Vegetarian & Religion
Parijata2
I read the booklet, "Jesus Was A Vegetarian, Why Aren't You?". It is a great
little booklet and I have hung onto it for years. Buddha was a vegetarian too.
What seldom is mentioned on these boards is that Krishna is a vegeatarian. I
hope that will be well received.
In the Bhagavad-Gita 9:26 He says, "If one offers Me (Krishna / God) with love
and devotion, a leaf, a flower, a fruit or water, I will accept it." The
purport goes on to say: "...One who loves Krishna will give Him whatever He
wants, and he avoids offering anything which is undesireable or unasked for.
Thus, meat, fish and eggs should not be offered to Krishna. If He deisred such
things as offerings, He would have said so. Instead He clearly requests that s
a leaf, fruit, flowers and water be given to Him, and He says of this offering,
*I will accept it,* Therefore we should understand that He will not accept
meat, fish and eggs. Vegetables, grains, fruits, milk and water are the proper
foods for human beings and are prescribed by Lord Krishna Himself. "
Just wanted to make this addition. Thanks. Pari...@aol.com
bfr...@deletethisairmail.net
On 24 Feb 1998 11:29:41 GMT, pari...@aol.com (Parijata2) wrote:
>In the Bhagavad-Gita 9:26 He says, "If one offers Me (Krishna / God) with love
>and devotion, a leaf, a flower, a fruit or water, I will accept it." The
>purport goes on to say: "...One who loves Krishna will give Him whatever He
>wants, and he avoids offering anything which is undesireable or unasked for.
>Thus, meat, fish and eggs should not be offered to Krishna. If He deisred such
>things as offerings, He would have said so. Instead He clearly requests that s
>a leaf, fruit, flowers and water be given to Him, and He says of this offering,
>*I will accept it,* Therefore we should understand that He will not accept
>meat, fish and eggs. Vegetables, grains, fruits, milk and water are the proper
>foods for human beings and are prescribed by Lord Krishna Himself. "
>
Just because I tell my friends I feel like getting a hamburger
tonight, doesn't mean that I don't want pizza or chicken. I'm not
sure how somebody can make the connection between "this is what I
want" to "since I want this, I don't want this other stuff that I
haven't even mentioned."
--------------------
The Rustler
a001...@airmail.net
Dallas, TX
First God created fools, that was for practice, Then he created Vegetarians. - Mark Twain
-------------------
Parijata2
>In the Bhagavad-Gita 9:26 He says, "If one offers Me (Krishna / God) with love
and devotion, a leaf, a flower, a fruit or water, I will accept it." The
purport goes on to say: "...One who loves Krishna will give Him whatever He
wants, and he avoids offering anything which is undesireable or unasked
such
things as offerings, He would have said so. Instead He clearly requests that s
a leaf, fruit, flowers and water be given to Him, and He says of this offering,
*I will accept it,* Therefore we should understand that He will not accept
meat, fish and eggs. Vegetables, grains, fruits, milk and water are the proper
foods for human beings and are prescribed by Lord Krishna Himself. " <<
You write: ***Just because I tell my friends I feel like getting a hamburger
tonight, doesn't mean that I don't want pizza or chicken. I'm not sure how
somebody can make the connection between "this is what I want" to "since I want
this, I don't want this other stuff that Ihaven't even mentioned."***
I think you are misunderstanding the above verse I copied out of the Gita. It
is talking about what God wants, not what you or me or the average person is
wanting or thinking about eating. That is another topic. Pari...@aol.com
Richard Bishop
In <19980224112...@ladder03.news.aol.com> pari...@aol.com
(Parijata2) writes:
>
>I read the booklet, "Jesus Was A Vegetarian, Why Aren't You?". It is a
great
>little booklet and I have hung onto it for years. Buddha was a
vegetarian too.
>What seldom is mentioned on these boards is that Krishna is a
vegeatarian. I
>hope that will be well received.
