killing nonhuman animals

[JaneGrey]

I only object to the term you used which is “I love and respect non human animals”.With due respect, if you use this terminology ,how can catholics take your position seriously.Both Peter Singer, Gary Francione have created the use of “non human animals” to blurr the distinction between a human person and an animal.

“Nonhumans will continue to be exploited until there is a revolution of the human spirit, and that will not happen without visionaries trying to change the paradigm that has become accustomed to and tolerant of patriarchal violence.”

Gary Francione

“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”
Peter Singer

Google Animal Liberation it’s mission statement reads "Animal Liberation believes all animals(yes humans are animals too) have a right to live how they would normally choose without other species intervention.’

I can only conclude that any person who uses this term,in the context of this thread; must also adhere to what the “fathers” of animal liberation believe.

I honestly thought I replied to this post Anyway, to cut what was going to be a long reply short, I must respectfully disagree with you that using the term ‘non-human animals’ ‘must mean’ that I adhere to Singer’s philosophy. That is a jump, and I know that I do not respect Singer’s views.
He did not invent the term.

 

[karoleck]

I honestly thought I replied to this post Anyway, to cut what was going to be a long reply short, I must respectfully disagree with you that using the term ‘non-human animals’ ‘must mean’ that I adhere to Singer’s philosophy. That is a jump, and I know that I do not respect Singer’s views.
He did not invent the term.

If you do not agree with the animal liberation philosophy ,which you have made clear that you don’t;Then why do you continue to use the terminology that these confused animal rights people push onto the public, in their propaganda?

The correct term used to describe the human race ,as God created us, are called humans.Now to distinguish human from the animal kingdom, the correct terminology is to call them animals (in other words non human).Humans have a spiritual soul that animates(gives life to) the body and will live forever in the next world.Animals have an animal lifeforce that animates their being and only have earthly life.So I presume that we are on the same page on this issue

Now,the abolitionist movement have deliberately blurred this distinction between humans and animals by having coined the phraise “non-human animals”.I ask you, are there animals that are human or humans that are animals—either might seem to act like each other at times!! but that does not change the reality.

Now this is where I ,as a catholic, object to a deliberate use of a term that people like Singer & Francione use to hoodwink the general public ,the distinction between humans and animals. I am astonished a thinking person and I presume an educated person as yourself ,cannot see the falacious use of the term “non human animal”.

Since you have challenged me on the use of the term “non human animal”(I never said that Singer invented this term) ;could you enlighten me as to which philosophical school use this type of confused english language.I can assure you that you will not find this term used in any approved Catholic publication, such as The Catholic Catechism,Vatican 11 Documents,The Book of Cannon Law, nor that greatest book of all ,The Holy Bible.

Please enlighten me and point out to me where my reasoning process or logic is incorrect.I am glad to read that you do not approve of the animal rights movement.

 

[JaneGrey]

