eating meat

[thisistheonlynamenottaken]

people say that it is a sin to kill anything that God placed on this blessed earth. That means killinh innocent animals. i am by no means a vegetarian, i just want to know if it is wrong to be killing animals for food. i know that they do not have souls or whatever, but it is still killing a beautiful creature of God for our own pleasure....any thoughts?

 

[InnerPhyre]

God has commanded man to kill and eat animals on several occaisions. Jesus filled Peter's nets full of fish. I don't think its a sin. Torturing animals would be, but not killing them for food.

 

[ps139]

You could make the same argument and say that it is wrong to kill a beautiful plant.

If man did not kill living things such as plants and animals he would not survive. Plus, in Genesis God gives man dominion over the earth.

 

[Michelina]

That's right, ps139!

Just about an hour ago, I saw a foolish bumper sticker. It said:

The earth does not belong to Man. Man belongs to the Earth.

Baloney! God created the earth for mankind and gave him Dominion over it.

 

[Polycarp1]

That's right, ps139!

Just about an hour ago, I saw a foolish bumper sticker. It said:

The earth does not belong to Man. Man belongs to the Earth.

Baloney! God created the earth for mankind and gave him Dominion over it.

Good point, Michelina -- but may I expand on it a bit:

"Dominion" is an interesting word with a number of meanings. Some months ago my priest preached on the general topic of stewardship, and pointed out that God did not give us ownership of His world -- it is still a part of His dominion. What He gave us is stewardship, and like the stewards in the parable, we are responsible to give Him an account of our stewardship.

It therefore behooves us to use the world's resources rightly, to the filling of the needs of ourselves and others, but with care taken not to damage His creation, and always to His honor and glory.

 

[Cat59]

i know that they do not have souls or whatever, but it is still killing a beautiful creature of God for our own pleasure....any thoughts?

It's not for pleasure, but necessity
Having said that, it would be wrong to misuse the things that God has given us dominion over, including killing in a cruel way or in a gluttinous or wasteful way.

 

[Michelina]

Some months ago my priest preached on the general topic of stewardship, and pointed out that God did not give us ownership of His world -- it is still a part of His dominion.

The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof.

It therefore behooves us to use the world's resources rightly, to the filling of the needs of ourselves and others, but with care taken not to damage His creation, and always to His honor and glory.

"to the filling of the needs of ourselves and others"

Other people, yes. Prudent use of our resources is a matter of charity towards other people, Poly. But I absolutely reject the current trend towards seeing people as merely the equals of other creatures. I regard that as a lie from the Devils, who despise us.

 

[Polycarp1]

"to the filling of the needs of ourselves and others"

Other people, yes. Prudent use of our resources is a matter of charity towards other people, Poly. But I absolutely reject the current trend towards seeing people as merely the equals of other creatures. I regard that as a lie from the Devils, who despise us.

No disagreement, Michelina. By "others" I intended to mean our fellow men -- sorry for the unclarity.

As regards "environmentalism gone wild," I believe that other plants and animals have a right to their lives, subject to human rights superseding those rights. In other words and for example, humans have the right to lumber in a forest for their needs, be they essential or frivolous, and to the extent they need the wood -- but humans have no right to destroy a forest simply because it's easier to harvest the whole thing and leave a barren where it stood than to selectively harvest what they need and leave the rest to regenerate. The first is proper use of Creation according to God's command; the second, its abuse.

 

[Michelina]

No disagreement, Michelina. By "others" I intended to mean our fellow men -- sorry for the unclarity.

As regards "environmentalism gone wild," I believe that other plants and animals have a right to their lives, subject to human rights superseding those rights.

Where would they get such a right, Poly?

In other words and for example, humans have the right to lumber in a forest for their needs, be they essential or frivolous, and to the extent they need the wood -- but humans have no right to destroy a forest simply because it's easier to harvest the whole thing and leave a barren where it stood than to selectively harvest what they need and leave the rest to regenerate.The first is proper use of Creation according to God's command; the second, its abuse.

Yes, because people need to think of future generations of people and the impact imprudent harvesting might have on those people. Trees don't have rights. Plants and Animals only have the rights people give them. Treating animals cruelly is beneath OUR dignity.

God created the earth and its fullness to reveal Himself to us and to provide for us. The tendency towards anthropomorphic naturalism is a sign of the decline of the concept of a theocentric universe in our neo-pagan culture.

I know it's not PC to say so.

 

[Dawn Marie]

I don't think it's wrong to eat meat. But I do think it's wrong to torture/slaughter animals the way they do nowadays. There has to be a more humane way to do it...

That's all, really. I just think people could be less cruel to them.

 

[KennySe]

i am by no means a vegetarian, i just want to know if it is wrong to be killing animals for food.

Acts 10:10-15
10:10
And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

 

[thisistheonlynamenottaken]

okay i see now but is it "sinnful" to kill animals for game or clothes?

