***I had prime rib for dinner...medium rare. I'm still smacking my lips.
***BTW, the old films shown on that web site are not typical of the meat
industry.
You know that for sure? you've visited all the plants in the meat
industry?
Your lips will be smacking with colon cancer one day. By the way, how
do you know that cow wasn't diseased and lame? The USDA has lower
standards than you realize. These factory farms will do the absolute
minimum they can get away with and they get away with a lot because
consumers are essentially blindly eating in the dark.
***Here's something for you to chew on, how do you know, as a vegetarian,
that the lettuce you eat wasn't urinated on by some illegal alien field
worker who doesn't get bathroom breaks? This was the cause of at least two
eColi outbreaks last year.
***There are abuses, and there are good things, about all aspects of the
food industry.
I grow a lot of my own vegetables in my back yard. Nevertheless, one
should always wash their lettuce and other produce before eating it.
You can't wash out the disease, steroids (natural or not), and other
ingredients in red meat that's harmful. This is really a side note when
the matter at hand is the brutality involved in the industry. You might
be interested in this article from a conservative source, Al:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_05_23/cover.html
> ***There are abuses, and there are good things, about all aspects of the
> food industry.
I'm sure someone could find something good about the German
concentration camps.
It is very saddening what government interference in the food markets
has done to both animals and our food supply.
Some stores do provide free-range beef and chicken, look for the words
free range. Even better is grass fed free range cattle, which don't
require enzymes and antibiotics just to digest their food(cattle are
supposed to eat grass, not corn or grains).
They are of course, more expensive.
***Then buy "free range" or grass fed beef. There's plenty of "organic" beef
on the market that's safe. Also, cook beef thoroughly to kill pathogens.
This is really a side note when
> the matter at hand is the brutality involved in the industry. You might
> be interested in this article from a conservative source, Al:
> http://www.amconmag.com/2005_05_23/cover.html
***What's a non-brutal way to kill a cow for butchering?
***Isn't it amazing how God goofed in giving us beef, pork, chickens,
turkeys, and all other sorts of animal stuff to eat?
***Do you eat fish?
***BTW, vegetable gardening is my hobby. When I was a journalist back in the
1970s, I wrote a weekly vegetable gardening column for the Sunday paper. The
newspaper sponsored my getting a master gardening certificate from the USDA,
Cornell University.
>
>
>> ***There are abuses, and there are good things, about all aspects of the
>> food industry.
>
> I'm sure someone could find something good about the German concentration
> camps.
***Yeah, some Jews lived.
***
Anyone ready to invoke Godwin's Rule now?
--
Ty
Who is mostly just a
slightly skewed
Donna Reed
War against a foreign country only happens when the
moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.
~~George Orwell
***And, if you've ever eaten it, a lot tougher.
***I've eaten Japanese Kobe beef. It's absolutely the most tender because of
its extreme marbeling. Has anyone else ever tried it? (It's expensive as
hades.)
David wrote:
Every once in a while, we enjoy free range buffalo burgers, very expensive.
Urine? You sure about that? I suspect it was a very different waste
product that caused the e-coli outbreak. ;-)
>***There are abuses, and there are good things, about all aspects of the
>food industry.
Which, as Orthodox Christians, we should be concerned about, in our
designated role as stewards of our environment. Somehow, you seem
to miss this part....
-Stephen
--
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Stephen Adams
malchu...@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
***You are right. I guess subconsciously I didn't want Joe to barf all over
his keyboard!!
>
>>***There are abuses, and there are good things, about all aspects of the
>>food industry.
>
> Which, as Orthodox Christians, we should be concerned about, in our
> designated role as stewards of our environment. Somehow, you seem
> to miss this part....
***I'm an avid vegetable gardener (Master Gardener Certification, USDA
Cooperative Extension, Cornell University). The largest garden I ever had
was 60 x 60, all planted in raised row-beds some three feet wide. We
practiced the French intensive gardening technique.
***But I still like my rack of lamb, prime rib of beef, and stuffed squab!
Not at all, Al. I posted this as a sober reminder of what's going on in
this industry and I would think any compassionate Christian would at
least pause a moment and reflect. There's nothing conservative about
factory farming. I'm still baffled why this doesn't break every animal
cruelty law. I surely couldn't hang a German Shepherd by his hind legs
in my backyard, hose him down with scalding steam to remove the hair,
and then stab his throat and watch him slowly bleed to death while
writhing in pain. Factory farming is an innovation and a massively
horrific one at that. It robs the dignity of the animals, the person
conducting the brutality, and the consumer who doesn't want to think
about it. You've expressed at times noble intentions and actions in
your personal life which I find commendable. We all at times make light
of gruesome facts of life because sometimes it's too awful to grasp and
I hope that's the case in this situation. But you make comments that
make me wonder. You've been Orthodox a lot longer than myself, but I
can say that with each year that goes by I'm becoming more cognizant of
the suffering of others, human or not, and my sinful role in it all.