If you do not agree with the animal liberation philosophy ,which you have made clear that you don’t;Then why do you continue to use the terminology that these confused animal rights people push onto the public, in their propaganda?
As far as I was concerned, or the people around me were, (Catholic and otherwise) the terminology used is not part of any animal liberation philosophy. Certainly extremists exist but I think they are but a small part of society. Its nature, not just human nature, to naturally care for our own species before others. There seems to be a prevalent fear on this board that animals are going to rise up and usurp the place of human beings as the dominant species on earth. Frankly IMO I think that we have more important things to worry about.
The correct term used to describe the human race ,as God created us, are called humans. According to whom? Scientifically we are also animals. Also clearly even scientifically we are higher order animals. Theologically we are altogether different, because of our spirit. However this has no bearing on the biological definition of ‘animal’. I have not done anything wrong by using the term non-human animal, especially when I remember my Catholic grandmother at one point referring to humans as animals as well. Now to distinguish human from the animal kingdom, the correct terminology is to call them animals (in other words non human).Humans have a spiritual soul that animates(gives life to) the body and will live forever in the next world.Animals have an animal lifeforce that animates their being and only have earthly life.So I presume that we are on the same page on this issue
I agree that humans have a special soul, and we are made in God’s image. However no, I do not agree that animals only have an earthly life. The Church has made no definitive statements on this anyway, and I know Catholics are free to believe otherwise.
Now,the abolitionist movement have deliberately blurred this distinction between humans and animals by having coined the phraise “non-human animals”. I ask you, are there animals that are human or humans that are animals—either might seem to act like each other at times!! but that does not change the reality.
Depends how you want to define ‘animal’. How are humans not mammals scientifically? And yes I have seen and heard of animals behaving more ‘human’ than many actual humans would in that situation. Even if you choose to overlook examples of this, the fact remains that yes humans and animals are distinct from each other, but I dont see how this affects what term I use. Most people who love animals love them for being animals and do not want to ‘humanise’ them completely.
Now this is where I ,as a catholic, object to a deliberate use of a term that people like Singer & Francione use to hoodwink the general public ,the distinction between humans and animals. I am astonished a thinking person and I presume an educated person as yourself ,cannot see the falacious use of the term “non human animal”.
I cant see the falacious use because I have been using the term since I was at least nine years old. It really is as simple as that. The adults I grew up around were very conservative as well and I assure you were not animals liberationists. I see why you say the things you do, though. Your first encounter with the term was obviously when liberationists used it. Obviously that is going to colour how you feel when others use it. I understand and respect your views though I do not think that your experiences with the term automatically make my usage of it wrong.
Since you have challenged me on the use of the term “non human animal”(I never said that Singer invented this term) ;could you enlighten me as to which philosophical school use this type of confused english language.I can assure you that you will not find this term used in any approved Catholic publication, such as The Catholic Catechism,Vatican 11 Documents,The Book of Cannon Law, nor that greatest book of all ,The Holy Bible.
I never expected to, although I think that is more because of how new it is, rather than because it is anti-catholic.Then again, I use plenty of words, licitly, which do not appear in the the Book of Canon Law or the Bible.
Please enlighten me and point out to me where my reasoning process or logic is incorrect.I am glad to read that you do not approve of the animal rights movement.

I think the problem is that you are jumping to conclusions, possibly because of bad experiences with others who support animal rights. Speaking of animal rights, we clearly also dont agree on the definition of ‘animal rights’.

God bless

 

[karoleck]

I think the problem is that you are jumping to conclusions, possibly because of bad experiences with others who support animal rights. Speaking of animal rights, we clearly also dont agree on the definition of ‘animal rights’.

God bless

Thank you for sharing your thoughts,whilst I accept your good intentions,I believe that the reality of the “animal rights” movement does not match up with your summary.I already have quoted Singer & Francione ; but another shaker and mover in this cause is Regan,here is a little quote how he “thinks” and I ask you how you differ from his point of view?

"Tom Regan: Subjects-of-a-life
Tom Regan: animals are subjects-of-a-life.Tom Regan argues in The Case for Animal Rights and Empty Cages that non-human animals are what he calls “subjects-of-a-life,” and as such are bearers of rights. He argues that, because the moral rights of humans are based on their possession of certain cognitive abilities, and because these abilities are also possessed by at least some non-human animals, such animals must have the same moral rights as humans. Although only humans act as moral agents, both marginal-case humans, such as infants, and at least some non-humans must have the status of “moral patients.” Moral patients are unable to formulate moral principles, and as such are unable to do right or wrong, even though what they do may be beneficial or harmful. Only moral agents are able to engage in moral action.

Animals for Regan have “inherent value” as subjects-of-a-life, and cannot be regarded as a means to an end. This is also called the “direct duty” view. His theory does not extend to all sentient animals but only to those that can be regarded as subjects-of-a-life. He argues that all normal mammals of at least one year of age would qualify in this regard. Whereas Singer is primarily concerned with improving the treatment of animals and accepts that, in some hypothetical scenarios, individual animals might be used legitimately to further human or non-human ends, Regan believes we ought to treat non-human animals as we would humans. He applies the strict Kantian ideal (which Kant himself applied only to humans) that they ought never to be sacrificed as a means to an end, and must be treated as ends in themselves"

I believe that as a Catholic,what puts humans at the pinicle of creation is not the issue that we are made of flesh and blood;but because GOD created us humans in His Image and Likeness.Humans are the summit of Gods’ Creative powers.He loved us so much that He sent His Son Jesus to die on the Cross for us.
The Catechism in 358 quotes St.Catherine of Sienna —
“What is it that is about to be created,that enjoys such honour?It is man–that great and wonderful living creature,more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures!For him the heavens and the earth,the sea and all the rest of creation exist.”

