Animals must not be scapegoats

December 13, 2006

Seven pairs, actually. peace, sharonPeter <metalscarab wrote: Hi Peter >If that is the case, then if they had two of every species on this tardis like ark, then surely they would have caused extinction of some species? I mean if they were > eating them?.....sorry my brain works in mysterious ways......... According to the bible, there were two of some species, and seven of other species.... BB Peter

Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail beta.

December 13, 2006

Hi Sharon

Indeed - that'll teach me to write e-mails at 1.30 am! :-)

BB

Peter

-

Shhhhh

Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:33 AM

Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

Seven pairs, actually.

peace,

sharonPeter <metalscarab wrote:

Hi Peter

>If that is the case, then if they had two of every species on this tardis like ark, then surely they would have caused extinction of some species? I mean if they were

> eating them?.....sorry my brain works in mysterious ways.........

According to the bible, there were two of some species, and seven of other species....

BB

Peter

Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail beta.

December 13, 2006

???????????? so did they wipe out any species by eating them, or were they still vegie then?, and surely after the flood it would have taken a few months to reproduce just one offspring for say a cow/goat/pig? so they must have eaten quite a few by then? Sorry about my brain...........or lack of it! The Valley Vegan............Shhhhh <compassion2grace wrote: Seven pairs, actually. peace, sharonPeter <metalscarab > wrote: Hi Peter >If that is the case, then if they had two of every species on this tardis like ark, then surely they would have caused extinction of some species? I mean if they were > eating them?.....sorry my brain works in mysterious ways......... According to the bible, there were two of some species, and seven of other species.... BB Peter Everyone is raving about

the all-new Mail beta. Peter H

Try the all-new Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal

December 13, 2006

So where did the carnivores/predators come from according to the bible ( I didnt think it believed in evolution ), did the devil make the carnivores/predators? The Valley Vegan...........Shhhhh <compassion2grace wrote: Ah, Genesis 6:21, perhaps? "And be sure to take on board enough food for your family and for all the animals." (New Living Translation) This is regarding food Noah was to take on the ark. But according to the Bible story, the

animals at creation were vegetarian also, so Noah wouldn't have had to take live animals to use as food. Genesis 1:29-30: "Then God said, 'Look, I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth, and all the fruit trees for your food. And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground -- everything that has life." peace, sharonfraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) com> wrote: str8 from the bible Genesis "21": And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them. jo Dec 12, 2006 11:40 AM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats I would have thought so. I suspect they took some extras with them, after all the carnivore animals would have needed food, so there would be extra animals for them to eat. Jo - peter VV Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:35 PM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats If that is the case, then if they had two of every species on this tardis like ark, then surely they would have caused extinction of some species? I mean if they were eating them?.....sorry my brain works in mysterious ways......... The Valley Vegan...............jo <jo.heartwork > wrote: I thought it was because God gave permission to eat meat during the flood, so that they

might survive. Of course, this would infer that once the plants were visible and growing again, people would stop eating animals. Jo - Shhhhh Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:10 AM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats Of course there is much disagreement on this subject. About the only thing that can

be certain is that originally God gave man a vegetarian diet, and therefore the whole meat eating thing is tied into the fact that man fell from grace. But it is a good book, a worthwhile read. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: Trouble is , I dont want to read a whole book on the subject, just get some informed feedback. Oh I`ve heard all the arguments before where one part of the bible says eat animals , and another contradicts it, just wondered what christian vegans or theological vegans ( if there are any ) think is all...... The Valley Vegan................Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: I think "Dominion" by Matthew Scully is about the best read you could get on a proper Christian ethic regarding animals. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: In my never ending quest to try and understand various faiths and their standpoint on animals , I noticed this christian article, what do you all think? We should treat all creatures with respect, as the early Christians did Nothing is more orthodox, one might think, than the traditional Christmas-card Nativity scene of the ox and ass looking adoringly at Jesus in the stable. Few realise that this much-loved scene has no obvious canonical authority. The canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do not depict the animals in the stable, indeed there are no references at all to the animals attending Christ’s birth. The source appears to be the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, a compilation in Latin from the 8th or 9th centuries which draws on an older oral tradition. The ox and the ass, for example, appear on sarcophagi of the 4th and 5th centuries, and on ivory carvings of the fifth and sixth centuries. What we appear to have, then, is a non-canonical elaboration of the line found in Isaiah i, 3 (echoed in Habakkuk iii, 2) that “the ox knows its owner and the ass its master’s crib”. Interesting, one might think, but hardly significant. In fact Pseudo-Matthew is part of a voluminous amount of apocryphal literature that offers strikingly different perspectives on Jesus and animals. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (5th century), Jesus creates sparrows from clay and breathes on a dead fish to bring it back to life. In the Protoevangelium of James (2nd century), the entire creation, including the animals, is caught up in a catalepsy at the birth of Jesus. In a Coptic fragment, of unknown date, Jesus heals a mule and remonstrates with its owner: “Now carry on and from now on do not beat it any more, so that you too may find mercy.”

The significance of these gospel hints and apocryphal stories is that they testify to an animal-friendly tradition within Christianity. Christ’s birth and ministry are understood as a harbinger of peaceful creaturely relations in fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy that the “wolf shall live with the sheep . . . and a little child shall lead them” (xi, 6). God’s kingdom, then, consists in peaceful, filial, co-operative relations between species. This is, of course, in sharp contrast to the instrumentalist views of animals found in classical exponents, such as Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. Animals, they believed, were put here for our use. “Hence,” wrote St Thomas, “it is not wrong for man to make use of them, either by killing or in any other way whatever.” But the animal-friendly tradition was kept alive — indeed it flourished — in the lives of many saints of East and

West. St Basil the Great, St John Chrysostom, St Isaac the Syrian, and St Cuthbert all commended kindness to animals as a mark of holiness. St Bonaventure, the biographer of St Francis of Assisi, wrote of how he was filled with overwhelming piety when he contemplated God’s other creatures, calling them “brothers” and “sisters” because they had the same origin as himself. Many commentators have dismissed these stories of saints and animals as hagiographical gloss. But, in fact, they carry a strong theological punch: union with God (if it is to be real) must involve communion with all God’s creatures. Attitudes of wonder and celebration cannot easily co-exist with wholly instrumentalist perspectives on animals. Neither did that animal-friendly tradition die out with the great saints. It culminated in the humanitarian movement in the 19th century that saw the first organised campaigns against cruelty to animals and children. Many think that the “dominion” over

animals granted in Genesis i, 26 means despotism, but since human beings are subsequently prescribed a vegetarian diet (v29-30), it is difficult to see how herb-eating dominion can be a licence for tyranny Although most think that human salvation alone is Christian doctrine, many Bible verses make clear that the scope of salvation is cosmic. Untrammelled human supremacy, it is supposed, is part of the core message, whereas the Bible indicates how humans are uniquely wicked, capable of making themselves lower than the beasts — the Book of Job compares us unfavourably with the Leviathan and Behemoth (chaps 40-41). Last month more than 100 academics (including 40 theologians) helped to launch the new Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, an international academy dedicated to rethinking the ethics of our treatment of animals. Christianity — once judged to be the cornerstone of “speciesist” and “supremacist” attitudes — in fact comprises resources

to help us discover more convivial and respectful relations with animals. Next time we peer into a Christmas crib, with Jesus surrounded by the adoring animals, we should remind ourselves of the survival of an alternative, animal-inclusive tradition at the heart of Christianity. The Rev Professor Andrew Linzey is director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics; www.oxfordanimalethics.com Peter H All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. Want to start your own business? Learn how on Small Business. Peter H Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Mail. Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Peter H Try the all-new Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal History repeats itself and each time the price gets higher Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Peter H

