Jesus Christ-The First Animal Rights Activist

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Anyone who studies the Bible knows that Jesus Christ was a champion for the underdog. He hung out with the lowly which in biblical times included tax collectors, sinners, and women. However, historians and most Christians typically overlook the fact that Jesus was also was a champion for animals. By examining scripture we can see that although the ministry of Christ was targeted at humanity, he interacted compassionately with animals though out his lifetime and he may have been somewhat of a vegetarian.
Continue reading the article here. (http://ezinearticles.com/?Jesus-Christ-The-First-Animal-Rights-Activist&id=473877)

Tell us what you think.

[dk]

How can you be "somewhat of a vegetarian" when you eat fish?

I'll read this later. Just finished reading an 11 page essay and my eyes are like "nooooooooooooooooo" right now...

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I'm not completely sure, but I think there are different levels of vegetarianism. Some eat fish, eggs, dairy. Some just eggs and dairy. Others dairy only as an animal source of food. Some forgo even the dairy.

[dk]

If I wanted to substitude something, could I be a vegetarian and eat beef, eggs, and dairy instead of fish, eggs, and dairy? Because I like beef a whole lot more than fish and I'm pretty sure I could give up all other forms of meat.

I just think it'd be pretty sweet to be like "I'm a vegetarian" while I'm chowing down on a steak.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Yes, there are different kinds of vegetarians, however, still eating fish is not one of them -- though some try to make it so.

As for Jesus, there are only a few times he is shown to be offering or eating meat. Two that stick out in my memory are:


When he orders his men to cast in the nets into the water so they could feed the multitudes that had came to listen to him.
When he appears to his deciples after his resurection and asks them for some meat to eat.


As for the first instance, there is some controversy that the translation of fish could be wrong -- that in fact what is pulled from the ocean and divided amongst the multitude is what is referred to as "fish grass" i.e. seaweed.

As for the asking of meat to be fed after his resurrection and appearance to his deciples, this passage is highly suspect as having been inserted later as a way to weaken different sects and their practices for in favor of another. While many believe that Jesus was a Nazarine (perhaps the reason to insert meat eating into the story) there are also those who believe he was an Essene. Essenes did not eat meat.

I don't think there is a final difinitive answer on the point but it is an interesting one to peck at.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Some Buddhists I used to chat with years ago boiled their vegetarian philosophy down to this, "We don't eat anything with eyes."

[dk]

Some Buddhists I used to chat with years ago boiled their vegetarian philosophy down to this, "We don't eat anything with eyes."
According to this, wouldn't some fish be acceptable and others not? I'm sure there are more examples.

[P_chan]

Wow anything to support your agenda huh?

Now you'd have to believe in jesus to get anything from this. I have a hard time believing this article. Could jesus have been a real person? Maybe, but that's a whole new topic entirely.


I'm intrested in your take on this TP. If I recall correctly, your not a very religious person. So do you think this article has some credit? Or maybe you think that jesus was a real person, but not who he said he was.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Wow anything to support your agenda huh?

Now you'd have to believe in jesus to get anything from this. I have a hard time believing this article. Could jesus have been a real person? Maybe, but that's a whole new topic entirely.


I'm intrested in your take on this TP. If I recall correctly, your not a very religious person. So do you think this article has some credit? Or maybe you think that jesus was a real person, but not who he said he was.
I came across an interesting article and thought I would share, and see what others thought about it. That's hardly an agenda. Also, in many of these related threads, I've shown quite clearly where I diverge from TP's position on several key points. That again doesn't seem to be an agenda. Just discussing what interests me with whoever wants to join. Hearing others opinions, and the information they use to support their opinions. Learning from all that. Why do you participate?

[P_chan]

I'm not talking about your agenda. I'm talking about the agenda of the author who wrote the article. Wasn't making a stab at you. I thought that since you weren't saying anything about your own opinion on the article, just putting information out there, you knew that I wasn't directly addressing you. Sorry, should have worded it better.

I'm here for the exact same reasons as you. So you didn't 'learn' me anything. Plus it helps me once I'm bored.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Sorry, should have worded it better.
No problem.

I'm here for the exact same reasons as you. So you didn't 'learn' me anything. Plus it helps me once I'm bored.
I wasn't trying to "learn you" anything. I'm here to learn for myself. I enjoy the discussions. If I see something I think is not correct, I point it out. If someone see's where I'm mistaken, they point it out. I try out my debating skills. Win some, lose some. Reassess and reevaluate. Sometimes just friendly discussion. Sometimes heated debate. At the end of the day, I don't take any of it personally. But I do like the opportunity to improve my debate skills and learn. The main problem I find is there are few people willing to engage in honest debate. They either freak out and explode in four-letter frenzies, or circle the wagons and refuse to let any new ideas in to challenge their thinking.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

According to this, wouldn't some fish be acceptable and others not? I'm sure there are more examples.
I suppose they could technically eat that Mexican cave fish that lives in total darkness and has evolved not to develop any eyes, though I'm not aware that any are fished for human consumption. There are also some species of crustaceans, insects, salamanders, and spiders that have also lost their eyes in the process of evolving in total darkness for thousands of years. Another exception if those folks are inclined to search out and eat those things. But I think their intended meaning was they don't eat animals of any type.