With all due respect The Catholic Church does teach that animals do not rise from the dead!! I presume what you were thinking (?) was perhaps; that The Church does not hold any teachings about any animals being present “in the new heavens and the new world” after the Last Day–in other words about there being animals in Heaven—though St.Paul does give us in a vision “no eye has seen,no ear has heard all the things God has prepared”–if he had seen animals would he not have told us? Anyway,I just awaite The Mercy of God and the rest is pure speculation!

God Bless you to.

 

[JaneGrey]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts,whilst I accept your good intentions,I believe that the reality of the “animal rights” movement does not match up with your summary.I already have quoted Singer & Francione ; but another shaker and mover in this cause is Regan,here is a little quote how he “thinks” and I ask you how you differ from his point of view?

"Tom Regan: Subjects-of-a-life
Tom Regan: animals are subjects-of-a-life.Tom Regan argues in The Case for Animal Rights and Empty Cages that non-human animals are what he calls “subjects-of-a-life,” and as such are bearers of rights. He argues that, because the moral rights of humans are based on their possession of certain cognitive abilities, and because these abilities are also possessed by at least some non-human animals, such animals must have the same moral rights as humans. Although only humans act as moral agents, both marginal-case humans, such as infants, and at least some non-humans must have the status of “moral patients.” Moral patients are unable to formulate moral principles, and as such are unable to do right or wrong, even though what they do may be beneficial or harmful. Only moral agents are able to engage in moral action.

Animals for Regan have “inherent value” as subjects-of-a-life, and cannot be regarded as a means to an end. This is also called the “direct duty” view. His theory does not extend to all sentient animals but only to those that can be regarded as subjects-of-a-life. He argues that all normal mammals of at least one year of age would qualify in this regard. Whereas Singer is primarily concerned with improving the treatment of animals and accepts that, in some hypothetical scenarios, individual animals might be used legitimately to further human or non-human ends, Regan believes we ought to treat non-human animals as we would humans. He applies the strict Kantian ideal (which Kant himself applied only to humans) that they ought never to be sacrificed as a means to an end, and must be treated as ends in themselves"

I believe that as a Catholic,what puts humans at the pinicle of creation is not the issue that we are made of flesh and blood;but because GOD created us humans in His Image and Likeness.Humans are the summit of Gods’ Creative powers.He loved us so much that He sent His Son Jesus to die on the Cross for us.
The Catechism in 358 quotes St.Catherine of Sienna —
“What is it that is about to be created,that enjoys such honour?It is man–that great and wonderful living creature,more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures!For him the heavens and the earth,the sea and all the rest of creation exist.”

With all due respect The Catholic Church does teach that animals do not rise from the dead!! I presume what you were thinking (?) was perhaps; that The Church does not hold any teachings about any animals being present “in the new heavens and the new world” after the Last Day–in other words about there being animals in Heaven—though St.Paul does give us in a vision “no eye has seen,no ear has heard all the things God has prepared”–if he had seen animals would he not have told us? Anyway,I just awaite The Mercy of God and the rest is pure speculation!

God Bless you to.

I am a bit confused as to which parts are Regan’s words and which are your own. Anyway regardless, my views are similar to Regan’s in that I think we should avoid, as much as possible where we are able to, using animals as a means to an end. I think animals also should have basic rights. I do not think that animals should be able to get married, vote, drive a car etc. (You might think I am stating the obvious, but its surprising how people come to odd conclusions sometimes).

I do not agree with Regan that the moral rights of humans come from their cognitive abilities. I completely disagree with that line of thinking and the main reason I disagree with those like Singer.

About Church teaching and animals - humans do not exactly rise from the dead right now either. At least not yet What do you mean by that exactly? What I was getting at is that the Church has never come out and said that the souls of all animals expire upon death.

Now, my views are not incompatible with Church teaching by themselves. One can have views like I do and believe that animals are inherently superior to homo sapiens, or one can believe that humans are still superior (although this is an odd, loaded term in itself) to animals. It does not matter, because when discussing animal welfare/rights issues, only animals are being discussed without relation to human beings. There is space and enough compassion within ourselves to care for both.