Jesus was NOT a vegetarian. I think the push to say he was is
downright deceptive and ridiculous.
>
>In the Bhagavad-Gita 9:26 He says, "If one offers Me (Krishna / God)
with love
>and devotion, a leaf, a flower, a fruit or water, I will accept it."
The
>purport goes on to say: "...One who loves Krishna will give Him
whatever He
>wants, and he avoids offering anything which is undesireable or
unasked for.
>Thus, meat, fish and eggs should not be offered to Krishna. If He
deisred such
>things as offerings, He would have said so. Instead He clearly
requests that s
>a leaf, fruit, flowers and water be given to Him, and He says of this
offering,
>*I will accept it,* Therefore we should understand that He will not
accept
>meat, fish and eggs. Vegetables, grains, fruits, milk and water are
the proper
>foods for human beings and are prescribed by Lord Krishna Himself. "
>
>Just wanted to make this addition. Thanks. Pari...@aol.com
>
Sue
Parijata2
>>
>>I read the booklet, "Jesus Was A Vegetarian, Why Aren't You?". It is a
>great
>>little booklet and I have hung onto it for years. Buddha was a
>vegetarian too.
>>What seldom is mentioned on these boards is that Krishna is a
>vegeatarian. I
>>hope that will be well received.
>
>Jesus was NOT a vegetarian. I think the push to say he was is
>downright deceptive and ridiculous.
It is NOT downright deceptive or ridiculous. Have you done any research on
this, or are you just accepting the Bible at face value? The Bible has been
tampered with, and there are shcolars who say that when Chirsts original words
are analysed, the ones we have, they do not mean meat It has been explained
that often the word *meat* was used when it didn't mean flesh products, but
just *food*. Ever hear of sweetmeat? It is a candy. How about nutmeat? It is
the *flesh* of a nut
For example: in the Bible the Greek word *broma* simply means food, but it is
often translated as meat. .Mathew 3:4: "And the same John (the Baptist) had his
raiment of camels hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was
locusts and wild honey." The word for meat here is broma, which really means
food. . Also, note that the word locusts refers to locusts beans, or carob,
also knowsn as St. John's bread.
Anyway, this is your opinion and you have a right to it, but there is much
current evidence to the opposite. Are you a vegetarian?
>
>>
>>In the Bhagavad-Gita 9:26 He says, "If one offers Me (Krishna / God)
>with love
>>and devotion, a leaf, a flower, a fruit or water, I will accept it."
>The
>>purport goes on to say: "...One who loves Krishna will give Him
>whatever He
>>wants, and he avoids offering anything which is undesireable or
>unasked for.
>>Thus, meat, fish and eggs should not be offered to Krishna. If He
>deisred such
>>things as offerings, He would have said so. Instead He clearly
>requests that s
>>a leaf, fruit, flowers and water be given to Him, and He says of this
>offering,
>>*I will accept it,* Therefore we should understand that He will not
>accept
>>meat, fish and eggs. Vegetables, grains, fruits, milk and water are
>the proper
>>foods for human beings and are prescribed by Lord Krishna Himself. "
>>
>>Just wanted to make this addition. Thanks. Pari...@aol.com
>>
>
>Sue
Thank you for your time. I do not mean anything personal.
Sincerely, Pari...@aol.com
Richard Bishop
In <19980225144...@ladder02.news.aol.com> pari...@aol.com
(Parijata2) writes:
>
>>>
>>>I read the booklet, "Jesus Was A Vegetarian, Why Aren't You?". It is
a
>>great
>>>little booklet and I have hung onto it for years. Buddha was a
>>vegetarian too.
>>>What seldom is mentioned on these boards is that Krishna is a
>>vegeatarian. I
>>>hope that will be well received.
>>
>>Jesus was NOT a vegetarian. I think the push to say he was is
>>downright deceptive and ridiculous.