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

December 13, 2006

Tell me about hinduism & siehkism and vegetarianism? The Valley Vegan..................Shhhhh <compassion2grace wrote: And don't forget the Hindus.peter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: As you seem to be the oracle, what about muslims? what are their views on vegetarianism? Buddhists are easy, I understand

where they are coming from. The Valley Vegan..................fraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) com> wrote: just like x-tians, some do the torah is basically the x-tian old testament... same basic tenents there are a number of jewish writings on the course of vegetarianism i have a book..somewhere..on the jewish tenents of vegetarianism peter VV Dec 12, 2006 11:02 AM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats Thanks for that, Do Jews believe the same I wonder? The Valley

Vegan.............Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: Of course there is much disagreement on this subject. About the only thing that can be certain is that originally God gave man a vegetarian diet, and therefore the whole meat eating thing is tied into the fact that man fell from grace. But it is a good book, a worthwhile read. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: Trouble is , I dont want to read a whole book on the subject, just get some informed feedback. Oh I`ve heard all the arguments before where one part of the bible says eat animals , and another contradicts it, just

wondered what christian vegans or theological vegans ( if there are any ) think is all...... The Valley Vegan................Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: I think "Dominion" by Matthew Scully is about the best read you could get on a proper Christian ethic regarding animals. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: In my never ending quest to try and understand various faiths and their standpoint on animals , I noticed this christian article, what do you all think? We should treat all creatures with respect, as the early Christians did Nothing is more orthodox, one might think, than the traditional Christmas-card Nativity scene of the ox and ass looking adoringly at Jesus in the stable. Few realise that this much-loved scene has no obvious canonical authority. The canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do not depict the animals in the stable, indeed there are no references at all to the animals attending Christ’s birth. The source appears to be the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, a compilation in Latin from the 8th or 9th centuries which draws on an older oral

tradition. The ox and the ass, for example, appear on sarcophagi of the 4th and 5th centuries, and on ivory carvings of the fifth and sixth centuries. What we appear to have, then, is a non-canonical elaboration of the line found in Isaiah i, 3 (echoed in Habakkuk iii, 2) that “the ox knows its owner and the ass its master’s crib”. Interesting, one might think, but hardly significant. In fact Pseudo-Matthew is part of a voluminous amount of apocryphal literature that offers strikingly different perspectives on Jesus and animals. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (5th century), Jesus creates sparrows from clay and breathes on a dead fish to bring it back to life. In the Protoevangelium of James (2nd century), the entire creation, including the animals, is caught up in a

catalepsy at the birth of Jesus. In a Coptic fragment, of unknown date, Jesus heals a mule and remonstrates with its owner: “Now carry on and from now on do not beat it any more, so that you too may find mercy.” The significance of these gospel hints and apocryphal stories is that they testify to an animal-friendly tradition within Christianity. Christ’s birth and ministry are understood as a harbinger of peaceful creaturely relations in fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy that the “wolf shall live with the sheep . . . and a little child shall lead them” (xi, 6). God’s kingdom, then, consists in peaceful, filial, co-operative relations between species. This is, of course, in sharp contrast to the instrumentalist views of animals found in classical exponents, such as Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. Animals, they believed, were put here for our use. “Hence,” wrote St Thomas, “it

is not wrong for man to make use of them, either by killing or in any other way whatever.” But the animal-friendly tradition was kept alive — indeed it flourished — in the lives of many saints of East and West. St Basil the Great, St John Chrysostom, St Isaac the Syrian, and St Cuthbert all commended kindness to animals as a mark of holiness. St Bonaventure, the biographer of St Francis of Assisi, wrote of how he was filled with overwhelming piety when he contemplated God’s other creatures, calling them “brothers” and “sisters” because they had the same origin as himself. Many commentators have dismissed these stories of saints and animals as hagiographical gloss. But, in fact, they carry a strong theological punch: union with God (if it is to be real) must involve communion with all God’s creatures. Attitudes of wonder and celebration cannot easily co-exist with wholly instrumentalist perspectives on animals. Neither did that animal-friendly tradition

die out with the great saints. It culminated in the humanitarian movement in the 19th century that saw the first organised campaigns against cruelty to animals and children. Many think that the “dominion” over animals granted in Genesis i, 26 means despotism, but since human beings are subsequently prescribed a vegetarian diet (v29-30), it is difficult to see how herb-eating dominion can be a licence for tyranny Although most think that human salvation alone is Christian doctrine, many Bible verses make clear that the scope of salvation is cosmic. Untrammelled human supremacy, it is supposed, is part of the core message, whereas the Bible indicates how humans are uniquely wicked, capable of making themselves lower than the beasts — the Book of Job compares us unfavourably with the Leviathan and Behemoth (chaps 40-41). Last month more than 100 academics (including 40 theologians) helped to launch the new Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, an

international academy dedicated to rethinking the ethics of our treatment of animals. Christianity — once judged to be the cornerstone of “speciesist” and “supremacist” attitudes — in fact comprises resources to help us discover more convivial and respectful relations with animals. Next time we peer into a Christmas crib, with Jesus surrounded by the adoring animals, we should remind ourselves of the survival of an alternative, animal-inclusive tradition at the heart of Christianity. The Rev Professor Andrew Linzey is director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics; www.oxfordanimalethics.com Peter H All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. Want to start your own business? Learn how on Small Business. Peter H Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Mail. Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Peter H All new Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine History repeats itself and each time the price gets higher Peter H Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger. Peter H

Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Mail.

December 13, 2006

Maybe they ate mice. I can testify that they reproduce rapidly. Just kidding, of course. Pigs have litters of course. But then they didn't eat pigs did they? Short answer ... I have no idea. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 wrote: ???????????? so did they wipe out any species by eating them, or were they still vegie then?, and surely after the

flood it would have taken a few months to reproduce just one offspring for say a cow/goat/pig? so they must have eaten quite a few by then? Sorry about my brain...........or lack of it! The Valley Vegan............Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: Seven pairs, actually. peace, sharonPeter <metalscarab > wrote: Hi Peter >If that is the case, then if they had two of every species on this tardis like ark, then surely they would have

caused extinction of some species? I mean if they were > eating them?.....sorry my brain works in mysterious ways......... According to the bible, there were two of some species, and seven of other species.... BB Peter Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail beta. Peter H Try the all-new Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal

December 13, 2006

I suppose they would have become carnivores and predators when man did, and for the same reasons. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 wrote: So where did the carnivores/predators come from according to the bible ( I didnt think it believed in evolution ), did the devil make the carnivores/predators? The Valley Vegan...........Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: Ah, Genesis 6:21, perhaps? "And be sure to take on board enough food for your family and for all the animals." (New Living Translation) This is regarding food Noah was to take on the ark. But according to the Bible story, the animals at creation were vegetarian also, so Noah wouldn't have had to take live animals to use as food. Genesis 1:29-30: "Then God said, 'Look, I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth, and all the fruit trees for your food. And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground -- everything that has life." peace, sharonfraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) com> wrote: str8 from the bible Genesis "21": And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them. jo Dec 12, 2006 11:40 AM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats I would have thought so. I suspect they took some extras with them, after all the carnivore animals would have needed food, so there would be extra animals for them to eat. Jo - peter VV Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:35 PM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats If that is the case, then if they had two of every species on this tardis like ark, then surely they would have caused extinction of some species? I mean if they were eating them?.....sorry my brain works in mysterious ways......... The Valley Vegan...............jo <jo.heartwork > wrote: I thought it was because God gave permission to eat meat during the flood, so that they might survive. Of course, this would infer that once the plants were visible and growing again, people would stop eating animals. Jo - Shhhhh Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:10 AM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats Of course there is much disagreement on this subject. About the only thing that can be certain is that originally God gave man a vegetarian diet, and therefore the whole meat eating thing is tied into the fact that man fell from grace. But it is a good book, a worthwhile read. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: Trouble is , I dont want to read a whole book on the subject, just get some informed feedback.