God bless

 

[karoleck]

I am a bit confused as to which parts are Regan’s words and which are your own. Anyway regardless, my views are similar to Regan’s in that I think we should avoid, as much as possible where we are able to, using animals as a means to an end. I think animals also should have basic rights. I do not think that animals should be able to get married, vote, drive a car etc. (You might think I am stating the obvious, but its surprising how people come to odd conclusions sometimes).

I do not agree with Regan that the moral rights of humans come from their cognitive abilities. I completely disagree with that line of thinking and the main reason I disagree with those like Singer.

About Church teaching and animals - humans do not exactly rise from the dead right now either. At least not yet What do you mean by that exactly? What I was getting at is that the Church has never come out and said that the souls of all animals expire upon death.

Now, my views are not incompatible with Church teaching by themselves. One can have views like I do and believe that animals are inherently superior to homo sapiens, or one can believe that humans are still superior (although this is an odd, loaded term in itself) to animals. It does not matter, because when discussing animal welfare/rights issues, only animals are being discussed without relation to human beings. There is space and enough compassion within ourselves to care for both.

God bless

I do not doubt that you are full of compassion;both for suffering humanity and for animals that are treated cruelly.One of St.Pauls’ gripes about the Corinthians is that they lacked this quatity in the virtue of charity.This present age would be getting just as bad,what with abortions,the treatment of humans as something to be almost thrown out like dirt.

As far as your thinking goes,I suspect that you think with your heart rather than with your head.What you feel the Church teaches or does not teach about the immortality of animals has to match what The Catholic Church actually teaches.

Basically The Church teaches(without this turning into a theological posting!) that when God created Adam & Eve he breathed into their souls a Divine Life which will live for ever.After a test they were destined for Heaven;but because of the fall,as a consequence they had to die.God sent Jesus in the fullness of time to save mankind.So when a person dies,their souls are “processed” by the choices they made ,Heaven, Purgatory or Hell.This is a personal or a particular judgement and on the last day(the end of the world) will be a general judgement.All the dead will rise from the dead,some assuming a glorified resurrected body and the evil doers into the everlasting fires of Hell.

Now The Catholic Church teaches that animals do not have a divine soul ,only an earthly animal life force.Sure all animals & in fact all things that God made,should be treated with respect and used with gratitude.But it would be an insult to God ,if we attributed to animals,what God had never intended when He created this world.I disagree with you when we discuss this issue of “the killing of animals” the big picture,as written and recorded in The Bible has to be contexualized.This means we need to place humans,animals,plants,water etc.into the reality of God’s Truth, I believe The Catholic Church has that fullness of truth.

In the scheme of things,I can see that the effort in just saving one soul from the fires of hell would be of a higher order than preventing 10,000 swine from being slaughtered or falling over a cliff.(which Jesus allowed when he caste out those devils)

God Bless.“Oh,works of The Lord,oh Bless The Lord”

 

[JaneGrey]

I do not doubt that you are full of compassion;both for suffering humanity and for animals that are treated cruelly.One of St.Pauls’ gripes about the Corinthians is that they lacked this quatity in the virtue of charity.This present age would be getting just as bad,what with abortions,the treatment of humans as something to be almost thrown out like dirt.

As far as your thinking goes,I suspect that you think with your heart rather than with your head.What you feel the Church teaches or does not teach about the immortality of animals has to match what The Catholic Church actually teaches.
Even if I am thinking that way, I do not think it negates my views. To play devil’s advocate, pro-lifers are often accused by the other side of appealing to emotion rather than reason etc. I am not going to comment on the absurdity of their arguments, however one either sees an action as immoral or moral. Certainly the vast majority of moral actions will have useful practical advantages, however not all will see it that way. Some people need to do something just because it ‘feels’ right. So I think my views reflect alot more than being from someone who is 'bleeding heart ’ although I accept that label with pride.
Basically The Church teaches(without this turning into a theological posting!) that when God created Adam & Eve he breathed into their souls a Divine Life which will live for ever.After a test they were destined for Heaven;but because of the fall,as a consequence they had to die.God sent Jesus in the fullness of time to save mankind.So when a person dies,their souls are “processed” by the choices they made ,Heaven, Purgatory or Hell.This is a personal or a particular judgement and on the last day(the end of the world) will be a general judgement.All the dead will rise from the dead,some assuming a glorified resurrected body and the evil doers into the everlasting fires of Hell.