>
>It is NOT downright deceptive or ridiculous. Have you done any
research on
>this, or are you just accepting the Bible at face value?
I have done quite a lot of Bible research. Are you really going to try
to convince us there was no lamb at the Last Supper? Judaic law
specified they must have lamb. Are you really going to try to convicne
us there were no fishes at the meeting where he fed the multitude with
a few loaves of bread and a few fishes? Or that he did not fill his
disciples' net with fishes?
The 'Jesus is a vegetarian' idioticy is on a par with the teetotalers'
attempt to say he never drank wine.
> The Bible has been
>tampered with, and there are shcolars who say that when Chirsts
original words
>are analysed, the ones we have, they do not mean meat It has been
explained
>that often the word *meat* was used when it didn't mean flesh
products, but
>just *food*. Ever hear of sweetmeat? It is a candy. How about nutmeat?
It is
>the *flesh* of a nut.
So what? That has no bearing on the 'loaves and fishes' or the lamb.
So lamb isn't meat and fish isn't meat..... yeah, right.
>
>For example: in the Bible the Greek word *broma* simply means food,
but it is
>often translated as meat. .Mathew 3:4: "And the same John (the
Baptist) had his
>raiment of camels hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his
meat was
>locusts and wild honey." The word for meat here is broma, which really
means
>food. . Also, note that the word locusts refers to locusts beans, or
carob,
>also knowsn as St. John's bread.
>
>Anyway, this is your opinion and you have a right to it, but there is
much
>current evidence to the opposite. Are you a vegetarian?
Actually, there is NO evidence to the contrary.
No.
>>
>>Sue
>
>Thank you for your time. I do not mean anything personal.
>Sincerely, Pari...@aol.com
>
>
Sue
Parijata2
>>I have done quite a lot of Bible research. <<
Sounds like the only research you have done with your Bible is from your church
or similar. True, I do not know, but you do sound biased.
>> Are you really going to try to convince us there was no lamb at the Last
Supper? Judaic law specified they must have lamb. Are you really going to try
to convicne us there were no fishes at the meeting where he fed the multitude
with a few loaves of bread and a few fishes? Or that he did not fill his
disciples' net with fishes? The 'Jesus is a vegetarian' idioticy is on a par
with the teetotalers' attempt to say he never drank wine.<<
I am not going to bother trying to convince you of anything.(And stop saying
us. Does everyone on this board agree with you?) The reasearch I have done
DOES say there was no meat at the last supper, but I don't feel you want to
hear. And idioticy?? Why must you name call? This is not the sign of a peaceful
Christain to me.
> The Bible has been tampered with, and there are shcolars who say that when
Chirsts original words are analysed, the ones we have, they do not mean meat
It has been explained
>that often the word *meat* was used when it didn't mean flesh
products, but just *food*. Ever hear of sweetmeat? It is a candy. How about
nutmeat? It is the *flesh* of a nut.<<
You say: >>So what? That has no bearing on the 'loaves and fishes' or the
lamb. So lamb isn't meat and fish isn't meat..... yeah, right. <<
So what???? Well, you apparently have an attitude, so why should I bother? By
the way, the fishes were really plants called fish plants, not that I expect
you would want to accept that anway. But they were considered a delicacy, and
the fisherman's wives would dive for them. And I never said lamb or fish wasn't
meat. Don't put words in my mouth. They most certainly ARE meat.
>For example: in the Bible the Greek word *broma* simply means food, but it is
often translated as meat. .Mathew 3:4: "And the same John (the Baptist) had his
raiment of camels hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was
locusts and wild honey." The word for meat here is broma, which really means
food. . Also, note that the word locusts refers to locusts beans, or carob,
also knowsn as St. John's bread
Anyway, this is your opinion and you have a right to it, but there is
much current evidence to the opposite. Are you a vegetarian? <<
You say: >>Actually, there is NO evidence to the contrary.
No.
Sue
Thank you for your time. I do not mean anything personal.