Oh I`ve heard all the arguments before where one part of the bible says eat animals , and another contradicts it, just wondered what christian vegans or theological vegans ( if there are any ) think is all...... The Valley Vegan................Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: I think "Dominion" by Matthew Scully is about the best read you could get on a proper Christian ethic regarding animals. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: In my never ending quest to try and understand various faiths and their standpoint on animals , I noticed this christian article, what do you all

think? We should treat all creatures with respect, as the early Christians did Nothing is more orthodox, one might think, than the traditional Christmas-card Nativity scene of the ox and ass looking adoringly at Jesus in the stable. Few realise that this much-loved scene has no obvious canonical authority. The canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do not depict the animals in the stable, indeed there are no references at all to the animals attending Christ’s birth. The source

appears to be the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, a compilation in Latin from the 8th or 9th centuries which draws on an older oral tradition. The ox and the ass, for example, appear on sarcophagi of the 4th and 5th centuries, and on ivory carvings of the fifth and sixth centuries. What we appear to have, then, is a non-canonical elaboration of the line found in Isaiah i, 3 (echoed in Habakkuk iii, 2) that “the ox knows its owner and the ass its master’s crib”. Interesting, one might think, but hardly significant. In fact Pseudo-Matthew is part of a voluminous amount of apocryphal literature that offers strikingly different perspectives on Jesus and animals. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (5th century), Jesus creates sparrows from clay and breathes on a dead fish to bring

it back to life. In the Protoevangelium of James (2nd century), the entire creation, including the animals, is caught up in a catalepsy at the birth of Jesus. In a Coptic fragment, of unknown date, Jesus heals a mule and remonstrates with its owner: “Now carry on and from now on do not beat it any more, so that you too may find mercy.” The significance of these gospel hints and apocryphal stories is that they testify to an animal-friendly tradition within Christianity. Christ’s birth and ministry are understood as a harbinger of peaceful creaturely relations in fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy that the “wolf shall live with the sheep . . . and a little child shall lead them” (xi, 6). God’s kingdom, then, consists in peaceful, filial, co-operative relations between species. This is, of course, in sharp contrast to the instrumentalist views of animals found in classical

exponents, such as Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. Animals, they believed, were put here for our use. “Hence,” wrote St Thomas, “it is not wrong for man to make use of them, either by killing or in any other way whatever.” But the animal-friendly tradition was kept alive — indeed it flourished — in the lives of many saints of East and West. St Basil the Great, St John Chrysostom, St Isaac the Syrian, and St Cuthbert all commended kindness to animals as a mark of holiness. St Bonaventure, the biographer of St Francis of Assisi, wrote of how he was filled with overwhelming piety when he contemplated God’s other creatures, calling them “brothers” and “sisters” because they had the same origin as himself. Many commentators have dismissed these stories of saints and animals as hagiographical gloss. But, in fact, they carry a strong theological punch: union with God (if it is to be real) must involve communion with all God’s creatures. Attitudes of wonder and

celebration cannot easily co-exist with wholly instrumentalist perspectives on animals. Neither did that animal-friendly tradition die out with the great saints. It culminated in the humanitarian movement in the 19th century that saw the first organised campaigns against cruelty to animals and children. Many think that the “dominion” over animals granted in Genesis i, 26 means despotism, but since human beings are subsequently prescribed a vegetarian diet (v29-30), it is difficult to see how herb-eating dominion can be a licence for tyranny Although most think that human salvation alone is Christian doctrine, many Bible verses make clear that the scope of salvation is cosmic. Untrammelled human supremacy, it is supposed, is part of the core message, whereas the Bible indicates how humans are uniquely wicked, capable of making themselves lower than the beasts — the Book of Job compares us unfavourably with the Leviathan and Behemoth (chaps

40-41). Last month more than 100 academics (including 40 theologians) helped to launch the new Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, an international academy dedicated to rethinking the ethics of our treatment of animals. Christianity — once judged to be the cornerstone of “speciesist” and “supremacist” attitudes — in fact comprises resources to help us discover more convivial and respectful relations with animals. Next time we peer into a Christmas crib, with Jesus surrounded by the adoring animals, we should remind ourselves of the survival of an alternative, animal-inclusive tradition at the heart of Christianity. The Rev Professor Andrew Linzey is director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics; www.oxfordanimalethics.com Peter H All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. Want to start your own business? Learn how on Small Business. Peter H

Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Mail. Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Peter H Try the all-new Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal History repeats itself and each time the price gets higher Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and

get things done faster. Peter H Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Answers. Try it now.

December 13, 2006

I have some Hindu friends who are vegetarian.

Jo

-

peter VV

Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:50 PM

Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

Tell me about hinduism & siehkism and vegetarianism?

The Valley Vegan..................Shhhhh <compassion2grace wrote:

And don't forget the Hindus.peter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote:

As you seem to be the oracle, what about muslims? what are their views on vegetarianism?

Buddhists are easy, I understand where they are coming from.

The Valley Vegan..................fraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) com> wrote:

just like x-tians, some do

the torah is basically the x-tian old testament...

same basic tenents

there are a number of jewish writings on the course of vegetarianism

i have a book..somewhere..on the jewish tenents of vegetarianism

peter VV Dec 12, 2006 11:02 AM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

Thanks for that, Do Jews believe the same I wonder?

The Valley Vegan.............Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote:

Of course there is much disagreement on this subject. About the only thing that can be certain is that originally God gave man a vegetarian diet, and therefore the whole meat eating thing is tied into the fact that man fell from grace.

But it is a good book, a worthwhile read.

peace,

sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote:

Trouble is , I dont want to read a whole book on the subject, just get some informed feedback. Oh I`ve heard all the arguments before where one part of the bible says eat animals , and another contradicts it, just wondered what christian vegans or theological vegans ( if there are any ) think is all......

The Valley Vegan................Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote:

I think "Dominion" by Matthew Scully is about the best read you could get on a proper Christian ethic regarding animals.

peace,

sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote:

In my never ending quest to try and understand various faiths and their standpoint on animals , I noticed this christian article, what do you all think?

We should treat all creatures with respect, as the early Christians did

Nothing is more orthodox, one might think, than the traditional Christmas-card Nativity scene of the ox and ass looking adoringly at Jesus in the stable. Few realise that this much-loved scene has no obvious canonical authority. The canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do not depict the animals in the stable, indeed there are no references at all to the animals attending Christ’s birth. The source appears to be the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, a compilation in Latin from the 8th or 9th centuries which draws on an older oral tradition. The ox and the ass, for example, appear on sarcophagi of the 4th and 5th centuries, and on ivory carvings of the fifth and sixth centuries.

What we appear to have, then, is a non-canonical elaboration of the line found in Isaiah i, 3 (echoed in Habakkuk iii, 2) that “the ox knows its owner and the ass its master’s crib”. Interesting, one might think, but hardly significant. In fact Pseudo-Matthew is part of a voluminous amount of apocryphal literature that offers strikingly different perspectives on Jesus and animals. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (5th century), Jesus creates sparrows from clay and breathes on a dead fish to bring it back to life. In the Protoevangelium of James (2nd century), the entire creation, including the animals, is caught up in a catalepsy at the birth of Jesus. In a Coptic fragment, of unknown date, Jesus heals a mule and remonstrates with its owner: “Now carry on and from now on do not beat it any more, so that you too may find mercy.”

