like this. There are times when I delete what I write and type again. Anger has no place in a respectful discussion.

 

[vz71]

Something I value so much is how well it is said by the Holy Father - and this seems to have a different position:

If one must take the Holy Father that far out of context to make a point, their argument deserves not even the slightest further consideration.

How about you finish the quote?
you happily place “…” in front of it and you end the quote with a comma.

What you have quoted is a fragment. Quote the entire sentence in its proper context and I’ll have a little more respect for your argument.

I found the quote, in its context, and am prepared to quote the entire page from the book it is from. But I’ll leave the ability to restore respect and dignity to your argument for you for the time.
Let me know if I need to pull that book out.

 

[vz71]

The American Dietetic Association (per the post I provided) also agrees that a vegetarian / including a vegan diet is healthy:

And yet for all three pregnancies my wife went through the doctor never once told her she should be on a vegetarian diet.

 

[CWBetts]

I try not to get too angry with responses like this. There are times when I delete what I write and type again. Anger has no place in a respectful discussion.

Anger has a place when people intentionally attack or mis represent the Church or Scriptures, which is exactly what you have been doing.

 

[severus68]

Anger has a place when people intentionally attack or mis represent the Church or Scriptures, which is exactly what you have been doing.

 

[4elise]

And yet for all three pregnancies my wife went through the doctor never once told her she should be on a vegetarian diet.

There is a very great difference (given honesty in discussion) between ‘should be on a vegetarian diet’ - and ‘a vegeterian diet is healthy for people at all stages of life’ Obviously choice is an option.

 

[4elise]

Anger has a place when people intentionally attack or mis represent the Church or Scriptures, which is exactly what you have been doing.

The most effective thing IMHO is to point to where there is IYHO a misrepresentation - and not presume ‘intentionality’ - but try to respectfully discuss the differences…

 

[pnewton]

If you don’t supplement amino acids, you are harming your child. Giving a child a vegan diet should be considered child abuse. Kids need the complex proteins found in meat and animal-based food products.

This has got to be the biggest stretch of the phrase “child abuse” I have ever seen. Parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit without meddling do-gooders. There are 600 million Hindus that manage just fine, thank you.

FYI -

A vegan diet is absolutely unhealthy. Without supplements, it is very easy to fall short on proteins, calcium, iron, trace metals, and amino acids.

Are you a dietician or you just postiting an opinon?

I am a total carnivore, but I respect the right of other to choose the diets they believe is important for both them and their families. The Catholic Church does not teach vegetarianism as a postive good, but neither is it any sort of sin. From a moral standpoint, you might as well argue over what is the holiest color to paint a parish hall.

 

[CWBetts]

The most effective thing IMHO is to point to where there is IYHO a misrepresentation - and not presume ‘intentionality’ - but try to respectfully discuss the differences…

I am done with this thread. It is obvious no amount of reasoning will dissuade you people from thinking animals have the same rights as people. Read the Catechism! Animals are resources to be used to be used responsibly, and to give animals the same affection as people is disordered. It is no sin to eat meat or to hunt, provided that eating does not become gluttony and the hunting maintains respect for God’s creation. I am sick of some of you twisting the Scriptures to suggest veganism and so-called “animal rights” is consistent with the deposit of faith. There is a much stronger argument that veganism is contrary to the faith, but have neither the time, nor the inclination to teach those who refuse to learn.

 

[4elise]

If one must take the Holy Father that far out of context to make a point, their argument deserves not even the slightest further consideration.

How about you finish the quote?
you happily place “…” in front of it and you end the quote with a comma.

What you have quoted is a fragment. Quote the entire sentence in its proper context and I’ll have a little more respect for your argument.

I found the quote, in its context, and am prepared to quote the entire page from the book it is from. But I’ll leave the ability to restore respect and dignity to your argument for you for the time.
Let me know if I need to pull that book out.

The tone of the above post is so confrontational - I certainly did not intend to ‘misrepresent’ - only chose the section that applied to the term ‘commodity’ since this is what I was trying to address - I agree that the entire quote, in context actually provides a stronger argument for not seeing animals as ‘commodities’

More than happy to provide the entire quote:

When a German journalist put the issue to the then Cardinal Ratzinger in 2002, he received a surprising answer. The Pontiff-to-be called the issue “very serious,” detailing his theological belief that animals are God’s creatures, deserving of merciful treatment by man.

Ratzinger specifically attacked the practice of factory farming, which affects 10 billion animals in America each year.** “Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity** seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible,”

I also found this…

Pope Benedict XV, the current Pontiff’s namesake, in 1915 enjoined priests to support the Italian SPCA, “that they may offer to the animals refuge from every suspicion of roughness, cruelty, or barbarism, and lead men to understand from the beauty of creation something of the infinite perfection of their Creator.”

 

[vz71]

(given honesty in discussion)

Let me know if I need to drag out that book.

 

[Marfran]

Anger has a place when people intentionally attack or mis represent the Church or Scriptures, which is exactly what you have been doing.

Carl, I can’t believe what has happened to this thread–I take a little dinner break and come back, and don’t even recognize the thread!!!

The topic was supposed to be hunting/killing animals for “sport” or the “game” of it. Now it has become CW flingling baloney at our vegan/vegetarian posters (Carl, I hope you are laughing–I’m trying to be funny in that sentence.)