[dk]

But I think their intended meaning was they don't eat animals of any type.
This is how misunderstandings develop! :D

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

This is how misunderstandings develop! :D
Not in this case. We were friends for about eight years, so I got to see how they lived their lives. They practiced what they preached.

Misunderstandings can happen, but they're much more likely when you can't speak face-to-face:)

[dk]

Yeah, I was just being sarcastic. It was the whole "we don't eat animals with eyes" followed by "no, wait, what we really mean is we don't eat animals". Two completely different things.

I don't beat children who have parents.

No, wait, what I really mean is I don't beat children.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Yeah, I was just being sarcastic. It was the whole "we don't eat animals with eyes" followed by "no, wait, what we really mean is we don't eat animals". Two completely different things.

I don't beat children who have parents.

No, wait, what I really mean is I don't beat children.
Well, in your sarcasm you made a mistake. They didn't say they don't eat animals with eyes. They said they don't eat anything with eyes. It was their cute way of saying they don't eat animals. Yes, you and I can surf the 'Net and come up with exceptions, find a few animals that don't have eyes. They were not those sort of people. Just a sweet older couple, who didn't eat animals. You're more than welcome to say you don't like their turn of phrase, but don't put words in my mouth.

[dk]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm poking fun at a phrase.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm poking fun at a phrase.
One that you made up.:rolleyes:

[dk]

Sorry, I missed one word. My bad. Pretty sure just about anyone would get my point.

[Muku]

Sorry, I missed one word. My bad. Pretty sure just about anyone would get my point.
I got it....hey dk question here does TP have two accounts on JU?

Or is their a clone lurking here?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I got it....hey dk question here does TP have two accounts on JU?

Or is their a clone lurking here?
Ah, interesting. Meat eaters can pal around and back-slaps every post where someone make's a witty quip, but when a small number of people pose serious questions and ask for people to defend their statements, your nose gets outta joint. Nankurunai sa.

[dk]

Nah, it's not TP.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Any more questions?

[Muku]

Ah, interesting. Meat eaters can pal around and back-slaps every post where someone make's a witty quip, but when a small number of people pose serious questions and ask for people to defend their statements, your nose gets outta joint. Nankurunai sa.

My nose is very fine thank you.:D

You however, to me at least, have one certain trait in your posts that is very similar to TP and that is being very pedantic in your replies to posts on points that really do not matter.

Hence the sarcasm and question to dk, which he answered quite well.:D

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Thanks for the compliments! You say potatoe (probably a Dan Quayle fan), I say potato. God is in the details...

[Fonze]

You however, to me at least, have one certain trait in your posts that is very similar to TP and that is being very pedantic in your replies to posts on points that really do not matter.



Thats what I thought too. E said he doesn't agree with most of TP's views, but that he's playing the devils advocate. Well E you play it good almost to good and TP seems to be somewhat absent were you're on a roll.

Keep up the good TP/eelecurb.

[Fonze]

On the Jesus part I don't believe he was just an animal rights activist or should be labeled as one. I believe he was all living thing activist.

[P_chan]

No problem.


I wasn't trying to "learn you" anything. I'm here to learn for myself. I enjoy the discussions. If I see something I think is not correct, I point it out. If someone see's where I'm mistaken, they point it out. I try out my debating skills. Win some, lose some. Reassess and reevaluate. Sometimes just friendly discussion. Sometimes heated debate. At the end of the day, I don't take any of it personally. But I do like the opportunity to improve my debate skills and learn. The main problem I find is there are few people willing to engage in honest debate. They either freak out and explode in four-letter frenzies, or circle the wagons and refuse to let any new ideas in to challenge their thinking.

You were obviously trying to 'learn me' something because you said so in your previous post. You said "learning from all that" which tells me that you were trying to 'learn' me something.

Ah, interesting. Meat eaters can pal around and back-slaps every post where someone make's a witty quip, but when a small number of people pose serious questions and ask for people to defend their statements, your nose gets outta joint. Nankurunai sa.

Uh oh are you going to start playing the victim like TP too? No one is ganging up on you. The vegan/vegetarian (sp) lifestyle is exactly that, a lifestyle. People made that choice, and I choose to eat meat. My beef, like many others here, with vegan types is some tell us our choice is wrong and theirs is right. So why are they right? Because they believe themsleves to be? If someone thinsk like that, that person is a hypocrite.

I'm not going around trying to convert people to my lifestlye. I just defend it once someone calls it unjust.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

You were obviously trying to 'learn me' something because you said so in your previous post. You said "learning from all that" which tells me that you were trying to 'learn' me something.
I question your reading comprehension. That part of my post was completely self-referential.