Sincerely, Pari...@aol.com<<<
>
>
I write all that and you call it no evidence???? Geesh. You do not want to hear
the truth. Ok, I can accept that, but you challenge me and yet you won't answer
my simple question. Are you a vegetarian? . Also, I can't help but wonder you
age, with that attitude. :)
Sincerely, Pari...@aol.com
Richard Bishop
In <19980225170...@ladder03.news.aol.com> pari...@aol.com
(Parijata2) writes:
>
>>>I have done quite a lot of Bible research. <<
>
>Sounds like the only research you have done with your Bible is from
your church
>or similar. True, I do not know, but you do sound biased.
Sorry, but you are wrong.
>
>>> Are you really going to try to convince us there was no lamb at the
Last
>>Supper? Judaic law specified they must have lamb. Are you really
going to try
>>to convicne us there were no fishes at the meeting where he fed the
multitude
>>with a few loaves of bread and a few fishes? Or that he did not fill
his
>>disciples' net with fishes? The 'Jesus is a vegetarian' idioticy is
on a par
>>with the teetotalers' attempt to say he never drank wine.<<
>
>I am not going to bother trying to convince you of anything.(And stop
saying
>us. Does everyone on this board agree with you?) The reasearch I have
done
>DOES say there was no meat at the last supper, but I don't feel you
want to
>hear. And idioticy?? Why must you name call? This is not the sign of a
peaceful
>Christain to me.
Where did I say I am a Christian?
I am entitled to my opinion. Jesus was not a vegetarian. Jews were
not vegetarian at that time and there is no evidence that he belonged
to any group that did not eat meat.
>
>> The Bible has been tampered with, and there are shcolars who say
that when
>>Chirsts original words are analysed, the ones we have, they do not
mean meat
>>It has been explained
>>that often the word *meat* was used when it didn't mean flesh
>>products, but just *food*. Ever hear of sweetmeat? It is a candy. How
about
>>nutmeat? It is the *flesh* of a nut.<<
>
>You say: >>So what? That has no bearing on the 'loaves and fishes' or
the
>lamb. So lamb isn't meat and fish isn't meat..... yeah, right. <<
>
>So what???? Well, you apparently have an attitude, so why should I
bother? By
>the way, the fishes were really plants called fish plants, not that I
expect
>you would want to accept that anway. But they were considered a
delicacy, and
>the fisherman's wives would dive for them. And I never said lamb or
fish wasn't
>meat. Don't put words in my mouth. They most certainly ARE meat.
???? Fish plants?
>
>>For example: in the Bible the Greek word *broma* simply means food,
but it is
>often translated as meat. .Mathew 3:4: "And the same John (the
Baptist) had his
>raiment of camels hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his
meat was
>locusts and wild honey." The word for meat here is broma, which really
means
>food. . Also, note that the word locusts refers to locusts beans, or
carob,
>also knowsn as St. John's bread
>Anyway, this is your opinion and you have a right to it, but there is
>much current evidence to the opposite. Are you a vegetarian? <<
>
>You say: >>Actually, there is NO evidence to the contrary.
You said there is much current evidence to the opposite. I said there
is NO current evidence to the opposite.
>
>No.
(PLEASE NOTE: The above is my answer to your question.
>Sue
>
>Thank you for your time. I do not mean anything personal.
>Sincerely, Pari...@aol.com<<<
>>
>>
>
>I write all that and you call it no evidence???? Geesh. You do not
want to hear
>the truth.
What truth? You made a claim. You have not backed it up.
>Ok, I can accept that, but you challenge me and yet you won't answer
>my simple question. Are you a vegetarian? .
I did answer your question. Go back and reread what I wrote. I
replied to a statement and answered a question in your last paragraph.
And I did it in order.
>Also, I can't help but wonder you
>age, with that attitude. :)
Obviously a bit older than you are.
Maturity does help.
>
>Sincerely, Pari...@aol.com
Sue
Parijata2
>>I have repeatedly made it VERY clear that I do not want ANYONE To send
me email from the talk.politics.animals group. I have received death
threats, obscene messages and harassment.
>>DO NOT SEND ME EMAIL AGAIN.
>>I have lodged a complaint with AOL about these messages and will not
allow you to continue to spam my email box.<<<
Sue
First of all, I did not know anyone sent you death threats, and I did not know
I was spamming your box since it is an option, when posting, to include the
author. I am sorry this has happened to you though. I am having a little
trouble reading all the posts, yours and mine both, so maybe that is why I did
not know. In any case, I am sorry The only reason I am able to cut and paste
this is from the letter you spammed MY box with.
WOW, I just read that you lodged a complaint to AOL. Now I don't feel sorry
anymore! All you had to do was talk to me! Well, don't worry, I wont' waste
time writing you anymore. Why on earth do you post if you don't want to hear
from people anyway? Don't answer that. I just came to this foum for some
freindly chat, and some philosophy. If you want to fight, please go pick on
someone else.
Sincerely,
Pari...@aol.com
Richard Bishop
In <19980225201...@ladder02.news.aol.com> pari...@aol.com
Sigh. Now he's posting my email.
>Sincerely,
>Pari...@aol.com
bfr...@deletethisairmail.net
On 25 Feb 1998 01:44:47 GMT, pari...@aol.com (Parijata2) wrote:
>
>I think you are misunderstanding the above verse I copied out of the Gita. It
>is talking about what God wants, not what you or me or the average person is
>wanting or thinking about eating. That is another topic. Pari...@aol.com
>
that he wants us to eat only veggies as well? Could he not have just
felt like a salad at that time? Besides, why does he need to eat if
he's god? I just don't see how that passage proves that we should
become vegetarians, if that was your original intent.
Xena Warrior Princess
On 25 Feb 1998, Richard Bishop wrote:
> In <19980224112...@ladder03.news.aol.com> pari...@aol.com
> (Parijata2) writes:
> >
> >I read the booklet, "Jesus Was A Vegetarian, Why Aren't You?". It is a
-snip-
>
> Jesus was NOT a vegetarian. I think the push to say he was is
> downright deceptive and ridiculous.
At the risk of sounding like an anti-ARA (ie: animal exploiter), what
proof do you have that Jesus did eat animal tissue? I have none to prove
either way so I keep quiet about it as should you. I think you spend a
little too much time on this group, Sue. It's time to find yourself a
hobby!
Xena (aka-k-)
Richard Bishop
In <Pine.HPP.3.95.980226...@ccshst02.cs.uoguelph.ca>
Xena Warrior Princess <mstr...@uoguelph.ca> writes:
>On 25 Feb 1998, Richard Bishop wrote:
>
>> In <19980224112...@ladder03.news.aol.com> pari...@aol.com
>> (Parijata2) writes:
>> >
>> >I read the booklet, "Jesus Was A Vegetarian, Why Aren't You?". It
is a
>
>-snip-
>>
>> Jesus was NOT a vegetarian. I think the push to say he was is
>> downright deceptive and ridiculous.
>
>At the risk of sounding like an anti-ARA (ie: animal exploiter), what
>proof do you have that Jesus did eat animal tissue?
Hebrew scholars have repeatedly posted on this group that the 'Jesus
was a vegetarian' idea is completely wrong. There were dietary
restrictions that the Hebrews lived by. None of them involved
forbidding to eat meat, just what meat and how it was to be slaughtered
and prepared.
>I have none to prove
>either way so I keep quiet about it as should you.
If you are ignorant, you should keep quiet. I do know about it.
>I think you spend a
>little too much time on this group, Sue. It's time to find yourself a
>hobby!
I really think that's none of your business.
Go away little girl and play with your dolls.
>
>Xena (aka-k-)
>
Sue
Parijata2
>On 25 Feb 1998 01:44:47 GMT, pari...@aol.com (Parijata2) wrote:
>>
>>I think you are misunderstanding the above verse I copied out of the Gita. It
is talking about what God wants, not what you or me or the average person is
wanting or thinking about eating. That is another topic. Pari...@aol.com
>>
You say: >So how do you come to the conclusion that because god wants
vegetables that he wants us to eat only veggies as well? Could he not have
just felt like a salad at that time? Besides, why does he need to eat if he's
god? I just don't see how that passage proves that we should become
vegetarians, if that was your original intent.
Well, in all honesty I am too tired at the moment to look it up in the Gita and
show you where God tells us to be vegetarians too, but I don't think you would
accept it anyway. :) But. it is there. Oh, God does not need to eat. He can if
He wants though. Doesn't have to if He doesn't want to. But if God eats, it is
different from us. It is transcendental. But, one needs to be spiritual or
belive in God of some type to understand what I am trying to express here.
>--------------------
>
>First God created fools, that was for practice, Then he created Vegetarians.
>- Mark Twain
>------------------->
I don't understand. Do you think vegetarians are fools? Are you a vegetarian?
Please clear this up for me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Pari...@aol.com
B. Manning
Parijata2 wrote:
> By the way, the fishes were really plants called fish plants, not that I expect
> you would want to accept that anway. But they were considered a delicacy, and
> the fisherman's wives would dive for them.
Fish plants!?! Where can I get fish plants? My one cat is making quite a mess of
my aloe plant. I bet a fish plant would distract him.
Parijata2
hehe That is nice. Never thought of that. Well, I really don't know where you
can get fish plants. Sorry. Maybe Israel? Yeah, I know, a little impractical.
My cat can't reach my aloe plant. Thank goodness! :)
Sincerely,
Pari...@aol.com
gwen
Richard Bishop wrote:
> The 'Jesus is a vegetarian' idioticy is on a par with the teetotalers'
> attempt to say he never drank wine.
Great annalogy! I couldn't have worded it better.
> Sue
Gwen
bfr...@deletethisairmail.net
On 26 Feb 1998 19:43:48 GMT, pari...@aol.com (Parijata2) wrote:
>>
>>First God created fools, that was for practice, Then he created Vegetarians.
>>- Mark Twain
>>------------------->
>I don't understand. Do you think vegetarians are fools? Are you a vegetarian?
>Please clear this up for me. Thank you.
>
No, actually I'm a hunter/conservationist/student etc. I had a talk
recently with some people on this group about the quote in my .sig
file. My original understanding of the quote was that vegetarians are
even more foolish than fools. But what I ended up really liking about
the quote was that it can be interpreted in the context that god
created fools in order to work out the kinks, and then created
vegetarians, implying that vegetarians are "better than fools." You
may interpret who the "fools" are as you like. Hope that clears it up
some.
--------------------
The Rustler
a001...@airmail.net
Dallas, TX
First God created fools, that was for practice, Then he created Vegetarians. - Mark Twain
-------------------
Xena: Warrior Princess
On 26 Feb 1998, Richard Bishop wrote:
>
> I really think that's none of your business.
> Go away little girl and play with your dolls.
> >Xena
> Sue
I'll have you know that my dolls do the typing for me! They are
sophisticated ladies that know more than you! Well I have to go now and do
my arithmatic homework or my teacher will send me to the corner. I hate
standing there on one foot with that stupid DUNCE-cap on.
Xena
Karl Nixon
Xena Warrior Princess wrote in message ...
Xena to Sue
>At the risk of sounding like an anti-ARA (ie: animal exploiter), what
>proof do you have that Jesus did eat animal tissue? I have none to prove
>either way so I keep quiet about it as should you. I think you spend a
>little too much time on this group, Sue. It's time to find yourself a
>hobby!
>
>Xena (aka-k-)
Xena
I have no firm views or opinions (due to lack of research on subject) on
above either but have a few interesting tit-bits from "A History of
Vegetarianism". I will try to keep them brief.
