Posted by G on September 01, 1999 at 19:51:24:
In Reply to: Re: What WAS Jesus? posted by John on September 01, 1999 at 18:02:04:
: : I haven't posted in a while and I am in a rather feisty mood today so this is my post...I saw an interesting headline on the Tampa Tribune front page. I thought it funny to hear some of the things said in the article and thought i'd share it with the rest of my family. I am going to withhold my comments for now for sake of conversation later, I am just curious what some of you might have to say about it. Hmmmmm...
: That article was nothing new to me, I've seen alot of that in my liberal college. I noticed some things though that are counters to the argument. First he cites the the garden of eden as the intended state without reading a little further to where God himself kills the first animals to make clothes for Adam and Eve. In addition he commands sacrifices AND that they eat the sacrifices. His answer would be that this was in the fallen state and God altered His plan to accomodate the new order. Sorry, that's not my God. Beyond that why would the same God who came to Earth as Jesus be advocating a way that God had seen imortant enough to let alter His intended way way in the first place. See if God was intending to restore the original state in the first place, it makes no sense that He would command sacrifices that are contrary to the ideals this writer puts forth. In short the two stories don't match up and he ignores the discrepency while still claiming that it is the same God and the same Christ.
: Further still he ignores the story where Paul has a vision where God tells him to kill and eat. The things he sees are animals.
: Another thing, he slips in this little rhetoric tactic of calling the "taste for flesh" acquired. This implies that there is no natural inclination to eat meat and that we only learn to like it because we are given it. This is so full of holes. First, acquired tastes are not passed on genetically, so that means that every human being only likes meat because they were given it in sufficient ammount to "acquire" the taste before they could remember it. Secondly, humans are biologically designed for meat. Sorry, but it is true. Any biologist can tell you that human teeth are omnivorous, they are designed to eat both flesh and vegetables. Not that they merely can eat meat, but that the teeth are specifically configured with characteristics that allow for the chewing and biting of flesh.
: If people are going to make such decisive arguments they ought to think through the counters and make sure they haven't left any holes like these which anyone with any logical capability can drive a truck through.
: Finally, there is no evidence to support that Jesus was a vegetarian. In fact he cooks fish for the apostles on the beach, whether he ate it or not, killing the fish hardly fits with the character this man paints. Now if he wanted to argue against slautherhouses and cruelty, he could make a case on the compassion thing, but as it is he presents a foolish and ignorant argument in the claims of vegetarianism. If people for whatever reason choose not to eat meat that is their choice, but they should make sure their reasons are sound and valid and not flippant and partyline. I know of many good reasons to be vegetarian, like opposition to treatment of animals, inability to honor the death of the living by the distance from the killng to the eater, health reasons, and not liking it. Why does this man feel the need to try and create a universal and Almighty justification for his beliefs, they could as easily stand on their own and he would look smart instead of just pompous and ignorant.
: But I like the t-shirt, other than the words!
They say Jesus didn't eat meat and in the article they consider fish meat. Yet, when the Eleven came upon the shore Jesus already had a fire going, cooking fish.