Rather than being a source of amusement, it's heart breaking.
***Animals have no souls and only respond to stimuli. I doubt there's a pig
alive who thinks and considers "that my dignity has been violated."
You've expressed at times noble intentions and actions in
> your personal life which I find commendable. We all at times make light
> of gruesome facts of life because sometimes it's too awful to grasp and I
> hope that's the case in this situation. But you make comments that make
> me wonder. You've been Orthodox a lot longer than myself, but I can say
> that with each year that goes by I'm becoming more cognizant of the
> suffering of others, human or not, and my sinful role in it all. Rather
> than being a source of amusement, it's heart breaking.
***I cannot possibly disagree with what you have written. But, I still love
a full rack of slow-cooked BB ribs!
***Does this happen in all cases? Maybe not, especially in noncommercial
operations.
Al
"OrthodoxNews" <Orth...@nospam04.net> wrote in message
news:g0mg0...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Not true. Go back and watch the clip I posted. It's routine and not a
rare instance.
You're living in abstractions and denial. It would do you good to read
that article (http://www.amconmag.com/2005_05_23/cover.html) by Matthew
Scully, who used to be Bush's speech writer. He also put out a book on
the subject called _Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of
Animals, and the Call to Mercy_.
"Do not breathe malice, vengeance, and murder even towards animals...
Remember, that animals are called to life by God's mercy that they may
enjoy their existence as much as they can during their short life. 'The
Lord is good to all.'(Ps. cxlv.9) Do not beat them if they are
unreasonable, or if they play tricks, or if any of your property is
damaged by them. 'Blessed is the man who is merciful to his beast.'"
~ St. John of Kronstadt
>
> You've expressed at times noble intentions and actions in
>> your personal life which I find commendable. We all at times make
>> light of gruesome facts of life because sometimes it's too awful to
>> grasp and I hope that's the case in this situation. But you make
>> comments that make me wonder. You've been Orthodox a lot longer than
>> myself, but I can say that with each year that goes by I'm becoming
>> more cognizant of the suffering of others, human or not, and my sinful
>> role in it all. Rather than being a source of amusement, it's heart
>> breaking.
>
>
> ***I cannot possibly disagree with what you have written. But, I still
> love a full rack of slow-cooked BB ribs!
--
"If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve
experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign." -
William F. Buckley, Jr.
***Sorry, but one clip does not a routine or a norm make. Your suggestion
that it represents the norm is like saying an Orthodox priest who gives
communion to a nonOrthodox represents the norm in Orthodoxy.
***This is the way I treat my dog...who responds nicely to my being nice to
her. But, God put animals on the earth for man to eat. They do not have
souls and are incapable of rationalizing.
They weren't put on this earth to be tortured nor to have denied them
the right to enjoy their existence and natural environment. You think
otherwise. Fine. Leave it at that.
--
"When the histories are written, I’ll bet that the Old Right and the New
Left are put down as having a lot in common and that the people in the
middle will be the enemy." - Barry Goldwater
Yeah, right. The elaborate machinery for hanging the animals by their
legs, the conveyor system, and the blade sticking out to slice their
necks as they pass by was just a one off thing, right? You're a real
hoot, Al. I have bookmarked many clips taken from many factory farms,
some of which has been presented as evidence to legislatures, showing
the exact same horrific torture, but it's not going to sway you. Go
ahead and believe what you want so you can sleep better at night (at
least not until the colon and prostate cancers kicks in).
***Slab bacon...extra thick! Yummy!
***What would be a humane way in your way of thinking, to slaughter animals
for market?
***The Old Testament is filled with passages about the slaughter of live
sheep.
***Which amendment of the Constitution protects animals rights.
***To a pig born in a pen, that is the pig's natural environment. And I'm
sure it was happy eating all that fattening food before the inevitable...BBQ
ribs for ol' Al.
***I have a Chinese dog...half Chow, half Sharpei. It's living in my house.
Should I send it to China to enjoy life in its natural environment?
Animals may not be capable of higher reasoning, but they are capable
of emotions. Whether they have souls depends on how we define "soul."
There's an animating spirit in every living thing. We should at least
respect that.
Let us know how the initial exam was when it's over, Al...
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/images/ency/fullsize/15804.jpg
And then post the photo of that extra thick slab of your colon they had
to dig out...
http://www.taconichills.k12.ny.us/webquests/noncomdisease/Coloncancerpic.jpg
Something tells me that after losing that last several inches of colon,
we'll see a new and improved Al Green. :-D
***I think all that you have said is valid if we keep in mind that it is
because we want animals, especially our pets, to be this way. We are
applying human characteristics to our animal friends.