Now The Catholic Church teaches that animals do not have a divine soul ,only an earthly animal life force.Sure all animals & in fact all things that God made,should be treated with respect and used with gratitude.But it would be an insult to God ,if we attributed to animals,what God had never intended when He created this world.I disagree with you when we discuss this issue of “the killing of animals” the big picture,as written and recorded in The Bible has to be contexualized.This means we need to place humans,animals,plants,water etc.into the reality of God’s Truth, I believe The Catholic Church has that fullness of truth.

In the scheme of things,I can see that the effort in just saving one soul from the fires of hell would be of a higher order than preventing 10,000 swine from being slaughtered or falling over a cliff.(which Jesus allowed when he caste out those devils)

God Bless.“Oh,works of The Lord,oh Bless The Lord”

And I still believe that Catholics can choose to believe that animals go to heaven or they do not.

I also contend that my views, while very specific, are not by themselves against Church teaching. The Church teaches that humans are distinct from other mammals and animals. My views and interpretation do not deny this. The Church and the Pope himself has recently taught against causing animals unnecessary suffering. They have not spoken against treating plants or rocks badly. So while animals are not humans, they are sentient beings and this counts for something.

Therefore I think where we disagree is the point at which an act is ‘unnecessary’ and causes ‘needless suffering;’.

 

[karoleck]

And I still believe that Catholics can choose to believe that animals go to heaven or they do not.

I also contend that my views, while very specific, are not by themselves against Church teaching. The Church teaches that humans are distinct from other mammals and animals. My views and interpretation do not deny this. The Church and the Pope himself has recently taught against causing animals unnecessary suffering. They have not spoken against treating plants or rocks badly. So while animals are not humans, they are sentient beings and this counts for something.

Therefore I think where we disagree is the point at which an act is ‘unnecessary’ and causes ‘needless suffering;’.

No my friend,I have no problem with your final point about “Therefore I think where we disagree is the point at which an act is ‘unnecessary’ and causes 'needless suffering”;

I just disagree with your pontificating this —“And I still believe that Catholics can choose to believe that animals go to heaven or they do not.”

The Catholic Church does not teach that animals go to Heaven;can you show me just a tiny quote; either from the Bible,The Catechism of The Catholic Church or in fact any Saint that has put forward such nonsense?

I understand your love of animals and believe it or not, I have a natural like of animals also.But this does not stop me from eating a nice pork chop,a juicy steak,a turkey Thanksgiving roast etc.I too, think that farm animals should be treated with a dignity and respect that most farmers have. We do have a lot of common ground,though mine views are not as extreme as yours and I try not to impose them on others,under the pretext of religion.

 

[JaneGrey]

No my friend,I have no problem with your final point about “Therefore I think where we disagree is the point at which an act is ‘unnecessary’ and causes 'needless suffering”;

I just disagree with your pontificating this —“And I still believe that Catholics can choose to believe that animals go to heaven or they do not.”

The Catholic Church does not teach that animals go to Heaven;can you show me just a tiny quote; either from the Bible,The Catechism of The Catholic Church or in fact any Saint that has put forward such nonsense?
It is not nonsense. Can you show me where I claimed that the Catholic Church teaches that animals go to heaven? The Catholic Church teaches about this as much as it teaches about what heaven actually looks like and will actually be like. Anyone who tries to claim definitively one way or the other on whether animals will be in heaven is making as much sense as someone who tries to ascertain what heaven will smell like, for instance. I personally believe that there is no reason why animals cannot be in heaven although I can respect your reasons for why you believe the way you do, without calling it nonsense.
I understand your love of animals and believe it or not, I have a natural like of animals also.But this does not stop me from eating a nice pork chop,a juicy steak,a turkey Thanksgiving roast etc.I too, think that farm animals should be treated with a dignity and respect that most farmers have. We do have a lot of common ground,though mine views are not as extreme as yours and I try not to impose them on others,under the pretext of religion.

With respect, I do not think that it is I who is trying to impose my views on others. Do you think the same of the Catholic Vegetarians and Vegans group?

