Animals must not be scapegoats

December 10, 2006

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.comPeter H

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

December 10, 2006

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 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.

December 11, 2006

Hi Peter

I don't know much about the Bible, so can't really comment. Peter

may be able to help as he used to help run a group on ancient texts.

Jo

, peter VV <swpgh01 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. NI_MPU('middle'); 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. NI_MPU('middle'); 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.

>

December 11, 2006

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.

December 12, 2006

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 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.

Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail beta.

December 12, 2006