***I'm going to be 67, and although I'll have spinal surgery tomorrow for
arthritic problems in the lumbar region, the colon is clear. PSA tests have
always been 1.1 or lower.
>
> And then post the photo of that extra thick slab of your colon they had to
> dig out...
> http://www.taconichills.k12.ny.us/webquests/noncomdisease/Coloncancerpic.jpg
***I cannot speak for idiots who do not chew their food before swallowing.
Good grief! I also love prime rib medium rare that's 1 to 1-1/23 inches
thick. Put a little cracked pepper A-1 sauce on it...
>
> Something tells me that after losing that last several inches of colon,
> we'll see a new and improved Al Green. :-D
***Well, it will make the waste material exit more quickly!!!
***Actually, Joe, I don't have a problem with you or anyone else not eating
meat, fowl, or fish. And you shouldn't have a problem with folks like me who
eat all three.
Al
Al, I think you have missed the point here. No one is objecting to the
eating of meat--only to cruel and inhumane treatment of the animals
raised for that purpose.
(BTW Did you know that the word "animal" is derived from the latin
word for "soul", and literally means "that which has a soul".)
Dan
Dan
***That a a few other deritives, too. Unfortunately, the Church teaches
otherwise.
>
> Al, I think you have missed the point here. No one is objecting to the
> eating of meat--only to cruel and inhumane treatment of the animals
> raised for that purpose.
>
> (BTW Did you know that the word "animal" is derived from the latin
> word for "soul", and literally means "that which has a soul".)
>
> Dan
>
Exactly, Dan. Unfortunately, when one's argument is weak, it becomes
imperative to engage in redirection.
***So, you are saying that the Church's teaching is wrong?
What church do you go to -- the same one as Marilyn Manson?
***I thought you knew it was the Orthodox Church.
excuse me? I have it from my priest that Orthodoxy holds that animals
are or have souls just a different kind than human.
By the way, animals were NOT put on earth for man to eat, we were
only given permission to eat them AFTER Noah.
As for anthropomorphosizing, the presence of emotions is precisely
why animals can be trained.
In any case no one HAS a soul, one IS a soul, the body is just the
denser segment of it. Genesis said Adam became a living soul.
People who are close to animals are better able to observe and
notice things than people who are not. And personality and
emotion and calculation, politics, even a kind of territoriality like
nationalism, things we think of as strictly spiritual things, are in
fact fleshly and are readily to be observed in horses and dogs
and cats and so forth.
Justina
Actually, this is one of the areas in which I part company with
Orthodoxy.
It's more honest to reject Orthodoxy altogether than to try to force
it into the mold of your own preconceptions. Your priest is trying to
have it both ways.
From "The Orthodox Way" by Kallistos Ware (p. 48):
"Animals also possess a soul...but in man's case, the soul is endowed
with consciousness; it is a rational soul, possessing the capacity for
abstract thought, and the ability to advance by discursive argument
from premises to a conclusion. These powers are present in animals, if
at all, only to a very limited degree."
"...it is spirit, the "breath" from God (Gen. 2:7), which the animals
lack...." Ware then goes on to make a careful distinction between
"spirit" and "Spirit", and adds: "yet the two are intimately
connected, for it is through his spirit that man apprehends God and
enters into communion with him."
Alexander Arnakis wrote:
Then I take it you have no need for my special Romanian recipe for
stuffed bear paws? Stifado?
>
>
>
Timothy Ware is a fallible authority. Before he was ordained, he was
an amateur theologian. (His real field was Classical Studies.)
The above quoted except is the height of sophistry. Like Infowolf's
priest, he's trying to have it both ways. The operative point is that
only humans have a soul in any sense that matters. It comes down to
the definition of "soul." It's very slippery logic to define the same
term in different ways during the same discussion.
The only reason I can eat meat, however, is that other people do the
killing of the animals for me. If I had to actually take the animal's
life, I couldn't do it.
Yes, it is a question of definition. Even with regard to human beings,
some of the Fathers spoke only of body and soul, while others spoke of
body, soul and spirit. Both groups taught that animals have souls. The
former saw these souls as of a lesser order than the (rational) human,
and the latter saw spirit as the distinctive property of human beings.
>Ware is completely correct and his teaching coincides with the Church
>Fathers. All livings things have a "soul," but the "human soul" is quite
>different. Since man is created in the "image & likeness" of God, we are
>created differently than animals.