 

[thereselittleflower]

No disagreement, Michelina. By "others" I intended to mean our fellow men -- sorry for the unclarity.

As regards "environmentalism gone wild," I believe that other plants and animals have a right to their lives, subject to human rights superseding those rights. In other words and for example, humans have the right to lumber in a forest for their needs, be they essential or frivolous, and to the extent they need the wood -- but humans have no right to destroy a forest simply because it's easier to harvest the whole thing and leave a barren where it stood than to selectively harvest what they need and leave the rest to regenerate. The first is proper use of Creation according to God's command; the second, its abuse.

I am chuckling, as now we are getting into areas of "rights" . . I have some thoughts on this I hope it is OK to share

The way we understand rights, rights are associated with "personhood" and this is very important . . I, as a person, have certain inalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness . . but an animal or plant is NOT a person and so have no such inalienable rights . . However, environmentalism gone wild would give 'personhood' to animals and even plants, and thus the same rights we have as persons . .

The idea of personhood is at the center of the debate over abortion . .by denying the developing embryo and fetus the status of personhood, abortion has been justified . .

We have an obligation as persons to treat our environment respectfully and humanely - we were given a charge in the garden of eden . . I don't think that we have been absolved of that charge . . but that does not mean our environment has "rights" . . our environement, and the creature that occupy it are not persons . . But the extreme environmentalists would have us believe that earth itself is GAIA and a person . .


We can talk about whether or not a person has a right to demolish a forrest for no good reason, or slaughter a species for the fun of it . . but that is something different than arguing that the forrest has rights, or that a particular animal or species has rights . .

The area of "rights" has become so confused in our cultural thinking that I think it is one of the fundamental areas we have to deal with and be clear on to come up with solutions to today's issues . . we can't be confused on such fundamental issues as these . . or we begin to go down the path to GAIA . .


Peace in Him!

 

[Michelina]

We have an obligation as persons to treat our environment respectfully and humanely - we were given a charge in the garden of eden . . I don't think that we have been absolved of that

The obligation is people-centered.

The earth belongs to God but we have dominion of it. It is to be used for ALL people. Prudent use of the earth is a matter of charity and justice towards People, not trees or animals. The latter are put here for our use.

This whole business of 'rights' for animals is nutty.

And it angers me that people actually promote this stuff when HUMAN babies are being murdered.

 

[Michelina]

okay i see now but is it "sinful" to kill animals for game or clothes?

Catholic Moral Theology does not classify it as intrinsically sinful. It is a matter for prudence to decide, based on specific cases. And, there are conservation issues which should be considered.

 

[thereselittleflower]

The obligation is people-centered.

The earth belongs to God but we have dominion of it. It is to be used for ALL people. Prudent use of the earth is a matter of charity and justice towards People, not trees or animals. The latter are put here for our use.

This whole business of 'rights' for animals is nutty.

And it angers me that people actually promote this stuff when HUMAN babies are being murdered.

I know Michelina . . . .

This world is all turned upside down . . .


Peace in Him!

 

[ChristFollowers]

Acts 10:10-15
10:10
And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Did you read all of that chapter? That has nothing to do with food being clean and unclean. Included in that chapter is Acts 10: 28...read that and it reveils what that dream meant. Peter, himself, reveils what God has shown him in by that dream.

 

[KennySe]

Did you read all of that chapter? That has nothing to do with food being clean and unclean.

Why, as a matter of fact, I have read the entire chapter.

Thanks.

*****

Let me spell it out.

God Did speak to Peter in that trance, and when God told Peter to kill and to eat, Peter did not balk at the idea of killing animals to eat, but he balked at the idea of killing certain "common" animals for food.

Yes, the meaning is regards Gentiles.

Yes, we can see that Peter was not adverse to killing animals for sustenance.

 

[Debi1967]

okay i see now but is it "sinnful" to kill animals for game or clothes?

Ok look I state that this is my opinion before I start this. IMO we should never take away from this earth anything more than what is needed for us to survive. It is not necessary to kill game for the purpose of sporting but if one needs to eat then fine. If you need clothing then there are many other things other than seeing animals uselessly slaughtered for their pelts alone. this seems incredibly inhumane to do to any of God's creatures.

 

[ChristFollowers]

The obligation is people-centered.

The earth belongs to God but we have dominion of it. It is to be used for ALL people. Prudent use of the earth is a matter of charity and justice towards People, not trees or animals. The latter are put here for our use.

This whole business of 'rights' for animals is nutty.

And it angers me that people actually promote this stuff when HUMAN babies are being murdered.

It isn't "nutty" when something feels pain and they dont have a right to suffer. I would understand if you considered it "nutty" if animals didnt feel pain. But they do. Some people dont feel animals are here for our "use" Personally I dont think God would do that to something that feels pain. Just my opinion.