Is carnivorism ethical?

[rupol2000]

A human being is worth more than an animal. Humans are self-aware, self-actualized, and even the least intellectually enabled human has more awareness of self and his place in the universe than non-hominid primates.

Firstly, this is again idle talk, and no one has proved it, and secondly, most likely it is not, because the survival of the human population is based on communication and easy training, leading to subordination and organization of the workforce, and this contradicts the intellect. If a person were smart, he would not allow himself to be used
Or he will obey for the sake of what he finds useful and is fully aware of the method. In reality, this is not the case, people simply obey, and do not delve into the technical and moral side of the matter. Sometimes they just believe the leaders, but as a rule, they are simply afraid of punishment.
Or waiting for a reward
This is an ordinary "carrot and stick", in the same way dogs are trained.
People speak the language better and accumulate information better. But this does not mean that they are smarter, the computer does it better than humans.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Why should anyone care about this, other than slaves who want to earn their obedience a piece of cake in paradise? The noble is worried about the truth, and the god who is against the truth is not the god of the noble.

You know you're nuts, don't you?

 

[rupol2000]

By the way, in some religions predators were just considered the product of the god of evil, his flesh on earth

 

[Carl in Michigan]

By the way, in some religions predators were just considered the product of the god of evil, his flesh on earth

Some (most) religions are from the world who follows Satan, the god of this world

 

[rupol2000]

Some (most) religions are from the world who follows Satan, the god of this world

Everything was much more complicated there than the adherents of the religions that were simply imposed on them from above think.

As for specifically "Satan" and his image, he was created by the Christian Church in the Middle Ages, in many respects borrowing his features from the good god of the Celts Saman, All Saints Day comes from the holiday dedicated to Saman. The heavenly Father and the name of the Devil were borrowed from the ancient Aryan Heavenly Father, Dyaus Pitar, and the main ritual of Christians, the Eucharist, originated from Dionysus, and then goes back to chthonic cults like the Greek titans, serpentine gods, who were considered the personification of evil in the East.
The very main god of Christians in Gnosticism was clearly associated with the god of evil, the Demiurge.
The etymology of the word "God" is similar to the king of the underworld Hades, the phonetic version of this word in the Slavic languages means reptile.

 

[rupol2000]

In general, it is strange for me to hear in this context references to Christianity, which drowned Europe in blood, burned astronomers and innocent women, owned half-starved slaves, tortured and gagged, they did as much evil as the Bolsheviks hardly did. This is a very dubious benchmark for the concept of "good".
And with all this, they still dare to reproach someone with some kind of "Satan"
When it would be worth it day and night to beg forgiveness for the innocent murdered

 

[rupol2000]

By the way, it is very likely that the word Satan comes just from Saman, there is only one letter different, moreover, the one that could mean both "t" and "m" in writing.

 

[rupol2000]

And the word "witch" also did not mean anything bad, it is the same word as "watch", only changed by inflection at the root. This grammar forms still in use in irregular verbs. These are the original Indo-European inflections, which were previously in both Old English and Latin.

So, we can reasonably assume that they burned not for "connection with evil spirits", but simply for knew something, was wise, remembered history. It is no secret that Christian church welcomed ignorance and blind faith, their ideal is the holy fool(fools for Christ).

 

[rupol2000]

By the way, it is also interesting that the word "holly" is very similar to the inflection "hell". In Slavic languages this word has a completely different origin, it comes from the root "svet" and means light.

For some unknown reason, in its direct meaning, this root has disappeared from English at all. It also comes from the Vedic, for example "sarasvatī". In Slavic languages, this is a very common root, and most of the words of the church attributes and hierarchy itself come from it.

PS Though the root still remains, for example "switch"
PS That's right, "holly" is literally "hellish", it's more obvious from the phrase "All-Hallows-Even"
PS However, it could have come from the Gauls, according to one version it is a synonym for the Celts. But in this case, the word "hell" literally means "celtic"

 

[rupol2000]

The very word Celts is also most likely substituted, because "Celt" also means "ax", and among the Celts the ax did not play a big role in their weapons, it is on the contrary, the old Europeans were all armed with stone axes. Celtic chasing mainly with the attributes of horsemen, and there axes do not fit at all

 

[rupol2000]

Everything, I understood where this word came from. It has nothing to do with either hell or the Celts, it meant "solar". God Helios comes from the same root.

There was simply a forgery in the name of "hell" in the sence "underground".

 

[rupol2000]

That is why there is a collision between "Hallows" / "holly" and "Hell"
Here is the same situation as with the Devil/Divine

 

[buttercup]

warning, long reply ahead, lol...

But, who are "others"? The biblical injunction is universally believed to apply to human - human relations.

I’m glad you asked! When it comes to whether or not we should give animals moral consideration, from a biblical perspective I think we need to look at the big picture….God’s word as a whole, God’s nature, and God’s intent and ultimate plan for creation.

The animals that people needlessly kill with such cruelty were lovingly created by God, they were part of God's original creation which He said is “very good” (Genesis 1:31) And in the beginning it is very clear that animals were not created to be food, both humans and animals were given a vegetarian diet (Genesis 1:29-30) because God’s intent was (and is) peace and harmony among all creation.