The significance of these gospel hints and apocryphal stories is that they testify to an animal-friendly tradition within Christianity. Christ’s birth and ministry are understood as a harbinger of peaceful creaturely relations in fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy that the “wolf shall live with the sheep . . . and a little child shall lead them” (xi, 6). God’s kingdom, then, consists in peaceful, filial, co-operative relations between species. This is, of course, in sharp contrast to the instrumentalist views of animals found in classical exponents, such as Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. Animals, they believed, were put here for our use. “Hence,” wrote St Thomas, “it is not wrong for man to make use of them, either by killing or in any other way whatever.” But the animal-friendly tradition was kept alive — indeed it flourished — in the lives of many saints of East and West. St Basil the Great, St John Chrysostom, St Isaac the Syrian, and St Cuthbert all commended kindness to animals as a mark of holiness. St Bonaventure, the biographer of St Francis of Assisi, wrote of how he was filled with overwhelming piety when he contemplated God’s other creatures, calling them “brothers” and “sisters” because they had the same origin as himself. Many commentators have dismissed these stories of saints and animals as hagiographical gloss. But, in fact, they carry a strong theological punch: union with God (if it is to be real) must involve communion with all God’s creatures. Attitudes of wonder and celebration cannot easily co-exist with wholly instrumentalist perspectives on animals. Neither did that animal-friendly tradition die out with the great saints. It culminated in the humanitarian movement in the 19th century that saw the first organised campaigns against cruelty to animals and children. Many think that the “dominion” over animals granted in Genesis i, 26 means despotism, but since human beings are subsequently prescribed a vegetarian diet (v29-30), it is difficult to see how herb-eating dominion can be a licence for tyranny

Although most think that human salvation alone is Christian doctrine, many Bible verses make clear that the scope of salvation is cosmic. Untrammelled human supremacy, it is supposed, is part of the core message, whereas the Bible indicates how humans are uniquely wicked, capable of making themselves lower than the beasts — the Book of Job compares us unfavourably with the Leviathan and Behemoth (chaps 40-41). Last month more than 100 academics (including 40 theologians) helped to launch the new Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, an international academy dedicated to rethinking the ethics of our treatment of animals. Christianity — once judged to be the cornerstone of “speciesist” and “supremacist” attitudes — in fact comprises resources to help us discover more convivial and respectful relations with animals.

Next time we peer into a Christmas crib, with Jesus surrounded by the adoring animals, we should remind ourselves of the survival of an alternative, animal-inclusive tradition at the heart of Christianity.

The Rev Professor Andrew Linzey is director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics; www.oxfordanimalethics.com

Peter H

All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.

Want to start your own business? Learn how on Small Business.

Peter H

Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Mail.

Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

Peter H

All new Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine History repeats itself and each time the price gets higher

Peter H

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

Peter H

Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Mail.

December 13, 2006

Maybe you could ask them? The Valley Vegan..........jo <jo.heartwork wrote: I have some Hindu friends who are vegetarian. Jo - peter VV Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:50 PM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats Tell me about hinduism & siehkism and vegetarianism? The Valley Vegan..................Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: And don't forget the Hindus.peter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: As you seem to be the oracle, what about muslims? what are their views on vegetarianism? Buddhists are easy, I understand where they are coming from. The Valley Vegan..................fraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) com> wrote: just like x-tians, some do the torah is basically the x-tian old testament... same basic tenents there are a number of jewish writings on the course of vegetarianism i have a book..somewhere..on the jewish tenents of vegetarianism peter VV Dec 12, 2006 11:02 AM Re: Animals

must not be scapegoats Thanks for that, Do Jews believe the same I wonder? The Valley Vegan.............Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: Of course there is much disagreement on this subject. About the only thing that can be certain is that originally God gave man a vegetarian diet, and therefore the whole meat eating thing is tied into the fact that man fell from grace. But it is a good book, a worthwhile read. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: Trouble is , I dont want to read a whole book on the subject, just get

some informed feedback. Oh I`ve heard all the arguments before where one part of the bible says eat animals , and another contradicts it, just wondered what christian vegans or theological vegans ( if there are any ) think is all...... The Valley Vegan................Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: I think "Dominion" by Matthew Scully is about the best read you could get on a proper Christian ethic regarding animals. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: In my never ending quest to try and understand various faiths and their standpoint on animals , I noticed this christian article,

what do you all think? We should treat all creatures with respect, as the early Christians did Nothing is more orthodox, one might think, than the traditional Christmas-card Nativity scene of the ox and ass looking adoringly at Jesus in the stable. Few realise that this much-loved scene has no obvious canonical authority. The canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do not depict the animals in the stable, indeed there are no references at all to the animals attending Christ’s

birth. The source appears to be the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, a compilation in Latin from the 8th or 9th centuries which draws on an older oral tradition. The ox and the ass, for example, appear on sarcophagi of the 4th and 5th centuries, and on ivory carvings of the fifth and sixth centuries. What we appear to have, then, is a non-canonical elaboration of the line found in Isaiah i, 3 (echoed in Habakkuk iii, 2) that “the ox knows its owner and the ass its master’s crib”. Interesting, one might think, but hardly significant. In fact Pseudo-Matthew is part of a voluminous amount of apocryphal literature that offers strikingly different perspectives on Jesus and animals. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (5th century), Jesus creates sparrows from clay and breathes on a

dead fish to bring it back to life. In the Protoevangelium of James (2nd century), the entire creation, including the animals, is caught up in a catalepsy at the birth of Jesus. In a Coptic fragment, of unknown date, Jesus heals a mule and remonstrates with its owner: “Now carry on and from now on do not beat it any more, so that you too may find mercy.” The significance of these gospel hints and apocryphal stories is that they testify to an animal-friendly tradition within Christianity. Christ’s birth and ministry are understood as a harbinger of peaceful creaturely relations in fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy that the “wolf shall live with the sheep . . . and a little child shall lead them” (xi, 6). God’s kingdom, then, consists in peaceful, filial, co-operative relations between species. This is, of course, in sharp contrast to the instrumentalist views of animals

found in classical exponents, such as Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. Animals, they believed, were put here for our use. “Hence,” wrote St Thomas, “it is not wrong for man to make use of them, either by killing or in any other way whatever.” But the animal-friendly tradition was kept alive — indeed it flourished — in the lives of many saints of East and West. St Basil the Great, St John Chrysostom, St Isaac the Syrian, and St Cuthbert all commended kindness to animals as a mark of holiness. St Bonaventure, the biographer of St Francis of Assisi, wrote of how he was filled with overwhelming piety when he contemplated God’s other creatures, calling them “brothers” and “sisters” because they had the same origin as himself. Many commentators have dismissed these stories of saints and animals as hagiographical gloss. But, in fact, they carry a strong theological punch: union with God (if it is to be real) must involve communion with all God’s creatures. Attitudes

of wonder and celebration cannot easily co-exist with wholly instrumentalist perspectives on animals. Neither did that animal-friendly tradition die out with the great saints. It culminated in the humanitarian movement in the 19th century that saw the first organised campaigns against cruelty to animals and children. Many think that the “dominion” over animals granted in Genesis i, 26 means despotism, but since human beings are subsequently prescribed a vegetarian diet (v29-30), it is difficult to see how herb-eating dominion can be a licence for tyranny Although most think that human salvation alone is Christian doctrine, many Bible verses make clear that the scope of salvation is cosmic. Untrammelled human supremacy, it is supposed, is part of the core message, whereas the Bible indicates how humans are uniquely wicked, capable of making themselves lower than the beasts — the Book of Job compares us unfavourably with the Leviathan and

Behemoth (chaps 40-41). Last month more than 100 academics (including 40 theologians) helped to launch the new Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, an international academy dedicated to rethinking the ethics of our treatment of animals. Christianity — once judged to be the cornerstone of “speciesist” and “supremacist” attitudes — in fact comprises resources to help us discover more convivial and respectful relations with animals. Next time we peer into a Christmas crib, with Jesus surrounded by the adoring animals, we should remind ourselves of the survival of an alternative, animal-inclusive tradition at the heart of Christianity. The Rev Professor Andrew Linzey is director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics; www.oxfordanimalethics.com Peter H All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. Want to start your own business? Learn how on Small Business. Peter

H Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Mail. Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Peter H All new Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine History repeats itself and each time the price gets higher Peter H Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

Peter H Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Mail. Peter H

All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.