"Porphyry (born in AD 232 ) lived at a time when intellectual, religious and
mystical concepts were all in great ferment. The early Christians were
struggling to survive, immersed for the most part in Gnostic speculation,
and an extraordinary number of monotheist sects and beliefs, many of them
vegetarian, were claiming eternal truths for themselves. But paganism was
also flourishing. Mithraism and the other mystery religions held great sway
over the peoples of the Mediterranean, and animal sacrifice continued in
many pagan religions. So Porphyry's clear, unadulterated praise of a
vegetarian lifestyle and its respect for all creatures must seem all the
more remarkable, to refuse involvement in animal sacrifice was to set
oneself apart, to question the foundation of society itself.
Porphyry died in AD 306, just before the reign of Constantine, during which
Christianity was officially recognised, as a matter of expediency, in AD
313. The effect of Christianity (bringing with it the Judaic tradition)
upon Neoplatonism was devastating, with its oppossition to concepts like
justice and non-violence towards animals and to vegetarianism itself. The
Pythagorean idea that all sentient beings have equal rights with humankind
would not die altogether, but Christianity, as it gained power, was
determined to bury the belief, and it was suppressed for almost a thousand
years. For Christianity proclaimed humankind the dominant species, a belief
which is still a motivating force in the world today.
EARLY CHRISTIANITY
Would Christiantiy have become a worldwide religion if St Paul had not
existed. Might Christians then have remained simply another Judiac sect
rather like the Essenes? Certainly the history of the human relationship
with the animal kingdom would have been radically different if Western
society had not become thoroughly imbued with the Judaeo-Christian concept
of human supremacy. What was it that thrust Christainity out from a small
imperial colony to influence the entire Roman Empire and beyond.
Goes to explain St Pauls zealous work of missionaries to all nations.
The discoveries in 1945 of ancient scrolls at Nag Hammadi and in 1949 of the
Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran have shed much new light on those years before
and immediately after Christ, a light which is often murky because of
scholastic squabbles or deliberate lethargy on the part of the Catholic
Church to release material which might stray from the Pauline versions. The
finds from Nag Hammadi and Qumran indicate the possibility of another Jesus,
quite different from the one we find in the Pauline version, a Jesus who had
connections with sects which were not meat-eating. Some of the Gnostic
literature pre-dates the Gospels, and the Jesus revealed there is far more
psychologically subtle and in many ways nearer to Buddha. If this Jesus had
been publicised, praised and believed in, the history of the relationship
between humankind and animals in the last two thousand years would probably
have been vastly different. Imagine a Christian religion which had
colonised half the world and was basically vegetarian and akin to Buddhism.
It is important then to explore how Paul's version became the acceptable
one.
However, meat-eating for Christians was part of the fabric of their life in
praise of the Lord, part of the glory of God, part of the created world, one
of the delights that God had given them for their sustenance and pleasure.
We must not forget too that a haunch of roasted meat also stood for wealth,
affluence and social position. If you ate no meat at all it meant you were
poor, not that you were vegetarian.
The very early Church may well have almost been vegetarian. The Essenes are
unlikely to have killed animals, except for ritual slaughter, and their diet
was certainly of the most moderate and ascetic kind. It was Paul the
missionary who widened the Church to include Gentiles, who made no
distinctions in diet - the fewer rules the better when it comes to
converting people. Yet the ascetic way of life which the Essenes followed
had its many disciples and it was the groups whom the early Church was
offended by, who promulgated a vegetarian diet as part of their ideology,
that in these years had as much power and sway over the public as the
orthodox Church. For many hundreds of years it was not at all certain which
religion, if any, might conquer the world. Certainly many of the unorthodox
sects seemed to be more likely winners than the Church itself.
Sorry it was long... may be more complicated than just "yes, he did" "no,
he didn't". ;-)
eco