>
That's exactly my point -- in Orthodoxy, human beings are
*qualitatively* different from animals. Dogs don't have the same
"souls" that humans do. In an operative sense, they don't have "souls"
at all. To say that they have "souls" (but of a different kind) is
meaningless sophistry. Bottom line: Orthodoxy has no problem at all
with killing and eating animals. If animals had "souls" (in a true,
operative sense), there would be a *huge* problem with killing and
eating them.
Definitions aside, as long as we kill and eat animals, we can't
pretend that they have any kind of "soul" that matters.
nick cobb wrote:
> Ware is completely correct and his teaching coincides with the Church
> Fathers. All livings things have a "soul," but the "human soul" is
> quite different. Since man is created in the "image & likeness" of
> God, we are created differently than animals.
It is a great comfort for us all to know that our pets have souls and
are capable of love.
Alexander Arnakis wrote:
Or we can see it as evidence of our need and weakness. We are not to
disdain meat but we do not have to go overboard?
>
>
>
"That matters" is the crux of your statement. People will rationalize
killing by convincing themselves that whatever it is that they're
killing is by its very nature unworthy of enjoying its existence. How
could it be otherwise, they say? Why, the person or creature wouldn't
be in this predicament unless they somehow deserved it.
You won't find animals in the human Hereafter, according to Orthodoxy.
Personally, I think that my cats have souls. And that puts me at
variance with Orthodoxy.
More of a case can be made for killing human beings than for killing
animals. Human beings have the capacity for moral choice, and when
they do wrong, at least arguably they set themselves outside the pale
and open themselves for retribution. (Note that personally, I'm
against the death penalty on principle.)
If animals are incapable of moral choice, then they're by nature in a
state of total innocence. To kill them certainly makes no moral sense,
and can be supported only on utilitarian (that is, exploitive)
grounds. Yet we can certainly survive not eating them, or using their
bodily products. Eating meat is an unnecessary indulgence for humans.
I'd like to see the day when we cease our primitive carnivorous ways.
Exactly. The confusion is solely in respect of definition.
> In an operative sense, they don't have "souls"
> at all. To say that they have "souls" (but of a different kind) is
> meaningless sophistry.
No, it's just a case of the kind of struggling to find appropriate
terminology that has characterised the entire history of the Church.
It reminds us that human language is a clumsy, ever-changing tool.
> Bottom line: Orthodoxy has no problem at all
> with killing and eating animals.
Correct. Although the monastic discipline re. these foods has much to
tell us about the Orthodox approach to meat-eating.
>If animals had "souls" (in a true,
> operative sense), there would be a *huge* problem with killing and
> eating them.
Yes. In the case of animals (and because the word "soul" has come in
English to be identified with that which is uniquely human), what we
mean by "soul" is (roughly) "life-force" -- that which "animates".
There is, however, a difference between "permit" and "encourage". Meat-
eating has always been understood in the Church as a concession to
human weakness. My own discipline has been not to eat the flesh of
mammals, since these are the most sentient among the animals, and the
most capable of suffering.
Re. Your cat: I recently watched a beloved pet sicken with cancer and
I waited far to long to have her euthanized, because a 10-year-old in
our family could not understand the need for this. I am convinced that
these higher animals are far more than "biological machines", and that
they are deserving of respect and compassion.
Although he wasn't Orthodox, C.S. Lewis (who agreed with your usage of
the word 'soul') had some very ineteresting thoughts on this subject.
He felt the question of animal suffering was so significant problem
for Christianity that he dedicated a chapter of The Problem of Pain to
it. He wrote, "Clearly in some ways the ape and man are much more like
each other than either is like the worm". In a 1947 essay on
vivisection, he wrote:
"The Christian defender ... is very apt to say that we are entitled to
do anything we please to animals because they 'have no souls'. But
what does this mean? If it means that animals have no consciousness,
then how is this known? They certainly behave as if they had, or at
least the higher animals do. I myself am inclined to think that far
fewer animals than is supposed have what we should recognize as
consciousness. But that is only an opinion. Unless we know on other
grounds that vivisection is right we must not take the moral risk of
tormenting them on a mere opinion.
On the other hand, the statement that they 'have no souls' may mean
that they have no moral responsibilities and are not immortal. But the
absence of 'soul' in that sense makes the infliction of pain upon them
not easier but harder to justify, for it means that animals cannot
deserve pain, nor profit morally by the discipline of pain, nor be
recompensed by happiness in another life for suffering in this. ...
'Soullessness', in so far as it is relevant to the question at all, is
an argument against vivisection."
Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>On Wed, 21 May 2008 19:07:27 -0400, ++ <fri...@spambot.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It is a great comfort for us all to know that our pets have souls and
>>are capable of love.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Personally, I think that my cats have souls. And that puts me at
>variance with Orthodoxy.
>
>
Aha, you finally got what I said
>
>
>