December 13, 2006

ask them what?

vegetarianism is deeply embedded in their religion/culture

it is a basic tenet of Vedic law/scriptures, and assorted myths/traditions/history

it is a basis of Ahinsa

then there is the karmic aspect...

and there is something about..ok..let me get it all in line in me head...

if one eats animals, then one takes in with that meal anger and assorted bad energies..

and meat and the culture of meat, contributes to violence

plenty of Hindu scriptures deal with vegetarianism

and many heroes/historical figures from hindi/india's past were veggie

peter VV Dec 13, 2006 12:22 PM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

Maybe you could ask them?

The Valley Vegan..........jo <jo.heartwork wrote:

I have some Hindu friends who are vegetarian.

Jo

............

History repeats itself

and each time the price gets higher

December 13, 2006

Hi Peter

>So where did the carnivores/predators come from according to the bible ( I didnt think it believed in evolution ), did the devil make the carnivores/predators?

Whereabouts in the Bible does it say that evolution doesn't exist? The only thing I can think that would be a potential problem for evolution would be "God made man in his own image", but that would only suggest that humanity doesn't evolve - and even that interpretation could be argued theologically anyway.

BB

Peter

December 13, 2006

I thought it said in the begining god made man? not protezoa or primeval soup or whatever? I thought there was a long standing argument between creationists and evolutioneries? The Valley Vegan...............Peter <metalscarab wrote: Hi Peter >So where did the carnivores/predators come from according to the bible ( I didnt think it believed in evolution ), did the devil

make the carnivores/predators? Whereabouts in the Bible does it say that evolution doesn't exist? The only thing I can think that would be a potential problem for evolution would be "God made man in his own image", but that would only suggest that humanity doesn't evolve - and even that interpretation could be argued theologically anyway. BB Peter Peter H

All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.

December 13, 2006

Thank you oh enlightened one, now then have we missed any others out? Sihkism ? or is it an offshoot of hinduism? The Valley Vegan...........fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote: ask them what? vegetarianism is deeply embedded in their religion/culture it is a basic tenet of Vedic law/scriptures, and assorted myths/traditions/history it is a basis of Ahinsa then there is the karmic aspect... and there is something about..ok..let me get it all in line in me head... if one eats animals, then one takes in with that meal anger and assorted bad energies.. and meat and the culture of meat, contributes to violence plenty of Hindu scriptures deal with vegetarianism and many heroes/historical figures from hindi/india's past were veggie peter VV Dec 13, 2006 12:22 PM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats Maybe you could ask them? The Valley Vegan..........jo <jo.heartwork > wrote: I have some Hindu friends who are vegetarian. Jo ........... History repeats itself and each time the price gets higher Peter H

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

December 13, 2006

Hi Peter

>I thought it said in the begining god made man? not protezoa or primeval soup or whatever? I thought there was a long standing argument between creationists and

> evolutioneries?

But why does God making the animals automatically mean that those animals can't evolve?

The debate was started a few centuries ago by Bishop Ussher who decided that God created the world in around 4000 BC, and that nothing before then had existed - that is the basis of the "creationist" viewpoint - the short time span given by Ussher is what makes evolution untenable, not the basic concept of creation of beings which may or may not be given the ability to evolve.

BB

Peter

December 14, 2006

That's exactly right Fraggle.

Jo

-

fraggle

Wednesday, December 13, 2006 8:37 PM

Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

ask them what?

vegetarianism is deeply embedded in their religion/culture

it is a basic tenet of Vedic law/scriptures, and assorted myths/traditions/history

it is a basis of Ahinsa

then there is the karmic aspect...

and there is something about..ok..let me get it all in line in me head...

if one eats animals, then one takes in with that meal anger and assorted bad energies..

and meat and the culture of meat, contributes to violence

plenty of Hindu scriptures deal with vegetarianism

and many heroes/historical figures from hindi/india's past were veggie

peter VV Dec 13, 2006 12:22 PM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

Maybe you could ask them?

The Valley Vegan..........jo <jo.heartwork wrote:

I have some Hindu friends who are vegetarian.

Jo

............

History repeats itself

and each time the price gets higher

December 14, 2006

There's Zoroastrians (sp?) but I don't know what they believe.

Jo

-

peter VV

Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:43 PM

Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

Thank you oh enlightened one, now then have we missed any others out? Sihkism ? or is it an offshoot of hinduism?

The Valley Vegan...........fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote:

ask them what?

vegetarianism is deeply embedded in their religion/culture

it is a basic tenet of Vedic law/scriptures, and assorted myths/traditions/history

it is a basis of Ahinsa

then there is the karmic aspect...

and there is something about..ok..let me get it all in line in me head...

if one eats animals, then one takes in with that meal anger and assorted bad energies..

and meat and the culture of meat, contributes to violence

plenty of Hindu scriptures deal with vegetarianism

and many heroes/historical figures from hindi/india's past were veggie

peter VV Dec 13, 2006 12:22 PM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

Maybe you could ask them?

The Valley Vegan..........jo <jo.heartwork > wrote:

I have some Hindu friends who are vegetarian.

Jo

............ History repeats itself and each time the price gets higher

Peter H

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

December 14, 2006

they believe i am the almighty!!!

muhahahahahahahaha

Zoroastrianism, parsee (parsi), mahzadaism

same thing

different names

there is some vegetarian basis as well

one of the very first monotheistic religions (tho, i beleive the Aton phase in egypt has em beat)

tho very dualistic

there are certain scriptures that say not to eat certain critters (pretty common as we see in most ancient religions) and something about the the Evil teaching a king to eat meat

sorry....need to read more up on Zoroastrianism

i know they still have temples in iran and central asia where the eternal flame burns...

tho the main of their religion is now in india

jo Dec 13, 2006 7:01 PM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

There's Zoroastrians (sp?) but I don't know what they believe.

Jo

-

peter VV

Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:43 PM

Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

Thank you oh enlightened one, now then have we missed any others out? Sihkism ? or is it an offshoot of hinduism?

The Valley Vegan...........fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote:

ask them what?

vegetarianism is deeply embedded in their religion/culture

it is a basic tenet of Vedic law/scriptures, and assorted myths/traditions/history

it is a basis of Ahinsa

then there is the karmic aspect...

and there is something about..ok..let me get it all in line in me head...

if one eats animals, then one takes in with that meal anger and assorted bad energies..

and meat and the culture of meat, contributes to violence

plenty of Hindu scriptures deal with vegetarianism

and many heroes/historical figures from hindi/india's past were veggie

peter VV Dec 13, 2006 12:22 PM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

Maybe you could ask them?

The Valley Vegan..........jo <jo.heartwork > wrote:

I have some Hindu friends who are vegetarian.

Jo

............ History repeats itself and each time the price gets higher

Peter H

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

History repeats itself

and each time the price gets higher

December 14, 2006

God didn't make man until the sixth day. He pretty much made everything else first. On the fifth day he said, "Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind." Then first on the sixth day he said "Let the earth produce every sort of animal," and later on the sixth day make human beings. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 wrote: I thought it said in the begining god made man? not protezoa or

primeval soup or whatever? I thought there was a long standing argument between creationists and evolutioneries? The Valley Vegan...............Peter <metalscarab > wrote: Hi Peter >So where did the carnivores/predators come from according to the bible ( I didnt think it believed in evolution ), did the devil make the carnivores/predators? Whereabouts in the Bible does it say that evolution doesn't exist? The only thing I can think that would be a potential problem for evolution would be "God made man in his own image", but that would only suggest that humanity doesn't evolve - and even that interpretation could

be argued theologically anyway. BB Peter Peter H All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.