BTW, nankurunai sa can be loosely translated to que sera sera, so I most definitely was not playing victim. Just an observation.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Thats what I thought too. E said he doesn't agree with most of TP's views, but that he's playing the devils advocate. Well E you play it good almost to good and TP seems to be somewhat absent were you're on a roll.

Keep up the good TP/eelecurb.
I did say I don't agree with all of TP's points, and I am somewhat more moderate in my AR views than he is. However, I also said I tend to agree with him more than I agree with the unabashed meat-eaters, and that I find he can debate both more politely and more effectively than the majority of your bunch. On occassion, I do like to play devil's advocate, such as when I pressed TP for info on his pet food feelings in some thread or another (don't recall if I got an answer). I don't see TP around much recently, but his job is probably not quite as flexible and relaxed as mine.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

On the Jesus part I don't believe he was just an animal rights activist or should be labeled as one. I believe he was all living thing activist.
That is actually a very good point.

[P_chan]

I question your reading comprehension. That part of my post was completely self-referential.

BTW, nankurunai sa can be loosely translated to que sera sera, so I most definitely was not playing victim. Just an observation.

Uh oh here come the low brow beat around the bush insults that are signatures of one of our other users. I should questioning your reading comprehension because you did the exact same thing to me just a little while ago.

:edit: For the record I'm not saying TP and eel are the same person.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Now you'd have to believe in jesus to get anything from this.

Agreed. But the personal belief of the one using the Bible or Jesus to address Christians is irrelevant, for they are coming to the Bible to address Christians on their own terms and, therefore, Christians are obliged (figuratively) to focus on the arguments using their Book that is being used to addressed them.

Look:

Atheist: Jesus loved animals.
Xtian: You are an atheist. You don't know what you are talking about.

~~~~~~~~~~

Atheist: Jesus died for our sins.
Xtian: You are an atheist. You don't know what you are talking about.

Again, what the messenger is irrelevant. The content should be addressed on their own merit or lack of.

I'm intrested in your take on this TP.

Everyone always is interested in my take on most threads I create or enter. My opinions on animals are especially sought out.

If I recall correctly, your not a very religious person. So do you think this article has some credit?

Yes, for Christians this article does have credit. They need to reflect on it and address the points brought up if they do not agree with it. I am well aware of the points relating to man/god/animals in the bible and how they are/can be connected to call Xtians to a reappraisel on that dynamic.

Or maybe you think that jesus was a real person, but not who he said he was.

Whether I believe he was real or not is irrelevant to Christians. I can use the Bible to meet them on their own ground for discussing what is between its covers. Anyone who knows me well know I am quite fond of religio/Biblical discussion and have strong beliefs on it. I read the Bible often and enjoy it immensely, and know its pages quite well. I have yet to share that or make it known yet in any concrete form on this incarnation of the Forums.

I am sure some of you are surprised I have not yet done so.

[DougP]

Since I'm not a religeous person on any level the overall subject of the article is of no concern for me. I do think that the title is rather incorrect because whether Jesus (if such a man really exsisted) was a vegetarian/ AR activist or not I highly doubt he was the first.

The Greek mathematician Pythagoras was a vegetarian - vegetarians were called Pythagoreans up until the 1800's. Plato the Greek philosopher was also a vegetarian. These two men alone lived long before Jesus supposedly walked the earth.

Buddists seem to be very much for Animal Rights. They have been around longer than Christianity. There is a common belief that all Buddhists are vegetarians. In fact, this is not entirely true. The reason people believe Buddhists follow a strict vegetarian diet stems from two basic principles. The first is a belief in reincarnation. Buddhists believe that after death, the soul of a human may inhabit an animal; therefore, one would think they would abstain from killing animals for food. However, it is ok to eat an animal that died accidentally.

The second argument for vegetarianism comes from the prohibition against harming any living thing which is at the core of the Buddhist philosophy. There is at least one branch of Buddhism requires monks to beg for food, and to eat everything they are given. This includes meat (with a few restrictions).

Whether or not Buddists are or have been strictly vegetarian they seem like better candidates for the title The First Animal Rights Activist(s)
Even the ancient Greek philosopher Plato or the mathematician Pythagoras should be considered rather than Jesus.

The other problem I have is the author, Kate Garvey. Although her article was well writen and brought some interesting points to light I can't find it anymore credible than the counter arguments that may come from the local church. Both sides seemed to be too emotionally attached to their beliefs to write or say something objective. She has writen a few books on animal care/euthanasia etc with the exception of one about Real Estate Investment.

I guess I might be alone on this when I say its hard to believe the article wasn't writen with a biased goal in mind. It would be like trying to believe a statement or finding from an "independent" study group funded by Bush.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Thanks for the compliments! You say potatoe (probably a Dan Quayle fan), I say potato. God is in the details...

Exactly, E!

Some such as Uchi want to wave away the details. The details have a way of not going away, though, and those are the things that keep ideas, concepts, and theories in the spotlight for further review and refinement so that the heart of the matter can be zeroed in on and addressed in as total form as possible.

Our civilization is brought to reality on the details of milimeters that support our institutions and the grand philosophies and ideas that first envisioned them.