It is understandable why vegans/vegetarians would be interested in this thread. It is also understandable why hunters would be interested in this thread–though I am surprised that more “responsible” hunters don’t bash the whole idea of hunting for “sport.” And I did start this thread to specifically address situations like “canned hunts” and trophy hunting.

Carl, I have said before that I have found you to be articulate and a deep thinker. I have read some of your postings in other threads (of unrelated subjects) and actually been very impressed. Animal topics seem to unravel you, however (for whatever reason I do not know or understand).

If you feel that someone has misquoted Scripture, or has incorrectly analyzed something, calmly provide evidence or opinion to the contrary. Think of these discussions as forensics debates. And if someone has what you perceive to be a* flaw *in their thinking, don’t get mad–show them where the flaw is.

BACK to the TOPIC. I briefly popped into Barnes & Noble last night to pick something up. I didn’t have much time–but while I was there I thought I would check out the magazine section. Under “sports hunting” they had over 60 magazines attributed to hunting for “sport.” Some with titles that boasted of the “game” and “manly prowess” aspect of this activity. One glaring title that caught my eye was a BIG, BOLD “TROPHY HUNTER!” I didn’t have time to peruse through these publications–but I had to wonder why all the slick magazine covers for “responsible” hunters who are just killing to cull herds for conservation and for food. Or is it that there*** is a substantial group*** that reaps psychological benefits for their ego, and who kill for the thrill, as opposed to killing for any responsible reasons???

Responsible hunting is mundane, is it not? Why all the slick magazines attributed to the glory of “sports hunting?”

 

[severus68]

I am done with this thread. It is obvious no amount of reasoning will dissuade you people from thinking animals have the same rights as people. Read the Catechism! Animals are resources to be used to be used responsibly, and to give animals the same affection as people is disordered. It is no sin to eat meat or to hunt, provided that eating does not become gluttony and the hunting maintains respect for God’s creation. I am sick of some of you twisting the Scriptures to suggest veganism and so-called “animal rights” is consistent with the deposit of faith. There is a much stronger argument that veganism is contrary to the faith, but have neither the time, nor the inclination to teach those who refuse to learn.

You have never given any quote rom the Bible or from the Cathechism that veganism is contrary o the Catholic faith. I thought we were here to share and discuss, not to insult and disrespect.

 

[athansor]

Anger has a place when people intentionally attack or mis represent the Church or Scriptures, which is exactly what you have been doing.

Does anger also have a place when one is accused of child abuse because they nurse a child and don’t eat meat? When one makes comments about how unhealthy a diet is but doesn’t provide any cites?
In all these threads, when I have posted, I have never tried to push my diet on anyone, or claim that eating meat or hunting is sinful. I’ve tried to be respectful when I post and respect other views. The child abuse thing is pretty hurtful, though, and I think out of place in this debate.

 

[4elise]

I am done with this thread. It is obvious no amount of reasoning will dissuade you people from thinking animals have the same rights as people. Read the Catechism! Animals are resources to be used to be used responsibly, and to give animals the same affection as people is disordered. It is no sin to eat meat or to hunt, provided that eating does not become gluttony and the hunting maintains respect for God’s creation. I am sick of some of you twisting the Scriptures to suggest veganism and so-called “animal rights” is consistent with the deposit of faith. There is a much stronger argument that veganism is contrary to the faith, but have neither the time, nor the inclination to teach those who refuse to learn.

No one on this thread has suggested animals have the same rights as humans.
No one has suggested that animals should be given the same affection as people.
No one has said that it is a sin to eat meat - some I know have stronger feelings about hunting, especially given the OP regarding ‘sport’ hunting

I have provided (and provide again) this section of the Catechism that I agree of course says that there is a legitmate use of animals but also says that it is against human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.

This is the section that I believe supports a faith motivated vegan choice.

I do not appreciate the suggestion that ‘veganism is contrary to the faith’ with the statement that you do not have ‘time, nor the inclination to teach those who refuse to learn’ — it is a - drop and retreat tactic that does not advance any discussion.

Respect for the integrity of creation

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.194 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.195

2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.196 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.197 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

 

[4elise]

BACK to the TOPIC. I briefly popped into Barnes & Noble last night to pick something up. I didn’t have much time–but while I was there I thought I would check out the magazine section. Under “sports hunting” they had over 60 magazines attributed to hunting for “sport.” Some with titles that boasted of the “game” and “manly prowess” aspect of this activity. One glaring title that caught my eye was a BIG, BOLD “TROPHY HUNTER!” I didn’t have time to peruse through these publications–but I had to wonder why all the slick magazine covers for “responsible” hunters who are just killing to cull herds for conservation and for food. Or is it that there*** is a substantial group*** that reaps psychological benefits for their ego, and who kill for the thrill, as opposed to killing for any responsible reasons???

Responsible hunting is mundane, is it not? Why all the slick magazines attributed to the glory of “sports hunting?”

I think all the hunters that I’ve read on this thread certainly don’t seem to be the type that would pick up that magazine!

 

[bigfootbob]

I think all the hunters that I’ve read on this thread certainly don’t seem to be the type that would pick up that magazine!

I wouldn’t mind reading it. I don’t see anything wrong with trying to get a nice animal.