December 14, 2006

wow thats some speedy evolution! The Valley Vegan.................Shhhhh <compassion2grace wrote: God didn't make man until the sixth day. He pretty much made everything else first. On the fifth day he said, "Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind." Then first on the sixth day he said "Let the earth produce every sort of animal," and later on the sixth day make human beings. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: I thought it said in the begining god made man? not protezoa or primeval soup or whatever? I thought there was a long standing argument between creationists and evolutioneries? The Valley Vegan...............Peter <metalscarab > wrote: Hi Peter >So where did the carnivores/predators come from according to the bible ( I didnt think it believed in evolution ), did the devil make the carnivores/predators? Whereabouts in the Bible does it say that evolution doesn't exist? The only thing I can think that would be a potential problem for evolution would be "God made man in his own image", but that would only suggest that humanity doesn't evolve - and even that interpretation could be argued theologically anyway. BB Peter Peter H All New

Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. Peter H

Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Mail - quick, easy and free. Do it now...

December 14, 2006

Doesnt fossilised evidence contradict that , I mean werent there predators/carnivores before mankind came along? The Valley Vegan...............Shhhhh <compassion2grace wrote: I suppose they would have become carnivores and predators when man did, and for the same reasons. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: So where did the carnivores/predators come from according to the bible ( I didnt think it believed in evolution ), did the devil make the carnivores/predators? The Valley Vegan...........Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: Ah, Genesis 6:21, perhaps? "And be sure to take on board enough food for your family and for all the animals." (New Living Translation) This is regarding food Noah was to take on the ark. But according to the Bible story, the animals at creation were vegetarian also, so Noah wouldn't have had to take live animals to use as food. Genesis 1:29-30: "Then God said, 'Look, I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth, and all the

fruit trees for your food. And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground -- everything that has life." peace, sharonfraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) com> wrote: str8 from the bible Genesis "21": And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them. jo Dec 12, 2006 11:40 AM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats I would have thought so. I suspect they took some extras with them, after all the carnivore animals would have needed food, so there would be extra animals for them to eat. Jo - peter VV Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:35 PM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats If that is the case, then if they had two of every species on this tardis like ark, then surely they would have caused extinction of some species? I mean if they were eating them?.....sorry my brain works in mysterious ways......... The Valley Vegan...............jo <jo.heartwork > wrote: I thought it was because God gave permission to eat meat during the flood, so that they might survive. Of course, this would infer that once the plants were visible and growing again, people would stop eating animals. Jo - Shhhhh Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:10 AM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats Of course there is much disagreement on this subject. About the only thing that can be certain is that originally God gave man a vegetarian diet, and therefore the whole meat eating thing is tied into the fact that man fell from grace. But it is a good book, a

worthwhile read. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: Trouble is , I dont want to read a whole book on the subject, just get some informed feedback. Oh I`ve heard all the arguments before where one part of the bible says eat animals , and another contradicts it, just wondered what christian vegans or theological vegans ( if there are any ) think is all...... The Valley Vegan................Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: I think "Dominion" by Matthew Scully is about the best read you could get on a proper Christian ethic regarding animals.

peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: In my never ending quest to try and understand various faiths and their standpoint on animals , I noticed this christian article, what do you all think? We should treat all creatures with respect, as the early Christians did Nothing is more orthodox, one might think,

than the traditional Christmas-card Nativity scene of the ox and ass looking adoringly at Jesus in the stable. Few realise that this much-loved scene has no obvious canonical authority. The canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do not depict the animals in the stable, indeed there are no references at all to the animals attending Christ’s birth. The source appears to be the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, a compilation in Latin from the 8th or 9th centuries which draws on an older oral tradition. The ox and the ass, for example, appear on sarcophagi of the 4th and 5th centuries, and on ivory carvings of the fifth and sixth centuries. What we appear to have, then, is a non-canonical elaboration of the line found in Isaiah i, 3 (echoed in Habakkuk iii, 2) that “the

ox knows its owner and the ass its master’s crib”. Interesting, one might think, but hardly significant. In fact Pseudo-Matthew is part of a voluminous amount of apocryphal literature that offers strikingly different perspectives on Jesus and animals. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (5th century), Jesus creates sparrows from clay and breathes on a dead fish to bring it back to life. In the Protoevangelium of James (2nd century), the entire creation, including the animals, is caught up in a catalepsy at the birth of Jesus. In a Coptic fragment, of unknown date, Jesus heals a mule and remonstrates with its owner: “Now carry on and from now on do not beat it any more, so that you too may find mercy.” The significance of these gospel hints and apocryphal stories is that they testify to an animal-friendly tradition within Christianity. Christ’s birth and ministry are understood as a

harbinger of peaceful creaturely relations in fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy that the “wolf shall live with the sheep . . . and a little child shall lead them” (xi, 6). God’s kingdom, then, consists in peaceful, filial, co-operative relations between species. This is, of course, in sharp contrast to the instrumentalist views of animals found in classical exponents, such as Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. Animals, they believed, were put here for our use. “Hence,” wrote St Thomas, “it is not wrong for man to make use of them, either by killing or in any other way whatever.” But the animal-friendly tradition was kept alive — indeed it flourished — in the lives of many saints of East and West. St Basil the Great, St John Chrysostom, St Isaac the Syrian, and St Cuthbert all commended kindness to animals as a mark of holiness. St Bonaventure, the biographer of St Francis of Assisi, wrote of how he was filled with overwhelming piety when he contemplated

God’s other creatures, calling them “brothers” and “sisters” because they had the same origin as himself. Many commentators have dismissed these stories of saints and animals as hagiographical gloss. But, in fact, they carry a strong theological punch: union with God (if it is to be real) must involve communion with all God’s creatures. Attitudes of wonder and celebration cannot easily co-exist with wholly instrumentalist perspectives on animals. Neither did that animal-friendly tradition die out with the great saints. It culminated in the humanitarian movement in the 19th century that saw the first organised campaigns against cruelty to animals and children. Many think that the “dominion” over animals granted in Genesis i, 26 means despotism, but since human beings are subsequently prescribed a vegetarian diet (v29-30), it is difficult to see how herb-eating dominion can be a licence for tyranny Although most think that human

salvation alone is Christian doctrine, many Bible verses make clear that the scope of salvation is cosmic. Untrammelled human supremacy, it is supposed, is part of the core message, whereas the Bible indicates how humans are uniquely wicked, capable of making themselves lower than the beasts — the Book of Job compares us unfavourably with the Leviathan and Behemoth (chaps 40-41). Last month more than 100 academics (including 40 theologians) helped to launch the new Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, an international academy dedicated to rethinking the ethics of our treatment of animals. Christianity — once judged to be the cornerstone of “speciesist” and “supremacist” attitudes — in fact comprises resources to help us discover more convivial and respectful relations with animals. Next time we peer into a Christmas crib, with Jesus surrounded by the adoring animals, we should remind ourselves of the survival of an alternative, animal-inclusive tradition at the heart of Christianity. The Rev Professor Andrew Linzey is director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics; www.oxfordanimalethics.com Peter H All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect

you. Want to start your own business? Learn how on Small Business. Peter H Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Mail. Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Peter H Try the all-new

Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal History repeats itself and each time the price gets higher Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Peter H Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger. Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Answers. Try it now. Peter H

All new Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine

December 14, 2006

What about the animals that may not have become carnivores at all? Like our mostly vegetarian, 98% genetically identical cousins, the mountain gorillas....

-

peter VV

Thursday, December 14, 2006 4:02 PM

Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

Doesnt fossilised evidence contradict that , I mean werent there predators/carnivores before mankind came along?

The Valley Vegan...............Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote:

I suppose they would have become carnivores and predators when man did, and for the same reasons.

peace,

sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote:

So where did the carnivores/predators come from according to the bible ( I didnt think it believed in evolution ), did the devil make the carnivores/predators?