 

[karoleck]

With respect, I do not think that it is I who is trying to impose my views on others. Do you think the same of the Catholic Vegetarians and Vegans group?

Jane,JaneGrey!! May I remind you that in post 180 you stated this "What I was getting at is that the Church has never come out and said that the souls of all animals expire upon death."

That is your posting and not mine and again I ask you to back up your claim.It is Catholic Teaching that only a human soul is immortal(made in the image and likeness of God)

Animals have no life after death,no matter how attached a person might be to their favorite cat,dog,pig,cattle or bird,they are dead for ever.No matter what great and “loving” a pet bird or animal is and the God given emotional attachment we might have towards them;this does not alter this fact.That is why The Catholic Church urges us in the Catechism "2418 “One can love animals but one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons”.

JaneGrey—I am giving you a life line here—Perhaps when you made that statement in your post of 180 that you were not thinking strait.The reason I say this is that there are two separate issues here with two different Q & A.(questions & answers)
(1) Do animals have a soul that will live forever? The Catholic Church teaches NO.

(2)Will there be animals in Heaven(a new heaven & a new earth) after the end of the world;following the day of general judgement? The Catholic Church has no teaching on this matter and as you have stated ;catholics are free to this area of speculative theology.But if any animals are in the “new heavens” they will not be the animals that have died on this earth; because animals have only an earthy existence.

I just wonder if you have picked up your idea from the Eastern Religions ,such as Buddism or the Hindu philisophical mind set.

As for your reference to the Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans’group here on Catholic Answers.As you know I have exchanged views with many of the top posters and I have a great respect for them(I count The Ridgerunner& Bill Cherry as friends-amongst others ).

As with the many Groups, there are always members within a group that maybe are confused what The Catholic Church actually teaches.I would hope that within this group there would be some who in their christian charity would "refute error"as St.Paul put it(including yours)

I would maintain that since animals only live on this earth once,they deserve our utmost care–as 2418 states “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or to die needlessly”

But I finish with 2417 “Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing.”

Praised be Christ The King!.

 

[bmarr66]

Let may say this to the people saying eating meat is unhealthy. I am know working and living in Afghanistan.
Before coming here I had a full physical. One thing that it showed was that I was a tad bit over weight 20lbs. But my liver and all other test showed that my bodily functions were in excellent shape.
Since then I have eaten better and working in this climate not allway hot but hard. My diet as with most of the troops I work with. Most from diffrent countries and locals. Always has some kind of meat. I rarely eat vegtables. Why becuase the can dehidrate you and that will kill you. I have seen what a vagan looks like after a month. They threw that out the window. Not all diets work for every one and you have to look at the situtation that one finds them self. Balance is he key in our diet and life.

Balance is the key to all of our living.

Now it is time for dinner and since I had chicken for lunch I will have what ever resembles beef or pork.

 

[severus68]

No my friend,I have no problem with your final point about “Therefore I think where we disagree is the point at which an act is ‘unnecessary’ and causes 'needless suffering”;

I just disagree with your pontificating this —“And I still believe that Catholics can choose to believe that animals go to heaven or they do not.”

The Catholic Church does not teach that animals go to Heaven;can you show me just a tiny quote; either from the Bible,The Catechism of The Catholic Church or in fact any Saint that has put forward such nonsense?

I understand your love of animals and believe it or not, I have a natural like of animals also.But this does not stop me from eating a nice pork chop,a juicy steak,a turkey Thanksgiving roast etc.I too, think that farm animals should be treated with a dignity and respect that most farmers have. We do have a lot of common ground,though mine views are not as extreme as yours and I try not to impose them on others,under the pretext of religion.

Who is pontificating? Jane Grey believes animals go to heaven and so do I. You can believe what you want.
The Church is silent on this issue. The nonsense is that sprouted by those who purport to speak on behalf of God.
You do not have to agree with another’s views and you should stop at saying that. No one is trying to impose their views on you. Some people do use the pretext of religion, Jane is not one of them.

 

[karoleck]

Let may say this to the people saying eating meat is unhealthy. I am know working and living in Afghanistan.
Before coming here I had a full physical. One thing that it showed was that I was a tad bit over weight 20lbs. But my liver and all other test showed that my bodily functions were in excellent shape.
Since then I have eaten better and working in this climate not allway hot but hard. My diet as with most of the troops I work with. Most from diffrent countries and locals. Always has some kind of meat. I rarely eat vegtables. Why becuase the can dehidrate you and that will kill you. I have seen what a vagan looks like after a month. They threw that out the window. Not all diets work for every one and you have to look at the situtation that one finds them self. Balance is he key in our diet and life.

Balance is the key to all of our living.

Now it is time for dinner and since I had chicken for lunch I will have what ever resembles beef or pork.

Working in Afganistan? mate, what you have to look out for is lead poisoning(shot from a rifle)–nothing like personal experience—you are correct “balance is the key to all our living”! --one of the foremost natural health experts in the world, warns the same thing but from a different perspective.He too bases his conclusion from personal experience.
mercola.com/Article/diet/former_vegan.htm

 

[karoleck]

Who is pontificating? Jane Grey believes animals go to heaven and so do I. You can believe what you want.
The Church is silent on this issue. The nonsense is that sprouted by those who purport to speak on behalf of God.
You do not have to agree with another’s views and you should stop at saying that. No one is trying to impose their views on you. Some people do use the pretext of religion, Jane is not one of them./QUOT
Who pulled your chain? I thought you were only allowed from your cave at night time!!

 

[severus68]

severus68;8593754:

Who is pontificating? Jane Grey believes animals go to heaven and so do I. You can believe what you want.
The Church is silent on this issue. The nonsense is that sprouted by those who purport to speak on behalf of God.
You do not have to agree with another’s views and you should stop at saying that. No one is trying to impose their views on you. Some people do use the pretext of religion, Jane is not one of them.[/QUOT
Who pulled your chain? I thought you were only allowed from your cave at night time!!

This is pathetic. Are you unable to argue a point properly or at all?

[/quote]

 

[karoleck]

karoleck;8597193:

This is pathetic. Are you unable to argue a point properly or at all?

:bowdown::tiphat:

 

[karoleck]

With respect, I do not think that it is I who is trying to impose my views on others. Do you think the same of the Catholic Vegetarians and Vegans group?

I have one other thought that I would like to share with you,there is the vast difference between a human person and an animal creature.

(1) Do animals have a soul that will live forever?

The Catholic Church teaches NO.

(2) Do humans have a soul that will live for ever? YES

Will there be animals in Heaven(a new heaven & a new earth) after the end of the world;following the day of general judgement? The Catholic Church has no teaching on this matter and as you have stated ;catholics are free to this area of speculative theology.But if any animals are in the “new heavens” they will not be the animals that have died on this earth because animals have only an earthly existence.

I just wonder if you have picked up your idea from the Eastern Religions ,such as Buddism or the Hindu philisophical mind set.

I have been thinking that the natural philosophical religions or what one would call a natural mindset;are really “on the money” as regards animal creatures.They believed that when an animal died it or they(not He or She–persons) returned to the elements of earth,water,air & fire(the four earthly elements) in their simplistic form.

Now the Greek school of thought, added a fifth which they called aether(ether–Eastern tradition) which they believed a human had.This in our language we call the “spirit” or what the Greeks thought of the heavenly pure “air” of the Universe.

The early Greeks,Buddism,Hindu and philosophical religions only had this knowledge about the universe that was thought out and observed only in the natural order.The distinct advantage that a Judeo/Christian tradition had ,is that God revealed Himself to them–who He was ( I Am Who Am ) and who man was(Made in the Image of God).

As a Catholic I believe that in the fulness of time God, fully revealed Himself through His Son,Jesus.Then before He left, Jesus entrusted His teaching to a living Church.His Church continues to teach that humans have a soul that has the potential of Eternal Life in Heaven(or Hell ).This same Church teaches that animals only belong to a lower order and once they die,they return to the dust(fire,water,earth & air).

So whilst we can acknowledge the natural truths of the eastern philosophical religions;we have to part with their ideas ,such as re-incarnation.They hold that a woman(or a man) could have been a snake or a cat in the previous life.I am not making fun of their beliefs; but without Catholics showing them the fullness of Truth,how can they be enlighted?

So my challenge to the “Catholic Vegetarians and Vegans group” in Catholic Answers; is that they step up to the plate and show the general forums here ;that their members hold a catholic position as regards the distiction of a human soul and an animal creature.My second wish, is that only those who adhere to “all that the Catholic Church believes and teaches” should be allowed to keep their “persona” as being catholics.Those that claim to be catholics ,but who post error should be stripped of this claim.

I leave the issue of speculative senarios about animals being in Heaven at the end of the world to others—I just trust pray that God will have Mercy on my soul and not treat me as my sins deserve…

 

[JaneGrey]

Jane,JaneGrey!! May I remind you that in post 180 you stated this "What I was getting at is that the Church has never come out and said that the souls of all animals expire upon death."

That is your posting and not mine and again I ask you to back up your claim.It is Catholic Teaching that only a human soul is immortal(made in the image and likeness of God)
Well then, can you come up with a statement by the Church saying that the animals on earth will not be on heaven?
Animals have no life after death,no matter how attached a person might be to their favorite cat,dog,pig,cattle or bird,they are dead for ever.No matter what great and “loving” a pet bird or animal is and the God given emotional attachment we might have towards them;this does not alter this fact. Hmm It seems to me like you almost pity people who have an emotional attachment to animals. No one has said that because of this emotional attachment, animals will be in heaven. This is all your own words. Show me a statement from the Catechism saying explicitly that animals and pets will not be in heaven. That is why The Catholic Church urges us in the Catechism "2418 “One can love animals but one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons”.

JaneGrey—I am giving you a life line here—Perhaps when you made that statement in your post of 180 that you were not thinking strait.The reason I say this is that there are two separate issues here with two different Q & A.(questions & answers)
(1) Do animals have a soul that will live forever? The Catholic Church teaches NO.

(2)Will there be animals in Heaven(a new heaven & a new earth) after the end of the world;following the day of general judgement? The Catholic Church has no teaching on this matter and as you have stated ;catholics are free to this area of speculative theology.But if any animals are in the “new heavens” they will not be the animals that have died on this earth; because animals have only an earthy existence.
How did you come up with this last sentence? Who are any of us to make such a bold statement on what exactly will be in heaven?
I just wonder if you have picked up your idea from the Eastern Religions ,such as Buddism or the Hindu philisophical mind set.
Nope, just an ‘idea’ that plenty of right-thinking people in the Western world are allowed to have.
As for your reference to the Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans’group here on Catholic Answers.As you know I have exchanged views with many of the top posters and I have a great respect for them(I count The Ridgerunner& Bill Cherry as friends-amongst others ).
That’s nice. Respect is a great starting point. I know you are capable of respect that reflects what I think is good moral character, which is why it saddens me when I see rather uncharitable posts from you, which used to be directed to me but now to others.
As with the many Groups, there are always members within a group that maybe are confused what The Catholic Church actually teaches.I would hope that within this group there would be some who in their christian charity would "refute error"as St.Paul put it(including yours)

I would maintain that since animals only live on this earth once,they deserve our utmost care–as 2418 states “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or to die needlessly”

But I finish with 2417 “Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing.”
Legitimate yes but the question to me remains, to what extent? Peace and God bless
Praised be Christ The King!.

 

[JaneGrey]

severus68;8597228:

:bowdown::tiphat:

Really now?

 

[JaneGrey]

Let may say this to the people saying eating meat is unhealthy. I am know working and living in Afghanistan.
Before coming here I had a full physical. One thing that it showed was that I was a tad bit over weight 20lbs. But my liver and all other test showed that my bodily functions were in excellent shape.
Since then I have eaten better and working in this climate not allway hot but hard. My diet as with most of the troops I work with. Most from diffrent countries and locals. Always has some kind of meat. I rarely eat vegtables. Why becuase the can dehidrate you and that will kill you. I have seen what a vagan looks like after a month. They threw that out the window. Not all diets work for every one and you have to look at the situtation that one finds them self. Balance is he key in our diet and life.

Balance is the key to all of our living.

Now it is time for dinner and since I had chicken for lunch I will have what ever resembles beef or pork.

I have seen what a vagan looks like after a month.

Really? All the vegans in the world eh? I have seen what one meat eater looked like after a couple of months. Fine (if overweight) on the outside, bad news for the arteries on the inside. But I suppose it would be inaccurate of me to claim that all meat eating by default leads to an early death.