That peace and harmony in the beginning will be restored in the future, because that is God's intent... as stated in the prophetic scriptures. (Isaiah 11:6-9. etc)

Also, God made covenants not only with human beings, but with animals as well. The fact that God would make a covenant with the animals shows that God values animals. They are not mere objects.

Those points in and of themselves are enough to show that animals should be given moral consideration, because God loves and cares about animals. And that’s not even getting into the tons and tons of scriptures on mercy, love, kindness, gentleness, justice, etc.

We aren't compelled to hold animals as moral equal to humans.

It's not about holding animals as moral equals to humans. No one made that claim. It's about treating them with the respect and love that they deserve as creations of God and sentient beings who want to live and enjoy life, just as much as we do!

Animals don't have to be our equal in order to be treated with kindness, love and respect.

They can feel pain, they have emotions. They suffer, they can feel a range of emotions like joy, fear, anger, boredom, curiosity, playfulness, and love.

Animals (at least the ones we eat)have no moral code,

That is debatable, but even if that is true, that is all the more reason to treat them with kindness, because unlike humans, they are innocent. If they are not moral agents, then they haven’t done wrong, because they don’t live by the moral code we live by. They are not only innocent, but at our mercy… Which reminds me of a quote:




The fact that WE, as human beings do have a moral code and understand right from wrong is all the more reason to act in a more civilized, non-violent and merciful way…. Not like savages.

they aren't self-actualized, they don't interact with humans except to see us as food -- literal food in the case of predators, providers of food in the case of domesticated animals.

I'm not sure how you're defining self actualized, but animals are individuals, they have a strong will to live, they want to enjoy life, they have families like we do, they have friendships like we do, they have individual personalities like we do, and as was stated before, they have emotions and the ability to feel pain and suffer. Why would you want to cause suffering when you don’t have to?

As for your comment about animals not interacting with humans, that is absurd, that is plainly and observably false. And not just dogs and cats, but other animals as well, if they were given a chance.

However, if you're looking for a biblical injunction to support my choice of diet ... look no further.

“Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

No, no, no, you are absolutely wrong and it's easy to prove that you are wrong on this one. The fact that we were given dominion over the animals needs to be looked at in the context of the previous verse and the very next verse. In the previous verse, as you posted, our dominion is prefaced by us being image-bearers of God. Therefore we are not supposed to act like tyrants or self-serving, ungodly dictators… On the contrary, our dominion must be in the image of God, which is LOVE! Mercy. Kindness.

Secondly, and this is very important for you to grasp, if you are claiming that dominion automatically means we can eat animals… it doesn’t, and that's because when we were given dominion over the animals, IN THE VERY NEXT VERSE God gave us our diet, which was vegetarian!

So our dominion has to be viewed in the context of two very important things:

1. us being image bearers of God (God is good and merciful and loving and kind)
2. the diet that was given to us at the same time were given dominion... not a diet that involves violence, killing and exploitation, but a peaceful healthy diet that comes from the earth, a vegetarian diet, as clearly stated in Genesis 1:29.

Btw, I wrote a blog post on the topic of dominion, I hope you will read it by clicking here.



To sum this up, it was never God's intent for human beings to exploit the hell out of animals and use them in a selfish, callous self-serving way.

 Animals were not put here for our own selfish reasons. Although God’s intent was for animals to be our companions, even that does not mean they were put here for us, because everything God created he created for HIM. Animals have value apart from us, because they are valued and loved by God. Even if human beings didn't exist at all, animals would still have value because their value is not in their usefulness to us… But in the fact that they are creations of God and loved by God.

 

[fncceo]

...in the beginning it is very clear that animals were not created to be food, both humans and animals were given a vegetarian diet (Genesis 1:29-30) because God’s intent was (and is) peace and harmony among all creation.

You seem to be ignoring that a good portion of scripture is dedicated to rules concerning the slaughtering and consumption of animals. There is an entire book of Talmud dedicated to just such rules.

I have no opinion on how you choose to interpret the mitzvot but, if I'm looking for advice on interpretation of the scriptures, I will consult an expert.

I h

 

[rupol2000]

Another reason not to eat meat is the horizontal transmission of inheritance. By the physiology and biochemistry human idential to pork, and here the affect eating pork meat. While you eat pork, pork eat you and your nucleotides

 

[rupol2000]

 

[fncceo]

While you eat pork, pork eat you and your nucleotides

Yummm!

 

[rupol2000]

Yummm!

In any case, there is no other explanation for this. Assuming only that Paleolithic pig breeders were directly interbred with pigs.

 

[rupol2000]

You know that human insulin is closest to that of pigs, that the cardiovascular system is similar, that the heart and kidneys of a pig are practically suitable for transplantation to humans, that many people accumulate fat just as well as pigs, that the biochemical composition of muscle tissue is similar and the like.
Humanity, or maybe a part of it, is like a pig in the shell of a primate. Morphologically, man is a primate, and inside him is a pig.
Besides there are questions about Rh negative blood, which is not found in primates.

 

[fncceo]

Assuming only that Paleolithic pig breeders were directly interbred with pigs.

In addition to many other things, you don't seem to know how biology works.