The Valley Vegan...........Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote:

Ah, Genesis 6:21, perhaps? "And be sure to take on board enough food for your family and for all the animals." (New Living Translation) This is regarding food Noah was to take on the ark. But according to the Bible story, the animals at creation were vegetarian also, so Noah wouldn't have had to take live animals to use as food. Genesis 1:29-30: "Then God said, 'Look, I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth, and all the fruit trees for your food. And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground -- everything that has life."

peace,

sharonfraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) com> wrote:

str8 from the bible

Genesis

"21": And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

jo Dec 12, 2006 11:40 AM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

I would have thought so. I suspect they took some extras with them, after all the carnivore animals would have needed food, so there would be extra animals for them to eat.

Jo

-

peter VV

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:35 PM

Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

If that is the case, then if they had two of every species on this tardis like ark, then surely they would have caused extinction of some species? I mean if they were eating them?.....sorry my brain works in mysterious ways.........

The Valley Vegan...............jo <jo.heartwork > wrote:

I thought it was because God gave permission to eat meat during the flood, so that they might survive. Of course, this would infer that once the plants were visible and growing again, people would stop eating animals.

Jo

-

Shhhhh

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:10 AM

Re: Animals must not be scapegoats

Of course there is much disagreement on this subject. About the only thing that can be certain is that originally God gave man a vegetarian diet, and therefore the whole meat eating thing is tied into the fact that man fell from grace.

But it is a good book, a worthwhile read.

peace,

sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote:

Trouble is , I dont want to read a whole book on the subject, just get some informed feedback. Oh I`ve heard all the arguments before where one part of the bible says eat animals , and another contradicts it, just wondered what christian vegans or theological vegans ( if there are any ) think is all......

The Valley Vegan................Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote:

I think "Dominion" by Matthew Scully is about the best read you could get on a proper Christian ethic regarding animals.

peace,

sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote:

In my never ending quest to try and understand various faiths and their standpoint on animals , I noticed this christian article, what do you all think?

We should treat all creatures with respect, as the early Christians did

Nothing is more orthodox, one might think, than the traditional Christmas-card Nativity scene of the ox and ass looking adoringly at Jesus in the stable. Few realise that this much-loved scene has no obvious canonical authority. The canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do not depict the animals in the stable, indeed there are no references at all to the animals attending Christ's birth. The source appears to be the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, a compilation in Latin from the 8th or 9th centuries which draws on an older oral tradition. The ox and the ass, for example, appear on sarcophagi of the 4th and 5th centuries, and on ivory carvings of the fifth and sixth centuries.

What we appear to have, then, is a non-canonical elaboration of the line found in Isaiah i, 3 (echoed in Habakkuk iii, 2) that "the ox knows its owner and the ass its master's crib". Interesting, one might think, but hardly significant. In fact Pseudo-Matthew is part of a voluminous amount of apocryphal literature that offers strikingly different perspectives on Jesus and animals. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (5th century), Jesus creates sparrows from clay and breathes on a dead fish to bring it back to life. In the Protoevangelium of James (2nd century), the entire creation, including the animals, is caught up in a catalepsy at the birth of Jesus. In a Coptic fragment, of unknown date, Jesus heals a mule and remonstrates with its owner: "Now carry on and from now on do not beat it any more, so that you too may find mercy."

The significance of these gospel hints and apocryphal stories is that they testify to an animal-friendly tradition within Christianity. Christ's birth and ministry are understood as a harbinger of peaceful creaturely relations in fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy that the "wolf shall live with the sheep . . . and a little child shall lead them" (xi, 6). God's kingdom, then, consists in peaceful, filial, co-operative relations between species. This is, of course, in sharp contrast to the instrumentalist views of animals found in classical exponents, such as Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. Animals, they believed, were put here for our use. "Hence," wrote St Thomas, "it is not wrong for man to make use of them, either by killing or in any other way whatever." But the animal-friendly tradition was kept alive - indeed it flourished - in the lives of many saints of East and West. St Basil the Great, St John Chrysostom, St Isaac the Syrian, and St Cuthbert all commended kindness to animals as a mark of holiness. St Bonaventure, the biographer of St Francis of Assisi, wrote of how he was filled with overwhelming piety when he contemplated God's other creatures, calling them "brothers" and "sisters" because they had the same origin as himself. Many commentators have dismissed these stories of saints and animals as hagiographical gloss. But, in fact, they carry a strong theological punch: union with God (if it is to be real) must involve communion with all God's creatures. Attitudes of wonder and celebration cannot easily co-exist with wholly instrumentalist perspectives on animals. Neither did that animal-friendly tradition die out with the great saints. It culminated in the humanitarian movement in the 19th century that saw the first organised campaigns against cruelty to animals and children. Many think that the "dominion" over animals granted in Genesis i, 26 means despotism, but since human beings are subsequently prescribed a vegetarian diet (v29-30), it is difficult to see how herb-eating dominion can be a licence for tyranny

Although most think that human salvation alone is Christian doctrine, many Bible verses make clear that the scope of salvation is cosmic. Untrammelled human supremacy, it is supposed, is part of the core message, whereas the Bible indicates how humans are uniquely wicked, capable of making themselves lower than the beasts - the Book of Job compares us unfavourably with the Leviathan and Behemoth (chaps 40-41). Last month more than 100 academics (including 40 theologians) helped to launch the new Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, an international academy dedicated to rethinking the ethics of our treatment of animals. Christianity - once judged to be the cornerstone of "speciesist" and "supremacist" attitudes - in fact comprises resources to help us discover more convivial and respectful relations with animals.

Next time we peer into a Christmas crib, with Jesus surrounded by the adoring animals, we should remind ourselves of the survival of an alternative, animal-inclusive tradition at the heart of Christianity.

The Rev Professor Andrew Linzey is director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics; www.oxfordanimalethics.com

Peter H

All New Mail - Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.

Want to start your own business? Learn how on Small Business.

Peter H

Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Mail.

Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

Peter H

Try the all-new Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" - The Wall Street Journal History repeats itself and each time the price gets higher

Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

Peter H

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Answers. Try it now.

Peter H

All new Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine

December 14, 2006

What about them? I wasnt asking about them, I was refering to the ones that werent , from invertibrates to fish to animals ( yes even dinosaurs ) The Valley Vegan..............Carolyn H <wordwerks wrote: What about the animals that may not have become carnivores at all? Like our mostly vegetarian, 98% genetically identical cousins, the mountain gorillas.... - peter VV Thursday, December 14, 2006 4:02 PM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats Doesnt fossilised evidence contradict that , I mean werent there predators/carnivores before mankind came along? The Valley Vegan...............Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: I suppose they would have become carnivores and predators when man did, and for the same reasons. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: So where did the carnivores/predators come from according to the bible ( I didnt think it believed in evolution ), did the devil make the carnivores/predators? The Valley Vegan...........Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: Ah, Genesis 6:21, perhaps? "And be sure to take on board enough food for your family and for all the animals." (New Living Translation) This is regarding food Noah was to take on the ark. But according to the Bible story, the animals at creation were vegetarian also, so Noah wouldn't have had to take live animals to use as food. Genesis 1:29-30: "Then God said, 'Look, I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth, and all the fruit trees for your food. And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground -- everything that has life." peace, sharonfraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) com> wrote: str8 from the

bible Genesis "21": And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them. jo Dec 12, 2006 11:40 AM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats I would have thought so. I suspect they took some extras with them, after all the carnivore animals would have needed food, so there would be extra animals for them to eat. Jo - peter VV Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:35 PM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats If that is the case, then if they had two of every species on this tardis like ark, then surely they would have caused extinction of some species? I mean if they were eating them?.....sorry my brain works in mysterious ways......... The Valley Vegan...............jo <jo.heartwork > wrote: I thought it was because God gave permission to eat meat during the flood, so that they might survive. Of course, this would infer that once the plants were visible and growing again, people would stop eating animals. Jo - Shhhhh Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:10 AM Re: Animals must not be scapegoats Of course there is much disagreement on this subject. About the only thing that can be certain is that originally God gave man a vegetarian diet, and therefore the whole meat eating thing is tied into the fact that man fell from grace. But it is a good book, a worthwhile read. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: Trouble is , I dont want to read a whole book on the subject,

just get some informed feedback. Oh I`ve heard all the arguments before where one part of the bible says eat animals , and another contradicts it, just wondered what christian vegans or theological vegans ( if there are any ) think is all...... The Valley Vegan................Shhhhh <compassion2grace > wrote: I think "Dominion" by Matthew Scully is about the best read you could get on a proper Christian ethic regarding animals. peace, sharonpeter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote: In my never ending quest to try and understand various faiths and their standpoint on animals , I noticed this christian

article, what do you all think? We should treat all creatures with respect, as the early Christians did Nothing is more orthodox, one might think, than the traditional Christmas-card Nativity scene of the ox and ass looking adoringly at Jesus in the stable. Few realise that this much-loved scene has no obvious canonical authority. The canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do not depict the animals in the stable, indeed there are no references at all to the animals attending

Christ's birth. The source appears to be the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, a compilation in Latin from the 8th or 9th centuries which draws on an older oral tradition. The ox and the ass, for example, appear on sarcophagi of the 4th and 5th centuries, and on ivory carvings of the fifth and sixth centuries. What we appear to have, then, is a non-canonical elaboration of the line found in Isaiah i, 3 (echoed in Habakkuk iii, 2) that "the ox knows its owner and the ass its master's crib". Interesting, one might think, but hardly significant. In fact Pseudo-Matthew is part of a voluminous amount of apocryphal literature that offers strikingly different perspectives on Jesus and animals. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (5th century), Jesus creates sparrows from clay and

breathes on a dead fish to bring it back to life. In the Protoevangelium of James (2nd century), the entire creation, including the animals, is caught up in a catalepsy at the birth of Jesus. In a Coptic fragment, of unknown date, Jesus heals a mule and remonstrates with its owner: "Now carry on and from now on do not beat it any more, so that you too may find mercy." The significance of these gospel hints and apocryphal stories is that they testify to an animal-friendly tradition within Christianity. Christ's birth and ministry are understood as a harbinger of peaceful creaturely relations in fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy that the "wolf shall live with the sheep . . . and a little child shall lead them" (xi, 6). God's kingdom, then, consists in peaceful, filial, co-operative relations between species. This is, of course, in sharp contrast to the instrumentalist views

of animals found in classical exponents, such as Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. Animals, they believed, were put here for our use. "Hence," wrote St Thomas, "it is not wrong for man to make use of them, either by killing or in any other way whatever." But the animal-friendly tradition was kept alive - indeed it flourished - in the lives of many saints of East and West. St Basil the Great, St John Chrysostom, St Isaac the Syrian, and St Cuthbert all commended kindness to animals as a mark of holiness. St Bonaventure, the biographer of St Francis of Assisi, wrote of how he was filled with overwhelming piety when he contemplated God's other creatures, calling them "brothers" and "sisters" because they had the same origin as himself. Many commentators have dismissed these stories of saints and animals as hagiographical gloss. But, in fact, they carry a strong theological punch: union with God (if it is to be real) must involve communion with all God's creatures.

Attitudes of wonder and celebration cannot easily co-exist with wholly instrumentalist perspectives on animals. Neither did that animal-friendly tradition die out with the great saints. It culminated in the humanitarian movement in the 19th century that saw the first organised campaigns against cruelty to animals and children. Many think that the "dominion" over animals granted in Genesis i, 26 means despotism, but since human beings are subsequently prescribed a vegetarian diet (v29-30), it is difficult to see how herb-eating dominion can be a licence for tyranny Although most think that human salvation alone is Christian doctrine, many Bible verses make clear that the scope of salvation is cosmic. Untrammelled human supremacy, it is supposed, is part of the core message, whereas the Bible indicates how humans are uniquely wicked, capable of making themselves lower than the beasts - the Book of Job compares us unfavourably with the

Leviathan and Behemoth (chaps 40-41). Last month more than 100 academics (including 40 theologians) helped to launch the new Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, an international academy dedicated to rethinking the ethics of our treatment of animals. Christianity - once judged to be the cornerstone of "speciesist" and "supremacist" attitudes - in fact comprises resources to help us discover more convivial and respectful relations with animals. Next time we peer into a Christmas crib, with Jesus surrounded by the adoring animals, we should remind ourselves of the survival of an alternative, animal-inclusive tradition at the heart of Christianity. The Rev Professor Andrew Linzey is director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics;

www.oxfordanimalethics.com Peter H All New Mail - Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. Want to start your own business? Learn how on Small Business. Peter H Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Mail. Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Peter H Try the all-new Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" - The Wall Street Journal History repeats itself and each time the price gets higher Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Peter H Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger. Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Answers. Try it now. Peter H All new Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine Peter H

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

December 14, 2006

hi peter,

there are some people in brooklyn that are very very jewish,

so much so that they won't even look regular people in the eye.

there had been some racial wars in brooklyn where my dad used to

live. I know that some of them do not even acknowledge the existance

of people outside of their religious group.

It is scary. I would sit in a park and their children would not play

with my children, I would smile at them; they would not smile back.

It is not about me. I don't take it personal. Their religion just

is very strict.

I get along great with less jewish jews that are still jewish.

my dad is dead now, but I believe this neighborhood is around 48th st.

The largest Ultra-Orthodox jewish neighborhood is called

Borough Park.

They don't even watch TV or get their pictures taken or

talk on microfones, and the females do not let their hair show.

Some of the males,they just read read read all day.

Flatbush and Bay ridge I believe are also jewish.

, " Peter " <metalscarab wrote:

> Ultra-orthodox Jews can't really be vegan, as there are certain

things that they are supposed to hang in their doorways which are made

from animals - but I don't think there are that many ultra-Orthodox

Jews around, and like any religion, interpretation is everything.

>

> BB

> Peter

>

December 14, 2006

well I think the bible is EVIL.

sorry, the god in there is much too violent for me.

The funny thing about it is that as a child,

I truly and with all of my precious tender little heart...

believe in it.

but as Adult, none of what is written in there make logical sense to

me and because

I live in the South..

It is constantly being shoved down my throat.

but my (opinion) is that they had to be vegetarian because

Methusaleh and were aged hundreds of years and recent

research has proven the people who eat animal-heavy diet

have the shortest lifespan.

-anouk

, peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

>

> ???????????? so did they wipe out any species by eating them, or

were they still vegie then?, and surely after the flood it would have

taken a few months to reproduce just one offspring for say a

cow/goat/pig? so they must have eaten quite a few by then?

>

> Sorry about my brain...........or lack of it!

>

> The Valley Vegan............

>

> Shhhhh <compassion2grace wrote:

> Seven pairs, actually.

>

> peace,

> sharon

>

> Peter <metalscarab wrote:

> Hi Peter

>

> >If that is the case, then if they had two of every species on

this tardis like ark, then surely they would have caused extinction of

some species? I mean if they were

> > eating them?.....sorry my brain works in mysterious ways.........

>

> According to the bible, there were two of some species, and seven

of other species....

>

> BB

> Peter

>

> Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail beta.

>

> Peter H

>

> Try the all-new Mail . " The New Version is radically easier

to use " – The Wall Street Journal

>

December 14, 2006

Hi Peter

>Doesnt fossilised evidence contradict that , I mean werent there predators/carnivores before mankind came along?

Just last month they discovered archaeological evidence that humans were around about 1 millionn years than they'd previously thought. I don't think there's yet enough archaeology been done to say exactly when mankind came along...

BB

Peter

Sign In

Animals must not be scapegoats

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest