Society of Ethical and Religious Vegetarians

“Animals are not vegetables” - a meeting with the Dalai Lama

2011-03-29T15:19:00.003-06:00

Although the traditional Tibetan diet is heavily meat-based – a function of the arid Tibetan climate – decades of exile in India (the Dalai Lama) and exodus to the West (many of his fellow Tibetans) have resulted in a growing appetite among Tibetans for ethical vegetarianism. It hasn't hurt that the Dalai Lama himself has been an increasingly outspoken advocate for animal rights and welfare, as we see in the following post by Dr. Nanditha Krishna who recently met with the Dalai Lama as a member of a delegation from the Tibetan Medical Centres of India.

Men Tsee Khang, the Tibetan Medical Centre headquartered in Dharamshala, which is the location of the Tibetan Government-in-exile, celebrated its 50th anniversary on March 23rd, 2011. The Centre's medicines are made of herbs and a few minerals. The herbs are sourced in the upper reaches of the Himalayas and are very rare and highly endangered. Tibet, the original source, is not accessible.

No animal products are used. Compassion, the Dalai Lama’s message, is gaining ground.

Last year, His Holiness ordered the closing of all piggeries and chicken farms run by Tibetans. “The poor hens are shut in a cage all their lives,” he told me. He even closed down the egg-laying farms. “After two or three years, the hens are sold for slaughter. This is not good. Raising animals for commercial purposes is not good.”

In Ladakh, he has started shelters for sheep and goats taken to slaughter. He buys them and lets them live till they die a natural death.

He has ordered that only vegetarian food should be served in all official Tibetan functions, an important step forward. The pre-function dinner and post-function lunch hosted by the Tibetan Medical Centre were both vegetarian. Wonderful

All of the food served to the monks is vegetarian as well.

Unfortunately, the Buddha himself was ambivalent about meat eating, saying neither yea nor nay. While the Mahaparinirvana Sutra and the Lankavatara Sutra quote the Buddha as positively speaking out against meat-eating, both Vajrayana (Tibetan) and Theravada (Sri Lankan) Vinayas permit meat-eating “if the animal is not killed specifically for you.”

“A Buddhist monk is a bhikshu, who cannot say I will eat this and not eat that. He has to eat whatever he is given, even if it is meat,” said the Dalai Lama. “Only Chinese Mahayana Buddhism totally bans meat” (hence the Chinese Buddhist vegetarian restaurants).

The Lamas agree that vegetarianism is the highest form of compassion. But neither they nor their followers are vegetarian. “It may be difficult to be a vegetarian in Tibet, where nothing grows. But we get everything in India. It is not necessary to eat meat,” said the venerable Geshe Lhador. But he too is not a vegetarian.

“Animals are not vegetables. They are intelligent. They feel pain and suffering like human beings,” said the Dalai Lama. “Freedom is liberation from suffering. All creation must have freedom from suffering. Compassion is my message.”

This was part of a 90 minute conversation I had with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who had invited the “sponsors” of the Tibetan Medical Centres in India and abroad, of whom I am one, to meet him. The Dalai Lama is charming and charismatic, a powerful speaker who intersperse his words with jokes and laughter, lightening a serious moment. He smiles often, yet does not mince his words.

The “release” of animals (especially fish) on Buddhist festivals causes untold misery. Salt water fish are released in fresh water and vice versa. Sea turtles are released on land and re-sold. Birds are caught, sold for release, and re-caught again. I mentioned this to him.

“I cannot order people to stop eating meat,” said the Dalai Lama, “But I speak of cruelty and compassion. When I visited Taiwan after the typhoon, I was horrified to see the way shrimps and fish were stored and sold. I said that even as the typhoon had caused great harm to the people, it had liberated the fish and shrimps who were washed back into the sea.”

“What is your solution to this practice?” Geshe Lhador, a senior Lama and Director of the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives threw the question at me, when I discussed this.

My solution? Walk into a chicken farm and release the birds, I replied. Release those in captivity. But do not buy animals to release them, for that is a profitable venture. He agreed, but he is a scholar who is far from the public eye. It is up to lay Buddhists to change this practice.

What is ahimsa? Is it merely non-ahimsa or non-killing. “Ahimsa is the practice of compassion. It is a dynamic force. Compassion and wisdom are the two sides of ahimsa,” said Geshe Lhador. Nor is the cow sacred to the Buddhists. “Ahimsa is the active practice of compassion.”

I was pleasantly surprised to see several vegetarian restaurants run by Tibetans. The food is a mixture of Tibetan, Chinese, Indian and American (pizzas and burgers). Most of the clients are Europeans and Israelis who live in Mc Leodganj and Dharamkot. But I also saw many young Tibetans there. And the young alone can fuel change.

It is not fair to target the Tibetans when the whole world is cruel to and consumes animals. But the Dalai Lama bears the burden of the Buddha’s legacy. And that is why people look at him to set an example in the practice of compassion.

We all praised the efficacy of Tibetan medicine to His Holiness. Prayer is a major part of the production and prescription process. The “Special Pills” are blessed and must be taken before dawn – the Brahma muhurtha of Hindu tradition – with a prayer to the Medicine Buddha (Never good at learning new lines, I repeat “Om Namo Narayanaya” at 3.30 a.m.)

“When allopathic medicine doesn’t work, Tibetan medicine does. And if Tibetan medicine not work, allopathic medicine does,” joked the Dalai Lama. His Holiness was appalled at the cruelty to animals in medical research and testing. “We must do research and develop scientifically. I keep telling Men Tsee Khang. But no testing on animals. No animal products. Medicines must be made with compassion.”

Why are we targeting the Dalai Lama alone? Why don’t European animal welfare organizations target the Pope? Or the Archbishop of Canterbury? If vegetarianism is not a Christian tradition, it is not a Buddhist tradition either. Monks are bhikshus (literally, beggars) and must eat whatever is given to them by a lay person. That is what the Buddha taught. They cannot say we won’t eat this, or that they want only vegetables, not meat. Even in the Buddha’s time they ate whatever was placed in their bowl, according to Buddhist tradition.

This is a fact. A Buddhist bhikshu or Hindu sanyasi can eat only the food that is placed in his bowl. The difference is in the followers. Buddhists have no hesitation in placing mutton curry in the monk’s bowl. Hindus would never dream of putting any non-vegetarian food in a sanyasi’s bowl. It is the ultimate insult. The blame lives with the Buddha who permitted his monks to eat whatever was given to them, not the Dalai Lama. So why target a man who was born on the Roof of the World and now lives in the Himalayas which are covered in snow from October to March? Start with the Pope and the Archbishop, who have the best choice of grains, fruits and vegetables. Unfortunately, I do not hear any European animal welfare group targeting these powerful religious leaders.

The Dalai Lama carries the entire burden of a people without a nation on his shoulders. If he were to start preaching vegetarianism to Japanese, Taiwanese, South East Asian and Sri Lankan Buddhists, he would probably lose any support they give the Tibetans. They cannot own land in India and live on a subsistence economy. So, he speaks of compassion towards all life forms, especially animals, of their pain and suffering, intelligence and comprehension.

“What is freedom?” asked a lady in our group. “It is freedom from suffering. It is moksha*,” replied His Holiness, a true Buddhist (*moksha = nirvana = liberation).

Dr. Nanditha Krishna is an historian, writer and environmentalist. Director of the C.P.Ramaswami Aiyar Foundation and C.P.R. Environmental Education Centre, both headquartered in Chennai, India, she is also a governing Body member of the Blue Cross of India, Founder-President of the Blue Cross of Kanchipuram and author of Sacred Animals of India (Penguin). The C.P.Ramaswami Aiyar Foundation hosts the Men-tsee-khang - a full-time Tibetan medical clinic with a doctor and compounder - in Chennai, India.

protecting religious minorities

2007-03-04T23:11:00.000-06:00

A few years ago, on one of his broadcasts, TV preacher Pat Robertson was quoted as saying, "We want a secular constitution, we want to make sure religious minorities are protected..." But he wasn't talking about the United States--he was talking about Afghanistan...where Christians are a minority!

Similarly, in the October 2006 issue of Church & State, the periodical put out by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Gary B. Christenot, an evangelical Christian writes about his experience on the Hawaiian island of Wahiawa, where Christians are a minority:

"...in this little village that was populated predominantly by people of Japanese and Chinese ancestry. Rather than a church on every corner, as is common in the continental 48 states, Wahiawa had a Shinto or Buddhist shrine on every corner."

Christenot says that prayers before a high school football game were led "not by a Protestant minister or a Catholic priest, but a Buddhist priest who proceeded to offer up prayers and intonations to god-head figures that our tradition held to be pagan."

He concludes: "I would say in love to my Christian brothers and sisters: Before you yearn for the imposition of prayer and similar rituals in your public schools, you might consider attending a football game at Wahiawa High School. Because unless you're ready to endure the unwilling exposure of yourself and your children to those beliefs and practices that your own faith forswears, you have no right to insist that others sit in silence and complicity while you do the same to them.

"I, for one, sleep better at night knowing that because Judeo-Christian prayers are not being offered at my children's schools, I don't have to worry about them being confronted with Buddhist, Shinto, Wiccan, Satanic or any other prayer ritual I might find offensive."

India's contributions to humanity

2007-02-22T23:55:00.000-06:00

A letter writer to my local paper claims that because “intellectually enlightened Western European Christians came to America 400 years ago,” America does not “resemble Laos, India, Ethiopia or Iran,” but instead possesses “the cities and the institutions that are the envy of the world.” This statement appears to be based more on prejudice than on fact.

There have been numerous civilizations throughout history; many were learned in the arts, sciences, humanities and metaphysics. Athens, for example, was a democracy devoted to human excellence in mind and body, to philosophy, and to the cultivation of the art of living. While Christianity kept the West in the Dark Ages for over a millennium, the civilizations in Asia were flourishing.

“India was the motherland of our race and Sanskrit the mother of European languages,” wrote American Scholar Will Durant in Our Oriental Heritage. “She was the mother of our philosophy; mother, through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics; mother of the ideals embodied in Christianity; mother, through the village community, of self-government and democracy. Mother India, in many ways, is the mother of us all.”

Historian A. Kalyanaraman supports Durant’s observations in his 1969 text, Aryatarangini, by citing evidence from the principle Hindu scriptures, known as the Vedas, as well as the testimony of Megasthenes. Megasthenes journeyed from the Greco-Roman world to India during the 3rd century BC. He served as an ambassador to the court of Chandragupta, where he had been sent by the king of Taxila. Kalyanaraman finds a great deal of political freedom and equality in ancient India, where social mobility was acknowledged.

The Vedas describe numerous sages who were of low birth, but were considered by their virtue to have been raised to the highest status. The Greek Megasthenes observed: “The law ordains that none among them under any circumstances be a slave; enjoying freedom, they shall expect the equal right to it which others possess...All Indians are free and not one of them is a slave. The Indians do not use even aliens as slaves; much less a countryman of their own.”

The earliest moral and legal codes (Dharma-sastras and Niti-sastras) originated in India, as did the earliest representative institutions (Sabha and Parishad). A Western text, India: Yesterday and Today, also says, “the four orders...of Hindu society...were classes in the Western sense rather than castes in the Indian manner.”

Long before Columbus’ era, India had a reputation throughout the world for its opulence. “The part of India known as Malabar,” wrote Marco Polo, “was the richest and noblest country in the world.” Kalyanaraman writes that Egypt traded ivory, precious stones, gold and sandalwood with India, while Rome traded Indian spices—mostly cinnamon and cassia. The Puranas mention sandalwood from Malaysia. Ancient India’s epic poem, the Mahabharata, even compares the women of the Mediterranean to the goddesses of the higher worlds.

The Rig Veda, one of four Vedas, refers to metallurgy. The Vedas also refer to mining iron ore, copper, brass and bronze. By the 6th century AD, India was far ahead of Europe in industrial chemistry. The Hindus were masters at calcination, distillation, sublimation, steaming, making anesthetics, soporific powders, metallic salts, compounds and alloys. India was producing steel during the era of Alexander. Centuries later, steel would be introduced to Europe by the Muslims.

The Vedas mention herbal medicines. They also discuss various afflictions and symptoms, and prescribe cures, depending on whether the disease is chronic and acute, and contagious or non-contagious. Jivaka (6th century BC) was adept at surgical operations such as trepanning of the skull, abdominal openings to cure hernia, etc.

Panini’s classical work on grammar, the Ashtadhyani contains a comprehensive list of parts of the body (human anatomy) as well as rare and common diseases. He further describes ligaments, sutres, lymphatics, nerve plexus, adipose and vascular tissues, mucous and synovial membranes with astonishing accuracy. Susruta dealt with surgery, obstetrics, dieting, baths, drugs, infant feeding, personal hygiene and medicinal education. He also understood the process of digestion and the functions of the stomach and liver.

The ancient Sanskrit literatures contain the Manu-Samhita, which has been called the religious lawbook for mankind—comparable to Mosaic Law or the Sharia. These Laws of Manu warn against marrying someone with tuberculosis, epilepsy and chronic dyspepsia. A remarkably accurate account of prenatal human development—from fertilization to birth—is given in the third canto of the Bhagavata Purana, one of Hinduism’s most revered devotional texts.

Bhavamisra, in 1550, detailed the circulation of blood in a book written on anatomy and physiology, a century before the West. Susruta described cataract surgery, hernia, cesarean section, the dissection of cadavers and the use of skin grafts to repair a torn ear. Rhinoplasty (fixing a broken nose) was a common practice. A drug called “sammohini” was used as an anesthetic. Ancient in Indians were experts in plastic surgery until the 18th century. They knew the importance of taking a pulse. They were aware that mosquito bites transmit diseases as far back as the 6th century BC.

Square roots and cube roots and the “Pythagorean” theorem are mentioned in the Sulbha Sutras of Bodhayana. (700 BC) Bodhayana also calculated the areas of triangles, circles, and trapezoids and determined pi = 3.14136 when measuring and constructing altars. Aryabhata (5th century AD) drew up a table of sines and provided India with a system of trigonometry more sophisticated than that of the Greeks. Ancient mathematical texts such as the Jyotisha Vedanga dealt with geometry, fractions, quadratic and cubic equations, algebra, permutations and combinations.

In the West, we have been taught to call our base-ten system of numeration (which replaced Roman numerals) “Arabic numerals.” India gave the world the base-ten numerical system, our modern numerical script, and the concept of zero as a placeholder and a numerically recorded quantity. Indian mathematics came to the West through the Arabs. The Arabs called mathematics “Hindisat,” or “Indian art.”

Before Newton, Bhaskara (1150 AD) was well-acquainted with the principles of differential calculus and the concept of infinity. Astronomers such as Vachaspati (800 AD) anticipated the foundations of solid coordinate geometry centuries before Descartes. They also explained the movement of celestial bodies in terms of the earth’s rotation and motion about the sun. Charaka, a physician from the 7th century BC, described the wave motion of light, had a calendar of 12 lunar months and classified stars into zodiacal constellations.

India had rockets in the late 18th century; they were even used in military battles against the British. This generated interest in rocket technology in England. The Indian people built “iron forts and thousand pillared halls” and were described by observers as adorning themselves in silk, wool, linen and cotton.

Although it is an agnostic moral philosophy, Buddhism teaches a consistent ethic of reverence for all life. No wars have ever been waged in the name of Buddhism. Similarly, the act of abortion is explicitly condemned in the Buddhist canonical scriptures.

Sir Edwin Arnold’s poetic biography on Siddhartha Gautama, The Light of Asia, caused quite a controversy in Victorian England: centuries before Jesus, an earlier teacher lived “the Christ life.”

The ethical teachings of the Buddha are quite similar to those found in the Gospel of Jesus: One must never be proud, nor harbor anger against anyone. He who humbles himself shall be exalted, while the one who exalts himself shall be degraded. Harsh language must never be used against anyone.

Avoid lust, anger and greed. One should not scrutinize the mote in a neighbor’s eye without first noticing the beam in one’s own. One must “turn the other cheek” if attacked or abused. One’s own possessions must be shared with the less fortunate. If a man obtained the whole world and its riches, he still would not be satisfied, nor would this save him.

In 261 BC, the Indian emperor Ashoka witnessed firsthand the innumerable casualties he caused during one of his many military campaigns. His heart was filled with grief. He converted to Buddhism. 19th century scholar and writer H.G. Wells considered Ashoka’s conversion to Buddhism one of the most significant events in world history.

Ashoka, formerly a bloody and ruthless emperor, became a remarkably kind and gentle leader. Ashoka established some of the first animal rights laws. He stopped the royal hunt, the sacrifice of animals in his capital city, the killing of animals for food in the royal kitchens, and gave up the eating of meat. Ashoka made it illegal to kill many species of animals, such as parrots, ducks, geese, bats, turtles, squirrels, monkeys and rhinos.

He forbade the killing of pregnant animals, or animals that were nursing their young. He declared certain days to be “non-killing days,” on which fish could not be caught, nor any other animals killed. He established wells and watering holes, places of rest and hospitals for humans and animals alike.

Ashoka educated his people to have compassion for animals, and to refrain from killing or harming them. He sent missionaries to all the neighboring kingdoms to teach mercy, compassion and nonviolence. Through Ashoka’s patronage, Buddhism was spread all over the Indian subcontinent. Buddhism would eventually reach the rest of Asia; today there are an estimated 300 to 600 million Buddhists worldwide.

For thousands of years, India has enjoyed music, orchestral bands, dance, song, stage acting and all the other fine arts. A. Kalyanaraman writes that in comparison to other parts of the world, slavery was virtually nonexistent. There did exist various forms of indentured servitude, but none as brutal as in the West.

Kalyanaraman further insists that the whole of Southeast Asia received most of its culture from India. India gave the world rice, cotton, sugarcane, spices and chess. Indian philosophy and metaphysics can be found in Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, Emerson, Thoreau, and Schopenhauer. India has much to offer the West. India’s real treasure is her spiritual heritage.

“What extracts from the Vedas I have read fall on me like the light of a higher and purer stratum,” wrote Henry David Thoreau in his Journal. “The religion and philosophy of the Hebrews are those of a wilder and ruder tribe, wanting the civility and intellectual refinements and civility of Vedic culture.”

Thoreau also compared Bhagavad-gita, or “The Lord’s Song,” with the New Testament. He concluded: “The New Testament is remarkable for its pure morality, the best of the Vedic Scripture for its pure intellectuality. The reader is nowhere raised into and sustained in a bigger, purer or rarer region of thought than in the Bhagavad-gita. The Gita’s ‘sanity and sublimity’ have impressed the minds even of soldiers and merchants.”

In chapter 16 of Walden, Thoreau exclaimed: “In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavad-gita, since whose composition years of the gods have elapsed and in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seems puny and trivial.”

“I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad-gita,” wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson on Hinduism’s most sacred text. “It was the first of books; it was as if an empire spake to us, nothing small or unworthy, but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same questions that exercise us.”

History must not be written from a Western, colonialist perspective. These are just some of India’s contributions to humanity.

the holy names

2007-02-18T00:02:00.000-06:00

Hindu cosmology views time in vast cycles lasting hundreds of thousands of years, with phases of light and darkness corresponding to the level of spiritual awareness on the planet. According to the scriptures, men and women in previous ages were endowed with heroic and godly qualities. The supernatural was commonplace and miraculous events were ordinary.

In his lucid translation and commentary of the Bhagavata Purana (1:17:6-8), A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami writes that people in ancient times were godly. They enjoyed thousand-year lifespans, and the earth was ruled by saintly kings (“rajarishis”), who were annointed by God. These noble rulers cared for both their human and nonhuman subjects: “men and animals were equally protected as far as life was concerned. That is the way in God’s kingdom.”

According to A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, such moral concern is required of today’s leaders: “The protection of the lives of both the human beings and the animals is the first and foremost duty of a government. A government must not discriminate in such principles.”

The Hindu scriptures warn against atheism, licentiousness, and unnecessary violence. The sages teach that gradual forgetfulness of God and religious principles will only lead to moral degeneration and greater human suffering.

According to the Hindu scriptures, our current age, known as Kali Yuga, the iron age, is one of spiritual darkness, violence and hypocrisy. The Bhagavata Purana 12:2:31 records Kali Yuga as having begun when the constellation of the seven sages (Saptarishi) passed through the lunar mansion of Magha.

Vedic astrologers have calculated this to have been 2:27 a.m. on February 20, 3102 B.C. The beginning of Kali Yuga took place 36 years after Lord Krishna, an incarnation of God, spoke Bhagavad-gita (the Lord's Song) to His disciple Arjuna.

The scriptures teach that during the 432,000 year age of Kali, humanity deteriorates and falls into barbarism. Humans begin to indiscriminately butcher innocent animals for food. They fall under the spell of intoxication. They lose all sexual restraint. Families break up. Women and children are abused and abandoned. Increasingly degraded generations, conceived accidentally in lust and growing up wild, swarm all over the world.

Political leadership falls into the hands of unprincipled rogues, criminals and terrorists, who use their power to exploit the people. Entire populations are enslaved and put to death. The world teems with fanatics, extremists and spiritual con artists, who win huge followings among a people completely dazed by hedonism, as well as by cultural and moral relativism. “Religion, truthfulness, cleanliness, tolerance, mercy, physical strength and memory diminish with each passing day.” (Bhagavata Purana 12:2:1)

The saints and sages of ancient India describe the people of this age as greedy, ill-behaved, and merciless. In this age, states the Bhagavata Purana, merely possessing wealth is considered a sign of good birth, proper behavior, and fine qualities. Law and justice are determined by one’s prestige and power.

Marriage ceases to exist as a holy union—men and women simply live together on the basis of bodily attraction and verbal agreement, and only for sexual pleasure. Women wander from one man to another. Men no longer look after their parents in their old age, and fail to provide for their own children. One’s beauty is thought to depend on one’s hairstyle. Filling the belly is said to be the only purpose in life. Cows are killed once their milk production drops. Religious observances are performed solely for the sake of reputation.

The Linga Purana (Ch. 40) describes the human race in Kali Yuga as a vain and stupid people “spurred on by the lowest instincts.” They prefer false ideas and do not hesitate to persecute sages. They are tormented by bodily desires. Severe droughts and plagues are everywhere. Slovenliness, illness, hunger and fear spread. Nations are continually at war with one another. The number of princes and farmers decline. Heroes are assassinated. The working classes want to claim regal power and enjoy royal wealth. Kings become thieves. They take to seizing property, rather than protecting the citizenry.

The new leaders emerge from the laborer class and begin to persecute religious people, saints, teachers, intellectuals, and philosophers. Civilization lacks any kind of divine guidance. The sacred books are no longer revered. False doctrines and misleading religions spread across the globe. Children are killed in the wombs of their mothers. Women who have relations with several men are numerous. The number of cows diminishes.

The Linga Purana says that in Kali Yuga, young women freely abandon their virginity. Women, children, and cows—always protected in an enlightened society—are abused and killed during the iron age. Thieves are numerous and rapes are frequent. There are many beggars and widespread unemployment. Merchants operate corrupt businesses. Diseases, rats, and foul substances plague the populace. Water is lacking. Fruits are scarce. Everyone uses vulgar language.

The men of Kali Yuga only seek money. Only the rich have power. People without money are their slaves. The leaders of the state no longer protect the people, but plunder the citizenry through excessive taxation. Farmers abandon living close to nature. They become unskilled laborers in congested cities. Many dress in rags, or are unemployed, and sleep on the streets. Through the fault of the government, infant mortality rates are high. False gods are worshipped in false ashrams, in which pilgrimages, penances, charities and austerities are all concocted.

People in this age eat their food without washing beforehand. Monks break their vows of celibacy. Cows are kept alive only for their milk. Water is scarce. Many people watch the skies, praying for rain. No rain comes. The fields become barren. Suffering from famine and poverty, many attempt to migrate to countries where food is more readily available. People are without joy and pleasure. Many commit suicide. Men of small intelligence are influenced by atheistic doctrines. Family, clan and caste are all meaningless. Men are without virtues, purity or decency. (Vishnu Purana 6.1)

This age of Kali lasts 432,000 years. It will be followed by a return to Satya Yuga, a golden age of light. This will be brought about by Lord Kalki, the next incarnation of God. Religious life and devotion to God are virtually impossible during Kali Yuga. This is a cruel, savage, bloodthirsty, licentious age, where “God is dead,” and religion is a dirty word. The saints and sages of ages past enjoyed a very exalted state of devotion by constant prayer and meditation upon the Lord: saturating the mind with God consciousness.

In Kali Yuga, the masses are incapable of practicing severe austerities, subjecting themselves to strict mental and physical discipline, and then mediating upon God for years on end. As part of the “TV generation,” our attention span and ability to focus are limited, and we demand instant gratification. Moreover, we tend to live in congested urban metropolises, rather than on farms and in forests, which promote a more tranquil state of mind. Classical forms of yoga and meditation are impractical in this age.

Those prepared to devote themselves to the Lord, center their lives around Him, learn to love Him with all their heart, soul, and mind, forsaking the pleasures of the world and the flesh, need not despair. The Bhagavata Purana describes the Kali Yuga as a time of sorrow, strife and irreligion, but concludes (12:3:51) that it has one redeeming aspect—the saving grace of God is in His holy name:

“My dear King, although Kali Yuga is an ocean
of faults, there is still one good quality about
this age. Simply by glorifying Lord Krishna
one can become liberated and promoted to
the transcendental kingdom.

“When people properly glorify the Supreme
Lord or simply hear about His power, the
Lord personally enters their hearts and
cleanses away every trace of misfortune,
just as the sun removes the darkness or
as a powerful wind drives away the clouds.”

We are spiritual beings, meant to dwell eternally in God’s presence in the spiritual kingdom. We are not meant to be embodied and re-embodied in fragile vehicles of flesh. The spiritual pleasures and ecstasies which the liberated souls experience in their personal relationships with God are infinitely greater than anything this transitory world or a body of decaying flesh can ever provide.

God is personally present within the sound of His holy name. To chant to Lord’s name is to associate directly with God Himself. By the grace of the holy name, the soul is awakened and put directly in touch with God. Chanting the holy names actually revives one’s original, spiritual consciousness. The worshipper gradually becomes absorbed in things of the spirit rather than the flesh or the mundane world. Eventually, one realizes his or her real identity as a soul—a pure spiritual being, full of knowledge, eternity, and bliss—always enjoying the association of the Lord.

The name of the Lord is thus praised as salvation—giving the faithful the gift of eternal life beyond repeated birth and death and the changing cycles of time in this material world. The Mahabharata, ancient India’s epic poem of heroism, tragedy and divine intervention, contains the Vishnu-Sahasranama, or the “One Thousand Names of Lord Vishnu.” The names of God are set down in mantras, or divine hymns.

The Sanskrit literatures are diverse and contain a vast body of knowledge. The one hundred eight principle Upanishads tend to focus primarily on spiritual wisdom, while the eighteen Puranas contain historical narrations from the distant past, when humans were pious, civilizations were more enlightened and the miraculous was ordinary. The Kali-santarana Upanishad emphasizes chanting:

“Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna
Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare
Hare Rama, Hare Rama
Rama Rama, Hare Hare”

to counteract the ill effects of this present age of spiritual darkness, while the Brihan-naradiya Purana emphatically states three times that there is no alternative for spiritual deliverance in this age other than chanting God’s holy names. Traditionally, the Lord is glorified congregationally, with drums, cymbals and dance, or He may be praised individually, in silent prayer, upon rosary beads.

Every genuine religious tradition in the world teaches that God’s names are holy and meant to be glorified. The Bible contains numerous references to glorifying God and His holy name. (Exodus 15:3; Deuteronomy 32:2-3; I Chronicles 16:8-36; Psalms 29:2, 47:1, 86:11, 91:14, 96:1-3, 97:12, 98:4-6, 113:3, 116:1-17, 146:1, 148:1-5, 13)

The Lord and His name are praised throughout the Psalms. “I will praise the name of God with a song,” says King David. (Psalm 69:30) In other places we read: “All nations whom Thou hast made shall come and worship before Thee, O Lord: and shall glorify Thy name.” (Psalm 86:9)

“O give thanks unto the Lord; call upon His name; make known His deeds among the people. Sing unto Him, sing psalms unto Him: talk ye of all His wondrous works. Glory ye in His holy name.” (Psalms 105:1-4) “...Praise Him with the timbrel and the dance; praise Him upon the loud cymbals.” (Psalm 150:4-5)

Israel Baal Shem Tov (1699-1761), the great Jewish mystic, founded Hasidism, a popular pietist movement within Judaism, in which members dance and chant in glorification of God. The Hasidism were especially influenced by verses in Psalms calling for the joyful worship of the Lord through song. (Psalms 100:1,2, 104:33)

According to The Jewish Almanac:

“In the Jewish tradition the name actually partakes of the essence of God. Thus, knowledge of the name is a vehicle to God, a conveyor of divine energy, an interface between the Infinite and the finite...

"It is curious that a tradition that places such a strong emphasis on the one God possesses such a large number of names for the divine. Each name, however, actually represents a different quality or aspect of God.”

When teaching his disciples how to pray, Jesus Christ glorified God’s holy name: “Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name.” (Matthew 6:9) Jesus also approved of his disciples’ singing joyfully in praise of God. (Luke 19:36-40) Of his own name, Jesus said: “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there with them.” (Matthew 18:20)

The apostle Paul told his gentile followers to speak to one another in psalms and hymns, to sing heartily and make music to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:19) He further taught them to instruct and admonish one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. (Colossians 3:16)

Paul wrote to his gentile congregation in Rome: “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Romans 10:13) According to the historian Eusebius, there was “one common consent in chanting forth the praises of God,” in the early Christian churches. The Gregorian chants, popularized in the sixth century by Pope Gregory and later by works like Handel’s masterpiece the Messiah, with its resounding choruses of “hallelujah” (which means “praised be the name of God” in Hebrew), are still performed and appreciated all over the world.

In addition to praising the Lord’s name and glories through music, song, and dance, there has also emerged the practice of meditating upon God by chanting upon beads of prayer. St. John Chrysostom of the Greek Orthodox church, recommended the “prayerful invocation of the name of God,” which he said should be “uninterrupted.”

The repetition of the Jesus prayer (“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me”) became a regular practice among members of the Eastern Church. In The Way of a Pilgrim, a Russian monk describes this form of meditation:

“The continuous interior prayer of Jesus is a constant, uninterrupted calling upon the divine name of Jesus with the lips, in the spirit, in the heart...One who accustoms himself to this appeal experiences...so deep a consolation and so great a need to offer the prayer always, that he can no longer live without it.”

“Perhaps you’ve heard about Hesychasm, a technique of mantra meditation that was employed by Christians as far back as the third century after Christ,” says the Reverend Alvin Hart, an Episcopalian priest in New York. “The method was the simple chanting of ‘the Jesus prayer,’ which runs like this: ‘Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me.’ I personally have found great comfort in this mantra.”

According to Reverend Hart, “Although it was recently popularized by the New Age movement...’the Jesus Prayer’ has a long and venerable tradition in the Philokalia, an important book on Christian mysticism. The word Philokalia literally means ‘the love of spiritual beauty,’ and I can say that the book definitely brings its readers to that level of appreciation...

“The Philokalia also emphasizes the importance of accepting a spiritual master. The Greek words used are starets and geront, but they basically mean the same thing. The result of chanting under a proper master is theosis, or the ‘respiritualization of the personality.’”

Reverend Hart says, “When we call on God—and we should learn how to do this at every moment, even in the midst of our day-to-day work—we should be conscious of Him, and then our prayer will have deeper effects, deeper meaning. This, I know, is the basic idea of Krishna Consciousness. In the Christian tradition, too, we are told to ALWAYS pray ceaselessly. This is a biblical command. (I Thessalonians 5:17)

“In a sense, this could also be considered the heart of the Christian process as well. For instance, in the Latin Mass, before the Gospel is read, there is a prayer spoken by the priest: dominus sit in corde meo et in labiis meis, which means, ‘May the Lord be in my heart and on my lips.’ What better way is there to have God on one’s lips than by chanting the holy name?

"Therefore, the Psalms tell us that from ‘the rising of the sun to its setting’ the Lord’s name is to be praised. And Paul echoes this idea by telling us that ‘whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.’ (Romans 10:13)”

Dr. Klaus Klostermaier notes that meditation and prayer are “important in the Christian tradition, at least for certain sects and monastic orders...In the Philokalia and in the path recommended by The Pilgrim, you find the...’Jesus Prayer,’ which may be unknown to most Christians today, but was very powerful in its time.

So people are aware of the potency of ‘the name’ and the importance of focusing on it as a mantra...But it must be done with devotion...The idea of logos, or ‘the Word,’ has elaborate theological meaning that is intimately tied to the nature of Jesus and, indeed, to the nature of God.”

“All the basic principles of bhakti yoga are richly exemplified in Christianity,” writes Dr. Houston Smith in The Religions of Man. Dr. Smith is a Professor of Philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His 1958 book is used as a standard text in major universities. Dr. Smith explains the fundamental principle of bhakti or devotion:

“All we have to do in this yoga is to love God dearly—not just say we love Him but love Him in fact, love Him only (loving other things because of Him), and love Him for no ulterior reason (not even from the desire for liberation) but for love’s sake alone...

“...every strengthening of our affections toward God will weaken the world’s grip. The saint may, indeed will, love the world far more than the addict, but he will love it in a very different way, seeing in it the reflected glory of the God he adores.

“How is this love of God to be developed?” asks Dr. Smith. “Japam is the practice of repeating the names of God. It finds a close Christian parallel in one of the classics of Russian Orthodoxy, The Way of a Pilgrim. This book is the story of an unnamed peasant whose first concern is to fulfill the Biblical injunction to ‘Pray without ceasing.’

“He wanders through Russia and Siberia with a knapsack of dried bread for food and the charity of men for shelter, consulting many authorities only to come away empty-hearted until at last he meets a holy man who teaches him ‘a constant, uninterrupted calling upon the divine Name of Jesus with the lips, in the spirit, in the heart...at all times, in all places, even during sleep.’

“The peasant’s teacher trains him until he can repeat the name of Jesus more than 12,000 times a day without strain. ‘This frequent service of the lips imperceptibly becomes a genuine appeal of the heart.’ The prayer becomes a constant warming presence within him...a ‘bubbling joy.’ ‘Keep the name of the Lord spinning in the midst of all your activities’ is the Hindu statement of the same point.”

Dr. Guy Beck’s Ph.D. thesis, Sonic Theology: Hinduism and the Soteriological Function of Sacred Sound examines the doctrine that the Word or divine sounds can have a “salvific” effect. Examining the Vaishnava (orthodox Hindu) practice of chanting God’s names upon beads of prayer, he observes: “...a work from the sixth century A.D., entitled the Jayakhya-Samhita, contains...many early references to the practice of japa.

“It says that there are three considerations in doing japa repetitions—employing the rosary (the akshamala), saying the words aloud (vachika) or repeating them in a low voice (upamshu). There are quite a few details in this text, garnered from early sources, and so a case can be made for a pre-Islamic, and even pre-Christian, use of beads or rosary in the Vaishnava tradition.”

Because the Roman Catholics did not begin using rosary or japa beads until the era of St. Dominic, or the 12th century, Dr. Beck concludes, “the Vaishnavas were chanting japa from very early on.”

In Islam, the names of God are held sacred and meditated upon. According to tradition, there are ninety-nine names of Allah, found inscribed upon monuments such as the Taj Mahal and on the walls of mosques. These names are chanted on an Islamic rosary, which consists of three sets of thirty-three beads.

The Sikh religion is a blend of Hinduism and Islam. The Sikhs emphasize the name of God, calling Him “Nama,” or “the Name.” Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh religion, prayed, “In the ambrosial hours of the morn I meditate on the grace of the true Name,” and says that he was instructed by God in a vision to “Go and repeat My Name, and cause others to do likewise.”

Rosaries are used in Buddhism. Members of Japan’s largest Buddhist order, the Pure Land sect, practice repetition of the name of the compassionate Buddha (“namu amida butsu”). Founder, Shinran Shonin says, “The virtue of the Holy Name, the gift of him that is enlightened, is spread throughout the world.” Followers believe that through the name of Buddha a worshipper is liberated from repeated birth and death and joins the Buddha in the “Pure Land.”

Religions all over the world teach that God’s name is holy and meant to be glorified. The saving grace of a personal God is our only real shelter in Kali Yuga. As this age continues, human piety diminishes. Animal slavery. Human slavery. AIDS. Abortion. The Nazi Holocaust. The annihilation of the Native Americans. The “killing fields” of Cambodia. Drug abuse. These are merely the tip of the iceberg—a preview of things to come.

At the end of this age (427,000 years from now), the human race will have turned the earth into a wasteland. Humans will be cannibalizing their own children, and the life expectancy will be around 20 to 30 years.

It is at this point in time that Lord Kalki, the next predicted incarnation of God, will appear. The scriptures say He will appear as the son of a brahmana (priest) whose name is Vishnu-yasa, in a village called Shambhala. There is a place in India with that name, so perhaps it is there that the Lord will appear.

Kalki is depicted riding a horse and carrying a sword. Humanity is so fallen at this point that there is no other remedy, apart from total destruction of the human population, to save the world. Kalki judges the world.

The Linga Purana describes “mlecchas” (barbarians) killed by the thousands by Lord Kalki, along with the thieves who have seized royal power. The Lord then re-establishes pure civilization and annoints a God-conscious king to rule on His behalf. The earth re-enters a phase of enlightenment, and the cycle of time continues.

The prophecies given in these Sanskrit texts are consistent with Western apocalyptic literature such as the Book of Revelations. The Western traditions of a coming or a returning “messiah” presiding over the end of the world, judgement day and the restoration of paradise on earth, however, are seen in Hindu cosmology as cyclical events.

The coming “Satya Yuga,” or golden age, has been expressed in the American popular culture as the dawning of the Aquarian or “New Age.” However, one need not wait 427,000 years for enlightenment. One can be saved immediately by taking shelter of the Lord’s holy names:

“Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna
Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare
Hare Rama, Hare Rama
Rama Rama, Hare Hare”

Chanting “Hare Krishna” liberates one’s consciousness from the physical world by placing the self directly in contact with the Lord. Individually and collectively, chanting counteracts the ill effects of Kali Yuga. Chanting cleanses the dust from the mirror of the mind and reawakens one’s relationship with God. It is the Lord’s mercy, and it is meant for everyone.

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami’s humble request to the confused and alienated American youth of the late 1960s is especially relevant today, as Kali Yuga continues and civilization declines:

“...don’t commit suicide. Take to chanting this Hare Krishna mantra, and all real knowledge will be revealed...We are not charging anything...No. It is open for everyone. Please take it...That is our request. We are begging you—don’t spoil your life. Please take this mantra and chant it wherever you like...chant, and you’ll feel ecstasy.”

Reincarnation: the missing link

2007-02-12T15:26:00.000-06:00

Reincarnation is the missing link between Eastern and Western spirituality.

According to Hinduism’s most sacred scripture, the Bhagavad-gita (5.18), “the humble sages, by virtue of true knowledge, see with equal vision a learned and gentle Brahmin, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater.” Social ills such as racism, sexism, nationalism, caste-ism, and speciesism arise because souls falsely identify with their temporary bodies. On the spiritual platform, all are equal. (Compare this to the Christian teaching: “In Christ there is no Greek or Jew, slave or free” [Colossians 3:11].)

Can reincarnation be reconciled with the Bible? There are many passages throughout the Old Testament which speak of death with finality, and make no mention of an afterlife. “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return,” said the Lord to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:17. Humans lost a physical immortality, and there is no mention of existence beyond the body.

Psalm 49:12 says man is like the animals that perish. Psalm 103:15 says mans’ days are like the grass or a flower of the field. Psalm 115:17 says, “The dead do not praise the Lord, nor any who go down into silence.” According to Psalm 143:3, those long dead “dwell in darkness.” The Book of Ecclesiastes (3:19-20) says men are like beasts; “as one dieth, so dieth the other,” that man “hath no pre-eminence above a beast”; “all go into one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.” Job (6:18) teaches that there is no existence after death; men “go to nothing, and perish,” and “he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more.” (7:9)

Reincarnationist thought, nonetheless, has found its way into Judaism. The Pythagoreans, Neoplatonists, Hindus, Buddhists and Jains have all forbidden animal slaughter at various times in human history because of a belief in transmigration of souls and, consequently, the equality of all living beings. The doctrine of reincarnation is taught in the Kabbala, or mystical Judaic tradition, and was used to advocate ethical vegetarianism in Sedeh Hermed—a huge, talmudic encyclopedia authored by Rabbi Hayyim Hezekiah Medini (1837-1904).

In Wheels of a Soul, Rabbi Phillip S. Berg, a renowned contemporary Kabbalist, explains: “...the concept of reincarnation is by no means exclusive to Judaism. The idea was prevalent among Indians on the American continent; and in the Orient, the teaching of reincarnation is widespread and influential. It is the basis of most of the philosophical systems of India, where hundreds of millions accept the truth of reincarnation the way we accept the truth of gravity -— as a great natural and inevitable law that only a fool would question.”

According to Rabbi Jacob Shimmel: “We are reborn until we reach perfection in following the Torah...In Hebrew, reincarnation is called gilgul, and there is a whole section of the Kabbala entitled Sefer HaGilgulim. This deals with details in regard to reincarnation.

One remarkable figure from this mystical school of Jewish thought is Rabbi Isaac Luria (1534-72). Born in Jerusalem, he became a brilliant student, noted for his intelligence, logic and reasoning abilities. By the age of 15, Luria had surpassed all the sages in Egypt in his understanding of talmudic law.

With a thirst for higher knowledge, he studied the Zohar and the Kabbala. For seven years, he lived as an ascetic on the banks of the Nile River; fasting often, seeing his wife only on the Sabbath, and merely for brief conversation, if necessary. During this time, he experienced many strange voices and ecstatic visions.

At times, the prophet Elijah appeared to teach him the secrets of the Torah. Luria later went to Safed (in Palestine) and became the spiritual master of the community of mystics there. He taught that the good souls in heaven could be brought down to inhabit human bodies.

Luria saw spirits everywhere. He heard them whispering in the rushing water of rivers, in the movement of trees, in the wind and in the songs of birds. He could see the soul of a man leave the body at the time of death. Intimate conversations were often held with the souls of past figures in the Bible, the talmudic sages and numerous respected rabbis.

Luria’s disciples said he could perform exorcisms and miracles and speak the language of animals. They wrote: “Luria could read faces, look into the souls of men, recognize that souls migrated from body to body. He could tell you what commandment a man had fulfilled and what sins he had committed since youth.”

Is reincarnationist thought compatible with Christianity? The first books of the Bible speak of man as a physical being, formed from the dust and then infused with a divine “breath of life.” New Testament writings, however, describe the individual as a spiritual being, clothed in an earthly body of flesh.

The New Testament clearly distinguishes between the carnal and the spiritual. “It is the spirit that giveth the body life,” taught Jesus, “the flesh profit nothing.” (John 6:63) Paul taught that Jesus had both an earthly and a spiritual nature (Romans 1:3), and referred to his own spiritual self. (Romans 1:9)

According to Paul, the soul can do no good while it is in a body doomed to death; it is merely a prisoner to sin and the flesh. (Romans 7:18-24) The brethren are to behave in a spiritual manner, rather than in a fleshly way. (Romans 8:4; 13:14; I Peter 2:11)

The brethren have been called to liberty; they should not misuse their freedom as an opportunity to gratify the flesh. If they behave in a spiritual way, they will not carry out the desires of the flesh. The desires of the Spirit and those of the flesh are in opposition to one another. (Galatians 5:13,16-17) The deeds of the flesh are evident in immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, magic arts, animosities, strife, jealousy, bad temper, outbreaks of selfishness, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness and carousing. Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the Spirit’s fruition is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, generosity, fidelity, gentleness and self-control. Those who belong to Christ have “crucified the flesh with its passions and desires;” they “live by the Spirit” and are “directed by the Spirit.” (Galatians 5:19-26)

To be carnally minded is to die, but those under the control of the Spirit have transcended their lower, bodily nature. (Romans 8:5-14) Paul regarded envy, strife and divisions among the brethren as carnal or unspiritual. (I Corinthians 3:3) He distinguished between saving the spirit of an individual and the destruction of the person’s flesh. (I Corinthians 5:5)

God’s kingdom is not carnal, but spiritual: “But I make this statement, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither does the perishable inherit the imperishable...For this perishable must put on imperishability and this mortal must put on immortality. (I Corinthians 15:50,53)

According to Paul, the body is like a lump of clay. (Romans 9:21; II Corinthians 4:7) Although one’s outer nature decays, one’s inner self is continually renewed in spiritual life. (II Corinthians 4:16-17) The body is merely a temporary, earthly tent in which the soul resides; the spirits of the faithful shall soon be clothed in everlasting, heavenly bodies. (II Corinthians 5:1-3) The soul resides inside a body of flesh. (II Corinthians 10:3) To identify with the body is to be absent from the Lord. (II Corinthians 5:8-10)

Paul gave an example from his own life to distinguish between being with Christ and remaining “in the body,” to illustrate that one’s actual self is spiritual and separate from the physical body. (Philippians 1:21-24) He told his followers to set their sights on heavenly, not earthly things, and to put to death their earthly nature. (Colossians 3:1-5)

Before salvation, many of the brethren indulged in fleshly desires, and followed the inclinations of their lower natures. (Ephesians 2:3) The sensual are considered “lost,” because “their minds are set on earthly things.” Paul told the faithful their real home is in heaven, and they would soon be clothed in spiritual bodies. (Philippians 3:18-21)

The New Testament teaches that those who have become God’s children through Christ owe their birth not to flesh or blood, but to a transcendent God. (John 1:12-13) There is a difference between a physical birth and a spiritual birth. (John 3:6-8) Jesus made a distinction between teaching “of earthly things” and “of heavenly things.” (John 3:12) Jesus said his home was heaven (John 3:12), and that neither he (John 8:23) nor his disciples (John 15:19) were of this world. His disciple John repeated this message to the brethren. (I John 4:4-6)

The brethren have undergone a spiritual rebirth, not from a perishable but an imperishable seed through the word of God. The flesh will decay, but the word of God is eternal. (I Peter 2:23-25) One must not love this world nor the things in this world. To do so is to alienate oneself from God’s love, because the passions of this world are flickering and temporary. (I John 2:15-17)

This world belongs to the devil (II Corinthians 4:4), this present world is evil (Galatians 1:4), and pure religion means keeping oneself unstained from the world (James 1:27). The brethren have been granted “great and precious promised blessings,” so that they “might become sharers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world that arises from passion.” (II Peter 1:4)

“He who loves his life will lose it,” taught Jesus, “and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life...For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?” (Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:36; Luke 9:25; John 12:25) Jesus thus taught his followers to seek the eternal treasures in heaven rather than pursue temporary, earthly gain. He demanded the self-sacrifice and renunciation of earthly possessions and family ties and duties. (Matthew 6:19-21, 6:24-34, 8:21-22, 10:34-39, 19:20-21,29; Luke 9:57-62, 12:51-53, 14:25-26,33; James 5:1-3)

Jesus himself had no interest in worldly disputes over money and property. (Luke 12:13-14) He taught that life is meant for more than the accumulation of material goods. He condemned those who lay up treasures for themselves, but are not rich towards God. (Luke 12:15-21) In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Jesus showed concern for materialistic persons (Luke 16:19-31). It is difficult for those attached to earthly riches to enter the kingdom of God. (Matthew 19:16-24; Mark 10:17-23; Luke 18:18-25)

In the Gospel According to Luke, Jesus says, “The kingdom of God does not come by looking for it, neither will they say, ‘Look! Here it is,’ or ‘There it is!’ for the kingdom of God is in your midst. (Luke 17:21) Another translation reads, “...the kingdom of God is within you.” In either case, these verses indicate that the kingdom of God is not earthly or material. In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus explicitly tells Pontius Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18:36)

Jesus also told his disciples, “In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.” (John 14:2) Paul spoke of being “caught up as far as the third heaven...whether in the body or out of the body I do not know...” (II Corinthians 12:2-3)

On the question of the afterlife, Paul taught that God rewards each individual according to his deeds. (Romans 2:6) One reaps what one sows. (II Corinthians 9:6; Galatians 6:7) Some souls remain entangled in decaying flesh and blood, while others turn to the Spirit. “The one who sows for his own flesh will harvest ruin from his flesh; while the one who sows for the Spirit will harvest eternal life from the Spirit.” (Galatians 6:8) According to Paul, a kernel of spirit is sown into a particular kind of body.

“...God gives it a body as He plans,” explained Paul, “and to each seed its particular body. All flesh is not the same; but one kind is human, another is animal, another is fowl, and another fish.” (I Corinthians 15:38-39) Paul further distinguished between earthly, or physical bodies, and heavenly, or spiritual bodies. “There are heavenly bodies and also earthly bodies; but the radiance of the heavenly is one kind and that of the earthly is another kind.” (I Corinthians 15:40)

Resurrection, then, as taught by Paul, is not the Old Testament doctrine of the reassembling of dust into living bodies, but rather, the clothing of the spirit with a new body; the placing of a kernel of spirit into a new body, from where its existence continues.

Paul’s letters emphasize the distinction between the soul and the body, the clothing of the spirit with a new body, and the eternal nature of the soul and its relationship to God versus the temporary nature of the flesh and the material world. These concepts can all be found in the doctrine of reincarnation.

The Lord told the prophet Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:4-5) In prayer, Jesus spoke of his eternal relationship with God, who loved him before the founding of the world. (John 8:58, 17:24) Paul wrote to both the Romans and the Ephesians that God knew the faithful and favored them before the world even came into being. (Romans 8:29-30; Ephesians 1:4)

During the second century, the Christian teacher, Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, taught that the soul inhabits more than one body in its earthly sojourn. He even suggested that those who lead carnal lives and thus deprive themselves of the capacity to serve God may be reborn as beasts.

The earliest Christians who taught the pre-existence of the soul came to be known as the “pre-existiani.” Clement of Alexandria wrote with interest about what he called “metensomatosis.” “...we have existed from the beginning,” wrote Clement in his Stromata, “for in the beginning was the Logos...Not for the first time does (the Logos) show pity on us in our wanderings; he pitied us from the beginning.”

Origen (185-254), was one of the fathers of the early Christian Church, and its most accomplished biblical scholar. His influence upon the early Church was second only to that of Augustine. Origen taught that God creates spirits, and all spirits are created equal. All are endowed with free will. Some fall into sin, becoming demons, or imprisoned in bodies. This process of growth or retardation is continuous. A human being, at the time of death, may become an angel or a demon. Origen gave a highly allegorical interpretation of Genesis and the Fall from paradise.

Origen held that the various orders of living creatures in the world corresponded to the varying degrees of perfection and imperfection. All of God’s children are created free and equal, but received their present condition “as rewards or punishments for the manner in which they used their free will.” Therefore, “as befits the degree of (the soul’s) fall into evil, it is clothed with the body of this or that irrational animal.” (Compare Genesis 3:21)

Writing in the third century, he explained: “By some inclination toward evil, certain souls...come into bodies, first of men; then through their association with the irrational passions, after the allotted span of human life, they are changed into beasts, from which they sink to the level of...plants. From this condition they rise again through the same stages and are restored to their heavenly place.” (De Principiis, Book III, Chapter 5)

Origen based his theology upon passages from Scripture. The prophet Elijah lived in the 9th century B.C. Elijah never died, but was lifted up into heaven. (II Kings 2:11) In the closing lines of the Old Testament, Malachi recorded the prophecy: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” (Malachi 3:1, 4:5) Elijah would precede the Messiah.

When the disciples asked Jesus about the prophecy that Elijah must precede the Messiah, Jesus replied, “Elijah will come indeed and will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come and they did not recognize him, but have done to him as they pleased.” The disciples then realized he was talking about John the Baptist. (Matthew 17:9-13) Jesus even told the multitudes, “It is he (John) of whom it is written, ‘Behold I send My messenger ahead of you, who will prepare the road before you’...If you will accept it, this is Elijah who was to come.” (Matthew 11:10,14; Luke 7:27)

Many in Jesus’ day believed him to be the reincarnation of an Old Testament prophet. In Matthew 16:13-14, when Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do men say that I am?” they replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others, Elijah; others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” Similarly, in Luke 9:18-19, when Jesus asked, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” his disciples respond, “John the Baptist; but some say Elijah, and others that one of the old prophets has risen again.”

Mark 16:14-16 records King Herod saying of Jesus, “John the Baptist is risen from the dead, and therefore these miracles are being done by him.” Others said, “He is Elijah,” while still others believed, “He is a prophet like one of the prophets of old.”

Tertullian, one of the earliest of the Latin Fathers of the Christian Church, vehemently attacked any and all reincarnationist interpretations of Scripture. His attacks indicate the widespread influence of reincarnationist thought upon Christianity at the time.

Tertullian took the position that the above passages do not presuppose reincarnation. Since Elijah was lifted into heaven (II Kings 2:11), he never died. His appearance as John the Baptist was not reincarnation, but a return visit. However the Gospel of Luke (1:5-25,57-80) indicates that Elijah did not return to earth as a mature man, but was miraculously reconceived and reborn as John the Baptist.

Origen remarked that the fact that the Jews specifically asked John the Baptist if he was Elijah (John 1:21) indicated “that they believed in ‘metensomatosis,’ as a doctrine inherited from their ancestors and therefore in no way in conflict with the secret teachings of their masters.”

In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus and his disciples encounter a man who had been blind from his birth. The disciples asked, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents? Why was he born blind?”

Since reincarnation was a widespread belief during the time of Jesus, (as were beliefs in apocalypses, judgement day, heaven, hell and resurrection), one cannot help but wonder if the disciples had reincarnation in mind. For if the man had been born blind, he could not have committed the sin in his present life.

Jesus did not reject the notion of pre-existence as a solution to the problem of evil. He merely replied that this man was afflicted so that “the works of God should be displayed in him,” and that it was their duty to practice the works of a merciful God. (John 9:4)

On another occasion, Simon (Peter) said to Jesus, “Look, we have given up everything and have followed you...” Jesus replied: “I assure you, there is no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mothers or father or children or fields on account of me and the gospel, but will receive a hundred times over now in this age homes and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and fields, along with persecutions; and in the world to come, eternal life.” (Matthew 19:27,29; Mark 10:28-31; Luke 18:28-30)

It is hard to imagine these rewards—including hundreds of relatives, parents and children—being fulfilled in one brief lifetime.

According to Origen, God sent forth Christ to bring about the redemption of all souls; a salvation so universal, even the demons will be saved. “The purified spirit will be brought home; it will no longer rebel; it will acquiesce in its lot.”

In the 3rd century, Chalcidius taught, “Souls who have failed to unite themselves with God, are compelled by the law of destiny to begin a new kind of life, entirely different from their former, until they repent of their sins.” Arnobius (A.D. 290) said, “We die many times, and often do we rise from the dead.” (Adversus Gentes) St. Gregory of Nyssa (257-332) taught, “It is absolutely necessary that the soul should be healed and purified, and if this does not take place during its life on earth it must be accomplished in future lives.” (Great Catechism)

St. Jerome (340-420), wrote in Epistola ad Demetriadem, that “The doctrine of transmigration has been secretly taught from ancient times to small numbers of people, as a traditional truth which was not to be divulged.” In his Confessions, St. Augustine (354-430) prayed, “Say, Lord to me...say, did my infancy succeed another age of mine that died before it? Was it that which I spent within my mother’s womb?...and what before that life again, O God my joy, was I anywhere or in any body?”

Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais (370-430), wrote in his Treatise On Dreams, “Philosophy speaks of souls being prepared by a course of transmigrations...When first it comes down to earth, it (the soul) embarks on this animal spirit as on a boat, and through it is brought into contact with matter...The soul which did not quickly return to the heavenly region from which it was sent down to earth had to go through many lives of ‘wandering.’”

Dr. Geddes MacGregor, Professor of Philosophy and Religion, and author of over twenty books, believes reincarnation is compatible with the Christian faith.

“The Bible does not explicitly teach reincarnationism,” he admits. “That is to say, there is no pronouncement on the subject, either in the Old Testament or in the New, to which one could point and by means of it compel the acceptance of a person who felt bound to receive as divine revelation everything that is clearly and unequivocally affirmed in Holy Scripture. No such biblical warrant for reincarnation exists.

“That, however, does not take us far, since much the same could be said of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is surely held to be a classic expression of orthodox Christian belief about God. Except for the text in the first letter of John (1 John 5:7), known by scholars to be a very late interpolation, no direct biblical warrant exists for the doctrine of the Trinity as formulated by the Church.

“That absence of direct biblical warrant for the doctrine of the Trinity does not mean, however, that the trinitarian formula is antipathetic to the teaching of the New Testament writers. On the contrary, it was held to be, and within Christian orthodoxy it has continued to be accounted, a proper formulation of a great truth about God that is implicit in New testament teaching. There is no reason at all why the doctrine of reincarnation might not be in a similar case.

“Might not an orthodox Christian see the samsara or chain of incarnations, of which we hear so much in Hindu lore, as the most satisfactory way in which to conceptualize the journey of the soul to the state that Christians traditionally call heaven or the Beatific Vision, in which the soul at last is so completely purified that it can stand in the right relation to God and, as the Old Scottish Catechism promises, ‘enjoy Him for ever’ ?

At first sight, at any rate, it would now seem that Christians, far from resisting reincarnationism as an exotic, alien idea, should be ready to embrace it as one that might both enlighten their minds and add a new and exhilarating dimension to their faith.”

Although belief in reincarnation was widespread in early Christianity, orthodoxy prevailed. The doctrine of reincarnation never really caught on, in part, because of the apocalyptic mood of the early Church. The Second Coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead were thought to be imminent. During the fourth century, Origen became an easy target for ecclesiastical authorities seeking victory in power struggles with other theological factions within the Christian Church.

Under circumstances that to this day remain shrouded in mystery, the Byzantine emperor Justinian in A.D. 553 banned the teachings of pre-existence from what had by then become the Roman Catholic Church. During that era, numerous Church writings were destroyed. The doctrine of reincarnation was forced underground, but persistently appeared in sects such as the Cathari, the Paulicians, and the Bogomils.

The Cathari (who were also vegetarian) taught that the reason we are on earth in the first place is we are fallen souls forced to be repeatedly incarcerated in bodies, and must seek salvation from transmigrating from one body to another. The Cathari saw Christ as the means of divine redemption from the wheel of death and rebirth.

According to Dr. MacGregor: “Reincarnation is, of course, a kind of resurrection. Great importance was attached by Christian theologians, however, to the notion of the resurrection of the ‘same body’ that we now have, though in a glorified form. The so-called Athanasian Creed affirms that all men shall rise again with their bodies...and a council held at the Lateran...asserted that all shall rise again with their own bodies...

“St. Thomas Aquinas considered that the body that is resurrected must be in some sense the same as the one on earth; otherwise, he thought, one would have to talk, not of a resurrection, but of the assumption of a new body...such very Latin teaching about a carnis resurrectio does not seem to fit Paul’s teaching in the New Testament, which is that the body is to be of a new order...not otherwise recognizable as the same body as the one on earth. The curious notion of the revivification of the material particles of the body does not arise in St. Paul.”

Both Origen and Clement of Alexandria spoke of an intermediate state, considering it one of punishment, training and purification. Ambrose, the teacher of Augustine, taught that departed souls await the end of the world in various “habitations,” which vary according to their deeds on earth.

Augustine taught that the souls of men are immediately judged upon death, with some going to a place of purification. By the time of Thomas Aquinas, the doctrine of purgatory as a place of punishment for those not yet fit for residence in heaven was well established.

St. Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510), taught that when one dies, one immediately recognizes the impediments which prevent one from fully enjoying God, and therefore, one voluntarily throws oneself into purification. The soul desires final union with God, which theologians call the Beatific vision in heaven.

In its purification, the soul suffers pain, yet this pain is the discovery of obstacles within itself that impede its own progress towards God. Such a doctrine is compatible with reincarnationist thought; reincarnation may be seen as a kind of purgatory; purification towards reunion with God.

In addition to the notion of purgatory, there was also the state of “limbo.” Two kinds of limbo were recognized: limbus patrum and limbus infantium. The first was assigned to holy men and women who died before the advent of Christ and had to await his descent to their abode to retrieve them and carry them up to heaven. The second was given to infants who died before baptism and were, therefore, ineligible for heaven. Both states of limbo were thought to be pleasant, but incomparable to heavenly joy or bliss.

Dr. MacGregor explains that conflicting theological and Scriptural accounts of the afterlife have caused many, including regular churchgoers, not to concern themselves with such affairs. Many Christian theologians have discouraged “idle speculation” on the afterlife. Luther recognized the theological difficulties, while Calvin, in a commentary on I Corinthians 13:12, questioned his own doctrine of the eternality of the soul. According to Calvin, Paul intentionally gave no details on the subject, since details “could not help our piety.”

Dr. MacGregor suggests, however, that just as we have ceased to take literally Archbishop Ussher’s biblical concept of a 6,000 year old universe, so also might reincarnation be consistent with a more enlightened world view.

During the Renaissance, a new flowering of public interest in reincarnation emerged. One of the prominent figures in this revival was Italy’s leading philosopher and poet Giordano Bruno. Bruno had entered the Dominican Order at the age of fifteen. As a scholar, Bruno upheld the Copernican world view, that the Sun—and not the earth—is the center of our cosmos, teaching that there are an infinity of worlds and that many are inhabited.

Galileo had announced other worlds and Giordano Bruno spoke of other life forms. Bruno believed there are no privileged reference frames for viewing the universe; the universe looks essentially the same from wherever one happens to view it. Bruno taught that at death the soul passes out of one body and enters into another.

Because of his teachings, Bruno was ultimately brought before the Inquisition. In his profession of faith before the Inquisition, Bruno acknowledged that, speaking as a Catholic, he must say that the soul at death goes directly to heaven, hell or purgatory. However, Bruno insisted that as a philosopher who had given much thought to the question, he found it reasonable that since the soul is different from the body, yet is never found apart from the body, it passes from one body to another, as Pythagoras had taught 2,000 years before.

In his final answers to the charges brought against him, Bruno defiantly responded that the soul “is not the body” and that “it may be in one body or in another, and pass from body to body.” Giordano Bruno was eventually burned at the stake in Rome on February 17, 1600. His teachings influenced 17th century philosophers such as Leibniz and Spinoza.

Since the Renaissance, belief or interest in reincarnation has continued to spread in the West. Shakespeare, Milton and Coleridge made references to it in their literature. The French philosopher Voltaire wrote that the doctrine of reincarnation is “neither absurd nor useless,” insisting, “It is not more surprising to be born twice than once.”

Many of America’s founding fathers, including Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, accepted or expressed interest in reincarnation. Napoleon told his generals that in a previous life he was Charlemagne. Goethe, the great German poet, also believed in reincarnation. Schiller, Blake, Shelley, Browning, Southey and Wordsworth alluded to reincarnation in their own writings as well. American poets Longfellow, Lowell, Whittier and Whitman all showed interest in and sympathy towards reincarnationist views. American Transcendentalists Emerson and Thoreau wrote with deep interest in reincarnation.

French author Honore Balzac wrote Seraphita, a novel devoted entirely to reincarnation. “All human beings go through a previous life,” wrote Balzac. “Who knows how many fleshly forms the heir of heaven occupies before he can be brought to understand the value that silence and solitude whose starry plains are but the vestibule of spiritual worlds?” Jack London also made reincarnation the main theme of his novel The Star Rover, and had the central character exclaim, “Oh, incalculable times again shall I be born.”

In David Copperfield, Charles Dickens explored the possibility of reincarnation and recalling events from past lives. Paul Gaugin wrote that when the physical organism is destroyed, “the soul survives.” It then takes on another body, “degrading or elevating according to merit or demerit.” Poets W.B. Yeats and John Masefield wrote with conviction about reincarnation. British statesman Lloyd George believed in rebirth. Reincarnation was a major theme in Ulysses, by James Joyce.

U.S. auto magnate Henry Ford told an interviewer, “I adopted the theory of reincarnation when I was twenty-six...Genius is experience. Some seem to think that it is a gift or talent, but it is the fruit of long experience in many lives.” U.S. general George Patton similarly believed he had acquired his military skills on ancient battlefields.

“Has it occurred to you that transmigration is at once an explanation and a justification of the evil of the world?” wrote W. Somerset Maugham in The Razor’s Edge. “If the evils we suffer are the result of sins committed in our past lives, we can bear them with resignation and hope that if in this one we strive toward virtue our future lives will be less afflicted.”

One of the greatest modern psychologists, Carl Jung, believed in reincarnation, and saw its potential as a tool in understanding consciousness and the self. British biologist Thomas Huxley wrote that reincarnation has served as a “means of constructing a plausible vindication of the ways of the cosmos to man.” Authors J.D. Salinger and Richard Bach (Jonathan Livingston Seagull) made reincarnation a central theme in their literatures as well.

Sir William Jones, a Christian missionary who helped introduce East Indian philosophy to Europe in the 18th century, wrote: “I am no Hindu, but I hold the doctrine of the Hindus concerning a future state (reincarnation) to be incomparably more rational, more pious, and more likely to deter men from vice than the horrid opinions inculcated by Christians on punishment without end.

In an essay entitled “Christian Metempsychosis,” the 19th century American philosopher Francis Bowen of Harvard, admitted, “An eternity of either reward or punishment would seem to be inadequately earned by one brief period of probation on earth.”

Arthur Schopenhauer, the great 19th century German philosopher, once observed: “Were an Asiatic to ask me for a definition of Europe, I should be forced to answer him: It is that part of the world which is haunted by the incredible delusion that man was created out of nothing, and that his present birth is his first entrance into life.”

In his monumental work, The Story of Christian Origins, secular historian Dr. Martin A. Larson notes that according to Hindu, Buddhist, and Pythagorean doctrine, “hell itself was actually a kind of purgatory, since it was a place in which perhaps a majority of all people underwent repeated refinement and punishment,” before being reborn as a plant, animal, or human being.

Examining the concept of eternal damnation, Dr. Geddes MacGregor concludes: “It is no wonder that purgatory seemed by comparison, despite its anguish, a demonstration of God’s mercy. Purgatory is indeed a far more intelligible concept, in the light of what the Bible says about the nature of God. Even the crassest forms of purgatory suggest moral and spiritual evolution.

“Surely, too, even countless rebirths as a beggar lying in misery and filth on the streets of Calcutta would be infinitely more reconcilable to the Christian concept of God than is the traditional doctrine of everlasting torture in hell. The appeal of reincarnationism to anyone nurtured on hell-fire sermons and tracts is by no means difficult to understand.”

Archbishop Passavalli (1820-1897), a learned Roman Catholic archbishop accepted the teaching of reincarnation from two disciples of the Polish seer Towianski. Archbishop Passavalli admitted that reincarnation is not condemned by the Church, and that it is not in conflict with any Catholic dogma.

Another Catholic priest who came to believe in reincarnation was Edward Dunski, whose Letters were published in 1915. Many other priests in Poland and Italy have believed in reincarnation, influenced by the great mystic Andrzej Towianski (1799-1878).

In her autobiography, A Servant of the Queen, Maude Gonne wrote that when a priest asked her why she was not a Catholic, and she replied, “Because I believe in reincarnation,” she was told:

“The soul comes from God and returns to God when purified, when all things will become clear; and who can tell the stages of its purification? It may be possible that some souls work out their purification on this earth.”

Anthropologist Dr. Margaret Mead observed in February 1971: “It is an open question whether any behavior based on fear of eternal punishment can be regarded as ethical or should be regarded as merely cowardly.”

The Reverend Alvin Hart, an Episcopalian priest in New York, says, “In the Second Letter of Peter, the word exitus (‘exit or ‘a way out’) is used for ‘dying.’ The expression implies that something does exist which at death goes away, or ‘exits’ the body.

“Reincarnation would explain a great many things—such as just where the soul goes after death. After all, it is unlikely that a merciful God would send a sinner to ‘hell’ after just one birth into this...world...It takes time...

“Reincarnation was also accepted by many philosophers in the early church. To my way of thinking it is a logical explanation of what happens at the time of death. Reincarnation is an acceptable answer.”

healthy, wealthy and wise

2007-02-10T15:54:00.000-06:00

The health advantages of a vegetarian diet are well-known in the American medical community, but are just beginning to gain acceptance in the popular culture. The ethical, nutritional and environmental arguments in favor of vegetarianism have been well documented by author John Robbins in his 1987 Pulitzer Prize nominated book, Diet for a New America, which makes ethical vegetarianism seem as mainstream as recycling.

It’s healthier to be a vegetarian. During the period of October 1917 to October 1918, war rationing forced the Danish government to put its citizens on a vegetarian diet. This was a “mass experiment in vegetarianism,” with over three million subjects. The results were astonishing. The mortality rate dropped by 34 percent. The very same phenomenon was observed in occupied Norway during the Second World War. After the war, heavy consumption of meat resumed, and the mortality rate shot back up.

The populations consuming the highest levels of animal flesh—the Eskimos, Laplanders, Greenlanders and Russian Kurgi tribes—also have the life expectancies, averaging about 30 years. Nor can such a short lifespan be attributed to harsh climate. The Russian Caucasians and Yucatan Indians, for example, live mostly on vegetarian foods and have life expectancies of 90 to 100 years.

The populations with the longest lifespans include the Vilacambans of Ecuador, the Abhikasians of the former USSR, and the Hunzas of Pakistan. The most remarkable feature of all these people is that they live almost entirely on plant foods. The Hunzas, for example, eat a diet that is 98.5 percent plant food.

Studies done at Yale University by Professor Irving Fisher demonstrated that flesh-eaters have less endurance than vegetarians. A similar study done by Dr. J. Ioteyko of the Academie de Medicine in Paris found that vegetarians have two to three times more stamina than flesh-eaters and they take only one-fifth the time to recover from exhaustion.

In recent years, there has been widespread concern about osteoporosis, which is epidemic in America, especially among older women. The popular myth has been to solve the problem by consuming more calcium. Yet this doesn’t attack the root of the problem.

Osteoporosis is caused by excess consumption of protein. Americans overdose on protein, getting 1.5 to 2 times more protein than their bodies can handle. The body can’t store excess protein, so the kidneys are forced to excrete it. In doing so, they must draw upon calcium from the bloodstream. This negative calcium balance in the blood is compensated for by calcium loss from the bones: osteoporosis. The calcium lost in the bones of flesh-eaters is 5 to 6 times greater than that lost in the bones of vegetarians.

Excessive protein intake also taxes the kidneys; in America, it is not uncommon to find many over 45 with kidney problems. A strong correlation between excessive protein intake and cancer of the breast, prostate, pancreas and colon has even been observed.

It must be pointed out that meat, fish, and eggs are the most acidic forming foods; heavy consumption of these foods will cause the body to draw upon calcium to restore its pH balance. The calcium lost from the bones gets into one’s urine and often crystallizes into kidney stones, which are found in far greater frequency among flesh-eaters than among vegetarians. Studies have found that vegetarians in the United States have less than half the kidney stones of the general population.

The high consumption of saturated fats and cholesterol leads to artherosclerosis—more popularly known as “hardening of the arteries.” Plant foods contain zero cholesterol and only palm oil, coconuts and chocolate contain saturated fats. Lowering the cholesterol and fat intake in one’s diet lowers the risk of heart disease—America’s biggest killer.

As far back as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that “A vegetarian diet can prevent 97% of our coronary occlusions.” Much has been said about the advantage of polyunsaturated fats as a means of lowering cholesterol in the blood. Unfortunately, this also has the adverse side effect of driving the cholesterol out of the blood and into the colon; contributing to colon cancer. The best way to prevent heart disease is to avoid foods high in fat and cholesterol.

Up to 50 percent of all cancers are caused by diet. Meat and fat intake are primarily responsible. The incidence of colon cancer is high in regions where meat consumption is high and low where meat consumption is minimal. A lack of fiber in the diet also contributes significantly to colon cancer.

It’s important to remember that unprocessed plant foods are high in fiber and carbohydrates, while animal flesh has none. The highest incidence of breast cancer occurs among flesh-eating populations; meat eating women have a four times greater risk of developing breast cancer than do vegetarian women. There is also a greater risk of cervical, uterine, and ovarian cancer—all linked to diets high in fat. Men who consume large quantities of animal fat also have a 3.6 times greater risk of getting prostate cancer.

Diabetes is known to be treatable on a low fat, high fiber diet. Incidence of diabetes balloons among populations eating a rich, meat-based diet. Hypoglycemia is caused by the excessive consumption of meats, sugar and fats. Multiple Sclerosis is also treatable on a low-fat diet. MS is prevalent among populations where consumption of animal fats is high and is least common where such consumption is low. A brain tissue analysis of people with MS found a high saturated fat content.

Ulcers occur most frequently in diets which are acid forming, low in fiber and high in fats. Meat, fish, and eggs are the most acid forming of all foods, and animal flesh has no fiber and excess fat. Low fiber, high-fat diets are the principle cause of hemorrhoids and also diverticulosis—which affects 75 percent of Americans over the age of 75. Similarly, 35 percent of Americans are afflicted with some form of arthritis by the age of 35. Over 85 percent of all Americans over age 70 have arthritis, yet it is treatable on a fat free diet.

The United States Public Health Service estimates that some 60 million Americans are overweight. Exercise is helpful, but so is proper diet and nutrition. Foods high in fiber, low in fat and moderate in protein are most conducive to maintaining proper body weight.

Excess cholesterol forms gallstones. Gallstones, as well as gallbladder disease and gallbladder cancer are usually found in people with low-fiber, high cholesterol, high fat diets. Hypertension is virtually unknown in countries where the intake of salts, fat and cholesterol is low. At the University Hospital in Linkoping, Sweden, even severe asthma patients were found to be treatable on a vegetarian diet. Flesh foods in America are also contaminated with coliform bacteria and salmonella. Much healthier alternatives exist.

“I have no doubt that it is part of the destiny
of the human race in its gradual development
to leave off the eating of animals, as surely as
the savage tribes have left off eating each
other when they came into contact with
the more civilized.”

---Henry David Thoreau

Human beings differ completely from the naturally carnivorous species such as wolves or tigers. Carnivores have a very short digestive tract—three times the length of their bodies—to rapidly consume and excrete decaying flesh. Their urine is highly acidic and they possess hydrochloric stomach acid strong enough to dissolve muscle tissues and bones. Because they are night hunters who sleep during the day, carnivores don’t sweat. They perspire through their tongue. Their jaws can only move up and down and their teeth are long and pointed, in order to cut through tendons and bones.

The carnivores are quadrupeds with keen eyesight and sense of smell. They possess not only the necessary speed to overtake their prey but also have sharp, retractable claws which enable them to pull their victims to the ground and hold them fast. The anatomy of natural omnivores, such as the bear or raccoon, is almost identical to that of the carnivores, except they possess a set of molars to chew the plant foods that they eat.

Herbivorous creatures such as sheep and cattle have a digestive tract 30 times the length of their bodies; they have several stomachs, which allows them to break down cellulose—something humans are unable to do. This is why we can’t graze or live on grass. The urine and saliva of the herbivores are alkaline, and their saliva contains ptyalin for the predigestion of starches.

The frugivores (gorillas, chimpanzees and other primates) have intestinal tracts twelve times the length of the body, clawless hands and alkaline urine and saliva. Their diet is mostly vegetarian, occasionally supplemented with carrion, insects, etc.

Flesh-eating animals lap water with their tongues, whereas vegetarian animals imbibe liquids by a suction process. Humans are classified as primates and are thus frugivores possessing a set of completely herbivorous teeth. Proponents of the theory that humans should be classified as omnivores note that human beings do, in fact, possess a modified form of canine teeth. However, these so-called “canine teeth” are much more prominent in animals that traditionally never eat flesh, such as apes, camels, and the male musk deer.

It must also be noted that the shape, length and hardness of these so-called “canine teeth” can hardly be compared to those of true carnivorous animals. A principle factor in determining the hardness of teeth is the phosphate of magnesia content. Human teeth usually contain 1.5 percent phosphate of magnesia, whereas the teeth of carnivores are composed of nearly 5 percent phosphate of magnesia. It is for this reason they are able to break through the bones of their prey, and reach the nutritious marrow.

Linneaus, who introduced binomial nomenclature (naming plants and animals according to their physical structure) wrote: “Man’s structure, external and internal, compared with that of other animals shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food.” Dr. F.A. Pouchet, 19th century author of The Universe, wrote in his Pluralite’ de la Race Humaine: “It has been truly said that Man is frugivorous. All the details of his intestinal canal, and above all his dentition, prove it in the most decided manner.”

One of the most famous anatomists, Baron Cuvier, wrote: “The natural food of man, judging from his structure, appears to consist principally of the fruits, roots, and other succulent parts of vegetables. His hands afford every facility for gathering them; his short but moderately strong jaws on the other hand, and his canines being equal only in length to the other teeth, together with his tuberculated molars on the other, would scarcely permit him either to masticate herbage, or to devour flesh, were these condiments not previously prepared by cooking.”

The poet Shelley, in his essay, “A Vindication of a Natural Diet,” wrote:

“Comparative anatomy teaches us that man resembles the frugivorous animals in everything, the carnivorous in nothing...It is only by softening and disguising dead flesh by culinary preparation that it is rendered susceptible of mastication or digestion, and that the sight of its bloody juices and raw horror does not excite loathing and disgust...

“Man resembles no carnivorous animal. There is no exception, unless man be one, to the rule of herbivorous animals having cellulated colons. The orang-outang is the most anthropomorphous (manlike) of the ape tribe, all of whom are strictly frugivorous.

“There is no other species of animals which live on different foods in which this analogy exists...The structure of the human frame then, is that of one fitted to a pure vegetable diet in every essential particular.”

Professor William Lawrence, FRS, in his lectures delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons in 1822, said:

“The teeth of man have not the slightest resemblance to those of the carnivorous animals, excepting that their enamel is confined to the external surface. He possesses, indeed, teeth called canine; but they do not exceed the level of others, and are obviously unsuited to the purposes which the corresponding teeth execute in carnivorous animals. Thus we find, whether we consider the teeth and jaws, or the immediate instruments of digestion, that the human structure closely resembles that of the apes, all of whom, in their natural state, are completely herbivorous (frugivorous).”

Professor Charles Bell, FRS, wrote in his 1829 work, Anatomy, Physiology, and Diseases of the Teeth: “It is, I think, not going too far to say that every fact connected with the human organisation goes to prove that man was originally formed a frugivorous animal. This opinion is derived principally from the formation of his teeth and digestive organs, as well as from the character of his skin and the general structure of his limbs.”

Professor Richard Owen, FRS, in his elaborate 1845 work, Odontography, wrote: “The apes and monkeys, whom man nearly resembles in his dentition, derive their staple food from fruits, grain, the kernels of nuts, and other forms in which the most sapid and nutritious tissues of the vegetable kingdom are elaborated; and the close resemblance between the quadrumanous and the human dentition shows that man was, from the beginning, adapted to eat the fruit of the tree of the garden.”

“Behold! I have given you every plant-yielding
seed which is upon the face of all the earth,
and every tree with seed in its fruit; you
shall have them for food.”

---Genesis 1:29

“Man, by nature, was never made to be a carnivorous animal,” wrote John Ray, FRS, “nor is he armed for prey or rapine, with jagged and pointed teeth, and claws to rend and tear; but with gentle hands to gather fruit and vegetables, and with teeth to chew and eat them.” According to Dr. Spenser Thompson, “No physiologist would dispute with those who maintain that men ought to have a vegetable diet.” Dr. S.M. Whitaker, MRCS, LRCP, in Man’s Natural Food: An Enquiry, concluded, “Comparative anatomy and physiology indicate fresh fruits and vegetables as the main food of man.”

More recently, William S. Collens and Gerald B. Dobkens concluded: “Examination of the dental structure of modern man reveals that he possesses all the features of a strictly herbivorous animal. While designed to subsist on vegetarian foods, he has perverted his dietary habits to accept food of the carnivore. It is postulated that man cannot handle carnivorous foods like the carnivore. Herein may lie the basis for the high incidence of arteriosclerotic disease.”

In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:

“Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a horse or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not equipped him for hunting.”

According to Dr. Kellogg, “The statement that man is omnivorous is made without an atom of scientific support. It is true the average hotel bill of fare and the menu found upon the table of the average citizen of this country have a decidedly omnivorous appearance. As a matter of fact, man is not naturally omnivorous, but belongs, as long ago pointed out by Cuvier, to the frugivorous class of animals along with the chimpanzee and other anthropoids.

“The hog is a truly omnivorous animal. Although he thrives best upon a diet of grass or clover, tender shoots, seeds, and succulent roots, he will eat animal flesh, raw or cooked, with avidity when hungry, and he does not hesitate to regale himself upon carrion, after his taste has been cultivated in this direction.

“Man is not omnivorous. He cannot subsist upon grass or raw grain. Taking his food from the hand of Nature, without the aid of cookery, he must confine his dietary to fruits, nuts, soft grains, tender shoots, and succulent roots...It is true he can acquire an appetite for meat, especially when cooked, but practically all animals can do the same. Hunters sometimes teach their horses to eat broiled venison and cows have been taught to eat fish with avidity. Du Chaillu found in the Island of Magero...that sheep and goats were fed daily on fish both raw and cooked.”

Dr. Kellogg insists, however, that “cookery is no part of Nature’s biologic scheme, and hence the fact that man is able to eat and digest cooked meat is no more evidence that he is carnivorous or omnivorous than the fact that he can eat and digest cooked corn is evidence that he is to be classified with graminivourous animals, like the horse, which are eaters of raw grains.

“The bill of fare which wise Nature provides for man in forest and meadow, orchard and garden, a rich and varied menu, comprises more than 600 edible fruits, 100 cereals, 200 nuts, and 300 vegetables—roots, stems, buds, leaves and flowers...Fruits and nuts, many vegetables—young shoots, succulent roots, and fresh green leaves...are furnished by Nature ready for man’s use.”

Dr. Kellogg further notes that “the human liver is incapable of converting uric acid into urea,” and this is “an unanswerable argument against the use of flesh foods as part of the dietary of man. Uric acid is a highly active tissue poison...The livers of dogs, lions, and other carnivorous animals detoxicate uric acid by converting it into urea, a substance which is much less toxic and which is much more easily eliminated by the kidneys.

“Flesh foods are not the best nourishment for human beings and were not the food of our primitive ancestors,” observes Dr. Kellogg. “There is nothing necessary or desirable for human nutrition to be found in meats or flesh foods which is not found in and derived from vegetable products.”

Although writing in 1923, Dr. Kellogg’s words confirm a recent statement by the American Dietetic Association, that, “most of mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or near vegetarian diets.”

“The human race in general has never really adopted flesh as a staple food,” explains Dr. Kellogg. “The Anglo-Saxons and a few savage tribes are about the only flesh-eating people. The people of other nations use meat only as a luxury or an emergency diet. According to Mori, the Japanese peasant of the interior is almost an exclusive vegetarian. He eats fish once or twice a month and meat once or twice a year.”

Dr. Kellogg writes that in 1899 the Emperor of Japan appointed a commission to determine whether it was necessary to add meat to the nation’s diet to improve the people’s strength and stature. The commission concluded that as far as meat was concerned, “the Japanese had always managed to do without it, and that their powers of endurance and their athletic prowess exceeded that of any of the Caucasian races. Japan’s diet stands on a foundation of rice.”

According to Dr. Kellogg, “the rice diet of the Japanese is supplemented by the free use of peanuts, soy beans, and greens, which...constitute a wholly sufficient bill of fare. Throughout the Island Empire, rice is largely used, together with buckwheat, barley, wheat, and millet. Turnips and radishes, yams and sweet potatos are frequently used, also cucumbers, pumpkins and squashes.

"The soy bean is held in high esteem and used largely in the form of miso, a puree prepared from the bean and fermented; also to-fu, a sort of cheese; and cho-yu, which is prepared by mixing the pulverized beans with wheat flour, salt, and water and fermenting from one and a half to five years.

“The Chinese peasant lives on essentially the same diet, as do also the Siamese, the Koreans, and most other Oriental peoples. Three-fourths of the world’s population eat so little meat that it cannot be regarded as anything more than an incidental factor in their bill of fare. The countless millions of China,” writes Dr. Kellogg, “are for the most part flesh-abstainers. In fact, at least two-thirds of the inhabitants of the world make so little use of flesh that it can hardly be considered an essential part of their dietary...

“The ancient vegetarian races of Mexico and Peru had attained to a high degree of civilization when discovered by Cortez, and were certainly far more gentle and amiable in character than were their flesh-eating conquerors, whose treachery and cold-blooded atrocities so nearly resulted in the complete extinction of a noble race.”

Dr. Kellogg reports that the South American bark-gatherers live “almost wholly upon bananas and other equally simple vegetable food...Certain tribes of South American Indians who subsist wholly upon a non-flesh dietary, are remarkable for vigor and endurance...the natives of the great plateau of the Andes subsist almost wholly upon corn and potatos...the old Peruvians...were practically vegetarians.” Dr. Kellogg quotes Charles Darwin as having described the laborers in the mines of Chile living “exclusively on vegetable food, including many seeds of leguminous plants.”

Concerning Central Africa, Dr. Kellogg admits, “It is true that practically all the natives eat meat on occasion, but...the chief sustenance of the native is obtained from the products of the earth, which are most abundant in this fertile region. Maize, yuma, manioc, coconuts, palm cabbage, bananas, and a great number of fruits and nuts afford ample variety and sufficient nourishment without flesh foods.”

Dr. Kellogg cites a Mr. Sarvis of the Boston Transcript, who wrote: “The Bantu race, who inhabit the great part of Central Africa, are almost entirely vegetarian... Generally, their food consists largely of a kind of millet, which is almost tasteless... Bananas and sweet potatos also form a very important part of the diet of the African races of the central parts...The natives also eat vegetables and salads of many kinds. In a few districts cattle are kept for the milk and butter, but the natives do not kill the animals for food...The Kavirondos wear no clothing whatever, and they are absolute vegetarians, the banana forming the base of their food.”

The Ladrone Islands were discovered by the Spaniards around 1620. There were no animals on the islands except birds, which the natives did not eat. The natives had never seen fire, and they lived entirely on plant foods—fruits and roots in their natural state. They were found to be vigorous, active, and of good longevity.

Dr. Kellogg gives an account of the “Silesians, Roumanians, and many Oriental people,” all of whom he says “are almost exclusively vegetarians, and enjoy a degree of vigor, vitality, and longevity not found among flesh-eating nations.”

In his 1583 text, Anatomy of Abuses, Stubbes wrote that previous generations “fed upon graine, corne, roots, pulse, hearbes, weedes, and such other baggage; and yet lived longer than we, were healthfuller than we, of better complexion than we, and much stronger than we in every respect.” A century later, Macauley noted that, “meat was so dear in price that hundreds of thousands of families scarcely knew the taste of it,” while half the population of England, “ate it not at all or not more often than once a week.”

Writing in the 1840s, Sylvester Graham observed: “The peasantry of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Switzerland, France, Spain, England, Scotland, Ireland, a considerable portion of Russia and other parts of Europe subsist mainly on non-flesh foods. The peasantry of modern Greece...subsist on coarse brown bread and fruits.

“The peasantry in many parts of Russia live on very coarse bread, with garlic and other vegetables; and like the same class in Greece, Italy, etc., they are obliged to be extremely frugal even in this kind of food. Yet they are (for the most part) healthy, vigorous, and active. Many of the inhabitants of Germany live mainly on rye and barley, in the form of coarse bread.

“The potato is the principle food of the Irish peasantry, and few portions of the human family are more healthy, athletic, and active...That portion of the peasantry of England and Scotland who subsist on their barley and oatmeal bread, porridge, potatos, and other vegetables, with temperate, cleanly habits (and surroundings) are able to endure more fatigue and exposure than any other class of people in the same countries.

“Three-fourths of the whole human family, in all periods of time...have subsisted on non-flesh foods; and when their supplies have been abundant and their habits in other respects correct, they have been well nourished.”

Dr. Kellogg also found a vegetarian lifestyle to be the norm in much of Europe: “An official report shows that the diet of the Swiss peasant includes little or no meat. ‘In the Schwyz canton, the people have long lived on plant food, without flesh. They are a fine set of independent mountaineers, and from this canton the freedom of the Swiss was born.' The peasants of northern Italy eat meat twice a year. They are remarkably robust and hearty.

“The hardy Scotch have never been great meat eaters. In the remote districts kailbrose, shredded greens and oatmeal over which hot water is poured, is eaten with or without milk...According to Douglas, writing in 1782, the diet of the Scotch of the East Coast was then oatmeal and milk with vegetables. He says: ‘Flesh is never seen in the houses of the common farmers, except at a baptism, a wedding, Christmas, or Shrovetide.’”

Faced with the fact that apes can be trained to eat flesh foods, Sylvester Graham responded, “But if this proves that animal to be omnivorous, then the horse, cow, sheep, and others are all omnivorous, for everyone of them is easily trained to eat animal food. Horses have frequently been trained to eat animal food, and sheep have been so accustomed to it as to refuse grass.

“All carnivorous animals can be trained to a vegetable diet, and brought to subsist upon it, with less inconvenience and deterioration than herbivorous or frugivorous animals can be brought to live on animal food,” acknowledged Graham. “Comparative anatomy proves that man is naturally a frugivorous animal, formed to subsist upon fruits, seeds, and farinaceous vegetable.”

Dr. Gordon Latto notes that carnivorous and omnivorous animals can only move their jaws up and down, and that omnivores “have a blunt tooth, a sharp tooth, a blunt tooth, a sharp tooth—showing that they were destined to deal both with flesh foods from the animal kingdom and foods from the vegetable kingdom...

“Carnivorous mammals and omnivorous mammals cannot perspire except at the extremity of the limbs and the tip of the nose; man perspires all over the body. Finally, our instincts; the carnivorous mammal (which first of all has claws and canine teeth) is capable of tearing flesh asunder, whereas man only partakes of flesh foods after they have been camouflaged by cooking and by condiments.

“Man instinctively is not carnivorous,” explains Dr. Latto. “...he takes the flesh food after somebody else has killed it, and after it has been cooked and camouflaged with certain condiments. Whereas to pick an apple off a tree or eat some grain or a carrot is a natural thing to do: people enjoy doing it; they don’t feel disturbed by it. But to see these animals being slaughtered does affect people; it offends them. Even the toughest of people are affected by the sights in the slaughterhouse.

“I remember taking some medical students into a slaughterhouse. They were about as hardened people as you could meet. After seeing the animals slaughtered that day in the slaughterhouse, not one of them could eat the meat that evening.”

Author R.H. Wheldon writes in No Animal Food:

“The gorge of a cat, for instance, will rise at the smell of a mouse or a piece of raw flesh, but not at the aroma of fruit. If a man can take delight in pouncing upon a bird, tear its still living body apart with his teeth, sucking the warm blood, one might infer that Nature had provided him with carnivorous instinct, but the very thought of doing such a thing makes him shudder. On the other hand, a bunch of luscious grapes makes his mouth water, and even in the absence of hunger, he will eat fruit to gratify taste.”

Some argue that human intelligence has enabled man to transcend his physical limitations and function as a “natural” flesh-eater. If this is true, then we must also classify napalm, poison gas, and nuclear weapons as “natural,” too, because they are also products of (misused!) human intelligence. Agriculture and cookery aren’t found in nature, either. One might therefore argue if human technology is “natural,” then human ethical behavior is equally natural.

“I am the very opposite of an anthropomorphizer,” says writer Brigid Brophy. “I don’t hold animals superior or even equal to humans. The whole case for behaving decently towards animals rests on the fact that we are the superior species. We are the species uniquely capable of rationality, imagination and moral choice, and that is precisely why we are under obligation to respect the rights of other creatures.”

The myth that humans are naturally a predator species remains popular:

“The beast of prey is the highest form of active life,” wrote Nazi philosopher Oswald Spengler in 1931. “It represents a mode of living which requires the extreme degree of the necessity of fighting, conquering, annihilating, self-assertion. The human race ranks highly because it belongs to the class of beasts of prey. Therefore we find in man the tactics of life proper to a bold, cunning beast of prey. He lives engaged in aggression, killing, annihilation. He wants to be master in as much as he exists.”

The fact that predators exist in the wild does not imply man must automatically imitate them. Cannibalism and rape also occur in nature. Robert Louis Stevenson, in his book, In the South Seas, wrote that there was little difference between the “civilized” Europeans and the “savages” of the Cannibal Islands: “We consume the carcasses of creatures with like appetites, passions, and organs as our own. We feed on babes, though not our own, and fill the slaughter-houses daily with screams of pain and fear.”

Moreover, the popular argument that it is ‘natural” for us to utilize murdered animals as a source of food does not (ecologically) justify factory farming and raising livestock as we know it today. It justifies hunting. The Native Americans, the Eskimo and other hunter-gatherer tribes have traditionally lived more in harmony with their environment than does modern man in urban civilization.

Half the water consumed in the United States, for example, goes to irrigate land growing feed and fodder for livestock. Huge amounts of water are also used to wash away their excrement. In fact, U.S. livestock produce twenty times as much excrement as does the entire human population; creating sewage which is ten to several hundred times more concentrated than raw domestic sewage.

Animal wastes cause ten times more water pollution than does the U.S. human population; the meat industry causes three times as much harmful organic water pollution than the rest of the nation’s industries combined. Meat producers are the number one industrial polluters in our nation, contributing to half the water pollution in the United States.

The water that goes into a thousand-pound steer could float a destroyer. It takes 25 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat, but 2,500 gallons to produce a pound of meat. If these costs weren’t subsidized by the American taxpayers, the cheapest hamburger meat would be $35 per pound!

The burden of subsidizing the California meat industry costs taxpayers $24 billion annually. Livestock producers are California’s biggest consumers of water. Every tax dollar that the state doles out to livestock producers costs taxpayers over seven dollars in lost wages, higher living costs and reduced business income. Seventeen western states have enough water supplies to support economies and populations twice as large as the present.

Overgrazing of cattle leads to topsoil erosion; turning once-arable land into desert. We lose four million acres of topsoil every year, and 85 percent of this is directly caused by raising livestock. To replace the soil we’ve lost, we’re chopping down our forests. Since 1967, the rate of deforestization in the U.S. has been one acre every five seconds. For each acre cleared in urbanization, seven are cleared for grazing or growing livestock feed. One-third of all raw materials in the U.S. are consumed by the livestock industry, and it takes three times as much fossil fuel energy to produce meat than it does to produce plant foods.

Ecological arguments in favor of vegetarianism can be found in the Bible; arguments supporting vegetarianism are as old as mankind. The Bible contains numerous cases of conflicts directly caused by the practice of raising livestock. These include contested water rights, competition for grazing areas, and tension between agriculturalists and nomadic herdsmen.

The settled agricultural communities resented the intrusion of nomadic tribes with their large herds of cattle, sheep, and goats. The animals were considered a menace. Besides the threat to the crops themselves, huge herds of livestock caused damage to the land through overgrazing.

For this reason, the Philistines (whose primary agricultural pursuits were corn and orchards), discouraged nomadic herdsmen from using their territory by filling in many of the wells in the surrounding area. One of the earliest accounts of conflict among the herdsmen themselves in found in the story of Lot and Abram:

“And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents. And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together; for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together. And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram’s cattle and the herdmen of Lot’s cattle.” (Genesis 13:5-7)

Abram moved westward to the region known as Canaan, while Lot journeyed to the east; settling in Sodom. Peaceful resolutions, however, were not always possible. There are several references in the Bible to clashes between the Israelites and Midianites. The Midianites were wealthy traders who owned large numbers of livestock, as did the Israelites, who brought their herds with them when they left Egypt. Livestock require vast areas of land for grazing. They also need water, which has never been abundant in that part of the world. The strain placed on the land’s resources is mentioned in Judges 6:4: “And they encamped against them, and destroyed the increase of the earth.”

The depletion of resources created by the people and their livestock moving into this territory is described in Judges 6:5 with this analogy: “For they came up with their cattle and their tents, and they came as grasshoppers.” Another passage states that after a vicious battle with the Midanites the Israelites increased their herds with the livestock of their slain captives. This included 675,000 sheep and more than 72,000 beehives.

Vegetarianism is relevant to both our modern world and its religious teachings. The livestock population of the United States today consume enough grain and soybeans to feed over five times the entire human population. American cows, pigs, chicken, sheep, etc. eat up 90 percent of our wheat, 80 percent of our corn, and 95 percent of our oats. Less than half of the harvested agricultural acreage in the United States is used to grow food for human consumption. Most of it is used to grow livestock feed.

In The Wealth of Nations, economist Adam Smith noted the advantages of a vegetarian diet: “It may indeed be doubted whether butcher’s meat is anywhere a necessary of life. Grain and other vegetables, with the help of milk, cheese, and butter, or oil, where butter is not to be had, afford the most plentiful, the most wholesome, the most nourishing, and the most invigorating diet. Decency nowhere requires that any man should eat butcher’s meat.”

Ronald J. Sider, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (largely because of the high consumption of grain fed to livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.

The realization that meat is an unnecessary luxury, resulting in inequities in the world food supply, has prompted religious leaders in different denominations to call on their members to abstain from meat. Paul Moore, Jr., the Episcopal bishop of the Diocese of New York, made such an appeal in a November 1974 pastoral letter calling for the observance of “meatless Wednesdays.”

A similar appeal had previously been issued by Cardinal Cooke, the Roman Catholic archbishop of New York. The Reverend Eugene Carson Blake, former head of the World Council of Churches and founder of Bread for the World, has encouraged everyone in his anti-hunger organization to abstain from eating meat on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

“Is this not the fast I have chosen? To loosen
the chains of wickedness, to undo the bonds of
oppression, and to let the oppressed go free?
Is it not to share thy bread with the hungry,
sheltering the oppressed and the homeless?
Clothing the naked when you see them, and
not turning your back on your own?”

---Isaiah 58:6-8

What does the future hold? If the world population triples in the next century, then meat production would have to triple as well. Instead of 3.7 billion acres of cropland and 7.5 billion acres of grazing land, we would require 11.1 billion acres of cropland and 22.5 billion acres of grazing land. But this is slightly more than the total land mass of the six inhabited continents! We are already desperately short of groundwater, topsoil, forests and energy.

Even if we were to resort to extreme methods of population control—abortion, infanticide, genocide, etc.—modest increases in the world population during the next century would make it impossible to maintain current levels of meat consumption. On a vegetarian diet, however, the world could support a population several times its present size. The world’s cattle alone consume enough to feed 8.7 billion humans.

Father Thomas Berry, a Catholic priest, author, and founder of the Riverdale Center for Religious Research in New York, wrote in 1987 that “vegetarianism is a way of life that we should all move toward for economic survival, physical well-being, and spiritual integrity.”

Would it be unusual for a Christian teacher to teach compassion towards animals to the point of vegetarianism? Abstinence from meat as nonviolence and as asceticism has its place in the Christian tradition. Some of the most distinguished figures in the history of Christianity have been vegetarian.

A partial list includes St. James, St. Matthew, Clemens Prudentius, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Benedict, Aegidius, Boniface, St. Richard of Wyche, St. Filipo Neri, St. Colomba, John Wray, John Wesley, Joshua Evans, William Metcalfe, General William Booth, Ellen White, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, and Reverend V.A. Holmes-Gore.

The early Christian fathers followed a meatless regimen. Until the 1960s, the Roman Catholic Church had ruled that Catholics observe certain fast days and abstain from eating meat on Fridays in remembrance of the death of Christ. After 1966, the rule was relaxed, so that Catholics need only abstain from meat on the Fridays of Lent.

There is nothing, therefore, in Scripture or the Christian tradition that would prohibit Christian denominations from admitting that the concession to kill animals granted by God in Genesis 9:3 along with the prohibition against consuming animal blood which is repeated again in Acts 15 does not represent His highest hopes for humanity (Genesis 1:29; Isaiah 11:6-9); recognizing God’s love and goodness towards the animals; citing the lives of the saints and religious leaders in Christianity who taught compassion for all living beings; and recognizing the virtues of vegetarianism.

In his book, Animal Rights: A Christian Assessment of Man’s Treatment of Animals, the Reverend Dr. Andrew Linzey writes with regret: “It has, I think, to be sadly recognized that Christians, Catholic or otherwise, have failed to construct a satisfactory moral theology of animal treatment.”

Vegetarianism is ethical, healthier, environmentally (and politically?) correct, and economical. It has been said that if everyone had to kill animals every day for his or her own meat, nearly all of us would choose vegetarianism. The vegetarian way of life is consistent not only with human anatomy, the Bible, and Christian tradition and theology, but with Western spirituality in general.

interview with Abolitionist - Online

2007-02-08T23:28:00.000-06:00

The following is an e-mail interview conducted by Claudette Vaughan, editor of Abolitionist - Online in Australia.

1. In your book “They Shall Not Hurt Or Destroy” you say a few
years ago Norm Phelps came to the conclusion, such as I myself
have, that the animal rights movement will never succeed until
we ‘convert’ the churches, mosques and synagogues to our cause.
Is this also your point of view?

Yes. I would like to see organized religion take up the struggle for animal rights. Religion has been wrong before. It has often been said that on issues such as women's rights and human slavery, religion has impeded social and moral progress. It was a Spanish Catholic priest, Bartolome de las Casas, who first proposed enslaving black Africans in place of the Native Americans who were dying off in great numbers.

The church of the past never considered human slavery to be a moral evil. The Protestant churches of Virginia, South Carolina, and other southern states here in the U.S. actually passed resolutions in favor of the human slave traffic.

Human slavery was called "by Divine Appointment," "a Divine institution," "a moral relation," "God's institution," "not immoral," but "founded in right." The slave trade was called "legal," "licit," "in accordance with humane principles" and "the laws of revealed religion."

New Testament verses calling for obedience and subservience on the part of slaves (Titus 2:9-10; Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-25; I Peter 2:18-25) and respect for the master (I Timothy 6:1-2; Ephesians 6:5-9) were often cited in order to justify human slavery. Many of Jesus' parables refer to human slaves. Paul's epistle to Philemon concerns a runaway slave returned to his master.

"Paul's outright endorsement of slavery should be an undying embarrassment to Christianity as long as they hold the entire New Testament to be the word of God," says contemporary Quaker physician Dr. Charles P. Vaclavik. (The Quakers, it must be noted, were one of the earliest religious denominations to condemn human slavery.) "Without a doubt, the American slaveholders quoted Paul again and again to substantiate their right to hold slaves.

"The moralist movement to abolish slavery had to go to non-Biblical sources to demonstrate the immoral nature of slavery. The abolitionists could not turn to Christian sources to condemn slavery, for Christianity had become the bastion of the evil practice through its endorsement by the Apostle Paul.

"Only the Old Testament gave the abolitionist any Biblical support in his efforts to free the slaves. 'You shall not surrender to his master a slave who has taken refuge with you.' (Deuteronomy 23:15) What a pittance of material opposing slavery from a book supposedly representing the word of God."

In 1852, Josiah Priest wrote Bible Defense of Slavery. Others claimed blacks were subhuman. Buckner H. Payne, calling himself "Ariel," wrote in 1867: "the tempter in the Garden of Eden...was a beast, a talking beast...the negro." Ariel argued that since the negro was not part of Noah's family, he must have been a beast. Eight souls were saved on the ark, therefore, the negro must be a beast, and "consequently, he has no soul to be saved."

The status of animals in contemporary human society is not unlike that of human slaves in centuries past. Quoting Isaiah 61:1, Luke 4:18 or any other biblical passages in favor of liberty, equality and an end to human slavery in the 18th or 19th century would have been met with the same kind of response animal rights activists receive today if they quote Bible verses in favor of ethical vegetarianism and compassion towards animals.

Some of the worst crimes in history have also been committed in the name of religion. There's a great song along these lines from the early 1990s by an American punk rock band, Rage Against the Machine, entitled "Killing in the Name Of".

Someone once pointed out that while Hitler may have claimed to be a Christian, he imprisoned Christian clergy who opposed the Nazi regime, and even Christian churches were subject to the terror or the Nazis. Thinking along these lines, I realize that while I would like to see organized religion support animal liberation (e.g., as was the case with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the American civil rights movement) rather than simply remain an obstacle to social and moral progress (e.g., 19th century southern churches in the U.S. upheld human slavery on biblical grounds), this support must come freely and voluntarily (e.g., "The Liberation of All Life" resolution issued by the World Council of Churches in 1988).

Religious institutions can't be coerced into rewriting their holy books or teaching a convoluted doctrine to suit the whims or the secular political ideology of a particular demagogue. American liberals argue that principle of the separation of church and state (upon which the United States was founded) gives us freedom FROM religious tyranny and theocracy. Conservatives argue (the other side of the coin!) that one of the reasons America's founding fathers established the separation of church and state was to prevent government intrusion into religious affairs.

I agree with Reverend Marc Wessels, Executive Director of the International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA), who said on Earth Day 1990:

"It is a fact that no significant social reform has yet taken place in this country (the United States) without the voice of the religious community being heard. The endeavors of the abolition of slavery; the women's suffrage movement; the emergence of the pacifist tradition during World War I; the struggles to support civil rights, labor unions, and migrant farm workers; and the anti-nuclear and peace movements have all succeeded in part because of the power and support of organized religion. Such authority and energy is required by individual Christians and the institutional church today if the liberation of animals is to become a reality."

2. What does ‘Ahimsa’ mean to you?

The word 'ahimsa' literally means "nonviolence," and that's how I read it. According to Nine Beliefs of Hinduism, a tract published by the Himalayan Academy of San Francisco: "Hindus believe that all life is sacred, to be loved and revered, and therefore practice ahimsa, or nonviolence."

Brother Wayne Teasdale, a Benedictine monk who passed away a few years ago, similarly wrote in 1995:

"...it is necessary to elevate nonviolence to a noble place in our civilization of loving compassion because nonviolence as ahimsa in the Hindu tradition, a tradition that seems to possess the most advanced understanding of nonviolence, IS love! Love is the goal and ultimate nature of nonviolence as an inner disposition and commitment of the heart. It is the fulfillment of love and compassion in the social sphere, that is, in the normal course of relations among people in the matrix of society."

3. How does one take the meaning of ahimsa and the notion of
non-violence and get them to work actively for our brother and
sisters, the animals?

Contemporary Hindu spiritual masters have taught that if one wishes to eat cow's flesh (or the flesh of any other animal), one should wait until the animal dies of natural causes, rather than take the life of a fellow creature. This indicates that we are vegetarian first and foremost out of nonviolence towards and compassion for animals, rather than because we follow "dietary laws."

As Brother Wayne Teasdale said, "nonviolence...IS love!" A popular vegetarian bumper sticker here in the United States reads: "Vegetarianism is love in action." The number of animals killed for food here in the United States is 70 times larger than the number of animals killed in laboratories, 30 times larger than the number killed by hunters and trappers, and 500 times larger than the number of animals killed in animal pounds. So vegetarianism and veganism would be a good place to start!

Roberta Kalechofsky of Jews for Animal Rights similarly says:

"Merely by ceasing to eat meat
Merely by practicing restraint
We have the power to end a painful industry

"We do not have to bear arms to end this evil,
We do not have to contribute money,
We do not have to sit in jail or go to
meetings or demonstrations or
engage in acts of civil disobedience

"Most often, the act of repairing the world,
of healing mortal wounds,
is left to heroes and tzaddikim (holy people)
Saints and people of unusual discipline

"But here is an action every mortal can
perform--surely it is not too difficult!"

During the height of Beatlemania, John Lennon was asked by a reporter, "Does your hair require any special attention?" To this, Lennon replied, "Inattention is the main thing." Similarly, with vegetarianism, we're not asking people to engage in activity--we're asking them to REFRAIN from engaging in an activity. By refraining from eating animals, they are, in effect, refraining from killing them.

By refraining from eating animals, refraining from using products tested on animals, refraining from patronizing forms of "entertainment" that use animals, refraining from wearing the furs or skins of animals, etc., we are, in effect, refraining from harming and killing animals altogether...just as pro-life Christians who refuse vaccines containing aborted fetal cells are refraining from contributing to the death of another human being.

Christians are sometimes reluctant to engage in what they misunderstand to be "good works," but again, we're not asking them to perform good deeds, just to REFRAIN FROM KILLING. This is not merely an academic point, it's one I make at the end of chapter seven of my book while discussing current trends in animal liberation theology:

Perhaps the real question true believers should be asking themselves with regards to animal rights and vegetarianism is not "Why should Christians abstain from certain foods?", but rather, "Why should Christians want to harm or kill God's innocent creatures in the first place?"

4. In researching your book how did you find Christians regard for animals?

I was pleasantly surprised by the wealth of information on Christianity and animal rights. Some of the most distinguished figures in the history of Christianity (the early church fathers, saints, religious reformers, etc.) have been vegetarian or at least sympathetic towards some aspects of animal rights, and the moral status of animals continues to be debated to this day, as found in the writings of Karl Barth and Dr. Albert Schweitzer.

To argue (as some Christians do) that animal rights and vegetarianism are solely "Jewish" concerns, is kind of like saying, "It's only wrong to own a slave if you're a Quaker." No. Suffering and injustice concern us all. Animal rights and vegetarianism are moral absolutes. They apply to everyone, including atheists and agnostics.

They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy has gotten a very favorable response from Christian vegetarians and vegans, of whom I have the deepest respect. I agree with Rick Dunkerly of Christ Lutheran Church, who said: "...the Bible-believing Christian, should, of all people, be on the frontline in the struggle for animal welfare and rights."

5. What about Buddhist regard?

Mahayana Buddhism supports the vegetarian and (to some extent) the vegan way of life. I was impressed with Dr. Tony Page's Buddhism and Animals, which focuses almost entirely upon Mahayana Buddhism. In China, the Mahayana monks are expected to be vegetarian, and in China, tofu is referred to as "monk's food."

Dr. Page responded favorably to They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy, as did Reverend Heng Sure, an American Mahayana Buddhist monk, based in here in Northern California. James Dawson, a practicing Theravadin Buddhist, gave the book a favorable review in Live and Let Live, a pro-life, animal rights, Libertarian 'zine.

6. And Jewish regard?

Judaism teaches "tsa'ar ba'alei chayim," or concern for animals. Secular scholar Keith Akers, whose writings were an influence on me, notes that compassion for animals is firmly rooted in Judaism.

Judaism may not be as ethically evolved as the Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism) in this regard, but it has shown far more love, mercy, and compassion towards the animal creation than has mainstream Christianity, and for that reason, it has my respect.

When They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy was still in manuscript form, Rabbi Jacob Feuerwerker, an orthodox rabbi in Marion, Ohio, wrote me, saying, "You have a generally deep understanding of Judaism, and the books we hold dear (inspired)." Dr. Richard Schwartz, author of Judaism and Vegetarianism, also told me I summarized the Jewish case for vegetarianism quite well.

7. Slaughterhouses are arguably the most violent places on earth.
Is vegetarianism, better still veganism the appropriate truly
religious response if we want to free animals from their status of
slaves and commodities?

Yes. I wrote They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy with that in mind. If you read the Bible literally, all you can really prove is that we shouldn't be consuming animal blood (which, according to the rabbis, is meant to teach reverence for life and serves as a reminder that man ideally should not eat meat) or eating food offered to pagan idols...these make up part of the koshering laws, and they're found in the New Testament with regards to gentile converts to Christianity (Acts 15).

But there's more to religion than just the Scriptures. There is also theology and tradition: church history, secular history, the teachings of the early church fathers, the lives of the saints and religious reformers, etc. We (animal rights activists) don't want to turn meat-eating Christians into meat-eating Jews--we want to turn them into vegetarian and vegan Christians!

We're not trying to convert them, we just want them to listen to the vegetarian voices in their own tradition. We're not asking them to change their religion; we just want them to respond favorably -- rather than remain an obstacle -- to social progress. We just want them to be compassionate to animals.

8. None of the holy books demand or command their
religious communities to eat meat. Can you please
comment on that?

Yes. In both the story of the Flood and the later story of the Israelites (during their exodus from Egypt) who demanded and got meat as having incurred God's wrath and were thus struck down by a plague (Number 11:4-34), meat is given a negative connotation. It is a concession God makes to man's imperfection. As Reverend Andrew Linzey notes, "...we have no biblical warrant for claiming killing as God's will. God's will is for peace."

9. What arguments from any of the faiths your researched did you
find against the will to stop eating animal flesh and the
by-products?

The most-repeated argument against biblical vegetarianism I've gotten from Christians is that they think they are no longer under Mosaic Law, because the apostle Paul referred to his background as a former Pharisee and his previous adherence to Mosaic Law (with its dietary laws, commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals, etc.) as "so much garbage." (Philippians 3:4-8)

There is nothing in the synoptic gospels of Jesus, however, to suggest a fundamental break with Judaism. Jesus was called "Rabbi," meaning "Master" or "Teacher," 42 times in the gospels.

The ministry of Jesus was a rabbinic one. Jesus related Scripture and God's laws to everyday life, teaching by personal example. He engaged in healing and acts of mercy. He told stories or parables--a rabbinic method of teaching. He went to the synagogue (Matthew 12:9), taught in the synagogues (Matthew 4:23, 13:54; Mark 1:39), expressed concern for Jairus, "one of the rulers of the synagogue" (Mark 5:36) and it "was his custom" to go to the synagogue (Luke 4:16).

Jesus began his ministry by teaching the multitudes not to "give what is sacred to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine." (Matthew 7:6) Dogs, like swine, were considered foul and unclean by the Hebrew people. (Deuteronomy 23:18; I Samuel 24:14; II Kings 8:13; Psalm 22:16,20; Matthew 7:6; Luke 16:21; Revelations 22:15) These words were used by the children of Israel to describe the neighboring heathen populations.

When sending his disciples out to preach, Jesus instructed them not to go to the gentiles, but to "go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10:5-6) When a Canaanite woman asked Jesus to heal her daughter, he replied, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel...It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." (Matthew 15:22-28)

Jesus regarded the gentiles as "dogs." His gospel was intended for the Jewish people. Even the apostle Paul admits that the gospel was first intended for the Jews, and that the Jews have every advantage over the gentiles in this regard (Romans 1:16, 3:1-2).

When a scribe asked Jesus what is the greatest commandment in the Torah, Jesus began with "Hear O Israel, the Lord, thy God, is One Lord." This is the Shema, which is still heard in every synagogue service to this day. "And you shall love the Lord with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength...And you shall love your neighbor as yourself," Jesus concluded.

When the scribe agreed that God is one and that to love Him completely and also love one's neighbor as oneself is "more important than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices," Jesus replied, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." (Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:29-34; Luke 10:25-28)

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus himself said:

"Do not suppose I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill...till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle pass from the Law till all is fulfilled. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven...unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20)

Jesus also upheld the Torah in Luke 16:17: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid."

Nor do these words refer merely to the Ten Commandments. Jesus meant the entire Torah: 613 commandments. When a man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus replied, "You know the commandments." He then quoted not just the Ten Commandments, but a commandment from Leviticus 19:13 as well: "Do not defraud." (Mark 10:17-22)

Jesus' disciples were once accused by the scribes and Pharisees of violating rabbinical tradition (Matthew 15:1-2; Mark 7:5), but never biblical law. At no place in the entire New Testament does Jesus ever proclaim Torah or the Law of Moses to be abolished; this was the theology of Paul, a former Pharisee who never knew Jesus, but who used to persecute Jesus' followers. Paul openly identified himself not as a Jew but as a Roman (Acts 22:25-26) and an apostate from Judaism (Philippians 3:4-8)

Sometimes Christians cite Matthew 7:11, where Jesus says "Do unto others..." and this "covers" the Law and the prophets. But Jesus was merely repeating in the positive what Rabbi Hillel taught a generation earlier. No one took Hillel's words to mean the Law had been abolished--why should we assume this of Jesus?

If Jesus really did come to abolish the Law and the prophets, Simon (Peter) would not have resisted a divine command to kill and eat both "clean" and "unclean" animals (Acts 10), nor would there have been a debate in the early church as to what extent the gentiles were to observe Mosaic Law (Acts 15). When Paul visited the church at Jerusalem, James and the elders told him all its members were "zealous for the Law," and that they were worried because they heard rumors that Paul was preaching against Mosaic Law (Acts 21).

None of these events would have happened had Jesus really come to abolish the Law and the prophets. Jesus not only repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law, he justified his healing on the Sabbath by referring to commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals!

While teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a woman who had been ill for eighteen years. He justified his healing work on the Sabbath by referring to biblical passages calling for the humane treatment of animals as well as their rest on the Sabbath. "So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham...be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?" Jesus asked. (Luke 13:10-16)

On yet another occasion, Jesus again referred to Torah teaching on "tsa'ar ba'alei chayim" or compassion for animals to justify healing on the Sabbath. "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (Luke 14:1-5)

Jesus compared saving sinners who had gone astray from God's kingdom to rescuing lost sheep. He recalled a Jewish legend about Moses' compassion as a shepherd for his flock:

"For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. What do you think? Who among you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? And when he has found it," Jesus continued, "he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home,he calls together his friends and neighbors saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'

"I say to you, likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance...there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:3-7,10)

Paul, on the other hand, said if anyone has confidence in Mosaic Law, "I am ahead of him" (Philippians 3:4-8). Would that include Jesus, who said he did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets? Would that include Jesus, who said whoever sets aside even the least of the Law's demands shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19)? Would that include Jesus, who taught that following the commandments of God is the only way to eternal life (Mark 10:17-22)? Would that include Jesus who said that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid (Luke 16:17)?

Paul may have regarded his previous adherence to Mosaic Law as "so much garbage," but it should be obvious by now that JESUS DIDN'T THINK THE LAW WAS "GARBAGE"!

If Christians assign greater value to Paul's teachings over those of Jesus, then "Christianity" really is "Paulianity". Bertrand Russell referred to Paul as the "inventor" of Christianity.

I'm not saying Christians should all be circumcised and following Mosaic Law. The Reverend Andrew Linzey, the foremost theologian in the field of animal-human relations and author of Christianity and the Rights of Animals (1987), rejected such an approach in a 1989 interview with the Animals' Agenda.

I'm merely saying that Christianity for the past 2000 years has been based on a misunderstanding. My friend Rankin Fisher (a former Missionary Baptist minister), quoted a Methodist minister friend of his as having admitted, "We (Christians) aren't really following Jesus. We're following Paul."

10. Hardly anybody denies that animals are our equals in suffering
and if most religions have “A Day of Judgment” (Buddhism has
karma) and if humans are the one’s inflicting unimaginable pain to
animals, how is this dealt with by religious scholars if it is at all?

For the most part, it isn't dealt with at all. Thomas Aquinas taught that humans have no obligations towards animals. Pope Pius IX of the 19th century forbade the formation of an SPCA in Rome, declaring humans have no duties to animals.

On the other hand, in Ministry of Healing, Ellen White, founder of the Seventh Day Adventist Church wrote: "Think of the cruelty that meat eating involves, and its effect on those who inflict and those who behold it. How it destroys the tenderness with which we should regard these creatures of God!"

In Patriarchs and Prophets, White referred to numerous passages in the Bible calling for kindness to animals, and concluded that humans will be judged according to how they fulfill their moral obligations to animals:

"It is because of man's sin that 'the whole creation groaneth and travaileth together in pain' (Romans 8:22). Surely, then, it becomes man to seek to lighten, instead of increasing, the weight of suffering which his transgression has brought upon God's creatures. He who will abuse animals because he has them in his power is both a coward and a tyrant. A disposition to cause pain, whether to our fellow men or to the brute creation is satanic.

"Many do not realize that their cruelty will ever be known because the poor dumb beasts cannot reveal it. But could the eyes of these men be opened, as were those of Balaam, they would see an angel of God standing as a witness to testify against them in the courts above.

"A record goes up to heaven, and a day is coming when judgement will be pronounced against those who abuse God's creatures."

11. In Christianity, if a Christian fails to assist an ailing or
injured nimal, this is a sin yet where is the line between eating
flesh and causing pain and why has the line been drawn at a sick
and/or injured animal – yet somehow too many Christians think
it’s okay to eat them?

After the Flood, God gave permission for man to eat meat, but it must be understood that this is a concession, and not God's highest intent for humanity. God placed the Israelites on a vegetarian diet during their exodus from Egypt, and when they rebelled and demanded meat, He struck them down with a plague. (Numbers 11:4-34) Mosaic Law contains all kinds of commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals, and the Messianic prophecies (Isaiah 11:6-9; Hosea 2:18) give us a glimpse of God's ideal.

12. Could you summerise for us what you found particularly
important in the Jewish scripture, the Talmud on a humans
role towards the other of God’s creatures, the animals?

According to the Torah (Genesis 6:9), Noah is honored as a "tzaddik," or a righteous man. Commentators say this is because he provided charity ("tzedakah") for so many animals on the ark. The high level of awareness and concern given to the care and feeding of the animals aboard the ark reflects the traditional Jewish value of "tsa'ar ba'alei chayim." This moral principle--officially set down as law in the Bible and elaborated upon in the Talmud, the medieval commentaries and the Responsa literature--permeates the many legends that grew up around the leading figures in the Torah and in Jewish history.

Kindness to animals was so valued by the Jewish tradition, it was also considered an important measure of a person's piety, compassion and righteousness. From this value emerged the stories about how shepherds such as Moses and David were elevated to national leadership because of their compassion for their lambs. There are also many "maysehs", or moralistic folktales within Judaism about sages who rescued or fed stray cows and hungry chickens, watered thirsty horses and freed caged birds.

In the Talmud (Eruvin 100b), Rabbi Yochanon teaches, "Even if we had not been given the Torah, we still would have learned modesty from the cat, honesty from the ant, chastity from the dove, and good manners from the rooster. Thus, the animals should be honored."

According to the Talmud (Shabbat 77b), the entire creation is to be respected: "Thou thinkest that flies, fleas, mosquitos are superfluous, but they have their purpose in creation as a means of a final outcome...Of all that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, He did not create a single thing without purpose."

The Talmud (Avodah Zorah 18b) also forbids association with hunters. The Talmud (Gittin 62a) further teaches that one should not own a domestic or wild animal or even a bird if he cannot properly care for it. Although there is no general rule forbidding animal cruelty, so many commandments call for humane treatment, the talmudic rabbis explicitly declared compassion for animals to be biblical law (Shabbat 128b).

13. If seen from above the sheer number and scale of animals killed
hourly, every minute of every day would still constitute animal
sacrifice. Many religions, Islam for example, believes we are
living the same day over and over again. What has been your
findings on the matter?

Over 50 billion animals are killed worldwide every year, and there is only one event in human history with which this level of violence can be compared. Dr. Tom Regan says that as a gentile he would never allude to it, but that one Jewish writer, Isaac Bashevis Singer has compared humanity's mistreatment of the animal kingdom with the Nazi Holocaust. I think the analogy is accurate.

Singer once asked, "How can we pray to God for mercy if we ourselves have no mercy? How can we speak of rights and justice if we take an innocent creature and shed its blood?" In his foreword to Dudley Giehl's 1979 book, Vegetarianism: A Way of Life, Isaac Bashevis Singer concluded:

"I personally believe that as long as human beings will go on shedding the blood of animals, there will never be any peace. There is only one little step from killing animals to creating gas chambers a' la Hitler and concentration camps a' la Stalin---all such deeds are done in the name of 'social justice.' There will be no justice as long as man will stand with a knife or with a gun and destroy those who are weaker than he is."

14. Why is Hinduism still so loving towards their animals especially
the Hindu who is away from western corruption i.e., MacDonalds?

I don't know if Hinduism is as loving towards animals as Buddhism or Jainism. Modern Hinduism teaches that only brahmins must be vegetarian, and only beef is explicitly forbidden for all Hindus. Many Hindu vegetarians react with apprehension towards veganism.

Gandhi once said that a convert's enthusiasm for his religion will be greater than that of one born into the faith. We can see this with regards to veganism: Hindu vegetarians react with disdain towards giving up dairy products, whereas Westerners eagerly embrace it in the name of ahimsa.

Protestant concern for animals

2007-02-06T22:30:00.000-06:00

Vegetarianism and concern for animals can be found in Protestant Christianity. Commenting on Deuteronomy 22:6, which forbids harming a mother-bird if her eggs or chicks are taken, Martin Luther (1483-1546) wrote: “What else does this law teach but that by the kind treatment of animals they are to learn gentleness and kindness? Otherwise it would seem to be a stupid ordinance not only to regulate a matter so unimportant, but also to promise happiness and a long life to those who keep it.”

According to Luther, Adam “would not have used the creatures as we do today,” but rather, “for the admiration of God and a holy joy.” Referring to passages from Scripture concerning the redemption of the entire creation and the Kingdom of Peace, Luther taught that “the creatures are created for an end; for the glory that is to come.” British historian William Lecky observed that, “Luther grew sad and thoughtful at a hare hunt, for it seemed to him to represent the pursuit of souls by the devil.”

Author Dix Harwood, in Love for Animals, depicts a grieving young girl being comforted by Luther. Luther assures her that her pet dog who died would certainly go to heaven. Luther tells her that in the “new heavens and new earth...all creatures will not only be harmless, but lovely and joyful...Why, then, should there not be little dogs in the new earth, whose skin might be as fair as gold, and their hair as bright as precious stones?”

Biblical teachings on human responsibilities towards animals were not lost on John Calvin (1509-1564). According to Calvin, animals exist within the framework of human justice: “But it must be remembered that men are required to practice justice even in dealing with animals. Solomon condemns injustice to our neighbours the more severely when he says, ‘a just man cares well for his beasts’ (Proverbs 12:10). In a word, we are to do what is right voluntarily and freely, and each of us is responsible for doing his duty.”

John Wray (1627?-1705), the “father of English natural history,” made the first systematic description and classification of animal and vegetable species. He wrote numerous works on botany, zoology, and theology. In 1691, Wray published The Wisdom of God Manifest in the Works of His Creation, which emphasized the sanctity and value of the natural world.

Wray advocated vegetarianism and made two points in his book. The first was that God can best be seen and understood in the study of His creation. “Let us then consider the works of God and observe the operation of His hands,” wrote Wray. “Let us take notice of and admire His infinite goodness and wisdom in the formation of them. No creature in the sublunary world is capable of doing this except man, and yet we have been deficient therein.”

Wray’s second point was that God placed animals here for their own sake, and not just for the pleasure of humans. Animals have their own intrinsic value. “If a good man be merciful to his beast, then surely a good God takes pleasure that all His creatures enjoy themselves that have life and sense and are capable of enjoying.”

Thomas Tryon’s lengthy The Way to Health, Wealth, and Happiness was published in 1691. Tryon defended vegetarianism as a physically and spiritually superior way of life. He came to this conclusion from his interpretation of the Bible as well as his understanding of Christianity. Tryon wrote against “that depraved custom of eating flesh and blood.” The opening pages of his book begin with an eloquent plea for mercy towards the animals:

“Refrain at all times such foods as cannot be procured without violence and oppression, for know, that all the inferior creatures when hurt do cry and fend forth their complaints to their Maker...Be not insensible that every creature doth bear the image of the great Creator according to the nature of each, and that He is the vital power in all things. Therefore, let none take pleasure to offer violence to that life, lest he awaken the fierce wrath, and bring danger to his own soul. But let mercy and compassion dwell plentifully in your hearts, that you may be comprehended in the friendly principle of God’s love and holy light. Be a friend to everything that’s good, and then everything will be a friend to thee, and co-operate for thy good and welfare.”

In The Way, Tryon (1634-1703) also condemned “Hunting, hawking, shooting, and all violent oppressive exercises...” On a separate occasion, he warned the first Quaker settlers of Pennsylvania that their “holy experiment” in peaceful living would fail unless they extended their Christian precepts of nonviolence to the animal kingdom:

“Does not bounteous Mother Earth furnish us with all sorts of food necessary for life?” he asked. “Though you will not fight with and kill those of your own species, yet I must be bold to tell you, that these lesser violences (as you call them) do proceed from the same root of wrath and bitterness as the greater do.”

“Thanks be to God!” wrote John Wesley, founder of Methodism, to the Bishop of London in 1747. “Since the time I gave up the use of flesh-meats and wine, I have been delivered from all physical ills.” Wesley was a vegetarian for spiritual reasons as well. He based his vegetarianism on the Biblical prophecies concerning the Kingdom of Peace, where “on the new earth, no creature will kill, or hurt, or give pain to any other.” He further taught that animals “shall receive an ample amends for all their present sufferings.”

Wesley’s teachings placed an emphasis on inner religion and the effect of the Holy Spirit upon the consciousness of such followers. Wesley taught that animals will attain heaven: in the “general deliverance” from the evils of this world, animals would be given “vigor, strength and swiftness...to a far higher degree than they ever enjoyed.”

Wesley urged parents to educate their children about compassion towards animals. He wrote: “I am persuaded you are not insensible of the pain given to every Christian, every humane heart, by those savage diversions, bull-baiting, cock-fighting, horse-racing, and hunting.”

In 1786, Reverend Richard Dean, the curate of Middleton, published An Essay on the Future Life of Brute Creatures. He told his readers to treat animals with compassion, and not to “treat them as sticks, or stones, or things that cannot feel...Surely ...sensibility in brutes entitles them to a milder treatment than they usually meet from hard and unthinking wretches.”

The Quakers have a long history of advocating kindness towards animals. In 1795, the Society of Friends (Quakers) in London passed a resolution condemning sport hunting. The resolution stated in part, “let our leisure be employed in serving our neighbor, and not in distressing, for our amusement, the creatures of God.”

John Woolman (1720-72) was a Quaker preacher and abolitionist who traveled throughout the American colonies attacking slavery and cruelty to animals. Woolman wrote that he was “early convinced in my mind that true religion consisted in an inward life, wherein the heart doth love and reverence God the Creator and learn to exercise true justice and goodness, not only toward all men, but also toward the brute creatures...”

Woolman’s deep faith in God thus led to his reverence for all life. “Where the love of God is verily perfected and the true spirit of government watchfully attended to,” he taught, “a tenderness toward all creatures made subject to us will be experienced, and a care felt in us that we do not lessen that sweetness of life in the animal creation which the great Creator intends for them.”

Joshua Evans (1731-1798), a Quaker and a contemporary of Woolman’s, stated that reverence for life was the moral basis of his vegetarianism. “I considered that life was sweet in all living creatures,” he wrote, ‘and taking it away became a very tender point with me...I believe my dear Master has been pleased to try my faith and obedience by teaching me that I ought no longer to partake of anything that had life.”

The “Quaker poet” and abolitionist John Greenleaf Whittier (1807-92), wrote: “The sooner we recognize the fact that the mercy of the Almighty extends to every creature endowed with life, the better it will be for us as men and Christians.”

The United Society for Believers in Christ’s Second Appearance, also known as the Shakers, taught equality of the races and sexes, ecological conservation and compassion towards animals. The founder of the sect, Ann Lee (1736-84) came to America in 1774. She and her followers established the first Shakers colony at Watervliet, New York. Ann Lee is said to have taught that a person who mistreated animals could not be a Christian, and to have called for “justice and kindness to all the brute creation.”

One of the most respected English theologians of the 18th century, William Paley (1743-1805), taught that killing animals for food was unjustifiable. Paley called the excuses used to justify killing animals “extremely lame,” and even refuted the rationalizations concerning fishing.

The founder and first secretary of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) was an Anglican priest, the Reverend Arthur Broome. The RSPCA was originally founded as a Christian society “entirely based on the Christian Faith, and on Christian Principles,” and sponsoring sermons on humane education in churches in London. The Society formed in 1824, and its first “Prospectus” spoke of the need to extend Christian charity and benevolence to the animals:

“Our country is distinguished by the number and variety of its benevolent institutions...all breathing the pure spirit of Christian charity...But shall we stop here? Is the moral circle perfect so long as any power of doing good remains? Or can the infliction of cruelty on any being which the Almighty has endued with feelings of pain and pleasure consist with genuine and true benevolence?”

This Prospectus was signed by many leading 19th century Christians including William Wilberforce, Richard Martin, G.A. Hatch, J. Bonner, and Dr. Heslop.

The Bible Christian Church was a 19th century movement teaching vegetarianism, abstinence from intoxication, and compassion for animals. The church began in England in 1800, requiring all its members to take vows of abstinence from meat and wine. One of its first converts, William Metcalfe (1788-1862), immigrated to Philadelphia in 1817 with forty-one followers to establish a church in America. Metcalfe cited numerous biblical references to support his thesis that humans were meant to follow a vegetarian diet for reasons of health and compassion for animals.

One of Metcalfe’s converts, Sylvester Graham (1794-1851), was a Presbyterian minister and the originator of graham crackers. He had been healed through a vegetarian diet and advocated the use of unrefined, whole-wheat “graham” flour, from which graham crackers are now made. Graham was a temperance advocate who preached vegetarianism as a cure for those suffering from alcohol abuse. His regimen called for an abundance of fruits and vegetables in the diet, fresh air, moderate eating and plenty of exercise.

Beginning in 1830, Graham boardinghouses, societies and food stores spread across the land. A product of the Victorian period, Graham also wrote lectures on sexual chastity, warning that spices and rich foods heighten sexual desire, while sexual excesses amongst married couples lead to numerous afflictions. Graham influenced Amos Bronson Alcott (1799-1888) and Joseph Smith (1805-1844), founder of the Mormon Church.

Alcott was a teacher and a visionary influenced by the Quakers and by East Indian philosophy. He tried to make his vegetarian ideas a reality in his failed utopian experiment of Fruitlands (1841). He can be called the father of the Organic Food movement.

Kindness to animals can be found in the early teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon Church. Joseph Smith (1805-1844), who founded the Mormon Church in 1830, preached the humane treatment of animals:

“God glorified Himself by saving all that His hands
had made, whether beasts, fowls, fishes or men;
and He will glorify Himself with them

“Kindness to the whole animal creation and
especially to all domestic animals is not only a
virtue that should be developed but is the
ABSOLUTE DUTY OF MANKIND.
Children should be taught that nature in
all forms is our heavenly Father’s Great Book of Life.

“Furthermore, he who treats in a brutal manner a
poor dumb animal, at that moment disqualifies
himself for the companionship of the Holy Spirit.”

It appears even poisonous snakes were to be treated with respect. An entry in Smith’s diary dated May 26, 1834, describes poisonous snakes found in the encampment: “The brethren took the serpents carefully on sticks and carried them across the creek. I exhorted the brethren not to kill the serpent, bird or animal of any kind during our journey unless it became necessary to preserve ourselves from hunger.”

According to Mormon theology, humans are held responsible for treatment of every animal in their care. In Joseph Smith’s inspired version of the Bible, Genesis 9:11 reads: “Blood of animals shall not be shed only for meat to save your lives; and the blood of every beast I will require at your hands.” Commenting on this verse, W. Cleon Skowsen writes in First Two Thousand Years, “God did not intend that the lives of animals should be subject to cruelty and abuse. The proper treatment of the animal kingdom is part of the human stewardship.”

The Mormon scripture and Bible (Doctrine and Covenants, 49:21) says: “And woe be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.” It further states, “Man has been entrusted with sovereignty over the animal kingdom that he may learn to govern as God rules, by the power of love and justice, and become fit for his eternal destiny as a ruler of worlds.” (Doctrine and Covenants, Commentary, section 47, p. 361).

The Mormon Church has also advocated a mostly vegetarian diet as part of its philosophy of health and reverence for life. This began in 1833, when church founder Joseph Smith received a revelation of such a health code as God’s will, emphasizing grains as the staple for one’s diet. Meat is meant to be eaten only rarely, such as in times of famine or extreme cold, when animals will likely perish.

The exact statement from the Mormon scriptures reads as follows:

“Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air,
I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with
thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used
sparingly;

“And it is pleasing unto Me that they should not be
used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.”

---Doctrine and Covenants 89:12,13

Brigham Young, who succeeded Joseph Smith as head of the Mormon Church in 1847, taught that animals are a sacred gift from God and humans are obliged to respect them: “If we maltreat our animals, or each other, the spirit within us, our traditions and the Bible, all agree in declaring it is wrong...The more kind we are to our animals, the more peace will increase.”

David O. McKay, former president of the Mormon Church, explains humanity’s duties and responsibilities towards animals as follows: “A true Latter-day Saint is kind to animals, is kind to every living thing, for God has created all...In all teaching, the element of love for all of the creatures of the earth can be emphasized, and thus religion imparted.”

According to George Q. Cannon (1827-1901): “These birds and animals and fish cannot speak, but they can suffer, and our God who created them knows their sufferings, and will hold him who causes them to suffer unnecessarily to answer for it. It is a sin against their Creator.

“Children who are trained to respect the rights of the lower animals,” taught Cannon, “will be more inclined to respect human rights and become good citizens. It has been observed that in places where special attention has been given in the public schools to the subject of kindness to animals, the percentage of crime has been lessened.”

Joseph Fielding Smith, nephew of church founder Joseph Smith, and president of the Mormon Church from 1901 to 1918, has written:

“It was intended that all creatures should be happy
in their several elements. Therefore to take the
life of these creatures wantonly is a sin before
the Lord.

“There is no inference in the scriptures that it is
a privilege of men to slay birds or beasts or to
catch fish wantonly

“The domination the Lord gave man over the
brute creations has been, to a very large extent,
used selfishly, thoughtlessly, cruelly...

“Kindness to the whole animal creation is not
only a virtue that should be developed, but
is the absolute duty of mankind...But with
this dominion came the responsibility to
treat with love and consideration every
living thing...

“Take not the life you cannot give. For all
things have an equal right to live.”

Hugh Nibley, a church leader in Utah, has written:

“Man’s domination is a call to service, not a license to exterminate. It is precisely because men now prey upon each other and shed the blood and waste the flesh of other creatures without need that the world lieth in sin.”

German composer Richard Wagner (1813-1883) believed flesh-eating to be responsible for the downfall of man. He felt vegetarianism could help mankind return to Paradise. He wrote: “Plant life instead of animal life is the keystone of regeneration. Jesus used bread in place of flesh and wine in place of blood at the Lord’s Supper.”

General William Booth (1829-1912), founder of the Salvation Army, practiced and advocated vegetarianism. Booth never officially condemned flesh-eating as either cruelty or gluttony, but taught that abstinence from luxury is helpful to the cause of Christian charity. “It is a great delusion to suppose that flesh of any kind is essential to health,” he insisted.

“If you want to pass from the consciousness of flesh into the consciousness of Spirit, you must withdraw your attention from the things of the flesh,” taught Dr. Charles Filmore, founder of Unity. “You must recognize that there is but one universal life, one universal substance, one universal intelligence, and that every animal is contending for its life and is entitled to that life.

“But in the matter of animal slaughter, who countenances it or defends it after his eyes have been opened to the unity of life? Let us remember that the right kind of food will give our minds and our spirits opportunity to express that which is one with ideal life.”

Founded in the 19th century at Lee’s Summit, Missouri, the Unity School teaches that the time will come when man will look back upon eating animal flesh as he now looks upon cannibalism:

“As man unfolds spiritually he more and more perceives the necessity of fulfilling the divine law in every department of his life. From experience and observation Unity believes that somewhere along the way, as he develops spiritually, man comes to question seriously the rightness of meat as part of his diet. Man is naturally loathe to take life, even though the idea of killing animals for food has so long been sponsored by the race that he feels it is right and proper to do so.

“However, the Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ considered in its fullest sense, includes the killing of animals...There is a kindred spirit in all living things—a love for life. Any man who considers honestly the oneness of life feels an aversion to eating meat: that is a reaction of his mind towards anything so foreign to the idea of universal life.”

“The moral evils of a flesh diet are not less marked than are the physical ills,” wrote Ellen White, founder of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. “Flesh food is injurious to health, and whatever affects the body has a corresponding effect on the mind and soul.”

Although Seventh-Day Adventists strongly recommend vegetarianism for reasons of health and nutrition, White also espoused the belief that kindness to animals should be a Christian duty. In Ministry of Healing, she urged the faithful to:

“Think of the cruelty that meat eating involves, and its effect on those who inflict and those who behold it. How it destroys the tenderness with which we should regard these creatures of God!”

In Patriarchs and Prophets, White referred to numerous passages in the Bible calling for kindness to animals, and concluded that humans will be judged according to how they fulfill their moral obligations to animals:

“It is because of man’s sin that ‘the whole creation groaneth and travaileth together in pain’ (Romans 8:22). Surely, then, it becomes man to seek to lighten, instead of increasing, the weight of suffering which his transgression has brought upon God’s creatures. He who will abuse animals because he has them in his power is both a coward and a tyrant. A disposition to cause pain, whether to our fellow men or to the brute creation is satanic.

“Many do not realize that their cruelty will ever be known because the poor dumb animals cannot reveal it. But could the eyes of these men be opened, as were those of Balaam, they would see an angel of God standing as a witness to testify against them in the courts above.

“A record goes up to heaven, and a day is coming when judgement will be pronounced against those who abuse God’s creatures.”

In Counsels on Diet and Foods, White referred to the Garden of Eden, a Holy Sanctuary of God, where nothing would ever die, as the perfect example of humans in their natural state:

“God gave our first parents the food He designed that the race should eat. It was contrary to His plan to have the life of any creature taken. There was to be no death in Eden. The fruit of the tree in the garden was the food man’s wants required.”

“Tenderness accompanies all the might imparted by Spirit,” wrote Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, in Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. “The individuality created by God is not carnivorous, as witness the millenial estate pictured by Isaiah (11:6-9). All of God’s creatures, moving in the harmony of Science, are harmless, useful, indestructible. A realization of this grand verity was a source of strength to the ancient worthies. It supports Christian healing, and enables its possessor to emulate the example of Jesus. ‘And God saw that it was good.’”

Congregational minister Frederic Marvin preached a Christmas Eve sermon in 1899 entitled, “Christ Among the Cattle.” Marvin regarded Jesus’ birth in the manger as that of God incarnate teaching humanity by dramatic example. Birth among the cattle was a sign for people all over the world to follow—a lesson teaching the need to show compassion towards the animals.

At the close of the 19th century, Reverend Thomas Timmins of Portsmouth, England, helped organize what may have been the first mass effort in America to teach kindness to animals. Reverend Timmins worked with George T. Angell (1823-1909) to organize American students into “Bands of Mercy,” based on a similar movement taking place in England at the same time.

By 1912 there were over three million elementary school students enrolled in over 85,000 chapters. They all wore badges and pledged: “I will try to be kind to all living creatures, and try to protect them from cruel usage.” This movement reached global proportions before declining after the Second World War.

In his 1923 work, The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observed:

“The attitude of the Bible writers toward flesh-eating is the same as toward polygamy. Polygamy as well as flesh-eating was tolerated under the social and religious systems of the old Hebrews and even during the early centuries of the Christian era; but the first man, Adam, in his pristine state in the Garden of Eden was both a monogamist and a flesh-abstainer.

If the Bible supports flesh-eating, it equally supports polygamy; for all the patriarchs had plural wives as well as concubines. Christian ethics enjoin a return to the Edenic example in matters matrimonial. Physiologic science as well as human experience call for a like return to Eden in matters dietetic.”

An essay on “The Rights of Animals” by Dean William Ralph Inge (1860-1954) can be found in his 1926 book, Lay Thoughts of a Dean. It reads in part:

“Our ancestors sinned in ignorance; they were taught (as I deeply regret to say one great Christian Church still teaches) that the world, with all that it contains, was made for man, and that the lower orders of creation have no claims upon us. But we no longer have the excuse of saying that we do not know; we do know that organic life on this planet is all woven of one stuff, and if we are children of our Heavenly Father, it must be true, as Christ told us, that no sparrow falls to the ground without His care. The new knowledge has revolutionized our ideas of our relations to the other living creatures who share the world with us, and it is our duty to consider seriously what this knowledge should mean for us in matters of conduct.”

Dean Inge is reported to have said, “Whether animals believe in a god I do not know, but I do know that they believe in a devil—the devil which is man.”

According to Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945), in his Christology: “Christ is the new creature...Nature is not reconciled, like man and history, but it is redeemed for a new freedom...In the sacrament, Christ is the mediator between nature and God, and stands for all creatures before God.”

“The day is surely dawning,” wrote the Reverend V.A. Holmes-Gore, M.A., “when it will become clear that the idea of the Blessed Master giving His sanction to the barbaric habit of flesh-eating, is a tragic delusion, foisted upon the Church by those who never knew Him.”

Reverend Holmes-Gore called vegetarianism “absolutely necessary for the redemption of the planet. Indeed we cannot hope to rid the world of war, disease and a hundred other evils until we learn to show compassion to the creatures and refrain from taking their lives for food, clothing or pleasure.

“The Church is powerless to free mankind from such evils as war, oppression and disease,” insisted the Reverend Holmes-Gore, “because it does nothing to stop man’s oppression of victimizing living creatures...Every evil action, whether it be done to a man, a woman, a child, or an animal will one day have its effect upon the transgressor. The rule that we reap what we sow is a Divine Law from which there is no escape.

“God is ever merciful,” Reverend Holmes-Gore explained, “but he is also righteous, and if cruel men and women will learn compassion in no other way, then they will have to learn through suffering, even if it means suffering the same tortures that they have themselves inflicted. God is perfect Love, and He is never vengeful or vindictive, but the Divine Law of mercy and compassion cannot be broken without bringing tremendous repercussions upon the transgressor.”

Reverend Holmes-Gore acknowledged that a great deal of social progress has been made, but injustices continue to flourish:

“...we have made many great reforms, but there remains much to be done. We have improved the lot of children, of prisoners, and of the poor beyond all recognition in the last hundred years. We have done something to mitigate the cruelties inflicted upon the creatures. But though some of the worst forms of torture have been made illegal, the welter of animal blood is greater than ever, and their sufferings are still appalling.

“What we need is not a reform of existing evils,” concluded Reverend Holmes-Gore, “but a revolution in thought that will move Christians to show real compassion to all God’s creatures. Many people claim to be lovers of animals who are very far from being so. For a flesh-eater to claim to love animals is as if a cannibal expressed his devotion to the missionaries he consigns to the seething cauldron.”

“Dear God,” began the childhood prayers of Dr. Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965), “please protect and bless all living things. Keep them from evil and let them sleep in peace.” This noted Protestant French theologian, music scholar, philosopher and missionary doctor in Africa won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1952.

Schweitzer preached an ethic of reverence for life: “Not until we extend the circle of compassion to include all living things shall we ourselves know peace.” When a man questioned his philosophy, saying God created animals for man to eat, Schweitzer replied, “Not at all.”

Schweitzer reflected, “How much effort it will take for us to get men to understand the words of Jesus, ‘Blessed are the merciful,’ and to bring them to the realization that their responsibility includes all creatures. But we must struggle with courage.” According to Schweitzer, “We need a boundless ethics which will include the animals also.” Schweitzer founded the Lambarene Hospital in French Equatorial Africa in 1913, managing it for many years.

“I never go to a menagerie,” he once wrote, “because I cannot endure the sight of the misery of the captive animals. The exhibiting of trained animals I abhor. What an amount of suffering and cruel punishment the poor creatures have to endure to give a few minutes of pleasure to men devoid of all thought and feeling for them.”

Schweitzer taught compassionate stewardship towards the animal kingdom: “We...are compelled by the commandment of love contained in our hearts and thoughts, and proclaimed by Jesus, to give rein to our natural sympathy to animals,” he explained. “We are also compelled to help them and spare suffering as far as it is in our power.”

In a sermon preached in Bath Abbey, the Reverend E.E. Bromwich, M.A., taught: “Our love of God should be extended as far as possible to all God’s creatures, to our fellow human beings and to animals...In His love, God caused them all to exist, to express His feelings for beauty and order, and not merely to provide food and companionship for man. They are part of God’s creation and it is God’s will that they should be happy, quite as much as it is His will that we should be happy. The Christian ought to be bitterly ashamed for the unnecessary suffering that men still cause their animal brothers.”

According to the Reverend Lloyd Putman: “In the beautiful story of creation in Genesis, God is pictured as the Creator of all Life—not just of man. To be sure, man is given ‘dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth,’ but far from being a brutal dominion, man is to view the animal world with a sense of stewardship and responsibility. If man lives recklessly and selfishly with no regard for animals, he is denying that God is to be seen as the creator of all life, and he is forgetting that God beheld not only man, but all creation and said that 'it was very good.' He is omitting the Biblical emphasis on man and animals sharing a common creation.”

On June 5, 1958, the Reverend Norman Vincent Peale stated, “I do not believe a person can be a true Christian, and at the same time engage in cruel or inconsiderate treatment of animals.” One of the leading Protestant thinkers of the 20th century, Karl Barth (1886-1968), wrote in The Doctrine of Creation (1961):

“If there is a freedom of man to kill animals, this signifies in any case the adoption of a qualified and in some sense enhanced responsibility. If that of his lordship over the living beast is serious enough, it takes on a new gravity when he sees himself compelled to suppress his lordship by depriving it of its life. He obviously cannot do this except under the pressure of necessity.

“Far less than all the other things which he dares to do in relation to animals, may this be ventured unthinkingly and as though it were self-evident. He must never treat this need for defensive and offensive action against the animal world as a natural one, nor include it as a normal element in his thinking or conduct. He must always shrink from this possibility even when he makes use of it.

“It always contains the sharp counter-question: who are you, man, to claim that you must venture this to maintain, support, enrich and beautify your own life? What is there in your life that you feel compelled to take this aggressive step in its favor? We cannot but be reminded of the perversion from which the whole historical existence of the creature suffers and the guilt which does not really reside in the beast but ultimately in man himself.”

Responding to a question about the Kingdom of Peace, Donald Soper was of the opinion that Jesus, unlike his brother James, was neither a teetotaler nor a vegetarian, but, “I think probably, if He were here today, He would be both.”

In a 1963 article on “The Question of Vivisection,” Soper concluded: “...let me suggest that Dr. Schweitzer’s great claim that all life should be based on respect for personality has been too narrowly interpreted as being confined entirely to the personality of human beings. I believe that this creed ‘respect for personality’ must be applied to the whole of creation. I shouldn’t be surprised if the Buddhists are nearer to an understanding of it than we are.

“When we apply this principle, we shall be facing innumerable problems, but I believe we shall be on the right track which leads finally to the end of violence and the achievement of a just social order which will leave none of God’s creatures out of that Kingdom which it is our Father’s good pleasure to give us.”

In 1970, the Church of England Board of Social Responsibility issued the following indictment of man’s relationship with the animal kingdom:

“We make animals work for us, carry us, amuse us and earn money for us. We also make them die for us, sometimes in ways which would be rapidly rejected if we could readily see it done. In many fields we use them, not with gratitude and compassion, but with thoughtlessness, arrogance and complete selfishness.”

In 1977, at an annual meeting in London of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), Dr. Donald Coggan, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said: “Animals, as part of God’s creation, have rights which must be respected. It behooves us always to be sensitive to their needs and to the reality of their pain.”

“Honourable men may honourably disagree about some details of human treatment of the non-human,” wrote Stephen Clark in his 1977 book, The Moral Status of Animals, “but vegetarianism is now as necessary a pledge of moral devotion as was the refusal of emperor-worship in the early church.” According to Clark, eating animal flesh is “gluttony,” and “Those who still eat flesh when they could do otherwise have no claim to be serious moralists.”

“Clark’s conclusion has real force and its power has yet to be sufficiently appreciated by fellow Christians,” says the Reverend Andrew Linzey. “Far from seeing the possibility of widespread vegetarianism as a threat to Old Testament norms, Christians should rather welcome the fact that the Spirit is enabling us to make decisions so that we may more properly conform to the original Genesis picture of living in peace with creation.”

he contemporary Christian attitude towards vegetarianism is perhaps best expressed by Kenneth Rose, in a 1984 essay entitled “The Lion Shall Eat Straw Like the Ox: The Bible and Vegetarianism.”

“At present,” Rose acknowledges, “vegetarianism among those who base their lives on the Bible is quite rare. Nevertheless, vegetarianism remains God’s ultimate will. Since, according to the Bible, the goal of history is the transformation of the predatory principle in the principle of universal love, it seems reasonable to suppose that people who take the Bible seriously should strive to bring their lives into accordance with the righteousness and nonviolence that will prevail in God’s kingdom. Surely we can’t in this life fully escape the consequences of the Fall, but we can try, with God’s grace, to live in accordance with God’s perfect will.

“...no rational or scriptural reason can be discovered,” Rose observes, “that would prohibit the teacher of Christian truth from encouraging believers to go beyond the concession to human weakness granted in Genesis 9:3 so that, even now, before the full dawning of God’s kingdom of peace, they may begin living according to the ethics of that kingdom. To live in this way must be considered as part of God’s ultimate intention for humanity, for how else can one account for the fact that the Bible both begins and ends in a kingdom where the sound of slaughter is unknown?

“For those of us who take the Bible seriously,” Rose concludes, “our obedience to God will then become greater as it aspires to live out the vision of the peaceable kingdom the Bible points to. To the degree that we stop slaughtering innocent creatures for food, to that degree we will nullify the predatory principle, a principle that structures the injustices characteristic of this fallen age. And seeing all creatures with equal vision, we will enter more deeply into the kingdom of God.”

In 1986, Dale and Judith Ostrander, ministers in the United Church of Christ issued a biblical call for stewardship, in which they concluded: “For Christians the Scriptures contain the Word of God. And there is a particular conviction about Jesus Christ being the normative Word through whom all scriptural words are interpreted—the central meaning of Love and reconciliation of all creation. Therefore, all other biblical themes and all specific pieces of Scripture become authoritative for the Christian insofar as they affirm or are consistent with God’s reconciling purpose.

“The role of Christians is to help God’s reconciling purpose become a reality. This means, among other things, living out our calling to care for God’s creation. It means taking seriously the interconnectedness of all life and our kinship with all living things. If Christians accept God’s loving dominion, then, created in God’s likeness, we are called to exercise our given ‘dominion’ over creation with the same kind of love. And if the great commandment is to love God, we must love God also through the complex ecological relationship of all living things.

“To misuse our delegated authority over the creation in exploitative, abusive, cruel or wasteful ways is to live as if we did not love God. We are led, therefore, as Christians to raise questions about our attitudes toward and treatment of animals. A growing number of ‘voices crying in the wilderness’ are calling us to take more seriously the ways in which we are despoiling the Earth and threatening its ability to sustain and support life. These voices are calling us to rethink our attitudes and our treatment of animals as we consider anew what it means to be faithful stewards of creation.”

In 1987, the Reverend Carolyn J. Michael Riley declared Unity Church in Huntington, N.Y. a fur-free zone. Reverend Riley, a vegetarian since 1982, remains committed to her position. “I really do believe,” she says, “that everyone is able that much more to feel the Spirit, because there are no longer vibrations of death.” Reverend Riley says she wants to “help raise the consciousness of the suffering going on in the animal kingdom.”

According to the Reverend James E. Caroll, an Episcopal priest in Van Nuys, California, “A committed Christian, who knows what his religion is about, will never kill an animal needlessly. Above all, he will do his utmost to put a stop to any kind of cruelty to any animal. A Christian who participates in or gives consent to cruelty to animals had better reexamine his religion or else drop the name Christian.”

In 1992, members of Los Angeles’ First Unitarian Church agreed to serve vegetarian meals at the church’s weekly Sunday lunch. This decision was made as a protest against animal cruelty and the environmental damage caused by the livestock industry.

Vegetarianism and ethical concern for animals are consistent with Protestant Christianity:

“It is not a question of palate, of custom, of expediency, but of right,” wrote the Reverend J. Tyssul-Davies, B.A., on the subject of vegetarianism. “As a mere Christian Minister, I have had to make my decision. My palate was on the side of custom; my intellect argued for the expedient; but my higher reason and conscience left me no alternative. Our Lord came to give life, and we do not follow Him by taking life needlessly. So, I was compelled, against myself, to eschew carnivorism.”

The Reverend George Laughton taught that: “The practice of kindness towards dumb creatures is a sign of development to the higher reaches of intelligence and sympathy. For, mark you, in every place there are those who are giving of their time and thought and energy to the work of protecting from cruelty and needless suffering the beasts of the field and streets. These are the people who make the earth clean and sweet and more like what God intended it to be.”

Catholic concern for animals

2007-02-05T22:42:00.000-06:00

Gentile followers of Jesus address him as “Christ,” which means “Messiah.” The Bible teaches that with the coming of God’s annointed one will be the establishment of the Kingdom of Peace on earth. The prophecies of Isaiah 11:6-9 indicate this new world will in many ways resemble the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1:29-31), where everyone was vegetarian.

Christ’s return, Judgement Day, and the creation of a new heaven and a new earth were believed to be imminent. The earliest generations of Christians lived with this expectation. (Matthew 24:29-25:46; Mark 13:24-37; Luke 21:25-36; I Thessalonians 4:13-18; James 5:7-9; I Peter 5:7; II Peter 3:3-12; I John 2:18; Jude 17-18; Revelations 22:20) Vegetarianism was practiced in expectation of Christ’s coming kingdom. Among the various early Christian sects, the Montanists practiced vegetarianism with the belief that Christ would soon return.

From history, we learn that the earliest Christians were vegetarian. For example, Clemens Prudentius, the first Christian hymn writer, in one of his hymns exhorts his fellow Christians not to pollute their hands and hearts by the slaughter of innocent cows and sheep, and points to the variety of nourishing and pleasant foods obtainable without blood-shedding.

Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD), a leading Stoic philosopher and a tutor of Nero, was an ardent vegetarian. He started a vegetarian movement during one of Rome’s most decadent periods. Yet he had to abandon his cause. The early Christians were vegetarian. The Emperor became suspicious that Seneca might also be a Christian, so he went back to eating animal flesh. He wrote:

“Certain foreign religions (Christianity) became
the object of the imperial suspicion and amongst
the proofs of adherence to the foreign culture or
superstition was that of abstinence from the
flesh of animals. At the earnest entreaty of
my father, I was induced to return to my
former habits.”

Pliny, who was Governor of Bithynia, where Peter had preached, wrote a letter to Trajan, the Roman Emperor, describing the early Christian practices:

“...they met on a day before it was light (before
sunrise) and addressed a form of prayer to
Christ as to a god, binding themselves by a
solemn oath never to commit any sin or
evil and never to falsify their word, nor
deny a trust, after which it was their
custom to meet together again to take
food, but ordinary and innocent food.”

The church father Irenaeus preserved a fragment of a quote by Papias, disciple of John the Evangelist:

“Papias related how the elders and John and
heard the Lord teach that creation renewed
and liberated shall yield an abundance of all
kinds of food, seeds, grass, fruits, grains, and
flour in corresponding proportion, and that
all animals will use these foods and become
in turn peaceful and in harmony with another
and with man.”

This teaching of Jesus corresponds to the visions of peace and vegetarianism given in Isaiah (11:6-9, 65:25). Clement I, Bishop of Rome, in an epistle to the Corinthians (AD 88-97) wrote: “Perrenial springs, created for enjoyment...offer their life giving breasts to man and even the smallest of animals that they get together in peace. All things the Creator ordered to be in peace and harmony...take refuge through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The Clementine Homilies, Jewish Christian teachings written during the 2nd century, give us a picture of the life of Clement I, Bishop of Rome. Clement is portrayed as a spiritual seeker, going to various schools of thought, looking for solutions to his doubts about the origin of the world, the immortality of the soul, etc... Eventually, he hears about how Jesus appeared in Judea. He undertakes a long journey through Egypt to Palestine, where he meets the apostle Peter in Caesarea. Clement becomes a Christian and is invited by (Simon) Peter to accompany him on his missionary journeys.

The text includes debates between Peter and Simon Magus. Peter refers to Jesus as “Teacher” and “Master,” teaches Clement to love his enemies and persecutors, insists upon the renunciation of worldly goods, and connects flesh-eating to idolatry. In the Clementine Homilies, we read:

“The unnatural eating of flesh-meats is as polluting
as the heathen worship of devils, with its sacrifices
and impure feasts, through participation in which
a man becomes a fellow-eater with devils.”

Genesis 6 describes the “sons of the gods” (angels) having sexual intercourse with the daughters of men, and giving rise to a race of giants. The Clementine Homilies explain that the eating of animal flesh began with this perversion:

“...from their unhallowed intercourse spurious men
sprang, much greater in stature than ordinary men,
whom they afterwards called giants...wild in manners,
and greater than men in size, insamuch as they were
sprung of angels; yet less than angels, as they were
born of men.

“Therefore God, knowing that they were barbarized to
brutality, and that the world was not sufficient to satisfy
them (for it was created according to the proportion of
men and human use), that they might not through want
of food turn, contrary to nature, to the eating of animals,
and yet seem to be blameless, as having ventured upon
this through necessity, the Almighty God rained manna
upon them, suited to their variant tastes; and they
enjoyed all that they would.

“But they, on account of their bastard nature, not being
pleased with purity of food, longed only after the taste
of blood. Wherefore they first tasted flesh.”

The apocryphal Acts of Thomas was used by many of the early Christian sects. Dr. Edgar J. Goodspeed, in his book History of Early Christian Literature, writes that this scripture depicts the disciple of Jesus as an ascetic: “He continually fasts and prays, wears the same garment in all weather; accepts nothing from anyone; gives what he has to others, and abstains from meat and wine.” Abstinence from animal flesh thus came to be regarded in gentile Christianity as abstinence from luxury and sensuality; asceticism. The apocryphal Shepherd of Hermas, written in the 1st century, says:

“...it is an evil desire to covet another’s wife; as also
to desire the dainties of riches; and a multitude of
superfluous meats and drunkenness...Whosoever
therefore shall depart from all evil desires, shall
live unto God; but they that are subject unto them
shall die forever. For this evil lusting is deadly.”

---2 Hermas 12:4-6

The early church father Origen (AD 185-254), a vegetarian, explained: “when we do abstain (from eating meat), we do so because ‘we keep under our body and bring it into subjection’ (I Corinthians 9:27), and desire ‘to mortify our members that are upon the earth, fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence’ (Colossians 3:5); and we use every effort to ‘mortify the deeds of the flesh.’ (Romans 8:13)”

One of the greatest theologians in the early Christian church, Tertullian, or Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, was born in Carthage about AD 155-160. Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage, called him the “Master.” Tertullian was one of four early church fathers who wrote extensively on the subject of vegetarianism. According to Tertullian, flesh-eating is not conducive to the highest life, it violates moral law, and it debases man in intellect and emotion.

Responding to the apparent permissiveness of Paul, Tertullian argued: “and even if he handed over to you the keys of the slaughter house...in permitting you to eat all things...at least he has not made the kingdom of Heaven to consist in butchery: for, says he, eating and drinking is not the Kingdom of God.”

Tertullian similarly scorned those who would use the gospel to justify gratifying the cravings of the flesh:

“How unworthily, too, do you press the example of Christ as having come ‘eating and drinking’ into the service of your lusts: He who pronounced not the full but the hungry and thirsty ‘blessed,’ who professed His work to be the completion of His Father’s will, was wont to abstain—instructing them to labor for that ‘meat’ which lasts to eternal life, and enjoining in their common prayers petition not for gross food but for bread only.”

Tertullian made his case for moderate eating by referring to the history of the Israelites (Numbers 11:4-34): “And if there be ‘One’ who prefers the works of justice, not however, without sacrifice—that is to say, a spirit exercised by abstinence—it is surely that God to whom neither a gluttonous people nor priest was acceptable—monuments of whose concupiscence remain to this day, where lies buried a people greedy and clamorous for flesh-meats, gorging quails even to the point of inducing jaundice.

“It was divinely proclaimed,” insisted Tertullian, “’Wine and strong liquor shall you not drink, you and your sons after you.’ Now this prohibition of drink is essentially connected with the vegetable diet. Thus, where abstinence from wine is required by the Deity, or is vowed by man, there, too, may be understood suppression of gross feeding, for as is the eating, so is the drinking.

“It is not consistent with truth that a man should sacrifice half of his stomach only to God—that he should be sober in drinking, but intemperate in eating. Your belly is your God, your liver is your temple, your paunch is your altar, the cook is your priest, and the fat steam is your Holy Spirit; the seasonings and the sauces are your chrisms, and your belchings are your prophesizing...”

Tertullian sarcastically compared gluttons to Esau, who sold his birthright in exchange for a meal. “I ever recognize Esau, the hunter, as a man of taste and as his were, so are your whole skill and interest given to hunting and trapping...It is in the cooking pots that your love is inflamed—it is in the kitchen that your faith grows fervid—it is in the flesh dishes that all your hopes lie hid...Consistently do you men of the flesh reject the things of the Spirit. But if your prophets are complacent towards such persons, they are not my prophets...Let us openly and boldly vindicate our teaching.

“We are sure that they who are in the flesh cannot please God...a grossly-feeding Christian is akin to lions and wolves rather than God. Our Lord Jesus called Himself Truth and not habit.”

In general, Tertullian railed against gluttony, and taught that spiritual life consists of simple living. He explained, “if man could not follow even a simple taboo against eating one fruit, how could he be expected to restrain himself from more demanding restrictions? Instead, after the Flood, man was given the regulation against blood; further details were length to his own strength of will.”

According to Tertullian, the entire creation prays to God:

“Cattle and wild beasts pray, and bend their knees, and in coming forth from their stalls and lairs look up to heaven. Moreover the birds taking flight lift themselves up to heaven and instead of hands, spread out the cross of their wings, while saying something which may be supposed to be a prayer.”

In his commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hippolytus (AD 200) depicted the Biblical hero and his three companions as pious ascetics. Referring to the passage in Scripture which states that these four men did not wish to defile themselves with the king’s meat, Hippolytus equated the purity of their vegetarian diet with the purity of their thoughts: “These, though captives in a strange land, were not seduced by delicate meats, nor were they slaves to the pleasures of wine, nor were they caught by the bait of princely glory. But they kept their mouth holy and pure, that pure speech might proceed from pure mouths, and praise with such (mouths) the Heavenly Father.”

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-220), or Titus Flavius Clemens, founded the Alexandrian school of Christian Theology and succeeded Pantaenus in AD 190. In his writings, he referred to vegetarian philosophers Pythagoras, Plato, and even Socrates as divinely inspired. But the true teachings, he insisted, are to be found in the Hebrew prophets and in the person of Jesus Christ.

Clement taught that a life of virtue is one of simplicity, and that the apostle Matthew was a vegetarian. According to Clement, eating flesh and drinking wine “is rather characteristic to a beast and the fumes rising from them, being dense, darken the soul...Destroy not the work of God for the sake of food. Whether ye eat or drink, do all to the glory of God, aiming after true frugality. For it is lawful for me to partake of all things, yet all things are not expedient...neither is the regimen of a Christian formed by indulgence...man is not by nature a gravy eater, but a bread eater.

“Those who use the most frugal fare are the strongest, the healthiest and the noblest...We must guard against those sorts of food which persuade us to eat when we are not hungry,” warned Clement, “bewitching the appetite...is there not within a temperate simplicity, a wholesome variety of eatables—vegetables, roots, olives, herbs, milk, cheese, fruits...?

“But those who bend around inflammatory tables, nourishing their own diseases, are ruled by a most licentious disease which I shall venture to call the demon of the belly: the worst and most vile of demons. It is far better to be happy than to have a devil dwelling in us, for happiness is found only in the practice of virtue. Accordingly the apostle Matthew lived upon seeds, fruits, grains and nuts and vegetables, without the use of flesh.”

Clement acknowledged the moral and spiritual advantages of the vegetarian way of life: “If any righteous man does not burden his soul by the eating of flesh, he has the advantage of a rational motive...The very ancient altar of Delos was celebrated for its purity, to which alone, as being undefiled by slaughter and death, they say that Pythagoras would permit approach. “And they will not believe us when we say that the righteous soul is the truly sacred altar? But I believe that sacrifices were invented by men to be a pretext for eating flesh.”

St. Basil (AD 320-79) taught, “The steam of meat darkens the light of the spirit. One can hardly have virtue if one enjoys meat meals and feasts...In the earthly paradise, there was no wine, no one sacrificed animals, and no one ate meat. Wine was only invented after the Deluge...

“With simple living, well being increases in the household, animals are in safety, there is no shedding of blood, nor putting animals to death. The knife of the cook is needless, for the table is spread only with the fruits that nature gives, and with them they are content.”

St. Basil prayed for universal brotherhood, and an end to human brutality against animals:

“The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness
Thereof. Oh, God, enlarge within us the
Sense of fellowship with all living
Things, our brothers the animals to
Whom Thou gavest the earth as
Their home in common with us

“We remember with shame that
In the past we have exercised the
High dominion of man and ruthless
Cruelty so that the voice of the earth
Which should have gone up to Thee in
Song, has been a groan of travail.

“May we realize that they live not
For us alone but for themselves and
For Thee and that they love the sweetness
Of life.”

According to St. Gregory Nazianzen (AD 330-89):

“The great Son is the glory of the Father
and shone out from Him like light...
He assumed a body
to bring help to suffering creatures...

“He was sacrifice and celebrant
sacrificial priest and God Himself.
He offered blood to God to cleanse
the entire world.”

“Holy people are most loving and gentle in their dealings with their fellows, and even with the lower animals: for this reason it was said that ‘A righteous man is merciful to the life of his beast,’” explained St. John Chrysostom (AD 347-407). “Surely we ought to show kindness and gentleness to animals for many reasons and chiefly because they are of the same origin as ourselves.”

Writing about the Christian saints and ascetics, Chrysostom observed: “No streams of blood are among them; no butchering and cutting of flesh...With their repast of fruits and vegetables even angels from heaven, as they behold it, are delighted and pleased.”

Chrysostom considered flesh-eating a cruel and unnatural habit for Christians: “We imitate the ways of wolves, the ways of leopards, or rather we are worse than these. For nature has assigned that they should be thus fed, but us God hath honored with speech and a sense of equity, yet we are worse than the wild beasts.”

In a homily on Matthew 22:1-4, Chrysostom taught: “We the Christian leaders practice abstinence from the flesh of animals to subdue our bodies...the unnatural eating of flesh-meat is of demonical origin...the eating of flesh is polluting.” He added that “flesh-meats and wine serve as materials for sensuality, and are a source of danger, sorrow, and disease.”

In a homily on II Corinthians 9, Chrysostom distinguished between nourishment and gluttony:

“No one debars thee from these, nor forbids thee thy daily food. I say ‘food,’ not ‘feasting’; ‘raiment’ not ‘ornament,’...For consider, who should we say more truly feasted—he whose diet is herbs, and who is in sound health and suffered no uneasiness, or he who has the table of a Sybarite and is full of a thousand disorders?

“Certainly the former. Therefore, let us seek nothing more than these, if we would at once live luxuriously and healthfully. And let him who can be satisfied with pulse, and can keep in good health, seek for nothing more. But let him who is weaker, and needs to be dieted with other vegetable fruits, not be debarred from them.”

In a homily on the Epistle to Timothy, Chrysostom described the ill effects of becoming a slave to one’s bodily appetites:

“A man who lives in selfish luxury is dead while he lives, for he lives only to his stomach. In other senses he lives not. He sees not what he ought to see; he hears not what he ought to hear; he speaks not what he ought to speak. Nor does he perform the actions of living.

“But as he who is stretched upon a bed with his eyes closed and his eyelids fast, perceives nothing that is passing; so is it with this man, or rather not so, but worse. For the one is equally insensible to things good and evil, while the other is sensible to things evil only, but as insensible as the former to things good.

“Thus he is dead. For nothing relating to the life to come moves or affects him. For intemperance, taking him into her own bosom as into some dark and dismal cavern full of all uncleanliness, causes him to dwell altogether in darkness, like the dead. For, when all his time is spent between feasting and drunkenness, is he not dead, and buried in darkness?

“Who can describe the storm that comes of luxury, that assails the soul and body? For, as a sky continually clouded admits not the sunbeams to shine through, so the fumes of luxury...envelop his brain...and casting over it a thick mist, suffers not reason to exert itself.

“If it were possible to bring the soul into view and to behold it with our bodily eyes—it would seem depressed, mournful, miserable, and wasted with leanness; for the more the body grows sleek and gross, the more lean and weakly is the soul. The more one is pampered, the more the other is hampered.”

The orthodox, 4th century Christian Hieronymus connected vegetarianism with both the original diet given by God and the teachings of Jesus:

“The eating of animal meat was unknown up to the big Flood, but since the Flood they have pushed the strings and stinking juices of animal meat into our mouths, just as they threw quails in front of the grumbling sensual people in the desert. Jesus Christ, who appeared when the time had been fulfilled, has again joined the end with the beginning, so that it is no longer allowed for us to eat animal meat.”

St. Jerome (AD 340-420) wrote to a monk in Milan who had abandoned vegetarianism:

“As to the argument that in God’s second blessing (Genesis 9:3) permission was given to eat flesh—a permission not given in the first blessing (Genesis 1:29)—let him know that just as permission to put away a wife was, according to the words of the Saviour, not given from the beginning, but was granted to the human race by Moses because of the hardness of our hearts (Matthew 19:1-12), so also in like manner the eating of flesh was unknown until the Flood, but after the Flood, just as quails were given to the people when they murmured in the desert, so have sinews and the offensiveness been given to our teeth.

“The Apostle, writing to the Ephesians, teaches us that God had purposed that in the fullness of time he would restore all things, and would draw to their beginning, even to Christ Jesus, all things that are in heaven or that are on earth. Whence also, the Saviour Himself in the Apocalypse of John says, ‘I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.’ From the beginning of human nature, we neither fed upon flesh nor did we put away our wives, nor were our foreskins taken away from us for a sign. We kept on this course until we arrived at the Flood.

“But after the Flood, together with the giving of the Law, which no man could fulfill, the eating of flesh was brought in, and the putting away of wives was conceded to hardness of heart...But now that Christ has come in the end of time, and has turned back Omega to Alpha...neither is it permitted to us to put away our wives, nor are we circumcised, nor do we eat flesh.”

St. Jerome was responsible for the Vulgate, or Latin version of the Bible, still in use today. He felt a vegetarian diet was best for those devoted to the pursuit of wisdom. He once wrote that he was not a follower of Pythagoras or Empodocles “who do not eat any living creature,” but concluded, “And so I too say to you: if you wish to be perfect, it is good not to drink wine and eat flesh.”

The 4th century St. Blaise is said to have established an animal hospital in the wilderness. The wildlife, in turn, protected him. St. Patrick (389?-481?) is said to have saved a mother deer and her baby from hunters. Commentators say it was this act of compassion which led to the conversion of the pagan.

“By saving the fawn they were about to kill,” writes Richard Power in The Ark, St. Patrick made the Christian religion meaningful to the hardened Ulster warriors. Before that act of compassion, his preaching had failed to convince them.” (The Ark is a bulletin published by the Catholic Study Circle for Animal Welfare.)

St. Ciaran of Ossory noted in the 5th Century that animals have intrinsic rights because of their capacity to feel pleasure and pain. Butler’s four-volume Lives of the Saints describes many saints as abstinent from childhood, never eating flesh-meats, never touching meat or wine, compassionate to all creatures, etc.

According to Father Ambrose Agius:

“Many of the saints understood God’s creatures, and together they shared the pattern of obedience to law and praise of God that still leaves us wondering. The quickest way to understand is surely to bring our own lives as closely as possible into line with the intention of the Giver of all life, animate and inanimate.”

The Reverend Alvin Hart, an Episcopalian priest in New York, says:

“Many Georgian saints were distinguished by their love for animals. St. John Zedazneli made friends with bears near his hermitage; St. Shio befriended a wolf; St. David of Garesja protected deer and birds from hunters, proclaiming, ‘He whom I believe in and worship looks after and feeds all these creatures, to whom He has given birth.’ Early Celtic saints, too, favored compassion for animals. Saints Wales, Cornwall and Brittany of Ireland in the 5th and 6th centuries AD went to great pains for their animal friends, healing them and praying for them as well.”

St. Benedict, who founded the Benedictine Order in AD 529, permitted meat only in times of sickness, and made vegetarian foods the staple for his monks, teaching, “Nothing is more contrary to the Christian spirit than gluttony.” The Rule of St. Benedict itself is a composite of ascetic teachings from previous traditions, such as St. Anthony’s monasticism in Egypt, which called for abstinence from meat and wine.

Aegidius (c. 700) was a vegetarian who lived on herbs, water and the milk of a deer God sent to him. St. Werburgh of Chester made a deal with some geese that were damaging church property. Werburgh promised that no action would be taken against the geese if they left and ceased to cause trouble. But when one of her attendants unwittingly killed one of the geese, the others returned. They came back honking and protesting loudly, until St. Werburgh brought the animal back to life.

In the 7th century, the hermit monk St. Giles was an Athenian, who resided in a French forest, dwelling in a cave, and living on herbs, nuts, and fruits. One day the King of France came hunting in the forest. He pursued a young deer which took refuge in Giles’ arms. The King was so impressed with Giles’ holiness he begged forgiveness and built him a monastery.

Boniface (672-754) wrote to Pope Zacharias that he had begun a monastery which followed the rules of strict abstinence, whose monks do not eat meat nor enjoy wine or other intoxicating drinks. St. Andrew lived on herbs, olives, oil and bread. He lived to be 105.

The early English mystic St. Guthlac of Crowland (673-714) is said to have been able to call birds in to feed from his hand. “Hast thou never learned in Holy Writ that he who led his life after God’s will, the wild beasts and the wild birds have become more intimate with him?” he asked. St. Gudival of Ghent once brought a slaughtered sheep back to life “because he saw in it Christ led like a sheep to the slaughter.”

St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) “was moved to feelings of compassion for animals, and he wept for them when he saw them caught in the hunger’s net.” St. Richard of Wyche, a vegetarian, was moved by the sight of animals taken to slaughter. “Poor innocent little creatures,” he observed. “If you were reasoning beings and could speak, you would curse us. For we are the cause of your death, and what have you done to deserve it?”

Vegetarian writer Steven Rosen explains: “...over the centuries, there has arisen two distinct schools of Christian thought. The Aristotelian-Thomistic school and the Augustinian-Franciscan school. The Aristotelian-Thomistic school has, as its fundamental basis, the premise that animals are here for our pleasure—they have no purpose of their own. We can eat them, torture them in laboratories—anything...Unfortunately, modern Christianity embraces this form of their religion.

“The Augustinian-Franciscan school, however, teaches that we are all brothers and sisters under God’s Fatherhood. Based largely on the world view of St. Francis and being platonic in nature, this school fits in very neatly with the vegetarian perspective.”

It is said that St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226) bought two lambs from a butcher and gave them the coat on his back to keep them warm; and that he bought two fish from a fishwoman and threw them back into the water. He even paid to ransom lambs that were being taken to their death, recalling the gentle Lamb who willingly went to slaughter (Isaiah 53:7; John 1:29) to pay the ransom of sinners.

“Be conscious, O man, of the wondrous state in which the Lord God has placed you,” instructed Francis in his Admonitions (4), “for He created and formed you to the image of His beloved Son—and (yet) all the creatures under heaven, each according to its nature, serve know, and obey their Creator better than you.” St. Francis felt a deep kinship with all creatures. He called them “brother,” and “sister,” knowing they came from the same Source as himself.

Francis revealed his fraternal love for the animal world during Christmas time 1223: “If I ever have the opportunity to talk with the emperor,” he explained, “I’ll beg him, for the love of God and me, to enact a special law: no one is to capture or kill our sisters the larks or do them any harm. Furthermore, all mayors and lords of castles and towns are required to scatter wheat and other grain on the roads outside the walls so that our sisters the larks and other birds might have something to eat on so festive a day.

“And on Christmas Eve, out of reverence for the Son of God, whom on that night the Virgin Mary placed in a manger between the ox and the ass, anyone having an ox or an ass is to feed it a generous portion of choice fodder. And, on Christmas Day, the rich are to give the poor the finest food in abundance.”

Francis removed worms from a busy road and placed them on the roadside so they would not be crushed under human traffic. Once when he was sick and almost blind, mice ran over his table as he took his meals and over him while he slept. He regarded their disturbance as a “diabolical temptation,” which he met with patience and restraint, indicating his compassion towards other living creatures.

St. Francis was once given a wild pheasant to eat, but he chose instead to keep it as a companion. On another occasion, he was given a fish, and on yet another, a waterfowl to eat, but he was moved by the natural beauty of these creatures and chose to set them free.

“Dearly beloved!” said Francis beginning a sermon after a severe illness, “I have to confess to God and you that...I have eaten cakes made with lard.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia comments on this incident as follows: “St. Francis’ gift of sympathy seems to have been wider even than St. Paul’s, for we find to evidence in the great Apostle of a love for nature or for animals...

“Francis’ love of creatures was not simply the offspring of a soft sentimental disposition. It arose from that deep and abiding sense of the presence of God. To him all are from one Father and all are real kin...hence, his deep sense of personal responsibility towards fellow creatures: the loving friend of all God’s creatures.”

Francis taught: “All things of creation are children of the Father and thus brothers of man...God wants us to help animals, if they need help. Every creature in distress has the same right to be protected.”

According to Francis, a lack of mercy towards animals leads to a lack of mercy towards men: “If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.”

One Franciscan monk, St. Anthony of Padua (1195-1231), who preached throughout France and Italy, is said to have attracted a group of fish that came to hear him preach. St. James of Venice, who lived during the 13th century, bought and released the birds sold in Italy as toys for children. It is said he “pitied the little birds of the Lord...his tender charity recoiled from all cruelty, even to the most diminutive of animals.”

St. Bonaventure was a scholar and theologian who joined the Franciscan Order in 1243. He wrote The Soul’s Journey into God and The Life of St. Francis, the latter documenting St. Francis’ miracles with animals and love for all creation. Bonaventure taught that all creatures come from God and return to Him, and that the light of God shines through His different creatures in different ways:

“...For every creature is by its nature a kind of effigy and likeness of the eternal Wisdom. Therefore, open your eyes, alert the ears of your spirit, open your lips and apply your heart so that in all creatures you may see, hear, praise, love and worship, glorify and honor your God.”

St. Bridget (1303?-1373) of Sweden, founder of the Brigittine Order, wrote in her Revelations:

“Let a man fear, above all, Me his God, and so much the gentler will he become towards My creatures and animals, on whom, on account of Me, their Creator, he ought to have compassion.”

She raised pigs, and a wild boar is even said to have left its home in the forest to become her pet.

“The reason why God’s servants love His creatures so deeply is that they realize how deeply Christ loves them,” explained St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380). “And this is the very character of love to love what is loved by those we love.”

“Here I saw a great unity between Christ and us...” wrote Julian of Norwich (1360-?), “for when he was in pain we were in pain, and all creatures able to suffer pain suffered with him.”

Christian mystic, Thomas A’ Kempis (1380-1471) wrote in his devotional classic, The Imitation of Christ, that the soul desiring communion with God must be open to seeing, respecting and learning from all of God’s creatures, including the nonhumans:

“...and if thy heart be straight with God,” he wrote, “then every creature shall be to thee a mirror of life and a book of holy doctrine, for there is no creature so little or vile, but that showeth and representeth the goodness of God.”

St. Thomas More (1478-1535), was an undersheriff of London and the speaker of the House of Commons before he was named Lord Chancellor of England. He refused to approve the divorce of Henry VIII from Catherine of Aragon. He also refused to sign the Act of Succession which placed the King’s powers over those of the Church. For this he was imprisoned, tried for high treason, found guilty, and beheaded. More authored Utopia, a book which describes “the perfect commonwealth.”

In Utopia, More abolished the killing of animals, stating that citizens should “kill no animal in sacrifice, nor (should) they think that God has delight in blood and slaughter, who has given life to animals to the intent they should live.” A vegetarian, More spoke out primarily against butchering and meat-eating, but he also criticized those who would “waste” corn in the production of alcoholic beverages. Did drink wine.

St. Filippo Neri spent his entire life protecting and rescuing other living creatures. Born in Florence in 1515, he went to Rome as a young man, and tried to live as an ascetic. He sold his books, giving away the money to the poor. He worked without pay in the city hospital, tending to the sick and the poor. He gave whatever he possessed to others.

St. Filippo loved the animals and could not bear to see them suffer. He took the mice caught in traps away from people’s homes and set them free in the fields and stables. A vegetarian, he could not endure walking past a butcher shop. “Ah,” he exclaimed. “If everyone were like me, no one would kill animals!”

According to E. Eyre-Smith, in an article from The Ark, “Montalembert’s Monks of the West records in Vita Columbani, the Chronicler Jonas, writing within 25 years of the death of St. Columban, relates that this saint spent long periods in solitary contemplation and communion with the wild creatures of the forest, and insisted on his monks living, like himself, on the fruits of the earth, herbs and pulses. This indicates that in making rules for his followers in regard to non-meat eating, he was moved by his love and regard for the rest of God’s creation.”

St. Martin de Porres was born in 1579 in Lima, Peru, as the child of a Spaniard and Ana Velasquez, a black washerwoman. He joined the Dominican Order at the age of 24, and later established orphanages, hospitals and other charitable institutions. On one occasion, he told his superior, “charity knows no rules!” St. Martin’s compassion extended to the lower animals, including even rats and mice. St. Martin healed and cared for stray dogs, cats, a mule, and even a vulture. He sometimes allowed the mosquitos to bite him, so that they might be fed, saying, “They, too, are God’s creatures.”

The Trappist monks of the Catholic Church practiced vegetarianism from the founding of their Order until the Second Vatican Council in the late 1960s. According to the Trappist rules, as formulated by Armand Jean de Rance (1626-1700), “in the dining hall nothing is layed out except: pulse, roots, cabbages, or milk, but never any fish...I hope I will move you more and more rigorously, when you discover that the use of simple and rough food has its origin with the holy apostles (James, Peter, Matthew).

“We can assure you that we have written nothing about this subject which was not believed, observed, proved good through antiquity, proved by historians and tradition, preserved and kept up to us by the holy monks.”

A contemporary Benedictine monk, Brother David Steindl-Rast points out that the lives of the saints teach compassion towards all living beings. “Unfortunately,” says Brother David, “Christians have their share of the exploitation of our environment and in the mistreatment of animals. Sometimes they have even tried to justify their crimes by texts from the Bible, misquoted out of context. But the genuine flavor of a tradition can best be discerned in its saints...

“All kinds of animals appear in Christian art to distinguish one saint from another. St. Menas has two camels; St. Ulrich has a rat; St. Bridgid has ducks and geese; St. Benedict, a raven; the list goes on and on. St. Hubert’s attribute is a stag with a crucifix between its antlers. According to legend, this saint was a hunter but gave up his violent ways when he suddenly saw Christ in a stag he was about to shoot...Christ himself is called the Lamb of God.”

According to Brother David, “...the survival of our planet depends on our sense of belonging—to all other humans, to dolphins caught in dragnets, to pigs and chickens and calves raised in animal concentration camps, to redwoods and rainforests, to kelp beds in our oceans, and to the ozone layer.”

Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-90), wrote in 1870 that “cruelty to animals is as if a man did not love God.” On another occasion, he asked:

“Now what is it that moves our very heart and sickens us so much at cruelty shown to poor brutes? I suppose this: first, that they have done us no harm; next, that they have no power whatever of resistance; it is the cowardice and tyranny of which they are the victims which make their sufferings so especially touching...there is something so very dreadful, so satanic, in tormenting those who have never harmed us and who cannot defend themselves; who are utterly in our power.”

Cardinal Newman compared injustices against animals to the sacrifice, agony and death of Christ upon the cross:

“Think of your feelings at cruelty practiced upon brute animals and you will gain the sort of feeling which the history of Christ’s cross and passion ought to excite within you. And let me add, this is in all cases one good use to which you may turn any...wanton and unfeeling acts shown towards the...animals; let them remind you, as a picture of Christ’s sufferings. He who is higher than the angels, deigned to humble Himself even to the state of the brute creation...”

Another cardinal, Henry Edward Manning (1808-92), spoke out against cruelty to animals, especially experimentation upon animals. In a letter dated July 13, 1891, he wrote: “We owe ourselves the duty not to be brutal or cruel; and we owe to God the duty of treating all His creatures according to His own perfections of love and mercy.” Bishop Westcott wrote, “Animals are in our power in a peculiar sense; they are committed by God to our sovereignty and we owe them a considerate regard for their rights. No animal life can be treated as a THING. Willful disrespect of the sanctities of physical life in one sphere bears its fruit in other and higher spheres.”

Cardinal Francis Bourne (1861-1934) told children in Westminster Cathedral in April 1931: “There is even in kindness to animals a special merit in remembering that this kindness is obligatory upon us because God made the animals, and is therefore their creator, and, in a measure, His Fatherhood extends to them.” Cardinal Arthur Hinsley (1865-1943), the former archbishop of Westminster, wrote that “the spirit of St. Francis is the Catholic spirit.” According to Cardinal Hinsley, “Cruelty to animals is the degrading attitude of paganism.”

Reverend Jean Gautier, a doctor in canon law, a director of the Grand Seminary in Paris (St. Sulpice), and a noted French authority on Roman Catholic philosophy, wrote in his book A Priest and his Dog: “For cruelty to defenseless beings we shall one day have to answer before Him who trieth the heart and the reins. Not with impunity is the weakness of animals abused.”

In his 1957 book, The Status of Animals in the Christian Religion, author C.W. Hume wrote that the catechism children use for their first Communion and for their confirmation in France contains the answer, “it is not permissible for me to cause suffering to animals without good reason, to hurt them unnecessarily is an act of cruelty.” British Jesuit Father John Bligh observed, “A man is not likely to be much of a Christian if he is not kind to animals.”

A Roman Catholic priest, Msgr. LeRoy E. McWilliams of North Arlington, New Jersey, testified in October 1962 in favor of legislation to reduce the sufferings of laboratory animals. He told congressional representatives:

“The first book of the Bible tell us that God created the animals and the birds, so they have the same Father as we do. God’s Fatherhood extends to our ‘lesser brethren.’ All animals belong to God; He alone is their absolute owner. In our relations with them, we must emulate the divine attributes, the highest of which is mercy. God, their Father and Creator, loves them tenderly. He lends them to us and adjures us to use them as He Himself would do."”

Msgr. McWilliams also issued a letter to all seventeen thousand Catholic pastors in the United States, calling upon them to understand “what Christianity imposes on humans as their clear obligation to animals.”

Reverend Basil Wrighton, the chairman of the Catholic Study Circle for Animal Welfare in London, wrote in a 1965 article entitled, “The Golden Age Must Return: A Catholic’s Views on Vegetarianism,” that a vegetarian diet is not only consistent with, but actually required by the tenets of Christianity. He concluded that the killing of animals for food not only violates religious tenets, but brutalizes humans to the point where violence and warfare against other humans becomes inevitable.

A strong condemnation of cruelty towards animals appeared in the March 10, 1966 issue of L’Osserevatore della Domenica, the official Vatican weekly newspaper. Written by the respected theologian, Msgr. Ferdinando Lambruschini, it read in part:

“Man’s conduct with regard to animals should be regulated by right reason, which prohibits the infliction of purposeless pain and suffering on them. To ill treat them, and make them suffer without reason, is an act of deplorable cruelty to be condemned from a Christian point of view. To make them suffer for one’s own pleasure is an exhibition of sadism which every moralist must denounce.”

In his 1970 book God’s Animals Reverend Don Ambrose Agius wrote: “It is a moral obligation for every Christian to fight cruelty to animals because the consequences of cruelty are destructive to the Christian order...The Bible...tells us that cruelty to animals is wicked and that it is opposed to God’s will and intention...The duty of all Christians (is) to emulate God’s attributes, especially that of mercy, in regard to animals. To be kind to animals is to emulate the loving kindness of God.”

In his foreword to Reverend Agius’ book, Cardinal John Heenan wrote: “Animals...have very positive rights because they are God’s creatures. If we have to speak with absolute accuracy, we must say that God has the right to have all His creatures treated with respect...Only the perverted are guilty of deliberate cruelty to animals or, indeed, to children.”

Vegetarianism, however, is still regarded by the Church as a form of abstinence; encouraged as a means to increase one’s will power over mortal flesh and desires: “It is precisely because meat is so good that we do abstain from it,” explained one Benedictine monk. “...to forego the use of meat makes one’s meals somewhat less attractive and enjoyable.” With simple living, a monk “will have greater spiritual freedom to attend to the things of the Spirit and of God.”

Father Thomas Berry, a Catholic priest, author, and founder of the Riverdale Center of Religious Research in New York, wrote in 1987 that “vegetarianism is a way of life that we should all move toward for economic survival, physical well-being, and spiritual integrity.”

As a second grade schoolboy, growing up in Petoskey, Michigan, Ron Pickarski had a “vision.” He felt God was calling him to serve by abandoning everything and following Christ. His mother notes that as a youth, Ron Pickarski was introverted and had strong, spiritual inclinations. “He was serious about his God,” she recalls. “He wasn’t one of those kinds who drank and smoked pot.”

At the age of 19, Ron entered Our Lady of the Angels seminary. Six years later, he took the vows of poverty, celibacy and obedience. “It would basically be easier to shoot myself than to leave the order,” he admits. “It’s a commitment between me and God. If I can’t live up to a commitment I made to God, how can I live up to a commitment to anyone else? It’s a commitment to a vision that is unfolding in everything that I’m doing,” he says. “That whole vision is being lived out in my work as a food minister.”

After his father died of cancer, Brother Ron experimented with different kinds of vegetarian diets, including raw foods, natural hygiene and macrobiotics. By this time, he had also become a master chef. Brother Ron studied at the Washburne Trade School for Chefs in Chicago, and graduated at the top of his class.

Brother Ron asked for a solo ministry—rather unusual for a Franciscan monk—and it was granted. His supervisors have compared his ministry to that of St. Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of animals and ecology. St. Francis loved nature and considered it God’s gift to humanity.

Brother Ron combines his religious vocation with a career in vegetarian cooking. He considers himself a health missionary, teaching that a person who is healthy can better serve God. “Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit,” he explains. “They are the vehicles by which we serve God. I think the consciousness of a person in a state of wellness is much higher than a person who is not.” Brother Ron believes that God meant for us to eat a high-carbohydrate diet, and the best kind of high-carbohydrate diet is a vegetarian diet. A vegetarian diet promotes health, which puts one in the proper frame of mind to help others.

Brother Ron believes that if Jesus ate meat or fish, he did so seldomly, and always in the spirit of charity. He defines charity as putting someone else before oneself; encompassing love, respect and understanding. He gives an example from his own life:

“I was at a Christmas celebration last year that I was invited to by my lawyer. His mother, a sweet Italian lady, made this beautiful vegetarian ravioli with a dairy cream sauce. It was her Christmas present to me. I couldn’t say, ‘I’m a vegan (living entirely on plant foods). I’m not going to eat this.’ I sat down, and I ate it and thoroughly enjoyed it. I partook of it in the same spirit in which she made it,” he adds. “If a person knew I was a vegan and did it to defy me, then I’d say, ‘Scratch off. I’m not going to eat it.’”

Prizing charity above everything else, Brother Ron is unimpressed with “self-righteous vegetarians” whose motives do not spring from the heart. “In Corinthians, he (Paul) says that we are just a clanging cymbal unless we act out of love...How many vegetarians out there are clanging cymbals?

“Quite frankly,” he admits, “I would rather be a charitable consumer of meat than a self-righteous vegetarian, because it is love that will transform the world, not vegetarianism.”

Nonetheless, Brother Ron does see vegetarianism as a natural consequence of divine love. “When people learn to love themselves and their fellow human beings, then and only then will vegetarianism predominate the universe. And the funny thing is, they will not perceive it as vegetarianism, just simply loving.”

In an editorial that appeared on Christmas Day, 1988, Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy, a prominent Catholic writer and a vegetarian, observed:

“A long raised but rarely answered question is this: If it was God’s plan for Christ to be born among animals, why have most Christian theologians denied the value and rights of animals? Why no theology of the peaceable kingdom?...Animals in the stable at Bethlehem were a vision of the peaceable kingdom. Among theology’s mysteries, this ought to be the easiest to fathom.”

Mother Teresa, honored for her work amongst the poor with the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize, wrote in 1992 to Marlene Ryan, a former member of the National Alliance for Animals. Her letter reads:

“I am praying for you that God’s blessing may be with you in all that you are doing to create concern for the animals which are often subjected to much cruelty. They, too, are created by the same loving Hand of God which created us. As we humans are gifted with intelligence which the animals lack, it is our duty to protect them and to promote their well being.

“We also owe it to them as they serve us with such wonderful docility and loyalty. A person who shows cruelty to these creatures cannot be kind to other humans also. Let us do all we can to become instruments of peace—where we are—the true peace that comes from loving and caring and respecting each person as a child of God—my brother—my sister.”

In an article entitled “The Primacy of Nonviolence as a Virtue,” appearing in Embracing Earth: Catholic Approaches to Ecology (1994), Brother Wayne Teasdale wrote: “One key answer to a culture’s preoccupation with violence is to teach, insist on, and live the value of nonviolence. It can be done successfully, and it has been done for more than 2,500 years by Jains and Buddhists.

“Neither Jainism nor Buddhism has ever supported war or personal violence; this nonviolence extends to all sentient beings. Christianity can learn something valuable from these traditions. This teaching on nonviolence has been incarnated in the lives of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Fourteenth Dalai Lama with significant results...”

According to Teasdale: “...it is necessary to elevate nonviolence to a noble place in our civilization of loving-compassion because nonviolence as ahimsa in the Hindu tradition, a tradition that seems to possess the most advanced understanding of nonviolence, is love! Love is the goal and ultimate nature of nonviolence as an inner disposition and commitment of the heart. It is the fulfillment of love and compassion in the social sphere, that is, in the normal course of relations among people in the matrix of society.”

Brother Aelred (Robert Edmunds), a Catholic monk living in Australia, discusses the moral question of killing animals for food in his book Encounter: Christ and Krishna. He points out that Jesus Christ greatly expanded the interpretation of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” to include not getting angry without cause.

“My position is that Jesus’ teachings on mercy in the Beatitudes require an open-ended ethical inquiry” writes Brother Aelred. “I ask, for example, how a Christian may speak of ‘mercy’ in the terms of Jesus Christ, and deny mercy to creatures of God who, as we do, experience fear and suffering. Isn’t it the case that Jesus constantly went beyond the ‘letter of the law’ to its spirit?”

Brother Aelred quotes the prophecies of Isaiah (11:6-9, 65:25) concerning the coming Kingdom of Peace. “The passage sees a time when pain and bloodshed will be no more; when prey and devourer will be reconciled. What a vision! Even if the passage is seen as just poetic exaggeration, it is clear that there is hope for a future which will be very different to the world we know. And surely we, as Christians, must be part of this ‘peace process.’ Perhaps our main burden, as Christians, is to be part of this message of hope and reconciliation.”

Brother Aelred ends with the following:

“An Anglican Franciscan superior, in Australia, tells his novices that if they wish to eat flesh they must go out and themselves kill the animal. The moral responsibility must be theirs alone. I consider this a thoroughly sound position, and any Christian reading this article might well reflect on the brother’s teaching. In conclusion, I must report a sad truth. My own Christian formation taught me many things of great value, but ‘respect for all things living’ was not part of that formation. It was other religious traditions and ‘secular’ insights which gave me teaching in this area.”

vegetarianism in classical Western philosophy

2007-02-04T23:22:00.000-06:00

Ancient Greece, more than any other culture or society in human history, has come to be seen as the basis of Western civilization. According to Dr. T.Z. Lavine: “It may be said that the Western world has had a long-standing love affair with...Athens, as our ideal and model...than to any other city in all of human history, except possibly Jerusalem. But we relate to Jerusalem not as an ideal city, but only in devotion to the great persons who lived there and to the sacred events that happened there.

“Why the long love affair with the ancient city of Athens? Athens is our ideal as the first democracy, and as a city devoted to human excellence in mind and body, to philosophy, the arts and science, and to the cultivation of the art of living...” The ancient Greco-Roman civilization had a tradition of poets and philosophers advocating moral and ethical consideration for animals—even to the point of not eating them.

The Greek poet Hesiod (800 BC) espoused vegetarianism. In passages 109-201 of Works and Days, he wrote that the first race of humans, the golden race, was created by the gods of Olympus under the rule of Cronus. These humans were free from sorrow, toil and grief. They did not have to labor for food: the earth spontaneously gave them nourishment. Humans in the golden age were vegetarian. Hesiod suggests that gods and men freely mixed, and even shared their meals together. Death in this age was comparable to going to sleep.

This golden age of rule under Cronus eventually gave way to rule under Zeus. A new race of silver men appeared. These were not descendants of the original golden race, but a new creation. This race was foolish and impious, and did not offer sacrifices to the gods. Zeus thus destroyed them and created a third race, a race of bronze. The bronze race was fond of violence. They did not eat bread, and they eventually destroyed each other.

The fourth race appeared in what was called the age of heroes. This age was characterized by demigods who died in battle and were rewarded for their heroism. The fifth and current race indicates the further deterioration of humanity. This is the age of iron. It is a time of anxiety, toil, sorrow, war and false pride. The human race in this age is described by Hesiod as the worst of races, and he expressed the desire to have been born in an earlier age.

Yet the centuries ahead brought a spiritual and intellectual awakening across the globe. In Egypt, Pharaoh Necho caused Africa to be circumnavigated. Zoroaster appeared in Persia, Confucius and Lao-Tzu in China, the Hebrew prophets in Israel, and the Buddha in India. In Ionia, it was the time of Thales, Anaximander and Pythagoras.

Pythagoras (570-470 BC) was born on the island colony of Samos. Historian Dr. Martin A. Larson describes him as “A universal genius...He made important contributions to music and astronomy; he was a metaphysician, a natural philosopher, a social revolutionary, a political organizer, and the universal theologian. He was one of those all-embracing intellects which appears at rare intervals.”

Pythagoras’ biographer Diogenes Laertius records that he did not “neglect medicine;” his followers contributed to medical wisdom. In the history of religion, Pythagoras was the first person to teach the concepts of reincarnation, heaven and hell to the Western world.

Diogenes Laertius writes that Pythagoras warned that all who did not accept his teachings would suffer torment in the afterlife, while promising his followers the spiritual kingdom. According to the early Christian father Eusebius: “Pythagoras...declared...that the doctrines which he had received...were a personal revelation to himself from God.”

Pythagoras was driven from his native Samos in 529 BC when the tyrant Polycrates declared him a subversive. He went to Croton in Italy, established a school of philosophy, and lectured to classes of up to six hundred students. He founded a monastic order that soon became very influential. It was basically a religious sect made up of dedicated saints practicing vegetarianism, voluntary poverty and chastity.

In less that two decades, the Pythagoreans were numerous and powerful enough to take political power without having to resort to force or violence. History shows that when the Pythagoreans were attacked and massacred in Magna Grecia in 450 BC, they practiced nonviolence and did not resist their aggressors.

Ancient and modern historians alike acknowledge that Pythagoras was vegetarian. This was the conclusion of Plutarch, Ovid, Diogenes Laertius and Iamblichus in ancient times, and it is the conclusion of scholars today. Nor was vegetarianism loosely connected with the Pythagorean philosophy—it was an integral part of it.

“Oh, my fellow men!” exclaimed Pythagoras. “Do not defile your bodies with sinful foods. We have corn. We have apples bending down the branches with their weight, and grapes swelling on the vines. There are sweet flavored herbs and vegetables which can be cooked and softened over the fire. Nor are you denied milk or thyme-scented honey. The earth affords you a lavish supply of riches, of innocent foods, and offers you banquets that involve no bloodshed or slaughter.”

Pythagoras’ meals consisted of honeycomb, millet or barley bread, and vegetables. He would pay fishermen to throw their catch back into the sea. Ironically, he claimed to have been a fisherman in a previous life. He abhorred animal sacrifice and wine, and would only sacrifice cakes, honey, and frankincense to the gods. He revered the altar at Delos because it was free from blood sacrifices. Upon it, he offered flour, meal, and cakes made without the use of fire. Pythagoras would not associate with cooks or hunters.

According to Iamblichus, Pythagoras taught his followers not to kill even a flea, especially in a temple. He not only showed respect for gods, humans, and animals, but also for the trees, which were not to be destroyed, unless absolutely necessary. It is said Pythagoras pet an eagle, told an ox not to trample a bean field, and fed a ferocious bear barley and acorns, telling it not to attack humans any more.

Pythagoras not only taught transmigration of the soul, or reincarnation, but even claimed to remember his previous lives. It is said Pythagoras once stopped a man from beating a dog, because in the dog’s yelping he recognized the voice of an old friend. For Pythagoras, killing animals for food meant causing suffering or death to living creatures just as worthy of moral concern as human beings, and who may also have been human in previous lifetimes.

The Roman poet Ovid (43 BC - 18 AD), quoted Pythagoras in the 15th chapter of Metamorphosis as follows: “Our souls are immortal, and are ever received into new homes where they live and dwell, when they have left their previous abode...All things change, but nothing dies; the spirit wanders hither and tither, taking possession of what limbs it pleases, passing from beasts into human beings, or again our human spirit passes into beasts, but never at any time does it perish...Alas, what wickedness to swallow flesh into our own flesh, to fatten our greedy bodies by cramming in other bodies, to have one living creature fed by the death of another!”

If souls can transmigrate from one species to another, and all souls are of the same nature, then the unnecessarily killing animals is as morally indefensible as the unnecessary killing of human beings. Pythagoras may have also drawn a parallel between the plight of animals in human hands, and the fate of humans in the hands of the gods. We humans would suffer should the gods unnecessarily kill or torment us; we should likewise treat the animal world with mercy.

Local tradition says Pythagoras spent time living in a cave on Mount Kerkis in Samos. He was the first person in the history of the world to deduce that the Earth is a sphere. He may have reached this conclusion by comparing the Earth to the Sun and the Moon, or perhaps he noticed the curved shadow of the Earth upon the Moon during a lunar eclipse, or he may have seen that when ships depart and recede over the horizon, their masts disappear last.

The famous “Pythagorean theorem” is now known to have been mathematical knowledge long before Pythagoras. Square roots and cube roots and the “Pythagorean” theorem are mentioned in the Sulbha Sutras of Bodhayana, in India. (700 BC) Bodhayana also calculated the areas of triangles, circles, trapezoids and determined the value of pi = 3.14136 in measuring and constructing temple altars. Some scholars believe Pythagoras may have received his wisdom from the East.

What was significant about Pythagoras’ approach, however, was that he did more than list examples of this theorem: he developed a method of mathematical proof of the theorem, based on deduction. Our modern tradition of mathematical proof, the basis for every kind of science, originated in the West with Pythagoras.

Whereas classical Indian mathematics tended to be intuitive, the Greeks established a tradition of rigorous mathematical proofs. Pythagoras further taught that the world is well-ordered, harmonious, and may be comprehended through human reason. He was the first to use the word “cosmos” to denote a fathomable universe. According to Pythagoras, the laws of nature could be deduced purely by thought.

During the Renaissance and the age of Enlightenment, Kepler and Newton thought of the world in terms of harmony—the order and beauty of planetary motion and the existence of mathematical laws explaining such motion, and from them came our modern scientific belief that the entire universe can be measured, quantified, and explained in terms of mathematical relationships. These ideas began with Pythagoras. “Chemistry is simply numbers,” said Dr. Carl Sagan, “an idea Pythagoras would have liked.”

Pythagorean science was far more theoretical than experimental. However, one of Pythagoras’ students, Alcmaeon, is the first person known to have dissected a human body. He further identified arteries and veins, discovered the optic nerve and the eustachian tubes, and declared the brain to be the seat of the intellect. This final contention was denied by Aristotle, who placed intelligence in the heart. Alcmaeon also founded the science of embryology.

The Pythagoreans also contributed to medical ethics through the Oath of Hippocrates. Hippocrates was a physician who lived in the 5th century BC. In a treatise entitled “The Sacred Disease,” he maintained that epilepsy and other illnesses were not the result of evil spirits or angry gods, but due to natural causes.

Hippocrates has been called the “Father of Medicine,” the “wisest and greatest practitioner of his art,” and the “most important and most complete medical personality of antiquity.” Before Hippocrates, the physician studied plants and animals and had a working knowledge of both harmful and beneficial remedies. He could simultaneously heal some patients while killing others. Hippocrates believed in the sanctity of life and called other physicians to the highest ethical standards and conduct.

“Throughout the primitive world, the doctor and the sorcerer tended to be the same person,” observed anthropologist Margaret Mead. “He with the power to kill had the power to cure, including especially the undoing of his own killing activities. He who had the power to cure would necessarily also be able to kill.” According to Mead, the Oath of Hippocrates marked a turning point in the history of Western civilization because “for the first time in our tradition” it caused “a complete separation between curing and killing.”

“With the Greeks,” concluded Dr. Mead, “the distinction was made clear. One profession, the followers of Asclepius, were to be dedicated completely to life under all circumstances, regardless of the rank, age, or intellect—the life of a slave, the life of the Emperor, the life of a foreign man, the life of a defective child.”

The United States Supreme Court in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, noted that the Oath of Hippocrates “echoes Pythagorean doctrines.” Dr. Herbert Ratner observes that in ancient Greece, “medicine emerged as the prototype of the learned professions. The contribution of Hippocrates, the father of medicine, was to incorporate the rights of the patient, as well as the obligations of the physician, into the Oath.

"Hippocrates’ profound grasp of the nature of a learned profession serving one of man’s basic needs makes the Hippocratic Oath one of the great documents and classics of man, a fact not only signified by its universal inclusion in collections of the great books of Western civilization, but by the universal veneration accorded it by physicians, singly and collectively, throughout the ages...the Oath, properly constituted, becomes the one hope of preserving the unconfused role of the physician as healer.”

At the end of the Second World War, during the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial, twenty physicians were tried for crimes against humanity. In this case, the crimes were committed in the euthanasia wards and concentration camps of the Third Reich. Physicians there had become executioners as well as healers. American medical science consultant Dr. Andrew C. Ivy said, “The moral imperative of the Oath of Hippocrates I believe is necessary for the survival of the scientific and technical philosophy of medicine.”

The Oath of Hippocrates and its modern equivalent, the Declaration of Geneva, enacted by the World Medical Association in 1948, are frequently cited by the American Medical Association in its prohibition against medical participation in legally authorized executions. A code of conduct for physicians as healers, as well as concern for the rights and well-being of the patient, originated with Hippocrates and the Pythagorean tradition.

Despite these and many other outstanding contributions to ethics, medicine, music, astronomy, geometry and general science, mathematics dominated Pythagorean thought. The Pythagoreans were mathematicians as well as mystics. Pythagoras taught that the laws of Nature could be deduced through logic and reason. They delighted in the absolute certainty of mathematics, and found in it a pure and undefiled realm accessible to the human intellect. They believed that in mathematics they had glimpsed a perfect reality, a realm of the gods, of which our own world is but an imperfect reflection.

Pythagorean theology was dualistic; it contrasted this corruptible, earthly sphere with a pure and divine realm. One’s higher nature, the eternal soul, is entangled in temporal flesh. The body is like a tomb. The soul must not become a slave to the body and its lusts. One must not fall prey to the demands of the flesh.

Pythagoreanism exerted a profound influence upon Plato, and, later, Christian theology. In Plato’s famous parable of the cave, prisoners are tied to stakes so they can only see shadows of passerby and believe the shadows to be real—unaware of the higher reality that is accessible if they would simply turn their heads. The Pythagorean concept of a perfect and mystical world, unseen by the senses, and inaccessible to flesh and blood was also readily accepted by the early Christians.

History tells us there were two classes of Pythagoreans. The akousmatikoi heard the teachings of the Master and followed them to a degree, but were never initiated into the deeper levels of mysticism. By contrast, the mathematikoi were strict Pythagoreans, living as ascetics, and observing the holy way of life taught by the Master. Pythagoras established a monastic order at Croton that soon became a vegetarian colony. After the massacre in Magna Grecia in 450 BC, the political fortunes of the Pythaoreans declined. By 350 BC, Pythagoreanism had become more of a religious sect than a philosophical school of thought. As a religion, Pythagoreanism continued to attract spiritual seekers for over seven centuries.

Pythagorean thought was familiar to the leadership of the early Christian church. The Christian father Justin Martyr wrote that when he was a youth seeking spiritual enlightenment, he first went to the Pythagoreans. A “celebrated” Pythagorean teacher told him, however, that before he could be initiated into any kind of mysticism, he would first have to master music, geometry and astronomy.

Discouraged, he turned to the Platonists. Their way of life may have been equally demanding. Jesus’ demands upon anyone wishing to become his disciple are well-known (Matthew 19:16-24; Mark 10:17-23; Luke 9:57-62, 14:25-26,33, 18:18-25). These did not deter Justin Martyr from eventually converting to Christianity.

Although the Pythagoreans acknowledged the minor gods of the Greek pantheon, they also recognized a Supreme Being. According to authorities within the early Christian church, the Pythagoreans were monotheists:

“God is one; and He is not...outside of the frame of things, but within it; but, in all the entireness of His being is in the whole circle of existence...the mind and vital power of the whole world,” wrote Clement of Alexandria in Exhortation VI, quoting Pythagoras.

The Pythagoreans held a pantheistic concept of God, recognizing His omnipresent Spirit, but with no knowledge of His personal qualities—a concept which the Stoics were to adopt. Like the Jews and the Zoroastrians, the Pythagoreans consequently forbade the worship of images and statues.

First century Pythagoreanism is described in detail in The Life of Apollonius of Tyana. The ancient texts records this neoplatonic philosopher and miracle worker having a divine birth, absorbing the wisdom of Pythagoras, practicing celibacy, vegetarianism, as well as voluntary poverty; healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, exorcising demons, foretelling the future, and teaching the innermost secrets of religion. Finally, the text says he never died, but went directly to heaven in a physical assumption.

The philosopher Empodocles (5th century BC) wrote that the ancients were much more fortunate than modern man because they were vegetarian and there was neither animal sacrifices nor war. He described humanity in previous ages using statues, pictures, perfumes and honey in their worship. They did not offer animals, Empodocles maintained, because to kill an animal for sacrifice or food is the greatest moral wrong.

Empodocles described these ancient races as gentle to animals and birds as well as to each other. Empodocles was greatly influenced by Pythagorean doctrine. He believed in the transmigration of souls:

“For I was once already boy and girl,
Thicket and bird, and mute fish in the waves
All things doth Nature change,
Enwrapping souls
In unfamiliar tunics of the flesh”

Because of reincarnation and the equality of all living beings, Empodocles felt meat-eating was comparable to cannibalism. “Will ye not cease from this great din of slaughter?” he once wrote. “Will ye not see, unthinking as ye are, how ye rend one another unbeknoweth?” With a vision of eternal souls endlessly clothed in new bodies, Empodocles compared flesh-eating to fathers unknowingly killing their sons, and children similarly killing their parents:

“The father lifteth for the stroke of death
His own dear son within a changed form...
Each slits the throat and in his halls prepares
A horrible repast. Thus too the son
Seizes the father, children the mother seize,
And...eat their own dear flesh.”

Belief in the golden age and vegetarianism existed outside the Pythagorean tradition. The Cynic, Crates (4th century BC), wrote a poem linking nonviolence to vegetarianism, and expressing the hope for a vegetarian utopia. Dicaerchus’ Life in Greece has been called the first cultural history of a people. Dicaerchus, who lived in the late 4th century BC, did not believe in reincarnation, the soul, or the afterlife. Nonetheless, he also wrote in favor of ethical vegetarianism, insisting it is morally wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to a being that can experience pain.

In her book, From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest, Dr. T.Z. Lavine writes:

“Plato is the most celebrated, honored and revered of all the philosophers of the Western world. He lived in Athens...in the fourth century before Christ...He is said to be the greatest of the philosophers which Western civilization has produced; he is said to be the father of Western philosophy; the son of the god Apollo...

“The British philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead said of him that the history of Western philosophy is only a series of footnotes to Plato. The American poet and philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson said, ‘Plato is philosophy, and philosophy is Plato...Out of Plato come all things that are still written and debated among men of thought.’”

According to Diogenes Laertius, Plato (427-347 BC) began as a follower of Socrates. After Socrates’ death, he became the pupil of the leading Pythagoreans of his day—Philolaus, Eurytas, Archytas, and others. Plato was also the greatest collector of Pythagorean literature in antiquity. Ovid attributed Plato’s great longevity to his “moral purity, temperance, and natural food diet of herbs, berries, nuts, grains and the wild plants...which the earth, the best of mothers, produces.”

An economic link between flesh-eating and war can be found in Plato’s Republic. Plato records a dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon in which Socrates extols the peace and happiness that come to people eating a vegetarian diet. The citizens, Socrates says, will feast upon barley meal, wheat flour, salt, olives, cheese, onions, greens, figs, chickpeas, beans, myrtle berries and acorns. These are the foods of peace and good health: “And with such a diet they may be expected to live in peace and health to a good old age, and bequeath a similar life to their children after them.”

Glaucon does not believe people will be satisfied with such fare. He insists that people will desire the “ordinary conveniences of life,” including animal flesh. He asks Socrates what foods would be eaten if he were not founding a Republic but a city of pigs. Pigs are omnivores, they can be made to eat even the flesh of their own kind, and they experience inebriation on alcohol.

Socrates responds: “The true state I believe to be the one we have described—the healthy state, as it were. But if it is your pleasure that we contemplate also a fevered state, there is nothing to hinder.” Socrates then proceeds to stock the once ideal state with swineherds, huntsmen, and “cattle in great number.” The dialogue continues. Socrates asks Glaucon:

“...and there will be animals of many other kinds,
if people eat them?”

“Certainly.”

“And living in this way we shall have much greater
need of physicians than before?”

“Much greater.”

“And the country which was enough to support the
original inhabitants will be too small now, and not
enough?”

“Quite true.”

“Then a slice of our neighbor’s land will be wanted
by us for pasture and tillage, and they will want a
slice of ours, if, like ourselves, they exceed the
limit of necessity, and give themselves up to the
unlimited accumulation of wealth?”

“That, Socrates, will be inevitable.”

“And so we shall go to war, Glaucon. Shall we not?”

“Most certainly,” replies Glaucon.

Critics of Plato, reading the rest of the Republic, have complained that Plato’s “ideal” society is a militaristic or fascist state, with censorship and a rigidly controlled economy. Plato would hardly disagree with these critics; what they have failed to observe is that the state which he describes is not his idea—it is merely a result of Glaucon’s demand for meat, which Socrates himself disavows.

Philosophy professor Daniel Dombrowski says, “That the Republic was to be a vegetarian city is one of the best-kept secrets in the history of philosophy.” (Republic 369d-373e)

Plato also developed a theory that it would not be possible to have a just and good society until kings were philosophers or until philosophers became kings. In this way, the leaders would have a true understanding of justice and virtue, and would be able to rule properly for the benefit of all the citizens. According to Plato, the ideal society consists of three classes of men: the governing class, the military class, and the mercantile class.

Perhaps because he lived in a slave state, Plato failed to recognize laborers as a fourth, or working class. However, he did teach that people fall into different classes according to their talents and abilities, rather than as a result of their birth. Plato taught further that women are recognized as equals with men in the ideal society, and may also become rulers, soldiers, or merchants.

In Plato’s ideal state, the guardian (ruling) class and the military class are trained to be just and virtuous. They must live like members of an ascetic religious order. They have no worldly possessions or private property, nor do they have any dealings with money. Sex and marriage in these classes exist solely for the sake of procreation. They take their meals communally, the food itself is simple, and consumed in moderation.

Plato infers that the guardian class, which consists entirely of philosophers, should be vegetarian. In the Republic, he depicts what history would be if philosophers of the golden age were to rule, and in the Statesman, he describes the people of the golden age as vegetarian.

In the Statesman, the Eleatic Stranger, who is the hero of the dialogue, describes an age similar to the creation account found in Genesis 1, in which “God was supreme governor...So it befell that savagery was nowhere to be found nor preying of creature on creature, nor did war rage nor any strife whatsoever...they had fruits without stint from trees and bushes; these needed no cultivation but sprang up of themselves out of the ground without man’s toil.” (Statesman 271e, 272a)

According to Plato, vegetarianism was divinely ordained. In the Timaeus, Plato says the gods created certain kinds of life to be our food:

“These are the trees and plants and seeds which have been improved by cultivation and are now domesticated among us; anciently there were only the wild kinds, which are older than the cultivated.” (Timaeus 77a) These kinds of life were especially created “to be food for us.” (77c) Plato also makes a passing reference to “the fruits of the earth or herb of the field, which God planted to be our daily food.” (80d)

In Plato’s Laws (713), an analogy is made between Cronus’ daemons ruling over men and human shepherds tending animals. The lesson implied here is that dominion over lesser beings is not an automatic license for exploitation. It would be unthinkable that Cronus’ assistants should eat men just because they themselves are godlike or superhuman in nature. Human “dominion” over the animal kingdom must likewise be questioned.

Plato’s writings contain frequent references to reincarnation. The souls of animals and the souls of men are taught to be of equal worth. This is made clear in the story of Er. (Republic 614-621) In this story, souls with human bodies become animals in their next life, while souls clothed in animal bodies become human.

Plato presented detailed accounts of reincarnation in many of his other writings. (Phaedrus 248c; Phaedo 81-83, 85a; Meno 81b; Timaeus 90e-91c, etc.) According to Plato, pure souls have fallen from the plane of absolute reality because of sensual desire, and have taken on physical bodies.

First, the fallen souls are embodied in human forms. Of these, the highest is that of the philosopher, who delights in higher knowledge, and lives on the level of the mind, rather than the body. As long as he remains caught up in the heavenly spheres, he returns to eternal life and existence. But if he becomes entangled in carnal desires, he will descend into the animal kingdom.

Plato believed gluttons and drunkards could easily become asses in future lifetimes, cruel and violent people may take birth as hawks or wolves, and blind followers of social convention may be reborn as bees or ants. Eventually, the soul will again receive another human body, and with it another opportunity to seek first the spiritual kingdom, righteousness, and eternal life.

Plato wrote about ethics, politics, justice, knowledge, virtue, the soul, rebirth, judgement, heaven, hell, monastic living, and a transcendent realm of goodness. The early church historian Eusebius observed: “Plato, more than anyone else, shared in the philosophy of Pythagoras.” Early church father Justin Martyr is known to have said repeatedly that Plato must have been versed in Christian prophecy.

Aristotle (384-322 BC) was a student of Plato’s who became a leading philosopher with his own school of thought. Theophrastus, a student of Aristotle, taught that grass was the most ancient kind of offering made to the gods. This was followed later by trees, and eventually fruits, barley, frankincense, and so forth. The sacrifice of animals came much later. According to Theophrastus, a vegetarian, this defiled the pure religion.

Porphyry (3rd century AD), wrote in his masterpiece De Abstentia that Theophrastus regarded vegetarianism as a return to primeval perfection. Theophrastus taught that the most ancient libations were performed with sobriety. Water was initially offered, and only in later times did the offerings consist of honey, oil, and wine. When animal sacrifices began, not only did meat-eating become widespread, but so did atheism, as a reaction against the anger of the gods for deliberately killing animals. (De Abstentia 2:7,20,32)

Theophrastus also regarded vegetarianism as a matter of ethics. To kill animals unnecessarily is unjust. (De Abstentia 2:11-12) He suggested that war, pestilence and damaged crops may have caused humans to start killing animals for food, but in a world where fruits, grains, nuts, and vegetables are in abundance, there is no need to sacrifice or eat animals. Besides, he insisted, the gods consider the products of the soil to be the most beautiful and honorable gifts.

Diogenes Laertius recorded that Theophrastus wrote several books on animals. Theophrastus has been called the “father of ecology.” He conducted the most extensive studies of plants in antiquity. More than any Greek philosopher, Theophrastus understood the difference between plants and animals, especially with regard to conscious awareness and suffering. He taught that piety and justice require us to refrain from harming others whenever we can. And animals can be harmed, whereas plants cannot. He observed that animals are capable of passion, perception and reason.

Humanism was gradually replacing mysticism. During the 1st century BC, Diodorus Siculus wrote his universal history of the world. Dismissing the idea of a golden age, he wrote that the first humans were vegetarians learning to cope with the elements. According to Siculus, humans in the beginning enjoyed neither peace nor bliss. They were brutish, undisciplined, and attacked by wild animals.

Plutarch (45-125 AD) was a Greek priest at Delphi. This gave him access to Greece’s most ancient traditions. Plutarch was one of the few writers in the ancient world to advocate vegetarianism out of compassion for animals without referring to reincarnation. His essay “On Eating Flesh” is a thought-provoking literary classic:

“You ask me upon what grounds Pythagoras abstained from feeding on the flesh of animals,” he began. “I, for my part, marvel of what sort of feeling, mind, or reason that man was possessed who was the first to pollute his mouth with gore and to allow his lips to touch the flesh of a murdered being; who spread his table with the mangled forms of dead bodies, and claimed as his daily food what were but now beings endowed with movement, with perception, and with voice.

“How could his eyes endure the spectacle of the flayed and dismembered limbs? How could his sense of smell endure the horrid stench? How, I ask, was his taste not sickened by contact with festering wounds, with the pollution of corrupted blood and juices?”

Plutarch challenged the flesh-eaters by insisting that if they felt nature had intended them to be predators, they should then kill for themselves what they wish to eat—with their bare hands, unaided by toolmaking or weapons. He also observed that the first man put to death in Athens was the most degraded amongst knaves, but eventually the philosopher Polemarchus (what to speak of Socrates) was put to death as well.

He concluded that killing animals, whether human or otherwise, is a bloodthirsty and savage practice which only serves to incline the mind towards more brutality. His argument appears to link the needless slaughter of animals to capital punishment.

During the 3rd century AD, Porphyry made allusions to the golden age in De Abstentia. Porphyry was a disciple of Plotinus (205-270 AD), a neoplatonic philosopher who was renowned for his wisdom, asceticism, and deep spirituality. Plotinus acknowledged the reality of transmigration of souls and the equality of all living creatures. A celibate vegetarian, he would not consume even medicines which contained animal products.

Like his teacher Plotinus, Porphyry was vegetarian. He wrote De Abstentia, or On Abstinence (From Eating Animal Food) to another disciple, Firmus Castricius, who had abandoned both spiritual life and vegetarianism. Porphyry gave every possible reason why Firmus should remain vegetarian. His work is divided into four separate books, each focusing on a different aspect of vegetarianism.

Porphyry wrote that before animal sacrifice began, the human race abstained from eating animals altogether. (De Abstentia 2:10) Humans originally sacrificed grass. When widespread famine occurred, animals were offered to placate the gods. This was unnecessary. Like the biblical story of Cain and Abel (Hebrews 11:4), the gods are more pleased with the faith of the worshippers than with the object of sacrifice.

Porphyry depicted humanity in a state of gradual decline since the golden age. All sacrifices in the golden age were “simple, pure, and bloodless.” The degeneration of mankind began with the shedding of blood. However, even after men began to kill animals, they still protected animals which were domesticated and working cooperatively with humans. Porphyry wrote that the moral degeneration of man will continue to the point of cannibalism, but go no further. (2:31,53)

According to Porphyry, animals have rights. Animals are our brothers and sisters. Animals have been endowed with life, feelings, ideas, memory, and industry. The only thing animals may be said to lack which sets humans apart from them is the gift of speech. “If they had it,” asked Porphyry, “should we dare to kill and eat them? Should we dare to commit these fratricides?”

Porphyry further observed that, in reality, animals do possess language, which the ancients were said to have understood. The birds and beasts communicate, but men no longer understand their language. Animals not only think, feel, and suffer, they learn to understand human language. Men may not understand foreigners, but that does not make them irrational brutes. Moreover, it is absurd to say animals lack reason when we admit that dogs, elephants, and many other animals can depart from reason—i.e., go mad.

In De Abstentia, Porphyry also dealt with Greek vegetarianism and its relationship to other ancient cultures. He wrote favorably of Egyptian priests, Persian Magi (Zoroastrians), the life of the Spartans as recorded by Lycurgus, the Jews, the Essenes, the brahmana priests of India, the Buddhists, and other traditions where religious vegetarianism has been observed. The Greeks called the holy teachers of India Gymnosophists. Porphyry described the fertile Ganges region as a paradise—as if the golden age still existed in other parts of the world.

Was Jesus an Essene?

2007-02-02T13:21:00.000-06:00

Aside from the Pharisees, the gospels and Book of Acts mention the Sadducees as the only other major school of Judaic thought. The Sadducees tended to be rich, nationalist and secularist.

The Jewish historian Josephus, who lived during the time of Jesus, wrote that the “Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances...which are not written into the laws of Moses and” which “the Sadducees reject,” but they “are able to persuade none but the rich,” whereas “the Pharisees have the multitude on their side.” Thus Jesus never rejected Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17); only its Pharisaic excesses.

Obviously, Jesus was neither Pharisee nor Sadducee. No analysis of the history of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus can ignore the Essenes. The Jewish historian Josephus, who lived during the time of Jesus, wrote that there were but three Jewish sects in his day: the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes. Josephus actually spent time in an Essene monastery and compiled a detailed account of their doctrines and way of life—all of which were quite similar to primitive Christianity.

New Testament scholars such as Bahrdt (1784-1792), Venturini (1800), Gfoerer (1831-38), Hennel (1840) and von der Alm (1863), have all suggested that Jesus may have been an Essene. Modern Jewish theologian Martin Buber suggested Jesus may have been an Essene. The Pharisees and Sadducees appear in the gospels and book of Acts as parties inimical to the new church, but no mention is made of the Essenes. It is quite possible Christianity grew out of Essenism.

Essenism began around 180 BC as a reaction to Hellenistic influence among the Jewish people. They called themselves the Zadokites or the Hasidim (pious). In addition to the canonical books of the Old Testament, they composed and studied their own scriptures, commentaries and prophecies, written between 170 and 60 BC. These scriptures were uncovered by modern archaeology in the Essene monastery at Khirbet-Qumran, west of the Dead Sea. The Essenes flourished until 69 AD, when they were killed by the Romans.

The Essene community called itself by the same name (“Edah”) used by the early Christians to denote the church. The same term used to designate its legislative assembly was also used to denote the council of the early Christian church. There were twelve “men of holiness” serving as general guides for the community—strikingly similar to the twelve apostles. These men had three superiors, designated as pillars of the community—exactly the positions held by John, Peter and James in the early Christian church. (Galatians 2:9)

Both the Essenes and the earliest Christians referred to themselves as “the poor in the world,” “the sons of light” and “the chosen of God who shall judge the nations at the end of time.” The earliest Christians called themselves “the saints,” “the brethren,” “the elect,” “the believers,” “those in Messiah,” “those of the Lord,” “the sons of peace,” “the disciples” and “the poor.” The word most used to refer to Christians in the New Testament is “brethren.” The Manual of Discipline and other Essene texts, found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, indicate that they spoke of each other as “brethren.”

During the Last Supper, Peter motioned to one of the disciples “to ask who it was of whom he (Jesus) spoke.” (John 13:24) This was consistent with the practice of the Essenes when they met together in sessions: “Nor shall a man speak in the midst of the words of his neighbor, before his brother finishes speaking. Neither shall he speak before his proper order.” It appears the disciple next to Jesus held a higher rank in the group than Peter, and was the one posing the question to Jesus.

The Essene monastery communal meal resembles the Last Supper of the New Testament. In both meals, only men participated in a large upper room. (Mark 14:15) In both groups the recognized leader presided over the meal. Lastly, the leader blessed both the bread and the drink. Because of these close parallels, the depiction of the Last Supper more closely resembles the communal meals of the Essenes than it does the Passover meal, which is traditionally a patriarchal family rite in which the father of a family presides.

The epistle of James is regarded as one of the earliest epistles in the New Testament. It is addressed to the twelve Jewish tribes of the Dispersion. Its writer, James the Just, the brother of Jesus (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19), held a leading position at the Church in Jerusalem. (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:13) James (4:5) appears to quote directly from Essene scripture.

He asks, “Do you think that Scripture says in vain, ‘The spirit which God made to dwell in us lusteth to envy?’” The scripture he refers to are not the canonical books of the Old Testament, because such a statement cannot be found in them. However, a similar statement can be found in the Manual of Discipline: “God has made two spirits to dwell in us, each rivaling the other; the evil one lusteth and envies the good.” Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 18:15-17 concern disputes among the brethren. He mentions evidence, witnesses and an already existing church hierarchy. Jesus was quoting a set of Essene rules which can also be found in the Manual of Discipline.

John the Baptist is said to have been raised in the desert from childhood. The Essene monastery was not far from where John supposedly lived. The Essenes were the only Jewish sect with a celibate priesthood, practicing baptism. The Manual of Discipline says they followed Isaiah 40:3, “go to the wilderness to prepare there the way...make level in the desert a path for the Lord.”

This was John’s description of himself, as found in the canonical gospels (John 1:23). “Repent,” he preached, “for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) The Essenes believed they belonged to a “covenant of repentance.” (Zadokite Document) John the Baptist said that one greater than he would baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit. The Manual of Discipline declares that the time would come when God would cleanse man through the Holy Spirit and through His Messiah, God would make His chosen know the Holy Spirit.

Josephus writes that the Essenes adopted children and brought them up in God’s service. According to the gospels, John the Baptist was in the desert from boyhood until the day of his showing in Israel. The gospels are also silent about Jesus’ life from the age of twelve to thirty. Both Jesus and his relative John were about the same age. According to Jewish tradition, a student must reach his thirtieth birthday before he can qualify as a priest or rabbi. Both Jesus and John met this requirement. John, a few months older than Jesus, was the first to preach. Jesus followed shortly thereafter.

The title of “Rabbi” was conferred by the priests of the synagogue or temple. Neither Jesus nor John received this honor from either the Pharisees or the Sadducees. Joesphus mentions only three sects: the Pharisees, Sadducees and the Essenes. (Antiquities G.13,1,2; Antiquities B.13,5,9; Wars of the Jews B.2,8,2)

“Both Mark and Matthew describe the Baptist as eating ‘locusts and wild honey’ (Matthew 3:4; Mark 1:6),” writes Joseph A. Grassi in his 1975 work, Underground Christians in the Earliest Church. “This is the typical diet of a vegetarian who took seriously the injunction in Genesis that God had originally created the plants of the earth as man’s food, and had only reluctantly permitted him later to kill animals for meat. (Genesis 1:29, 9:3) Jesus’ first disciples came from John the Baptist (John 1:35-51; Acts 1:21-22). Jesus was influenced enough by John to be baptized by him.”

The Essenes were vegetarian. One of their earliest scriptural texts, the Zadokite Document proclaims: “Let not a man make himself abominable with any living creature or creeping thing by eating them.”

“Thou hast created plants
for the service of man
and all things that spring from the earth
that he may be fed in abundance
and to them that acknowledge Thy truth
Thou has also given insight
to divine Thy wondrous works.”

---Hymns of the Initiates
X,14 - XI,2

These verses appear to be based on Genesis 1:26-31 and Daniel 1:9-21. Epiphanius, a Christian bishop during the fourth century, wrote that “the Essenes eschewed the flesh of animals.” According to Josephus, “they all sit down together to one sort of food...live the same kind of life as those whom the Greeks call Pythagoreans.”

The French philosopher Voltaire observed, “It is well known that Pythagoras embraced the humane doctrine of anti-flesh-eating. There was a rivalry as to who could be the most virtuous—the Essenes or the Pythagoreans.” Philo of Alexandria wrote, “They live the longest lives...about a hundred years, owing to the simplicity of their diet.” The Roman teacher Porphyry, a vegetarian, also spoke of the Essene meals as a “single simple dish of pure, clean food.” St. Jerome admired the Essenes: “those men who perpetually abstained from meat and wine and had acquired the habit of everyday fasting.”

According to Philo of Alexandria, “Not a single slave is to be found among them, but all are free, exchanging services with each other, and they denounce the owners of slaves...they have shown themselves especially devout in the service to God, not by offering sacrifices of animals, but by resolving to sanctify their minds.” Josephus writes, “they do not offer sacrifices because they have more pure lustrations of their own; on which account they are excluded from the common court of the Temple.”

The Essenes were pacifists. “As for darts, javelins, daggers, or the helmet, breastplate or shield,” Philo explained, “you could not find a single manufacturer of them nor, in general, any person making weapons or engines or plying any industry concerned with war; nor, indeed, any of the peaceful kind which easily lapse into vice.” These descriptions parallel Jesus’ teachings (Matthew 5:9,39,43-44, 26:52) where he blesses the peacemakers, tells his followers to “turn the other cheek” if attacked, to bless and pray for their enemies and to refrain from taking up arms.

“They do not hoard gold and silver,” continues Philo, “but provide what is needed for the necessary requirements of life...they have become moneyless and landless by deliberate action...” Jesus also told his followers to seek the treasures in heaven, calling for the renunciation of earthly possessions and family ties. (Matthew 6:19-21, 6:25-34, 10:34-39, 19:20-21,29; Luke 9:57-62, 14:25-26,33)

The Essenes observed the Sabbath in synagogues and shared their homes and possessions. These were the practices of the apostles and the earliest Christian communities. (Acts 1:13, 2:44,46, 4:32-37) According to Philo, “They are trained in piety, holiness, justice, domestic and civil conduct, knowledge of what is good through the love of God, love of virtue, and love of men. Their love of God they show by a multitude of proofs: by religious purity constant and unbroken throughout their lives, by abstinence from oaths, by veracity...by their freedom from the love of either money or reputation or pleasure; by self-mastery and endurance; again by frugality, simple living, contentment, humility, respect for the law; steadiness and all similar qualities.”

Like the Essenes, Jesus taught his followers not to use oaths (Matthew 5:33-37), to serve God rather than Mammon (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13), and to respect both civil and religious authorities. (Matthew 22:21, 23:1-3) Jesus also emphasized humility and servitude over glory, honor and exaltation. (Matthew 20:24-28; Mark 10:41-45; Luke 9:46-48, 14:7-11, 17:7-10; John 13:3-17)

Josephus wrote that the Essenes faced death calmly and joyfully at the hands of the Romans, knowing “their bodies shall decay and become dust...the souls are immortal, and shall live eternally.” The Essenes, said Josephus, taught that in worldly existence, the soul is chained to the body like a prisoner to his cell, but when set free from the flesh, then “already tasting heavenly bliss, it soars up to the bright kingdom of joy and peace.” (Compare Matthew 13:43)

Around 1830, Thomas de Quincey wrote an essay claiming the Essenes never existed; that Josephus merely mistook early Christians for these godly people. It would be sacreligious, he argued, to accept the existence of such large communities of worshippers, with doctrines and practices identical to those found in Christianity, prior to Jesus’ life and ministry!

No historical evidence proving a relationship between the Essenes and early Christianity has ever been found. The striking similarities between the two faiths, however, strongly suggests that the earliest Christians were influenced by the Essenes. No serious student of Christian thought can ignore the direct influence of Judaism and the possible influence of the Essenes (and the Dead Sea Scrolls) upon the theological development of early Christianity.

2007-02-02T13:13:00.000-06:00

from www.HuffingtonPost.com:

A Few More 'Inconvenient Truths'

The report released today by the world's leading climate scientists made no bones about it: global warming is happening in a big way and it is very likely man-made. So, if we are indeed the bulk of the problem, we ought to step up and start doing things differently. Now.
My last post ("Vegetarian Is the New Prius") got a lot of traction, and I think it's because there is a realization that being "part of the solution" can be a whole lot simpler -and cheaper - than going out and buying a new car.

We can make a huge difference in the environment by eating a plant based diet instead of an animal based one. Factory farming pollutes our air and water, reduces the rainforests, and goes a long way to create global warming. And although the vast majority of responses to the piece were positive, there were some environmentalists for whom the idea of giving up those chicken nuggets was impossible to swallow.

My favorite movie of last year was Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (Al Gore for the Nobel Peace Prize!), but I have to admit that when I speak with environmentalists about the obvious waste and pollution involved in the totally unnecessary activity of meat consumption, I feel a lot like Mr. Gore trying to convince the U.S. Congress to take the issue of global warming seriously during his first term in the Congress. I thought I might discuss a few of the key concerns that were posted to the blog and that my meat-eating friends offer in defense of their continued meat consumption. So here we go:

Some were worried about thriving, physically, on a vegetarian diet.
Now this just does not make sense. Half of all Americans die of heart disease or cancer and two-thirds of us are overweight. The American Dietetic Association says that vegetarians have "lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; ... lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer." Vegetarians, on average, are about one-third as likely to be overweight as meat-eaters.
And I've just learned from the brilliant Dr. Andrew Weil that there is something called arachidonic acid, or AA, in animal flesh which causes inflammation. AA is a pro-inflammatory fatty acid. He explains that "heart disease and Alzheimer's - among many other diseases - begin as inflammatory processes. The same hormonal imbalance that increases inflammation increases cell proliferation and the risk of malignant transformation." They are finding out that inflammation is key in so many of the diseases that plague us. So when you eat meat, you ingest AA, which causes inflammation, which fires up the disease process. It doesn't matter if the chicken is free range or the beef is grass-fed because the fatty acid is natural and inherent in the meat.

As for having strength and energy on a vegetarian diet, some of the world's top athletes are vegetarian. A few examples: Carl Lewis (perhaps the greatest Olympian of all time), Robert Parish (one of the "50 Greatest Players in NBA History"), Desmond Howard (Heisman Trophy winner and Super Bowl MVP), Bill Pearl (professional bodybuilder and four-time "Mr. Universe"), Jack La Lanne (Mr. Fitness himself) and Chris Evert (tennis champion). Vegetarian athletes have the advantage of getting all the plant protein, complex carbohydrates and fiber they need without all the artery-clogging cholesterol and saturated animal fats found in meat that would slow them down. In fact, Carl Lewis says that "my best year of track competition was the first year I ate a vegan diet."

One response pointed out that the rain forest is being cut down to grow soy, not meat.
Actually, much of the rain forest is being chopped down for grazing, but also yes, the rain forest is being chopped down to grow soy--but not for human consumption. Americans and Europeans can't raise all the feed domestically that is needed to sustain their meat addictions, so agribusiness has started cutting down the rain forest. Ask Greenpeace or any other environmental group and they'll tell you that the overwhelming majority of soy (or corn or wheat, for that matter) is used to feed animals in factory farms. In fact, Greenpeace recently unveiled a massive banner over an Amazon soy field that read, "KFC-Amazon Criminal," to accentuate the point that large chicken and other meat companies like KFC are responsible for the destruction of the Amazon. It takes many pounds of soy or other plant foods to produce just 1 pound of animal flesh--so if you're worried about the rain forests being chopped down for grazing or to grow soy, your best move is to stop eating chickens, pigs, and other animals. If more people went vegetarian, we would need far less land to feed people, and we wouldn't have to destroy the few natural places that this world has left.

Some wondered about humane, organic, or kosher meat.Sadly, most of the meat, egg, and dairy companies that pretend to be eco- or animal-friendly, with packages covered in pictures of pretty red barnyards, are basically the same massive corporately owned factory-farms but with a newly hired advertising consultant. In fact, labels like "Swine Welfare" and "UEP Certified" are simply the industry labels that attempt to hide the horrible abuse involved in these products' production. And even "organic" farms are industrializing in ways that shock the journalists who bother to investigate. Sadly, "kosher" means nothing when it comes to how animals are treated on farms, and the largest kosher slaughterhouse in North America was caught horribly abusing animals--ripping the tracheas out of live cows' throats and worse--and defending the abuse as kosher.

All that said, it's undeniable that the rare meat-eater who limits him- or herself to a bit of grass-fed cattle flesh on occasion is making a much smaller environmental impact than the vast majority of Americans. But when you consider that no reputable scientific or medical body believes that eating animals is good for us, let alone necessary, one has to wonder about environmentalists who insist on consuming products that we know to be resource-intensive and polluting (even if they're less resource intensive and polluting than some other similar options or eaten in "moderation"). It'd be like driving an SUV that gets 15 mpg rather than 10, or driving an SUV three days per week instead of seven. Sure, it might be better for the environment, but with so many more fuel-efficient ways to get from A to B, there's no need to drive any SUV at all. Eating meat--any meat--is the same thing: With so many healthy vegetarian options that are kinder and far more eco-friendly than even the "best" meat products, there's just no good justification for someone who claims to be an environmentalist--or to oppose cruelty--for doing it.

Some worry about 'preachy' or 'judgmental' or 'extreme' vegetarians.
And some consider the very choice to be a vegetarian to be extreme. Although I certainly don't like radical-in-your-face messages, the truth is that sometimes it's the only thing that seems to wrench us out of our slumber. I know it worked with me when I saw one of the slaughterhouse videos--definitely not pleasant, but it got my attention.

The very nature of progressive movements throughout history is to tell others to stop doing something harmful or degrading (e.g., using humans as slaves, sexually harassing women, forcing children to work in sweatshops, harming the environment, etc). Yes, the abolitionists, suffragists, feminists, and civil rights activists were called extreme, and similarly, some vegetarians are called extreme. But maybe it's just because vegetarianism is not yet a cultural norm. Old habits - and appetites - die hard, and there is usually a lot of resistance before things change. I'm a southern gal and I loved my chicken fried steak like no other. I didn't want to give up the joys of Sunday BBQ or chicken wings with my friends on a Friday night. I get it; I understand. But still, if we are to continue evolving - physically, emotionally, and spiritually -we really do have to look at how our dinner choices affect not only the environment, but even more importantly, the well-being (or intense suffering) of other creatures. So yes, on the one hand, the move to eating a plant based diet may look extreme because most people don't do it. But on the other hand, we can still have our BBQ (soy dogs and veggie burgers) and feel good about it.
I do feel strongly that vegetarians should not play into the self righteous stereotypes, that we should not be shrill or judgmental, of course, but that doesn't require silence; it simply requires patience and decorum.

A few people asked about meat in the developing world, or meat for Eskimos or Inuit.
If you are an Eskimo or you're living in sub-Saharan Africa and you're reading this blog, I'm not going to begrudge you your pound of flesh; it would be silly of me to do so. But if you're reading this in a developed country where almost all animals are eating animal feed rather than grazing, are factory-farmed rather than living with families or hunted, and you have abundant vegetarian options all around you, talk of people who have limited food options doesn't apply to you.

Some people worried that it's hard to be a vegetarian.
Being vegetarian isn't exactly the supreme sacrifice―surfing around the food pics on any vegetarian cooking site will show you that. Vegetarian and vegan food is everywhere (even Burger King has a veggie burger!). Most, if not all, major grocery stores carry soy milk, mock meats ("chicken" nuggets, BBQ "ribs," burgers, soy "sausage," etc.), vegan cheeses, and soy ice cream. If you can't find what you want at the store, most will order it for you. Many restaurants have veggie options a-plenty (especially Thai, Indian, Ethiopian, Mexican, and other ethnic restaurants--which are my favorite anyway). Sure, some vegetarians may prefer not to eat food that was cooked on the same grill as meat, but I'm not concerned about that (it does not cause more animals to suffer or more environmental harm). You can find great vegetarian recipes at www.VegCooking.com.

Although not responses to my "New Prius" post, I'd also like to address the top five most common things that I hear from meat-eaters regarding their meat consumption:

Number five: 'Humans have always eaten animals--it's natural.'First, our evolution in human morality is marked almost entirely by our attempt to move beyond the "might makes right" law of the jungle. It may indeed be "natural" for the powerful to dominate the weak--but that doesn't mean we should support it.

Second, human bodies aren't meant to eat meat. It's always seemed strange to me that we're the only species on Earth that has to cook flesh in order to eat it without getting sick. Look at our bodies: We're just not meant to eat flesh. Like all herbivores, almost all of our teeth are flat and blunt (the mouths of carnivores and omnivores are full of sharp incisors). Like all herbivores, our intestines are looooong (carnivores and omnivores have short intestines so they can get the rotting flesh they eat out quickly). We don't have sharp claws to seize and hold down prey. The list goes on. We may have had a need to eat meat thousands of years ago, in times of scarcity as hunter-gatherers, but we don't need to now, and we'll be better off if we don't. Dr William C. Roberts, M.D., editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, says, "Although we think we are one, and we act as if we are one, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us, because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores." Check out this essay by Dr. Milton Mills for more information on the issue of whether the human physiology is designed for meat consumption.

Most critically, the people who say this generally use it to justify buying the same old meat that comes from giant, wholly unnatural factory farms where animals are crammed into filthy sheds or cages and not allowed to do anything natural to them--at all, ever (breathe fresh air, bask in the sun, raise their young, dustbathe, form social orders, etc.). Chickens in the egg industry have half their beaks cut off, piglets in the pork industry have their tails cut off, etc. (please take 10 minutes to watch the video at www.Meat.org). This is how 99 percent of chickens and turkeys, 95 percent of pigs and eggs, and most cow flesh and dairy products end up on our plates.
Lastly, if you care so much about being "natural," then think for a moment about the harm that you're doing to your natural environment by eating meat--any meat. At the end of the day, for me, we don't need to eat meat, we'll be better off without it, and it causes animals to suffer.

Number four: 'Animals are not equal to humans, so we should not be so concerned about them.'
I disagree with Princeton Professor Peter Singer on many issues, but on this one I think he gets it precisely right. Writes Dr. Singer, "[W]hen non-vegetarians say that 'human problems come first,' I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for human beings that compels them to continue to support the wasteful, ruthless exploitation of farm animals." Which is to say: Fine, don't spend any time at all on animal issues, but please don't pay other people to abuse animals, which is what you are doing when you buy chicken, pork, or other animal products. And remember: A vegetarian diet is also the best diet for the planet, so eat as though the planet depended on it, since it just might.

Number three: 'There have been many brilliant meat-eaters, like Picasso and Mozart, so they could not have been wrong.'
I highly doubt that anyone is going to suggest that vegetarians Steve Jobs, Leonardo da Vinci, Pythagoras, Albert Einstein, Leo Tolstoy, or Mohandas Gandhi were especially brilliant because they were vegetarians, and I also don't think one can make the argument that meat-eaters attained their great heights as a result of their diet. Interestingly, studies show that vegetarians are smarter than meat-eaters, but there is probably not causality there--it's probably just that thoughtful people tend to question things more deeply, hence the decision to become vegetarian. Here's a 2006 study from the British Medical Journal about vegetarians being smarter than meat-eaters.

Number two: 'Where do you draw the line? Should we protect insects? What's the difference between killing plants and killing animals? They're all alive.'
The theologian and Narnia inventor C.S. Lewis staunchly opposed testing on animals on Christian grounds, and he pointed out to those who asked this question that the question is baseless--they already know and understand the differences between plants and animals. To whit, every reader will recoil in horror if asked to imagine lighting a cat on fire or beating a dog's head in with a baseball bat--because we know that these things cause the animals pain. But none of us feels similarly at the prospect of pulling weeds or mowing our lawn--because we know that weeds and lawns have no capacity to feel pain. Chickens, pigs, fish, and cattle all feel pain in the same way and to the same degree as any dog or cat. Just watch their faces and their body language in these undercover videos; listen to their animal versions of screaming. I assure you, grass does not suffer like these poor creatures do.

I'm not so sure about insects, though I try to give them the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. Yes, when I walk down the street, I'm sure I step on bugs. But does the fact that I can't stop all cruelty mean that I shouldn't bother to stop a lot of it? Of course not. That'd be like saying that if you drive a car, you shouldn't even bother to recycle.

And the number one justification for eating meat is: 'Meat won't kill me, and I like it.'
No question―this is the crux of it all, the only purely honest answer if you ask me. Sure enough, unless you get really bad food poisoning from your next piece of undercooked chicken or choke to death on a piece of steak, meat won't kill you right away. But chances are pretty good that eating meat could reduce your life span (and quality) in the long run. I imagine the fact that we're not designed to eat meat (as I discussed above) may explain the fact that the American Dietetic Association (the overarching group of nutrition researchers, doctors, etc.) says that vegetarians have lower rates of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and obesity than do meat-eaters. Some argue that for every study, there's another that says the opposite, but that's simply not so in this case--there isn't a single reputable scientific or medical body that disagrees with the simple fact that vegetarians are a fraction as likely to be overweight and much less likely to suffer from heart disease and cancer. Really, even if I didn't give a hoot about animal suffering or environmental degradation, I would still be vegetarian because the diet is the best diet for my health. And as noted, eating meat does support cruelty to animals and environmental degradation, all for the sake of a palate preference (which, by the way, can be largely satisfied by the luscious faux meat options out there).

Concluding thoughts:
One thing about being a vegetarian that is often missed is how empowering it is. Personally, I think that integrity of action requires that among other things, we attempt to lead lives that are as compassionate and conscious as possible. What this means to me, personally, is that if there is something that I would not want to do myself, I don't feel good paying someone else to do it on my behalf. So I don't inflict suffering or kill animals myself; and I don't support the market of killing by buying these poor animals chopped up and shrink-wrapped in the grocery store either.
We are a nation of animal lovers, and we all cringe in horror when we hear about cases like a dog being burned alive or tossed into freeway traffic. But chickens and pigs and other animals also deserve our compassion. They are all smart animals who feel pain and fear, yet they are treated just horribly, and sadly, there are no laws to protect them. Don't take my word for it, watch Alec Baldwin's "Meet Your Meat" and see for yourself what goes on.

We oppose sweatshops and child labor, and we cringe at the thought of children laboring in developing countries. But American slaughterhouses are sweatshops. They employ people working illegally who can't defend themselves out of fear of being deported. Conditions in these places are so bad that the average annual turnover rate for slaughter-line workers is out of sight. Check out the Web site of this labor organization to learn about its fight against Smithfield Foods (the world's largest pork and turkey producer--it owns Butterball).

We are environmentalists, and we cringe when see a bright yellow Hummer in the grocery store parking lot. But as bad as the amount of fuel that a Hummer uses or the amount of greenhouse gasses that it emits is, if we're eating meat, we're making a conscious decision that is even more wasteful and polluting. In addition to my "New Prius" piece, check out this E magazine article by the magazine's editor, "The Case Against Meat," or this Grist.com article, "How Poultry Producers Are Ravaging the Rural South," as just a few examples.

Americans and Europeans eat meat because we want to, not because we have to. And we do it at the expense of animals, people, and the environment.

This may be inconvenient, but I am convinced that it's the truth.

animals have souls

2007-01-31T21:23:00.000-06:00

One widespread rationalization in Christian circles, often used to justify humanity’s mistreatment of animals, is the erroneous belief that humans alone possess immortal souls, and only humans, therefore, are worthy of moral consideration. The 19th century German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, condemned such a philosophy in his On the Basis of Morality.

“Because Christian morality leaves animals out of account,” wrote Schopenhauer, “they are at once outlawed in philosophical morals; they are mere ‘things,’ mere means to any ends whatsoever. They can therefore be used for vivisection, hunting, coursing, bullfights, and horse racing, and can be whipped to death as they struggle along with heavy carts of stone. Shame on such a morality that is worthy of pariahs, and that fails to recognize the eternal essence that exists in every living thing, and shines forth with inscrutable significance from all eyes that see the sun!”

According to the Bible, animals have souls. Texts such as Genesis 1:21,24 are often mistranslated to read “living creatures.” The exact Hebrew used in reference to animals throughout the Bible is “nephesh chayah,” or “living soul.” This is how the phrase has been translated in Genesis 2:7 and in four hundred other places in the Old Testament. Thus, Genesis 1:30 should more accurately read: “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, I have given every green herb for meat.”

God breathed the “breath of life” into man, and caused him to become a living soul. (Genesis 2:7) Animals have the same “breath of life” as do humans. (Genesis 7:15, 22) Numbers 16:22 refers to the Lord as “the God of spirits of all flesh.” In Numbers 31:28, God commands Moses to divide up among the people the cattle, sheep, asses and human prisoners captured in battle and to give to the Lord “one soul of five hundred” of both humans and animals alike. Psalm 104 says God provides for animals and their ensoulment.

“O Lord, how innumerable are Thy works; in
wisdom Thou hast made them all! The earth is
full of Thy well-made creations. All these look to
Thee to furnish their timely feed. When Thou
providest for them, they gather it. Thou openest
Thy hand, and they are satisfied with good things.
When Thou hidest Thy face, they are struck with
despair. When Thou cuttest off their breath, in
death they return to their dust. Thou sendest
Thy Spirit and more are created, and Thou dost
replenish the surface of the earth.”

Similarly, the apocryphal Book of Judith praises God, saying, “Let every creature serve You, for You spoke and they were made. You sent forth Your Spirit and they were created.” Job 12:10 teaches that in God’s hand “is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.”

Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 says humans have no advantage over animals: “They all draw the same breath...all came from the dust, and to dust all return.”

The verse that immediately follows asks, “Who knows if the spirit of man goes upward, and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?” The exact Hebrew word for “spirit,” “ruach,” is used in connection with animals as well as humans. Ecclesiastes 12:7 concludes that “the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”

This position was taken by Paul, who called himself an apostle to the gentiles. Paul spoke of God as the “giver of life and breath and all things to everyone.” (Acts 17:25) In his epistle to the Romans 8:18-25, Paul wrote that the entire creation, and not just mankind, is awaiting redemption.

Revelations 16:3 also refers to the souls of animals: “The second angel poured out his bowl upon the sea, so that it turned to blood as of a corpse, and every living soul that was in the sea died.” The exact Greek word for soul, “psyche,” was used in the original texts.

English theologian Joseph Butler (1692-1752), a contemporary of John Wesley’s, was born in a Presbyterian family, joined the Church of England, and eventually became a bishop and dean of St. Paul’s. In his 1736 work, The Analogy of Religion, Bishop Butler became one of the first clergymen to teach the immortality of animal souls. “Neither can we find anything in the whole analogy of Nature to afford even the slightest presumption that animals ever lose their living powers, much less that they lose them by death,” he wrote.

The Reverend John George Wood (1827-89) was an eloquent and prolific writer on the subject of animals. A popular lecturer on the subject of natural history, he wrote several books as well, such as My Feathered Friends and Man and Beast—Here and Hereafter. Wood believed most people were cruel to animals because they were unaware that the creatures possessed immortal souls and would enjoy eternal life.

One of the most scholarly studies on the issue of animal souls was undertaken by Elijah D. Buckner in his 1903 book The Immortality of Animals. He concluded: “...The Bible, without the shadow of a doubt, recognizes that animals have living souls the same as man. Most of the quotations given are represented as having been spoken by the Creator Himself, and he certainly knows whether or not He gave to man and lower animals alike a living soul, which of course means an immortal soul.”

Influenced by Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, the Church of Rome maintains that animals lack souls or divinity, even though such a doctrine contradicts many biblical passages. Previously, during the Synod of Macon (585 AD), the Church had debated whether or not women have souls! Women in the Western world (and in the East the situation is much worse) are finally being recognized as persons in every sense of the word—social, political and spiritual. Animals have yet to be given the same kind of moral consideration.

Pope Innocent VIII of the Renaissance required that when witches were burned, their cats be burned with them; Pope Pius IX of the 19th century forbade the formation of an SPCA in Rome, declaring humans had no duty to animals; Pope Pius XII of World War II stated that when animals are killed in slaughterhouses or laboratories, “...their cries should not arouse unreasonable compassion any more than do red-hot metals undergoing the blows of the hammer;” and Pope Paul VI in 1972, by blessing a batallion of Spanish bullfighters, became the first Pope to bestow his benediction upon one cruelty even the Church had condemned.

In Christianity and the Rights of Animals, the Reverend Andrew Linzey responds to the widespread Christian misconception that animals have no souls by taking it to its logical conclusion:

“But let us suppose for a moment that it could be shown that animals lack immortal souls, does it follow that their moral status is correspondingly weakened? It is difficult to see in what sense it could be. If animals are not to be recompensated with an eternal life, how much more difficult must it be to justify their temporal sufferings?

“If, for an animal, this life is all that he can have, the moral gravity of any premature termination is thereby increased rather than lessened...In short, if we invoke the traditional argument against animals based on soullessness, we are not exonerated from the need for proper moral justification.

“Indeed, if the traditional view is upheld, the question has to be: How far can any proposed aim justify to the animal concerned what would seem to be a greater deprivation or injury than if the same were inflicted on a human being?”

“Mark Twain remarked long ago that human beings have a lot to learn from the Higher Animals,” writes Unitarian minister Gary Kowalski, in his 1991 book, The Souls of Animals. “Just because they haven’t invented static cling, ICBM’s, or television evangelists doesn’t mean they aren’t spiritually evolved.”

Kowalski’s definition of “spiritually evolved” includes “the development of a moral sense, the appreciation of beauty, the capacity for creativity, and the awareness of one’s self within a larger universe as well as a sense of mystery and wonder about it all. These are the most precious gifts we possess...

“I am a parish minister by vocation,” Kowalski explains. “My work involves the intangible and perhaps undefinable realm of spirit. I pray with the dying and counsel the bereaved. I take part in the joy of parents christening their newborns and welcoming fresh life into the world.

“I occasionally help people think through moral quandaries and make ethical decisions, and I also share a responsibility for educating the young, helping them realize their inborn potential for reverence and compassion. Week after week I stand before my congregation and try to talk about the greatest riddles of human existence. In recent years, however, I have become aware that human beings are not the only animals on this planet that participate in affairs of the spirit.”

Kowalski notes that animals are aware of death. They have a sense of their own mortality, and grieve at the loss of companions. Animals possess language, musical abilities, a sense of the mysterious, creativity and playfulness. Animals possess a sense of right and wrong; they are capable of fidelity, altruism, and even self-sacrifice.

“Animals, like us, are microcosms,” says Kowalski. “They too care and have feelings; they too dream and create; they too are adventuresome and curious about their world. They too reflect the glory of the whole.

“Can we open our hearts to the animals? Can we greet them as our soul mates, beings like ourselves who possess dignity and depth? To do so, we must learn to revere and respect the creatures, who, like us, are a part of God’s beloved creation, and to cherish the amazing planet that sustains our mutual existence.

“Animals,” Kowalski concludes, “are living souls. They are not things. They are not objects. Neither are they human. Yet they mourn. They love. They dance. They suffer. They know the peaks and chasms of being.”

animal liberation theology, part 4

2007-01-28T14:21:00.000-06:00

In a sermon preached in York Minster, September 28, 1986, John Austin Baker, the Bishop of Salisbury, England, attacked “factory farming”--the overcrowded confinement methods of raising and killing animals for food, choosing as his example, the treatment of chickens.

“Is there any credit balance for the battery hen, denied almost all natural functioning, all normal environment, lapsing steadily into deformity and disease, for the whole of her existence?” he asked. “It is in the battery shed and the broiler house, not in the wild, that we find the true parallel to Auschwitz. Auschwitz is a purely human invention.”

On another occasion, Bishop Baker taught: “By far the most important duty of all Christians in the cause of animal welfare is to cultivate this capacity to see; to see things with the heart of God, and so to suffer with other creatures.”

On World Prayer Day for Animals, October 4, 1986, Bishop Baker preached against indifference to animal pain and lauded the animal welfare movement: “To shut your mind, heart, imagination to the sufferings of others is to begin slowly but inexorably to die. It is to cease by inches from being human, to become in the end capable of nothing generous or unselfish—or sometimes capable of anything, however terrible. You in the animal welfare movement are among those who may yet save our society from becoming spiritually deaf, blind and dead, and so from the doom that will justly follow...”

According to Bishop Baker: “...Rights, whether animal or human, have only one sure foundation: that God loves us all and rejoices in us all. We humans are called to share with God in fulfilling the work of love toward all creatures...the true glory of the strong is to give themselves for the cherishing of the weak.”

In a 1989 article entitled, “Re-examining the Christian Scriptures,” Rick Dunkerly of Christ Lutheran Church notes that, “Beginning with the Old Testament, animals are mentioned and included everywhere...and in significant areas.”

According to Dunkerly, God’s solution to the problem of human loneliness “was to bring the animals to the man for personalized naming and for a restorative, unconditional, and loving relationship with them all. Animals are specifically included in the covenant given by God to Noah in the aftermath of the Flood, with God as the sole contracting party.

“Animals portray Jesus Christ in the covenant with Abraham: Three animals are included as the intermediary. Each animal is a willing servant of man and each was to be three years old; the same duration as the earthly ministry of the Messiah.”

Dunkerly cites Romans 8:18-25, which describes the entire creation awaiting redemption:

“What Saint Paul is saying in the Romans 8 passage is that the death of Jesus upon the cross not only redeems every human being who willingly appropriates it unto him/herself, it also redeemed the entire creation as well, including the animals who were subjugated to the Adamic curse without choice on their part...each element of the ancient Curse would be reversed...Satan would be denied all aspects of victory.

“In light of this,” he concludes, “...the Bible-believing Christian, should, of all people, be on the frontline in the struggle for animal welfare and rights. We who are Christians should be treating the animal creation now as it will be treated then, at Christ’s second coming. It will not now be perfect, but it must be substantial, otherwise we have missed our calling, and we grieve the One we call ‘Lord,’ who was born in a stable surrounded by animals simply because He chose it that way.” Dunkerly teaches Bible studies at his home church and is actively involved in animal rescue projects.

In a 1991 article entitled “Hunting: What Scripture Says,” Rick Dunkerly observes:

“There are four hunters mentioned in the Bible: three in Genesis and one in Revelation. The first hunter is named Nimrod in Genesis 10:8-9. He is the son of Cush and founder of the Babylonian Empire, the empire that opposes God throughout Scripture and is destroyed in the Book of Revelation. In Micah 5:6, God’s enemies are said to dwell in the land of Nimrod. Many highly reputable evangelical scholars such as Barnhouse, Pink and Scofield regard Nimrod as a prototype of the anti-Christ.

“The second hunter is Ishmael, Abraham’s ‘son of the flesh’ by the handmaiden, Hagar. His birth is covered in Genesis 16 and his occupation in 21:20. Ishmael’s unfavorable standing in Scripture is amplified by Paul in Galatians 4:22-31.

“The third hunter, Esau, is also mentioned in the New Testament. His occupation is contrasted with his brother (Jacob) in Genesis 25:27. In Hebrews 12:16 he is equated with a ‘profane person’ (KJV). He is a model of a person without faith in God. Again, Paul elucidates upon this model unfavorably in Romans 9:8-13, ending with the paraphrase of Malachi 1:2-3: ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.’

“The fourth hunter is found in Revelation 6:2, the rider of the white horse with the hunting bow. Scholars have also identified him as the so-called anti-Christ. Taken as a group, then, hunters fare poorly in the Bible. Two model God’s adversary and two model the person who lives his life without God.

“In Scripture,” notes Dunkerly, “the contrast of the hunter is the shepherd, the man who gently tends his animals and knows them fully. The shepherds of the Bible are Abel, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and David. Beginning in the 23rd Psalm, Jesus is identified as ‘the Good Shepherd.’

“As for hunting itself, both the Psalms and Proverbs frequently identify it with the hunter of souls, Satan. His devices are often called ‘traps’ and ‘snares,’ his victims ‘prey.’ Thus, in examining a biblical stance on the issue of hunting, we see the context is always negative, always dark in contrast to light...premeditated killing, death, harm, destruction. All of these are ramifications of the Fall. When Christ returns, all of these things will be ended...

“Of all people,” Dunkerly concludes, “Christians should not be the destroyers. We should be the healers and reconcilers. We must show NOW how it will be THEN in the Peaceable Kingdom of Isaiah 11:6 where ‘the wolf shall lie down with the lamb...and a little child shall lead them.’ We can begin now within our homes and churches by teaching our children respect and love for all of God’s creation...”

animal liberation theology, part 3

2007-01-26T00:22:00.000-06:00

1991 marked the publication (in England) of Using the Bible Today, a collection of essays by distinguished clergy, theologians, and Christian writers on the relevance of the Bible to contemporary issues such as ecology, human suffering, animal rights, the inner city, war and psychology. An essay by the Reverend Andrew Linzey, “The Bible and Killing for Food” makes the following observations:

“...we have first of all to appreciate that those who made up the community whose spokesperson wrote Genesis 1 were not themselves vegetarian. Few appreciate that Genesis 1 and 2 are themselves the products of much later reflection by the biblical writers themselves. How is it then that the very people who were not themselves vegetarian imagined a beginning of time when all who lived were vegetarian by divine command?

“To appreciate this perspective we need to recall the major elements of the first creation saga. God creates a world of great diversity and fertility. Every living creature is given life and space (Genesis 1:9-10, 24-25). Earth to live on and blessing to enable life itself (1:22). Living creatures are pronounced good (1:25). Humans are made in God’s image (1:27) given dominion (1:26-29), and then prescribed a vegetarian diet (1:29-30). God then pronounces that everything was ‘very good’ (1:31). Together the whole creation rests on the Sabbath with God (2:2-3).

“When examined in this way, we should see immediately that Genesis 1 describes a state of paradisal existence. There is no hint of violence between or among different species. Dominion, so often interpreted as justifying killing, actually precedes the command to be vegetarian. Herb-eating dominion is hardly a license for tyranny. The answer seems to be that even though the early Hebrews were neither pacifists nor vegetarians, they were deeply convinced of the view that violence between humans and animals, and indeed between animal species themselves, was not God’s original will for creation.

“But if this is true, how are we to reconcile Genesis 1 with Genesis 9, the vision of original peacefulness with the apparent legitimacy of killing for food? The answer seems to be that as the Hebrews began to construct the story of early human beginnings, they were struck by the prevalence and enormity of human wickedness.

“The stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah and his descendants are all testimonies to the inability of humankind to fulfill the providential purposes of God in creation. The issue is made explicit in the story of Noah: Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. And God said to Noah, ‘ I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them.’” (Genesis 6:11-14)

“The radical message of the Noah story (so often overlooked by commentators) is that God would rather not have us be at all if we must be violent. It is violence itself within every part of creation that is the pre-eminent mark of corruption and sinfulness. It is not for nothing that God concludes: ‘I am sorry that I have made them.’ (Genesis 6:7)

“It is in this context—subsequent to the Fall and the Flood—that we need to understand the permission to kill for food in Genesis 9. It reflects entirely the situation of the biblical writers at the time they were writing. Killing—of both humans as well as animals—was simply inevitable given the world as it is and human nature as it is. Corruption and wickedness had made a mess of God’s highest hopes for creation. There just had to be some accommodation to human sinfulness...

“For many students of the Bible this seems to have settled the matter of whether humans can be justified in killing animals for food. In the end, it has been thought, God allows it. And there can be no doubt that throughout the centuries this view has prevailed. Meat eating has become the norm. Vegetarians, especially Christian vegetarians, have survived from century to century to find themselves a rather beleaguered minority.”

Reverend Linzey explains, however, that the permission to kill for food given in Genesis 9 is far from unconditional or absolute—it carries with it the prohibition against consuming the blood of a slain creature.

“At first sight these qualificatory lines might be seen as obliterating the permission itself. After all, who can take animal life without the shedding of blood? Who can kill without the taking of blood, that is the life itself? In asking these questions we move to the heart of the problem. For the early Hebrews life was symbolized by, and even constituted by, blood itself. To kill was to take blood. And yet it is precisely this permission which is denied.

“...Rereading these verses in the light of their original context should go rather like this: The world in which you live has been corrupted. And yet God has not given up on you. God has signified a new relationship—a covenant with you—despite all your violence and unworthiness...What was previously forbidden can now—in the present circumstances—be allowed. You may kill for food. But you may kill only on the understanding that you remember that the life you kill is not your own—it belongs to God. You must not misappropriate what is not your own. As you kill what is not your own—either animal or human life—so you need to remember that for every life you kill you are personally accountable to God.”

Linzey studies the messianic prophecies concerning the future Kingdom of Peace: “It seems...while the early Hebrews were neither vegetarians nor pacifists, the ideal of the peaceable kingdom was never lost sight of. In the end, it was believed, the world would one day be restored according to God’s original will for all creation...we have no biblical warrant for claiming killing as God’s will. God’s will is for peace.

“We need to remember that even though Genesis 9 gives permission to kill for food it does so only on the basis that we do not misappropriate God-given life. Genesis 9 posits divine reckoning for the life of every beast taken under this new dispensation (9:5).”

Linzey concludes his essay by examining the current trends in vegetarianism and animal rights in contemporary society: “...it often comes as a surprise for Christians to realize that the modern vegetarian movement was strongly biblical in origin. Inspired by the original command in Genesis 1, an Anglican priest...founded the Bible Christian Church in 1809 and made vegetarianism compulsory among its members. The founding of this Church in the United Kingdom and its sister Church in the United States by William Metcalfe, effectively heralded the beginning of the modern vegetarian movement.”

Reverend Linzey further elaborates upon themes discussed in Christianity and the Rights of Animals in his 1991 paper “The Moral Priority of the Weak: The Theological Basis of Animal Liberation.”

Linzey agrees with Australian philosopher Peter Singer that there are no morally relevant differences between humans and animals, and asks: “What is the theological insight that makes Christians claim humans as superior or as possessing special status? In what does this specific value of humans consist?

“...any decent theological insight must be grounded in God and in particular God’s attitude towards creation. And that insight can properly be summed up in one word: generosity. The special value of humankind consists wholly and exclusively in the generosity of God, Creator, Reconciler and Redeemer. This idea is of course a perennial theme throughout the Old and New Testaments, is found consistently in the work of the Fathers, and reaches its richest expression in the theology of Karl Barth.”

Linzey observes that “here is a God supreme above all who in Christ humbles himself to identify with and suffer for the weakly and frail creature...if it is true that this paradigm of generous costly service is at the heart of the Christian proclamation then it must also be the paradigm for the exercise of human dominion over the animal world. We do well to remind ourselves of that ethical imperative arising from early Christian reflection upon the work and person of Jesus:

“Take to heart among yourselves what you find in
Christ Jesus: He was in the form of God; yet he
laid no claim to equality with God, but made
himself nothing, assuming the form of a slave.

“Bearing the human likeness, sharing the human
lot, he humbled himself, and was obedient even
to the point of death, death on a cross.”

---Philippians 2:5-9

“If we ‘take to heart’ this paradigm of generosity we can perceive moral meaning in our relationship of power over the nonhuman creation...The obligation is always and everywhere on the ‘higher’ to sacrifice for the ‘lower’; for the strong, powerful and rich to give to those who are vulnerable, poor or powerless. This is not some by-theme of the moral example of Jesus, it is rather central to the demands of the kingdom, indeed those who minister to the needs of the vulnerable and the weak minister to Christ himself:

“I was hungry and you gave me food, I
was thirsty and you gave me drink, I
was naked and you clothed me, I was
sick and you visited me. I was in
prison and you came to me.”

---Matthew 25:35-37

“In this respect, it is the sheer vulnerability and powerlessness of animals, and correspondingly our absolute power over them which strengthens and compels the response of moral generosity. I suggest that we are to be present to creation as Christ is present to us. When we speak of human superiority, we speak of such a thing properly only and insofar as we speak of not only Christlike lordship but also Christlike service. There can be no lordship without service and no service without lordship. Our special value in creation consists in being of special value to others.”

“We do not know how to celebrate, rejoice, and give thanks for the beautiful world God has made,” wrote the Reverend Dr. Andrew Linzey in 1992. “If we treat it as trash it is because so many of us still imagine the world as just that. For too long Christian churches have colluded in a doctrine that the earth is half-evil, or unworthy, or—most ludicrous of all—‘unspiritual.’

“The Church needs to teach reverence for life as a major aspect of Christian ethics...So much of Christian ethics is pathetically narrow and absurdly individualistic... One of the major problems with St. Francis...is that the Church has not taken any practical notice of him. St. Francis preached a doctrine of self-renunciation, whereas the Church today remains concerned with its own respectability. St. Francis lived a life of poverty, whereas the modern Church is as ever concerned about money. St. Francis, like Jesus, associated with the outcasts and the lepers, whereas the Church today consists predominately of the middle class.”

Linzey cites Paul’s epistle to the Romans, which describes the creation itself in a state of childbirth. “The creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.” According to the Christian scheme of things, Linzey explains, “the world is going somewhere. It is not destined for eternal, endless suffering and pain. It has a destiny. Like us, it is not born to die eternally.

“The fundamental thing to grasp,” Linzey declares, “is that we have responsibility to cooperate with God in the creation of a new world.” Linzey quotes St. Isaac the Syrian’s response to the question, “What is a charitable heart?”

“It is a heart which is burning with love
for the whole creation, for men, for the
birds, for the animals...for all creatures.

“He who has such a heart cannot see, or call
to mind, a creature without his eyes being
filled with tears by reason of the immense
compassion which seizes his heart; a heart
which is softened and can no longer bear
to see or learn from others of any suffering,
even the smallest pain, being inflicted upon
any creature.

“That is why such a man never ceases to pray
also for the animals...He will pray even for
the reptiles, moved by an infinite pity which
reigns in the hearts of those who are becoming
united with God.”

“I believe then that the Church must wake up to a new kind of ministry,” Linzey concludes, “not just to Christians or to human beings, but to the whole world of suffering creatures. It must be our human, Christian task to heal the suffering in the world.”

Linzey notes that “humans are made in the image of God, given dominion, and then told to follow a vegetarian diet (Genesis 1:29). Herb-eating dominion is not despotism.” However, Linzey acknowledges the need for a new theology, an animal liberation theology, which would revolutionize our understanding of humanity’s place in creation and relationship to other species, just as the Copernican picture of a sun-centered universe replaced the earth-centered picture.

“We need a concept of ourselves in the universe not as the master species but as the servant species—as the one given responsibility for the whole and the good of the whole. We must move from the idea that animals were given to us and made for us, to the idea that we were made for creation, to serve it and ensure its continuance. This actually is little more than the theology of Genesis chapter two. The Garden is made beautiful and abounds with life: humans are created specifically to ‘take care of it.’ (Genesis 2:15)

“A great wickedness of the Christian tradition,” observes Reverend Linzey, “is that, at this very point, where it could have been a source of great blessing and life; it has turned out to be a source of cursing and death. I refer here to the way Christian theology has allowed itself to promulgate notions that animals have no rights; that they are put here for our use; that animals have no more moral status than sticks and stones.

“Animal rights in this sense is a religious problem. It is about how the Christian tradition in particular has failed to realize the God-given rights of God-given life. Animal rights remains an urgent question of theology.

“Every year,” says Dr. Linzey, “I receive hundreds of anguished letters from Christians who are so distressed by the insensitivity to animals shown by mainstream churches that they have left them or on the verge of doing so. Of course, I understand why they have left the churches and in this matter, as in all else, conscience can be the only guide. But if all the Christians committed to animal rights leave the church, where will that leave the churches?

“The time is long overdue to take the issue of animal rights to the churches with renewed vigor. I don’t pretend it’s easy but I do think it’s essential—not, I add, because the churches are some of the best institutions in society but rather because they are some of the worst. The more the churches are allowed to be left to one side in the struggle for animal rights, the more they will remain forever on the other side.

“I derive hope from the Gospel preaching,” Linzey concludes, “that the same God who draws us to such affinity and intimacy with suffering creatures declared that reality on a Cross in Calvary. Unless all Christian preaching has been utterly mistaken, the God who becomes incarnate and crucified is the one who has taken the side of the oppressed and the suffering of the world—however the churches may actually behave.”

Vegetarianism is the New Prius, by Kathy Freston

2007-01-21T15:57:00.000-06:00

Check the full piece out at www.CommonDreams.org.

Vegetarian is the New Prius
by Kathy Freston

President Herbert Hoover promised "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage." With warnings about global warming reaching feverish levels, many are having second thoughts about all those cars. It seems they should instead be worrying about the chickens.

Last month, the United Nations published a report on livestock and the environment with a stunning conclusion: "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." It turns out that raising animals for food is a primary cause of land degradation, air pollution, water shortage, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, and not least of all, global warming.

That's right, global warming. You've probably heard the story: emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are changing our climate, and scientists warn of more extreme weather, coastal flooding, spreading disease, and mass extinctions. It seems that when you step outside and wonder what happened to winter, you might want to think about what you had for dinner last night. The U.N. report says almost a fifth of global warming emissions come from livestock (i.e., those chickens Hoover was talking about, plus pigs, cattle, and others)--that's more emissions than from all of the world's transportation combined.

Visit www.CommonDreams.org for the entire post.

animal liberation theology, part 2

2007-01-20T23:55:00.000-06:00

“Honourable men may honourably disagree about some details of human treatment of the non-human,” wrote Stephen Clark in his 1977 book, The Moral Status of Animals, “but vegetarianism is now as necessary a pledge of moral devotion as was the refusal of emperor-worship in the early church.” According to Clark, eating animal flesh is “gluttony,” and “Those who still eat flesh when they could do otherwise have no claim to be serious moralists.”

“Clark’s conclusion has real force and its power has yet to be sufficiently appreciated by fellow Christians,” says the Reverend Andrew Linzey. “Far from seeing the possibility of widespread vegetarianism as a threat to Old Testament norms, Christians should rather welcome the fact that the Spirit is enabling us to make decisions so that we may more properly conform to the original Genesis picture of living in peace with creation.”

In a 1985 paper entitled “The Status of Animals in the Christian Tradition” (based on a September 1984 talk at a Quaker study center entitled “Non-violence: Extending the Concept to Animals”), the Reverend Andrew Linzey redefined the traditional understanding of human “dominion” over the animal kingdom:

“...scholarly research in the modern period interprets the notion of dominion in terms of early kingship theology in which man is to act as God’s vice-regent in creation, that is with authority, but under divine moral rule. We are therefore not given absolute or arbitrary power over animals but entrusted with God-like power which must be exercised with responsibility and restraint.

“...for centuries Christians have misinterpreted their own scripture and have read into it implications that were simply not there. The idea that human beings have absolute rights over creation is therefore eclipsed. The vital issue that now confronts moral theologians is how far and to what extent we may use animal life and for what purposes.”

After citing Scripture and many positive instances of concern for animals in the Christian tradition, Reverend Linzey concludes that the Christian basis for animal rights includes the following points:

1) Animals are fellow creatures with us and belong to God.
2) Animals have value to God independently of their value or use to us.
3) Animals exist in a covenant relationship with God and mankind and
therefore there is a moral bond between us.
4) Human beings are set in a position of responsibility to animals.
5) Jesus Christ is our moral exemplar in his sacrifice of love for creation.
6) God’s redeeming love extends to all creation.
7) We have duties to animals derived from our relationship of responsibility
to them.

The Reverend Dr. Andrew Linzey’s 1987 book, Christianity and the Rights of Animals, may be regarded as a landmark in Christian theology as well as in the animal rights movement. Linzey responds to criticism from many of the intellectual leaders of the animal rights and environmental movements—Peter Singer, Richard Ryder, Maureen Duffy, Lynn White, Jr.—that Christianity has excluded nonhumans from moral concern, that Christian churches are consequently agents of oppression, and that Christian doctrines are thus responsible for the roots of the current ecological crisis.

“We do not have books devoted to a consideration of animals,” he acknowledges. “We do not have clearly worked-out systematic views on animals. These are signs of the problem. The thinking, or at least the vast bulk of it, has yet to be done.”

Dr. Tom Regan calls Reverend Linzey, an Anglican clergyman, “the foremost theologian working in the field of animal/human relations.” Christianity and the Rights of Animals, a must-read for all Christians, certainly clears the ground.

According to Reverend Linzey:

“It does seem somewhat disingenuous for Christians to speak so solidly for human rights and then query the appropriateness of rights language when it comes to animals...the Christian basis for animal rights is bound to be different in crucial respects from that of secular philosophy. But because Christians (as we see it) have a good, even superior, basis for animal rights, that in no way precludes others from utilizing the terminology.”

Linzey acknowledges that the gospel is ambiguous on ethical questions such as animal rights. “When it comes to wanting to know the attitude that Jesus may have taken to a range of pressing moral issues today, we are often at a loss to know precise answers. But we can at least be clear about the contours. The lordship of Christ is expressed in service. He is the one who washes dirty feet, heals the sick, releases individuals from oppression, both spiritual and physical, feeds the hungry, and teaches his followers the way of costly loving...”

Linzey justifies compassion for animals through the example of Christ. “If God’s self-revealed life in Jesus is the model of how Christians should behave and if, crucially, divine power is expressed in service, how can we disregard even ‘the least among us’? It may be that in the light of Christ we are bound to say that the weakest have in fact the greater claim upon us.

“In some ways,” Linzey continues, “Christian thinking is already oriented in this direction. What is it that so appalls us about cruelty to children or oppression of the vulnerable, but that these things are betrayals of relationships of special care and special trust? Likewise, and even more so, in the case of animals who are mostly defenceless before us.

“Slowly but surely,” Linzey explains, “having grasped the notion of dominion means stewardship, we are now for the first time seeing how demanding our lordship over creation is really meant to be. Where once we thought we had the cheapest ride, we are now beginning to see that we have the costliest responsibilities...Lordship without service is indeed tyranny.”

Discussing the finer points between human “dominion” over animals, versus humane stewardship, Linzey says, “the whole point about stewardship is that the stewards should value what God has given as highly as they value themselves. To be placed in a relationship of special care and special protection is hardly a license for tyranny or even... ‘benevolent despotism.’ If we fail to grasp the necessarily sacrificial nature of lordship as revealed in Christ, we shall hardly begin to make good stewards, even of those beings we regard as ‘inferior.’”

Linzey sees divine reconciliation through Christ. The “hidden purpose” of God in Christ was “determined beforehand,” and consists of bringing “all in heaven and on earth” into a “unity in Christ.” (Ephesians 1:9-11) Linzey notes that in Ephesians, as in Colossians and Romans, the creation is “foreordained in Christ.”

“Since it is through man’s curse that the creation has become estranged from its Creator,” Linzey asserts, “it is only right that one important step along the road to recovery is that man himself should be redeemed. The salvation of human beings is in this way a pointer to the salvation of all creation...For it must be the special role of humans within God’s creation to hasten the very process of redemption, by the power of the Spirit for which God has destined it.

“Human beings must be healed,” Linzey insists, “because it is their violence and disorder which has been let loose on the world. Through humans, liberated for God, we can glimpse the possibility of world redemption. Can it really be so difficult to grasp that the God who performs the demanding and costly task of redeeming sinful man will not also be able to restore the involuntary animal creation, which groans under the weight of another’s burden?”

Linzey thus sees Jesus Christ as the only hope for animal liberation. “In Christ, God has borne our sufferings, actually entered into them in the flesh so that we may be liberated from them (and all pain and all death) and secure, by his grace, eternal redemption.

“In principle the question of how an almighty, loving God can allow suffering in a mouse is no different to the same question that may be posed about man. Of course there are important differences between men and mice, but there are no morally relevant ones when it comes to pain and suffering. It is for this reason alone that we need to hold fast to those cosmic strands of the biblical material which speak of the inclusive nature of Christ’s sacrifice and redeeming work.”

Linzey finds two justifications for a Christian case for vegetarianism:

“The first is that killing is a morally significant matter. While justifiable in principle, it can only be practically justified where there is real need for human nourishment. Christian vegetarians do not have to claim that it is always and absolutely wrong to kill in order to eat. It could well be that there were, and are, some situations in which meat-eating was and is essential in order to survive. Geographical considerations alone make it difficult to envisiage life in Palestine at the time of Christ without some primitive fishing industry. But the crucial point is that where we are free to do otherwise the killing of Spirit-filled individuals requires moral justification. It may be justifiable, but only when human nourishment clearly requires it, and even then it remains an inevitable consequence of sin.

“The second point,” Linzey explains, “is that misappropriation occurs when humans do not recognize that the life of an animal belongs to God, not to them. Here it seems to me that Christian vegetarianism is well-founded. For while it may have been possible in the past to rear animals with personal care and consideration for their well-being and to dispatch them with the humble and scrupulous recognition that their life should only be taken in times of necessity, such conditions are abnormal today.”

In Christianity and the Rights of Animals, the Reverend Dr. Andrew Linzey not only makes a very sound Christian theological case for animal rights, but states further that animal slavery may be abolished on the same grounds that were used in biblical times to abolish human sacrifice and infanticide:

“...it may be argued that humans have a right to their culture and their way of life. What would we be, it may be questioned, without our land and history and ways of life? In general, culture is valuable. But it is also the case that there can be evil cultures, or at least cherished traditions which perpetuate injustice or tyranny.

“The Greeks, for example, despite all their outstanding contributions to learning did not appear to recognize the immorality of (human) slavery. There can be elements within every culture that are simply not worth defending, not only slavery, but also infanticide and human sacrifice.”

“With God, all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 18:27) Linzey urges Christian readers to think in terms of future possibilities. “For to be committed to Jesus involves being committed not only to his earthly ministry in the past but also to his living Spirit in whose power new possibilities are continually opened up for us in the present. All things have yet to be made new in Christ and we have yet to become perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. Making peace is a dynamic possibility through the Spirit.”

In a 1989 interview, Reverend Linzey insisted, “...my primary loyalty is to God, and not to the church. You see, I don’t think the claims of the church and the claims of God are identical...The church is a very human institution, a frail human institution, and it often gets things wrong. Indeed, it’s worse than that. It’s often a stumbling block and often a scandal.”

Linzey expressed optimism from a study of history: “Let’s take your issue of slavery. If you go back in history, say 200 years, you’ll find intelligent, conscientious, loving Christians defending slavery, because they hardly gave it two thoughts. If they were pressed, they might have said, ‘Slavery is part of progress, part of the Christianization of the dark races.’

“A hundred or perhaps as little as 50 years later, what you suddenly find is that the very same Christian community that provided one of the major ideological defenses of slavery had begun to change its mind...here is a classic example of where the Christian tradition has been a force for slavery and a force for liberation.

“Now, just think of the difficulties that those early Christian abolitionists had to face. Scripture defended slavery. For instance, in Leviticus 25, you’re commanded to take the child of a stranger as a slave...St. Paul simply said that those who were Christian slaves should be better Christians. Almost unanimously, apart from St. Gregory, the church fathers defended slavery, and for almost 1800 years, Christians defended and supported slavery. So, in other words, the change that took place within the Christian community on slavery is not just significant, it is historically astounding.

“Now, I give that example because I believe the case of animals is in many ways entirely analogous. We treat animals today precisely as we treated slaves, and the theological arguments are often entirely the same or have the same root. I believe the movement for animal rights is the most significant movement in Christianity, morally, since the emancipation of the slaves. And it provides just as many difficulties for the institutional church...”

Christians have found themselves unable to agree upon many pressing moral issues—including abortion. Exodus 21:22-24 says if two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the child is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus. On the other hand, the Didache (Apostolic Church teaching) forbade abortion.

“There has to be a frank recognition that the Christian church is divided on every moral issue under the sun: nuclear weapons, divorce, homosexuality, capital punishment, animals, etc.,” says Reverend Linzey. “I don’t think it’s desirable or possible for Christians to agree upon every moral issue. And, therefore, I think within the church we have no alternative but to work within diversity.”

animal liberation theology

2007-01-14T23:15:00.000-06:00

In the winter of 1990, the Executive Director of the International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA), the Reverend Dr. Marc A. Wessels wrote: "As a Christian clergyman who speaks of having compassion for other creatures and who actively declares the need for humans to develop an ethic that gives reverence for all of life, I hope that others will open their eyes, hearts and minds to the responsibility of loving care for God's creatures."

In a pamphlet entitled "The Spiritual Link Between Humans and Animals," Reverend Wessels writes: "We recognize that many animal rights activists and ecologists are highly critical of Christians because of our relative failure thus far to adequately defend animals and to preserve the natural environment. Yet there are positive signs of a growing movement of Christian activists and theologians who are committed to the process of ecological stewardship and animal liberation.

"Individual Christians and groups on a variety of levels, including denominational, ecumenical, national and international, have begun the delayed process of seriously considering and practically addressing the question of Christian responsibility for animals. Because of the debate surrounding the 'rights' of animals, some Christians are considering the tenets of their faith in search for an appropriate ethical response."

According to Reverend Wessels, "The most important teaching which Jesus shared was the need for people to love God with their whole self and to love their neighbor as they loved themselves. Jesus expanded the concept of neighbor to include those who were normally excluded, and it is therefore not too farfetched for us to consider the animals as our neighbors.

"To think about animals as our brothers and sisters is not a new or radical idea. By extending the idea of neighbor, the love of neighbor includes love of, compassion for, and advocacy of animals. There are many historical examples of Christians who thought along those lines, besides the familiar illustration of St. Francis. An abbreviated listing of some of those individuals worthy of study and emulation includes Saint Blaise, Saint Comgall, Saint Cuthbert, Saint Gerasimus, Saint Giles, and Saint Jerome, to name but a few."

Reverend Wessels notes that: "In the Bible, which we understand as the divine revelation of God, there is ample evidence of the vastness and goodness of God toward animals. The Scriptures announce God as the creator of all life, the One responsible for calling life into being and placing it in an ordered fashion which reflects God's glory. Humans and animals are a part of this arrangement. Humanity has a special relationship with particular duties to God's created order, a connection to the animals by which they are morally bound by God's covenant with them.

"According to the Scriptures, Christians are called to respect the life of animals and to be ethically engaged in protecting the life and liberty of all sentient creatures. As that is the case, human needs and rights do not usurp an animal's intrinsic rights, nor should they deny the basic liberty of either individual animals or specific species. If the Christian call can be understood as being a command to be righteous, then Christians must have a higher regard for the lives of animals.

"Jesus' life was one of compassion and liberation;" concludes Reverend Wessels, "his ministry was one which understood and expressed the needs of the oppressed. Especially in the past decade, Christians have been reminded that their faith requires them to take seriously the cries of the oppressed.

"Theologicans such as Gutierrez, Miranda, and Hinkelammert have defined the Christian message as one which liberates lives and transforms social patterns of oppression. That concept of Christianity which sees God as the creator of the universe and the One who seeks justice is not exclusive; immunity from cruelty and injustice is not only a human desire or need--the animal kingdom also needs liberation."

A growing number of Christian theologians, clergy and activists are beginning to take a stand in favor of animal rights. In a pamphlet entitled "Christian Considerations on Laboratory Animals," Reverend Marc Wessels notes that in laboratories animals cease to be persons and become "tools of research." He cites William French of Loyola University as having made the same observation at a gathering of Christian ethicists at Duke University--a conference entitled "Good News for Animals?"

On Earth Day, 1990, Reverend Wessels observed: "It is a fact that no significant social reform has yet taken place in this country without the voice of the religious community being heard. The endeavors of the abolition of slavery; the women's suffrage movement; the emergence of the pacifist tradition during World War I; the struggles to support civil rights, labor unions, and migrant farm workers; and the anti-nuclear and peace movements have all succeeded in part because of the power and support of organized religion. Such authority and energy is required by individual Christians and the institutional church today if the liberation of animals is to become a reality."

Jesus came to abolish animal sacrifice--not the Law

2007-01-12T23:38:00.000-06:00

Steve Kaufman wrote:

> I don't have such disregard for Paul.
> I think he offers some excellent
> insights into problems of human
> community and ways to generate
> peaceful, loving communities. I think
> a problem is that many Christians conflate
> Paul with Jesus, and I find Jesus' teachings
> generally more insightful and helpful. In my
> ongoing essay series Christianity and the
> Problem of Human Violence (distributed
> weekly to the Christian Vegetarian Association
> e-newsletter list), I cite Paul's writings
> extensively.

In Broken Thread, Keith Akers writes: "Paul's letters are moving documents for many Christians. They make an impression today on us and on anyone raised as a Christian who seeks to make sense out of the religion they have come to know. They also made a deep impression on those who read them in the early church the consequences of which we live with even today.

"No one can read the synoptic gospels and the letters of Paul without becoming aware of great differences in their pictures of Jesus. For Paul, Jesus is the Son of God raised from the dead as a sign of God's grace; faith in Jesus replaces the Law of Judaism and transforms us into spiritual beings. For the gospels, Jesus is a miracle-worker and preacher urging the people to repentance; living in accordance with the Law is the path to life. The preponderance of what the Jesus of the gospels talks about has very little to do with the preponderance of what Paul talks about. Jesus seems to be interested in purifying and intensifying what Paul considers 'so much garbage.' "

Keith writes: "There are passages in the Old Testament which are clearly against animal sacrifice--not against this or that aspect of animal sacrifice, or against the way it is offered, or even against the people making the offerings, but against the practice itself. This is strange because apparently the Old Testament also mandates, or at the very least allows, animal sacrifice. Those wishing to defend the consistency of the sacrificial legislation with Isaiah, might say that Isaiah's objection is not to the practice of animal sacrifice itself, but to the sins of the Israelites, and that in view of these sins, the sacrifice was still rejected by God. However, such an interpretation is clearly contrary to the text.

" 'I have no desire for the blood of bulls' is stated without qualification; God (quoted by Isaiah) does not say 'Because your sins are so great, or because you still have a hard heart, I have no desire for the blood of *these* bulls you are offering Me,' but simply, 'I have no desire for the blood of bulls.'

"No qualification is offered, either for the statement 'The reek of sacrifice is abhorrent to Me.' It is not 'Your sins are abhorrent to Me,' or 'Your hypocrisy is abhorrent to Me'; the objection is to the stench of slaughter itself. Further, the question which is asked 'Whenever you come to enter My presence--who asked you for this?' does not make sense unless it is the sacrificial cult itself which is in question. If one accepts Leviticus as commanding animal sacrifice, the answer to the question 'who asked you for this?' is that it is precisely God Himself who asked for the bloody sacrifices. In this case the question becomes meaningless or we have to suppose that God is suffering from some sort of memory lapse. That God is asking this question clearly implies that (for Isaiah) God never asked for these sacrifices.

"Finally, we have the question of what 'this' is in the question, 'Who asked you for this?' 'This' is precisely the behavior cited in the previous verse--namely, the multitude of sacrifices of the people, which God through Isaiah views as 'trampling My courts.' The Temple is God's court, and it is thus not the sinful behavior of the people generally which is being objected to (though there is probably enough of that as well), but rather some *specific* sinful behavior performed in the Temple--namely, the animal sacrifices."

Keith cites Amos 5:25, which quotes God as asking, "Did you bring to Me sacrifices and offerings for forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?" He writes, "The text is initially puzzling because something has been left out--the answer to the rhetorical question. Were sacrifices and offerings made to God in the wilderness? The context suggests that the answer must be 'no!' Otherwise, the denunciation of sacrifice makes no sense, since Israel was supposed to be in an especially holy and pure state in the wilderness."

Abba Hillel Silver, in his 1961 book, Moses and the Original Torah, similarly observes that when the prophet Amos quoted God as asking, "Did you bring to Me sacrifices and offerings for forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?" he was clearly expecting a negative answer. But he couldn't have made such a statement, unless there was an earlier tradition, an earlier Torah, which did not call for animal sacrifice. According to Silver, the sacrificial system was a pagan practice which became incorporated into Mosaic Law.

Sometimes Christians cite the word "full" in the phrase "I am full of burnt offerings" found in Isaiah 1:11,15, where sacrifices are denounced, as proof that God accepted the sacrifices. However, in Isaiah 43:23-24, Isaiah quotes God as saying, "You have not honored Me with your sacrifices...rather you have burdened Me with your sins, you have wearied Me with your iniquities." This suggests, as Moses Maimonides taught, that "the sacrifices were a concession to barbarism."

In his excellent A Guide to the Misled, Rabbi Shmuel Golding explains the orthodox Jewish position concerning animal sacrifices: "When G-d gave our ancestors permission to make sacrifices to Him, it was a concession, just as when He allowed us to have a king (I Samuel 8), but He gave us a whole set of rules and regulations concerning sacrifice that, when followed, would be superior to and distinct from the sacrificial system of the heathens."

There is nothing in the synoptic gospels of Jesus to suggest a fundamental break with Judaism. Jesus was called Rabbi meaning Master or Teacher 42 times in the gospels. The ministry of Jesus was a rabbinic one. Jesus related Scripture and God's laws to everyday life, teaching by personal example. He engaged in healing and acts of mercy. He told stories or parables--a rabbinic method of teaching. He went to the synagogue (Matthew 12:9), taught in the synagogues (Matthew 4:23, 13:54; Mark 1:39), expressed concern for Jairus, "one of the rulers of the synagogue" (Mark 5:36) and it "was his custom" to go to the synagogue on the Sabbath (Luke 4:16).

Jesus blessed the meek, repeating Psalm 37:11, saying they would inherit the earth. Here Jesus refers to Isaiah's vision (11:6-9) of the future Kingdom of Peace, where the earth is restored to a vegetarian paradise (Genesis 1:29-31). Jesus taught his followers to pray for the coming of this Kingdom and to do God's will "on earth as it is in heaven." The synoptic gospels suggest that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, but instead made it more severe. Although the Ten Commandments teach "thou shalt not kill", Jesus extended this morality to the point where one must never get angry without cause. Although the Ten Commandments teach "thou shalt not commit adultery," Jesus taught that "whoever looks upon a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

The Bible limits compensation to "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", but Jesus taught his followers not to defend themselves against attack or aggression. "All who take up the sword must perish by the sword," Jesus warned. Instead of teaching men to love their neighbors and hate their enemies, Jesus taught them to love their enemies and bless and pray for their persecutors. (Matthew 5:38-44; Luke 6:27-29) Jesus forbade divorce, except for unfaithfulness. When asked why Moses permitted divorce, Jesus replied that it was a concession to the hardness of the heart. He insisted upon the moral standards given by God at the beginning. (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18)

"Do not suppose I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets," insisted Jesus. "I did not come to destroy but to fulfill...till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle pass from the Law till all is fulfilled. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven...unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20) Jesus also upheld Mosaic Law in Luke 16:17: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid."

Nor do these texts refer merely to the Ten Commandments: Jesus meant the entire Law; 613 commandments. When a man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus replied, "You know the commandments." He then quoted not just the Ten Commandments, but a commandment from Leviticus 19:13 as well, "Do not defraud." (Mark 10:17-22) When Jesus was accused of violating the Sabbath with his disciples, he tried to illustrate how his actions were consistent with the Torah. (Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5) Jesus' disciples were once accused by the scribes and Pharisees of violating rabbinical tradition (Matthew 15:1-2; Mark 7:5), but not biblical law. At no place in the entire New Testament does Jesus ever proclaim Mosaic Law to be abolished; this was the theology of Paul, a former Pharisee who never knew Jesus, but who used to persecute his followers.

When a scribe asked Jesus what is the greatest commandment in the Law, Jesus began with "Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is One Lord." This is the Shema, which is still heard in every synagogue service to this day. "And you shall love the Lord with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength...And you shall love your neighbor as yourself," Jesus concluded. When the scribe agreed that God is one and that to love Him completely and also love one's neighbor as oneself is "more important than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices," Jesus replied, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." (Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:29-34; Luke 10:25-28)

Jesus' words in Matthew 7:12, "Accordingly, whatever you would have people do for you, do the same for them; for this covers the Law and the Prophets", are sometimes taken to mean the Law has been abolished, one need only "do unto others". However, Jesus' response to the scribe proves otherwise. To believe in one God and love Him with all one's heart, soul and mind is not "covered" by "do unto others", which is merely a secular humanist moral philosophy. Nor is it a new teaching. Jesus was merely repeating in the positive what Rabbi Hillel had stated a generation earlier. Hillel's words were never taken to mean the Law was abolished, why should we assume this of Jesus?

If Jesus really did come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, Peter would not have resisted a divine command to kill and eat both "clean" and "unclean" animals (Acts 10), nor would there have been a dispute in the early church regarding to what extent the gentiles were to observe Mosaic Law (Acts 15). When Paul visited the church at Jerusalem, James and the elders told him all its members were "zealous for the Law," and were worried, because they heard rumors that Paul was preaching against the Law (Acts 21).

Jesus began his ministry by teaching the multitudes not to "give what is sacred to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine." (Matthew 7:6) Dogs, like swine, were considered foul and unclean by the Hebrew people. (Deuteronomy 23:18; I Samuel 24:14; II Kings 8:13; Psalm 22:16,20; Matthew 7:6; Luke 16:21; Revelations 22:15) These words were used by the children of Israel to describe the neighboring heathen populations. When sending his disciples out to preach, Jesus instructed them not to go to the gentiles, but to "go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10:5-6) When a Canaanite woman asked Jesus to heal her daughter, he replied, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel...It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." (Matthew 15:22-28) Jesus regarded the gentiles as "dogs". His gospel was intended for the Jewish people.

While teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a woman who had been ill for eighteen years. He justified his healing work on the Sabbath by referring to biblical passages calling for the humane treatment of animals as well as their rest on the Sabbath. "So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham...be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?" Jesus asked. (Luke 13:10-16) On yet another occasion, Jesus again referred to Torah teaching on compassion for animals to justify healing on the Sabbath. "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (Luke 14:1-5) Jesus compared saving sinners who had gone astray to rescuing lost sheep. He recalled a Jewish legend about Moses' compassion as a shepherd for his flock. (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:3-7,10)

"Mercy and not sacrifice" (Matthew 9:10-13, 12:6-7; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-32) is the phrase best describing Jesus' ministry. The prophets before Jesus had indicated God is more pleased by acts of mercy and righteousness than with burnt offerings. There are also many verses throughout the Bible indicating that animal sacrifices and bloodshed are abhorrent to a God whose compassion extends to all living creatures. When Jesus entered Jerusalem with his disciples, he went directly into the Temple and drove out all who bought and sold in the Temple. Here he attacked the institution of animal sacrifice. The merchants were selling animals for sacrifice. Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, sheep and oxen. He did not allow anyone to carry goods through the Temple.

He justified his actions by telling them: "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you have made it a 'den of thieves.'" Jesus was quoting a passage from the prophet Jeremiah, which begins at verse 7:11, and concludes at verses 21-22: "Add whole-offerings to sacrifices and eat the flesh if you will. But when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt, I gave them no commands about sacrifices. I said not a word about them." This verse, like others in the prophetic literature, suggests Mosaic Law never condoned animal sacrifice to begin with.

In the January/February 1998 issue of Humane Religion, Reverend J.R. Hyland notes that in some Bible translations, the word "just" was added to Jeremiah 7:21-22, changing the meaning entirely: "For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not [JUST] give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices." She writes: "Obviously the addition of the word 'just' entirely changes the meaning of the text. It was deliberately inserted, with no pretense by scholars that the Hebrew supported such an addition...It is the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible that altered the text, and this is the most popular translation since the publication of the King James Version in the 17th century. It is widely used by both scholars and laypersons and is the only translation of the seven leading versions of the Bible that has changed the meaning of Jeremiah 7:22."

Jesus healed the blind and the lame in Temple--acts of "mercy and not sacrifice." (Matthew 21:12-14; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-4; John 2:14-17)

In the (updated) 1986 edition of A Vegetarian Sourcebook, Keith Akers notes that there was a link in Judaism between meat-eating and animal sacrifices, that the prophetic tradition to which Jesus belonged attacked animal sacrifices, and that Jesus attacked the practice of animal sacrifice by driving the money-changers out of the Temple. He concludes, "The evidence indicates that for those who first heard the message of Jesus...the rejection of animal sacrifices had directly vegetarian implications."

Otto Pfleiderer, in his 1906 work, Christian Origins, observed: "When he (Jesus) saw the busy activities of the dealers in sacrificial animals and Jewish coins overrunning the outer court he drove them out with their wares. This business was connected with the sacrifice service and therefore Jesus' reformatory action seemed to be an attack on the sacrificial system itself and indirecty on the hierarchs who derived their income from and based their social position of power on the sacrificial service."

Jesus explained that celibacy is not something everyone can practice; it is meant only for those whom God has ordained it. He used the euphemism "eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven," recalling his euphemism about denying or dismembering bodily urges rather than having the entire body destroyed by sin. (Matthew 5:29-30, 18:8-9, 19:10-12) The apparent celibacy of Jesus is unusual by ancient Hebrew standards. The Bible does call for temporary abstinences, under certain circumstances. According to the Talmud, Moses voluntarily chose to give up sexual relations with his wife after he received his call from God. He reasoned that if the Israelites, to whom the Lord spoke only once and briefly, were ordered to abstain from sexual relations temporarily (Exodus 19:10,13), then he--being in continual dialogue with God--should remain celibate.

Philo of Alexandria tells us that to sanctify himself, Moses cleansed himself of "all the mortal calls of nature, food and drink and intercourse with women. This last he had disdained for many a day, almost from the time when, possessed by the Spirit, he entred on his work as a prophet, since he held it fitting to hold himself always in readiness to receive the oracular messages." Given this information, Jesus' apparent voluntary embrace of celibacy, from the time of his baptism and reception of the Spirit of God, becomes meaningful to Jews and Christians alike.

Aside from the Pharisees, the gospels and Book of Acts mention the Sadducees as the only other major school of Judaic thought. The Sadducees tended to be rich, nationalist and secularist. The Jewish historian Josephus, who lived during the time of Jesus, wrote that there were only three sects: the Pharisees, Sadducees and the Essenes. (Antiquities G.13,1,2; Atiquities B.13,5,9; Wars of the Jews B.2,8,2) Josephus wrote that the "Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances...which are not written into the laws of Moses and" which "the Sadducees reject," but they "are able to persuade none but the rich," whereas "the Pharisees have the multitude on their side." Thus, Jesus never rejected Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17); only its Pharisaic excesses.

Paul repeatedly attacked idolatry. (Romans 1:23; I Corinthians 6:9-10; II Corinthians 6:16; Galatians 5:19-21) He recognized the immorality of accepting food offered to idols and pagan gods: "...that which they are sacrifice they are offering to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons." (I Corinthians 10:30) Yet Paul then proceeded to give his followers permission to eat food offered to pagan idols! "You may eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions for conscience: for the earth is the Lord's and everything in it." (I Corinthians 10:14-33)

Paul told his followers they need only abstain from such foods if it offends their "weaker" brethren: "For if someone sees you...sitting at the table in an idol temple,, will not his conscience, weak as it is, encourage him to eat food offered to idols?...If my eating causes my brother to stumble, I shall eat o meat for ever, so that my brother will not be made to fall into sin." (I Corinthians 8:1-13)

Not only does this contradict the Apostles' decree concerning gentile converts (Acts 15), it contradicts the teachings of Jesus himself. In Revelations 2:14-16,20, the resurrected Jesus specificaly instructs John to write to two churches that they not eat food offered to idols. Secular historian Dr. Martin A. Larson writes in The Story of Christian Origins, that the seven Asian churches Jesus wrote to (Revelation 1:4) were Jewish Christian churches that had repudiated Paul. (II Timothy 1:15)

Paul, who once persecuted the brethren, openly identified himself as a Roman (Acts 22:25-26) and an apostate from Judaism (Philippians 3:4-8). Jesus, on the other hand, insisted that even seemingly insignificant demands from the Laws of Moses could not be set aside (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17). Jesus taught that God desires "mercy and not sacrifice" (Matthew 9:13, 12:7) and he opposed the buying and selling of animals for sacrifice (Matthew 21:12-14; Mark 11:15; John 2:14-15) Christian doctrine implicitly teaches that Jesus came to do away with animal sacrifice (Hebrews 10:5-10), and the gentile world, beginning with Paul, mistook this for a rejection of the entire Law of Moses.

It's hard to tell if Paul was rejecting the entire Law of Moses, or merely its Pharisaic excesses, since he quoted the Law as spiritual authority (e.g., I Corinthians 14:21,34). On at least one occasion, he acknowledged the Law to be spiritual, but admitted his own inability to observe it. (Romans 7:12,14-25) On another occasion, Paul stated that laws are laid down for the lawless; morality is meant for those who would otherwise lack morals. (I Timothy 1:8-11) Many of Paul's statements are not against the Law itself, but against the hypocrisy with which it was being enforced or observed (Galatians 2:1-14), and the fact that the gentiles were not obliged to follow all of Mosaic Law. (Acts 15)

The Reverend J. Todd Ferrier, founder of the Order of the Cross, wrote in "On Behalf of the Creatures":

"But Paul, great and noble man as he was, never was one of the recognized heads at Jerusalem. He had been a Pharisee of the Pharisees...He strove to be all things to all men that he might gain some. And we admire him for his strenuous endeavors to win the world for Christ. But no one could be all things to all men without running the great risks of most disastrous results...

"But here as a further thought in connection with the teaching of the great Apostle an important question is forced upon our attention, which one of these days must receive the due consideration from biblical scholars that it deserves. It is this:

"How is it that the gospel of Paul is more to many people than the gospel of those privileged souls who sat at the feet of Jesus and heard His secrets in the Upper Room?"

Christian theologian Dr. Upton Clary Ewing also says, "With all due respect for the integrity of Paul, he was not one of the Twelve Apostles...Paul never knew Jesus in life. He never walked and prayed with Him as He went from place to place, teaching the word of God."

Paul told his gentile followers that it is best to abstain from meat and wine or from food offered to pagan idols so as not fo offend the "weaker" brethren. (Romans 14; I Corinthians 8:1-13) Paul's use of the word "weak" has been debated. Dr. Upton Clary Ewing beleves Paul used the word "weak" with a positive connotation. According to Paul, "God has chosen the weak things in the world to shame the strong." (I Corinthians 1:27)

Describing his tribulations for the cause of Christ, being caught up in the heavenly spheres, and a revelation from Jesus, Paul wrote:

"If I must boast, I shall boast of matters that show my weakness....I will boast, but not about myself--unless it be about my weakness...the Lord...he told me, '...my strength comes to perfection where there is weakness.' Therefore," Paul concludes, "I am happy to boast in my weaknesses...I delight, then, in weaknesses...for when I am weak, then I am strong." (II Corinthians 11:30, 12:1-10)

Paul wrote further that Jesus "was crucified out of weakness, yet he lives through divine power, and we, too, are weak in him; but we shall live with him for your benefit through the power of God...We are happy to be weak when you are strong." (II Corinthians 13:4,9)

Taken in this context, the word "weak" suggests complete dependence upon God. Since Paul refers not only to Christians who abstain from meat and wine as "weak" (Romans 14), but also Christians who abstain from food offered to pagan idols (I Corinthians 8:1-13), he must have used the word "weak" with a positive connotation, or he was a false prophet who contradicted the resurrected Jesus (Revelations 2:14-16,20) and the other apostles (Acts 15).

Paul says if anyone has any confidence in Mosaic Law, "I am ahead of him." Would that include Jesus, who not only upheld Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19), but said following its commandments is the way to eternal life (Mark 10:17-22), and said it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid (Luke 16:17) ?

Sometimes Christians cite II Corinthians 12:8-9, where Paul quotes Jesus as having said to him three times, "My grace is sufficient for thee," misinterpreting this to mean they're free to do whatever they want, ignoring Jesus' and Paul's other teachings. Paul gave all kinds of moral instructions elsewhere in his letters:

Paul taught his followers to bless their persecutors and not curse them (Romans 12:14), to care for their enemies by providing them with food and drink (12:20), and to pay their taxes and obey all earthly governments (13:1-7). He mentioned giving all his belongings to feed the hungry (I Corinthians 13:3), and taught giving to the person in need (Ephesians 4:28). He told his followers it was wrong to take their conflicts before non-Christian courts rather than before the saints. (I Corinthians 6:1)

Paul taught that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman," i.e., it is best to be celibate, but because of prevailing immoralities, marriage is acceptable. Divorce, however, is not permissible, except in the case of an unbeliever demanding separation. (I Corinthians 7) Paul repeatedly attacked sexual immorality (I Corinthians 6:15,18) "This is God's will--your sanctification, that you keep yourselves from sexual immorality, that each of you learn how to take his own wife in purity and honor, not in lustful passion, like the gentiles who have no knowledge of God." (I Thessalonians 4:3-5) He told his followers not to associate with sexually immoral people (I Corinthians 5:9-12). He condemned homosexuality (Romans 1:24-27) and incest (I Corinthians 5:1). He taught that profligates, idolaters, adulterers and robbers willnot inherit the kingdom of God. (I Corinthians 6:9-10)

Paul condemned wickedness, immorality, depravity, greed, envy, murder, quarreling, deceit, malignity, gossip, slander, insolence, pride (Romans 1:29-30), drunkenness, carousing, debauchery, jealousy (Romans 13:13), sensuality, magic arts, animosities, bad temper, selfishness, dissensions, envy (Galatians 5:19-21); greediness (Ephesians 4:19; Colossians 3:5), foul speech, anger, clamor, abusive language, malice (Ephesians 4:29-32), dishonesty (Colossians 3:13), materialism (I Timothy 6:6-11), conceit, avarice, boasting and treachery (II Timothy 3:2-4).

Paul told the gentiles to train themselves for godliness, to practice self-control and lead upright, godly lives (Galatians 5:23; I Timothy 4:7; II Timothy 1:7; Titus 2:11-12). He instructed them to ALWAYS pray constantly. (I Thessalonians 5:17)

Paul praised love, joy, peace, kindness, generosity, fidelity and gentleness (Galatians 5:22-23). He told his followers to conduct themselves with humility and gentleness (Ephesians 4:2), to speak to one another in psalms and hymns; to sing heartily and make music to the Lord (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16).

Paul wrote further that women should cover their heads while worshipping, and that long hair on males is dishonorable. (II Corinthians 11:5-14) According to Paul, Christian women are to dress modestly and prudently, and are not to be adorned with braided hair, gold or pearls or expensive clothes. (I Timothy 2:9)

Paul never told the gentiles they're free to do whatever they want--in fact, he specifically warned them:

"Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God." (I Corinthians 6:9-10 NEB)

Yet there are Christians in name only who ignore the New Testament as a whole, and focus on only one of Paul's statements to justify their hedonism. Reverend Hyland says they're taking Paul out of context. Paul, she notes, was very strict with himself:

"But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (I Corinthians 9:27)

(Reverend Hyland says this verse also indicates it's possible for one to lose one's salvation.)

My friend Ruth Enero also says they're quoting Paul out of context. Paul, she says, had a "thorn" in his side, and asked the Lord what to do about it. The response was simple: "My grace is sufficient for thee." This was a response to a specific problem, not a license to do as one pleases, or why else would Paul himself have given so many other moral instructions?

They MUST be quoting Paul out of context, because otherwise it doesn't make any sense: on the one hand, Paul is warning that drunkards, thieves, homosexuals, etc. will not inherit the kingdom of God, and on the other, he's saying if you call on Jesus three times you can do whatever you want?!

My argument against "three times...my grace is sufficient for thee" is that if Christians interpret this to mean they're free to do anything they want, ignoring Jesus' and Paul's other teachings, the what about MURDER?

I've found it impossible to engage Christians in serious discussion about animals and their rights, because they think if they call on Jesus three times, they can do whatever they want. So I respond likewise: "Abortion. Abortion. Abortion." Namely, if these people aren't going to take my issue (animal rights) seriously, why should I with theirs?

Reverend Hyland, in one of her other books, Sexism is a Sin, quotes Bertrand Russell as having referred to Paul as the "inventor" of Christianity. I don't think it's possible to reconcile Paul to vegetarianism, and Christianity without Paul would be Judaism. A.F., who is on the SERV e-list, is working on a vegetarian interpretation of Paul. We should invite him to post some of the findings from his research on this e-list.

Best wishes!

---Vasu

vasumurti@netscape.net

Many animal tests are badly flawed, say scientists

2007-01-12T22:42:00.000-06:00

http://www.scenta.co.uk/scenta/features.cfm?cit_id=1365095&FAArea1=customWidgets.content_view_1

Many animal tests are badly flawed, say scientists
Source: Guardian Unlimited

The real value of animal experiments is questioned today by a team of senior scientists who found that many are flawed and do not predict how well a prototype medicine will work in humans.

The new paper, published by the British Medical Journal, is likely to be seized on by the animal rights lobby as substantiation for their case to stop all experiments. Their case was bolstered by the disaster of the Northwick Park clinical trial, where a drug that had been safe in animals had catastrophic side-effects in the human volunteers.

But the BMJ authors say the jury is out - it is not yet possible to determine how useful animal trials are because at present the methodological standards are poor.

"Sadly you can't say anything in this area without it being used politically by one or other interest group," said Professor Ian Roberts of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, one of the authors. "But this paper is neither saying they are good nor that they are bad." That judgement could not be made, because of the poor standard of much of the work.
The British public has consistently said in polling that it supports animal tests if they help human healthcare, there is no alternative and no unnecessary suffering to the animals, he said.

The first question was one for scientists to answer - and this was the first attempt to take a rational look at the results of animal trials to see whether they predicted how well different drugs would work in humans.

The team looked at six drugs - two for stroke, and one each for head injury, haemorrhage, neonatal distress and brittle bones. They looked at results of the human clinical trials and then at the animal trials that had been carried out first.

They found that the results of the animal and the human trials were often different. Animals given corticosteroids after a head injury appeared to benefit, but when the drug was tried in humans, it did not help their recovery. Professor Roberts pointed to a major methodological flaw, however - rats were given corticosteroids just five minutes after their head injury.

The animal results for a drug called tirilazad for stroke were positive, but when the drug went into human trials, doctors found it actually increased the numbers who became dependent or who died. The paper, by Pablo Perel and colleagues, all from the London school, says of the 18 animal trials that "the quality of the experiments was poor".

Some of the animal studies were inconclusive, but in two cases, in osteoporosis (brittle bones) and neonatal respiratory distress, where babies struggle to breathe, they came up with the same result as the human trials.

The authors call for more systematic reviews like this one, where the results of a number of animal trials are pooled so that researchers can get a clearer idea of the effects of drugs.

2007-01-10T09:12:00.000-06:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-friedrich/the-washington-jungle-rev_b_38220.html

The Washington Jungle Revisited

This year marks the 100th anniversary of passage of the first food safety law in America. It was enacted just one year after the publication of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," the landmark book that exposed the horrific conditions of America's meat-packing industry at the turn of the last century. The novel was so shocking that it prompted a government investigation and the passage of the Federal Food and Drug Act.

What is shocking today is how little conditions have changed. In 1906, Sinclair wrote: "They had chains which they fastened about the leg of the nearest hog .... [O]ne by one they hooked up the hogs, and one by one with a swift stroke they slit their throats. There was a long line of hogs, with squeals and lifeblood ebbing away together; until at last each started again and vanished with a splash into a huge vat of boiling water."

The Washington Post's 2001 series of articles about slaughterhouses showed steers dismembered while conscious. Other investigations, often by PETA staffers who have swallowed hard, steeled themselves and "gone in," have documented similar violations of law. In her exposé of the slaughter industry, investigative journalist Gail Eisnitz described routine abuse of all farmed animal species in slaughterhouses. She heard U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspectors' eyewitness testimony that completely conscious pigs are beaten over the head with lead pipes, stabbed in order to be bled out and then dunked into 140 degree water for hair removal. One slaughterhouse worker said, "There's no way these animals can bleed out in the few minutes it takes to get up the ramp. By the time they hit the scalding tank, they're still fully conscious and squealing. Happens all the time."

Sinclair's stomach-churning discussions of rotting, diseased meat that's packaged and sold to unsuspecting customers isn't just a relic of a less sanitary era. Today, contaminated meat from federally inspected slaughterhouses is routinely recalled in million-pound quantities. Foodborne illness has quadrupled in the last 15 years. There are 75 million cases of food poisoning in the United States annually, and 5,000 of them are fatal. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that 70 percent of food poisoning is caused by contaminated animal flesh.

Laws passed to rectify these problems are as disappointing today as they were then. Sinclair lamented that the Food and Drug Act was weakened, or as he put it, "deprived of all its sharpest teeth," after the meat industry lobbied government officials and waged a media campaign to discredit "The Jungle."

Today's meat industry wields tremendous power in Washington. In the last five years alone, agribusiness funneled more than $140 million to politicians, who earned their money by ensuring that laws to protect consumers and animals didn't pass. How can the people we count on to regulate the factory farming industry be so easily influenced? Perhaps they act this way because they are often the very same people who were employed by the meat industry before being hired by the government. Just two of many examples are former Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, who served on the board of the massive agricorporation Calgene, and her chief of staff, Dale Moore, who worked for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Eric Schlosser, author of the best-selling book "Fast Food Nation," writes: "[T]he [USDA] today offers a fine example of a government agency that has been thoroughly captured and corrupted. ... As a result, ordinary Americans, both Republican and Democrat, are paying the price with their health and, sometimes, their lives."

One of the Bush administration's first gifts to the meat industry, which donated more than $600,000 to his 2000 campaign, was a move to end the testing of meat for deadly salmonella bacteria before it is sold to school lunch programs.

So in 2007, just as in 1906, neither farmed animals nor consumers (nor, for that matter slaughterhouse employees who today, as then, are largely made up of immigrants) are protected from the avarice of the meat and slaughter industries. This, too, is still true: Each animal slaughtered is an individual. As Sinclair wrote, "Each one of these hogs was a separate creature. ... And each of them had an individuality of his own, a will of his own, a hope and a heart's desire; each was full of self-confidence, of self-importance, and a sense of dignity."

A century seems to have made little difference. Personal responsibility for what, or who, we eat and feed our children can, however, make a world of difference.

Top 10 Reasons to Go Vegetarian in 2007

2007-01-09T21:46:00.000-06:00

http://goveg.com/f-top10reasons07-rd.asp

Top 10 Reasons to Go Vegetarian in 2007

Many people's New Year's resolutions include losing weight, eating better, getting healthier, and doing more to make the world a better place. You can accomplish all these goals by switching to a vegetarian diet, and you'll enjoy delicious, satisfying meals as well. Here are our top 10 reasons to go vegetarian in 2007:

1. Slim Down While Feeling Good
Is shedding some extra pounds first on your list of goals for the new year? Vegetarians are, on average, up to 20 pounds lighter than meat-eaters. And unlike unhealthy fad diets, which leave you feeling tired (and gaining all the weight back eventually), going vegetarian is the healthy way to keep the excess fat off for good while feeling full of energy.

2. It's the Best Way to Help Animals
Every vegetarian saves more than 100 animals a year from horrible abuse. There is simply no other way that you can easily help so many animals and prevent so much suffering than by choosing vegetarian foods over meat, eggs, and dairy products.

3. A Healthier, Happier You
A vegetarian diet is great for your health! According to the American Dietetic Association, vegetarians are less likely to develop heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or high blood pressure than meat-eaters. Vegetarians get all the nutrients they need to be healthy (e.g., plant protein, fiber, minerals, etc.) without all the nasty stuff in meat that slows you down and makes you sick, like cholesterol and saturated animal fat.

4. Vegetarian Food Is Delicious
So you're worried that if you go vegetarian, you'll have to give up hamburgers, chicken sandwiches, and ice cream? You won't. As the demand for vegetarian food skyrockets, companies are coming out with more and more delicious meat and dairy product alternatives that taste like the real thing but are much healthier and don't hurt any animals. Plus, we have thousands of tasty kitchen-tested recipes to help you get started!

5. Meat Is Gross
It's disgusting but true: Meat is often contaminated with feces, blood, and other bodily fluids, all of which make animal products the top source of food poisoning in the United States. Scientists at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health tested supermarket chicken flesh and found that 96 percent of Tyson chicken was contaminated with campylobacter, a dangerous bacteria that causes 2.4 million cases of food poisoning each year, resulting in diarrhea, cramping, abdominal pain, and fever. Learn more.

6. Help Feed the World
Eating meat doesn't just hurt animals; it hurts people too. It takes tons of crops and water to raise farmed animals-in fact, it takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of animal flesh! All that plant food could be used much more efficiently if it was fed to people directly. The more people who go vegetarian, the more we can feed the hungry.

7. Save the Planet
Eating meat is one of the worst things that you can do for the Earth; it's wasteful, it causes enormous amounts of pollution, and the meat industry is one of the biggest causes of global warming. Adopting a vegetarian diet is more important than switching to a "greener" car in the fight against global warming.

8. All the Cool Kids Are Doing It
The list of stars who shun animal flesh is basically a "who's who" of today's hottest celebs. Joaquin Phoenix, Natalie Portman, Tobey McGuire, Shania Twain, Alicia Silverstone, Anthony Kiedis, Casey Affleck, Kristen Bell, INXS lead singer J.D. Fortune, Benji Madden, Alyssa Milano, Common, Joss Stone, and Carrie Underwood are just a handful of the super-sexy vegetarians who regularly appear in People magazine. Check out our recent "World's Sexiest Vegetarians" poll for more hot, compassionate celebs.

9. Look Sexy and Be Sexy
Vegetarians tend to be thinner than meat-eaters and have more energy, which is perfect for late-night romps with your special someone. (Guys: The cholesterol and saturated animal fat in meat, eggs, and dairy products don't just clog the arteries to your heart; over time, they impede blood flow to other vital organs as well.) Plus, what's sexier than someone who is not only mega-hot, but also compassionate?

10. Pigs Are Smarter Than Your Dog
While most people are less familiar with pigs, chickens, fish, and cows than they are with dogs and cats, animals used for food are every bit as intelligent and able to suffer as the animals who share our homes are. Pigs can learn to play video games, and chickens are so smart that their intelligence has been compared by scientists to that of monkeys. Read more about these amazing animals.

Ready to get started? Take the 30-Day Veg Pledge and we'll help you every step of the way. Have a happy, healthy, and humane new year!

The Power of your consumer dollar

2007-01-08T21:45:00.000-06:00

For people who are wondering about good places to spend your money, PETA's new "Proggy Awards" offer some good ideas:
http://peta.org/feat/proggy/2007/winners.asp

And beyond the Proggies, the Method Products guys won our "people of the year" award. Please buy Method for your laundry, dishsoap, and other needs. This stuff is great!
http://www.peta.org/campaigns/poty-06.asp

Happy New Year!

refuting "so much garbage"

2007-01-05T17:46:00.000-06:00

"I was raised on the Book of Jesus
till I read between the lines"

---Barbra Streisand

Who is this figure, Jesus, whom (according to the New Testament) even his immediate disciples, all Jews, referred to as "Lord" and "Christ"?

The title "Lord" was used in biblical times as it is now, to denote respected personalities. The patriarch Jacob addressed his brother Esau as "my Lord" after their reconciliation. (Genesis 33:12-14) The name "Jesus" is the Greek translation of "Y'shua," or "Joshua," which means "YHVH saves" in Hebrew. (YHVH, the most sacred name of God in Judaism, has often been mistranslated as "Yahweh" or "Jehovah.") Christ or "Christos" is the Greek translation of the Hebrew title "Mashiach," or Messiah, which means "annointed one."

The kings were called "Messiah," because they had been annointed with oil. (I Samuel 10:1; I Kings 1:39) There was also the implication of a spiritual annointing with God's presence for special service. Messiah was a title, therefore, which could be used as a designation not just for kings, but for priests and prophets.

The prophet Isaiah considered Cyrus the Persian ruler a Messiah because he had been chosen by God to liberate the Jewish captives. (Isaiah 45:1) Isiah and Micah expressed hope for an ideal Davidic ruler who would perform God's will. Jeremiah and Ezekiel hoped for the restoration of the Jewish nation under the leadership of a just and righteous Davidic ruler. "Messiah" thus represented a future king of the house of David. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was descended from David (1:1-17) and was frequently addressed as "son of David" (9:27, 12:23, 15:22, 20:30-31, 21:9,15, 22:42). His father Joseph was also called "son of David." (Matthew 1:20)

Jesus has been called the "Son of God." God adopted Israel as His son; Israel is called the son of God in the Bible (Exodus 4:22-23; Hosea 11:1). With the establishment of monarchy, the king was also identified as a son of God. His coronation was the occasion on which he became the adopted son of God (Psalm 2:7; II Samuel 7:14). In the Book of Job (1:6, 2:1, 38:7), the angels are called sons of God. In Hebrews 1:5, 5:5, God is quoted as having said to Jesus at his baptism, "Thou art My beloved son, this day I have begotten thee." Hebrews 2:10-13, John 1:12 and Romans 8:16-19 all describe God bringing many sons to glory.

Jesus called himself "Son of Man." The prophet Ezekiel was addressed by God as "son of man" (Ezekiel 2:1). In Hebrew, "son of man" ("ben adam") was a synonym for "man." Psalm 8:4 uses it in plural. Daniel refers to "one like a son of man" (Daniel 7:13), representing a coming Messiah and "the saints of the Most High" receiving the kingdom from God at the closing of the age.

Both Jesus and John the Baptist were considered prophets by the people. (Matthew 11:9, 21:11, 21:26, 21:46; Mark 6:15, 11:32; Luke 7:16, 7:26, 9:19, 24:19; John 4:19, 6:14, 7:40, 9:17) Jesus placed himself in the tradition of the prophets before him. (Matthew 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24, 13:3; John 4:44) He frequently compared his ministry to the ministries of Noah, Lot and Jonah. (Matthew 10:15, 11:24, 12:39-40, 16:4, 24:37-39; Luke 10:12, 11:29,32, 17:26-29,32)

Jesus was called "Rabbi," meaning "Master" or "Teacher," 42 times in the gospels. The ministry of Jesus was a rabbinic one. Jesus related Scripture and God's laws to everyday life, teaching by personal example. He engaged in healing and acts of mercy. He told stories or parables--a rabbinic method of teaching. He went to the synagogue (Matthew 12:9), taught in the synagogues (Matthew 4:23, 13:54; Mark 1:39), expressed concern for Jairus, "one of the rulers of the synagogue" (Mark 5:36) and it "was his custom" to go to the synagogue (Luke 4:16). John the Baptist, like Jesus, was also addressed as "Rabbi," or Teacher of Scripture. (Luke 3:12)

Jesus began his ministry by teaching the multitudes not to "give what is sacred to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine." (Matthew 7:6) Dogs, like swine, were considered foul and unclean by the Hebrew people. (Deuteronomy 23:18; I Samuel 24:14; II Kings 8:13; Psalm 22:16,20; Matthew 7:6; Luke 16:21; Revelations 22:15) These words were used by the children of Israel to describe the neighboring heathen populations.

When sending his disciples out to preach, Jesus instructed them not to go to the gentiles, but to "go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10:5-6) When a Canaanite woman asked Jesus to heal her daughter, he replied, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel...It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." (Matthew 15:22-28) Jesus regarded the gentiles as "dogs." His gospel was intended for the Jewish people. Even the apostle Paul admits that the gospel was first intended for the Jews, and that the Jews have every advantage over the gentiles in this regard (Romans 1:16, 3:1-2).

When a scribe asked Jesus what is the greatest commandment in the Torah, Jesus began with "Hear O Israel, the Lord, thy God, is One Lord." This is the Shema, which is still heard in every synagogue service to this day. "And you shall love the Lord with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength...And you shall love your neighbor as yourself," Jesus concluded.

When the scribe agreed that God is one and that to love Him completely and also love one's neighbor as oneself is "more important than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices," Jesus replied, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." (Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:29-34; Luke 10:25-28)

"Do not suppose I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets," insisted Jesus. "I did not come to destroy but to fulfill...till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle pass from the Law till all is fulfilled. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven...unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20) Jesus also upheld the Torah in Luke 16:17: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid."

Nor do these words refer merely to the Ten Commandments. Jesus meant the entire Torah: 613 commandments. When a man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus replied, "You know the commandments." He then quoted not just the Ten Commandments, but a commandment from Leviticus 19:13 as well: "Do not defraud." (Mark 10:17-22)

Jesus' disciples were once accused by the scribes and Pharisees of violating rabbinical tradition (Matthew 15:1-2; Mark 7:5), but never biblical law. At no place in the entire New Testament does Jesus ever proclaim Torah or the Law of Moses to be abolished; this was the theology of Paul, a former Pharisee who never knew Jesus, but who used to persecute Jesus' followers. Paul openly identified himself not as a Jew but as a Roman (Acts 22:25-26) and an apostate from Judaism (Philippians 3:4-8)

The argument against biblical vegetarianism that I usually get from Christians is that they think they are no longer under Mosaic Law, because the apostle Paul referred to his background as a former Pharisee and his previous adherence to Mosaic Law (with its dietary laws, commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals, etc.) as "so much garbage." (Philippians 3:4-8) But Jesus not only repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law, he justified his healing on the Sabbath by referring to commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals!

While teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a woman who had been ill for eighteen years. He justified his healing work on the Sabbath by referring to biblical passages calling for the humane treatment of animals as well as their rest on the Sabbath. "So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham...be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?" Jesus asked. (Luke 13:10-16)

Jesus compared the kingdom of God to a mustard seed which grows into a huge tree, with the birds of the air nested in its branches. (Matthew 13:31-32; Mark 4:30-32; Luke 13:18-19) On yet another occasion, Jesus again referred to Torah teaching on "tsa'ar ba'alei chayim" or compassion for animals to justify healing on the Sabbath. "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (Luke 14:1-5)

Jesus compared saving sinners who had gone astray from God's kingdom to rescuing lost sheep. He recalled a Jewish legend about Moses' compassion as a shepherd for his flock:

"For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. What do you think? Who among you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? And when he has found it," Jesus continued, "he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home,he calls together his friends and neighbors saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'

"I say to you, likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance...there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:3-7,10)

Jesus' response to rabbinical law and the excesses of the Pharisaic tradition is often misunderstood. "There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him," taught Jesus, "but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man." His disciples could not understand this. "What comes out of a man," Jesus explained, "that defiles a man. For from within out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders. Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness...blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man." (Matthew 15:11-20; Mark 7:14-23)

Jesus was more concerned with one's internal nature than he was with one's external behavior. Jesus attacked not just killing and adultery, but the inner mentality and desires which cause such actions. (Matthew 5:21-22,27-28) Jesus went to the root cause of sin, looking past social factors and one's surrounding environment to the individual conscience before God.

Proof of this can be seen in Jesus' opposition to the Pharasaic method of saving sinners: "For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also. Did he who made the outside make the inside also?" (Matthew 23:25-26; Luke 11:37-40)

A person's heart or conscience can be known by his words and his deeds. Jesus warned his followers to "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Therefore, by their fruits you will know them...Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things." (Matthew 7:15-20, 12:34-35: Luke 6:43-45)

According to Mark (a gentile writer), Jesus' conclusion that nothing from the outside can defile a man indirectly made all foods permissible. If this were true, however, Simon (Peter) would not have resisted a divine command to kill and eat both "clean" and "unclean" animals. (Acts 10:9-16) Nor would James, the brother of Jesus (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19), who held a leading position at the church in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:13), have required all gentile converts to Christianity to abstain from blood, strangled meat, fornication, and food offered to pagan idols. (Acts 15) The resurrected Jesus himself demanded that his followers refrain from eating food offered to pagan idols (Revelations 2:14).

It is significant that the idea that all foods are permissible is not recorded in Matthew's gospel (which reflects more of the Jewish tradition than any other gospel), but only in Mark's gospel, and Mark was a gentile writer, and not one of the original apostles. Even if it were true, would it justify unnecessarily harming or killing animals to begin with? Jesus' teachings on nonviolence and the kingdom of God, his insistence upon the moral standards given by God at the beginning of creation (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18), and his teachings on God's compassion for all living creatures (Matthew 6:26-30, 10:29-31; Luke 12:6-7,24-28, 13:10-16, 14:1-5) all suggest otherwise.

Jesus' words in Matthew 7:12, "Accordingly, whatever you would have people do for you, do the same for them, for this covers the Law and the prophets," are sometimes taken to mean Mosaic Law has been abolished...one need only "do unto others." But Jesus was merely repeating in the positive what Rabbi Hillel had stated a generation earlier. Hillel was asked, "What is Judaism?" He replied, "What is hateful to you, do not do unto others. That is Judaism. Everything else is commentary." Hillel's statement has never been taken to mean the Law has been abolished. There is no reason why Jesus' words should be interpreted as such, either. There is nothing in the synoptic gospels of Jesus to suggest a fundamental break with Judaism.

Christianity remained a part of Judaism even after the death and resurrection of Jesus. From the Acts of the Apostles (2:22), we learn that Jesus' followers believed him to be "a man certified by God..." It was God who made Jesus Lord and Messiah (2:36), and they hoped Jesus would soon "restore the kingdom of Israel" (1:6). The first Jewish Christians went to Temple daily (2:46), celebrated the festival of Weeks (2:1), observed the Sabbath (1:12), and continued to worship the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob..." (3:13)

These Jewish Christians carried their belief in Jesus as Lord and Messiah from Jerusalem to Judea, Samaria and Galilee (1:4,8, 8:1, 9:31). Their numbers began to gradually increase. The initial 120 members of the Pentecostal assembly in Jerusalem grew to three thousand (2:41), then five thousand (4:4). Their numbers continued to grow; a great number of priests embraced the faith (6:7). The church enjoyed peace as it was being built up. (9:31) There was a strong community spirit; they broke bread and said prayers together (2:42). They shared property (2:44,46) and lived without personal possessions (4:32). Many Pharisees came to believe in Jesus (15:5) and this Jewish messianic movement was on friendly terms with Gamaliel, a powerful and highly respected Pharisee, who intervened on their behalf (5:33).

Simon (Peter) exercised authority in the early church (1:15, 2:14, 15:7). Peter's vision of a divine command to kill and eat animals (Acts 10:9-29) is often misunderstood. Frances Arnetta, a Christian vegetarian and founder of Christians Helping Animals and People, explains:

"...Peter had a vision while he was very hungry. In it, he saw a huge sheet lowered from heaven containing many kinds of animals which it was not lawful for a Jew to eat. A voice said to him, 'Rise, Peter, kill and eat.' But Peter said, 'No, Lord. I have never eaten anything common or unclean.' Then the voice said, 'What God hath cleansed, call not common.' After this exchange had taken place three times, the sheet was drawn back up to heaven with the animals safe on it.

"Some mistakenly believe that Peter was literally being commanded to slay and eat the animals. But if that were the case, they would not have been taken back to heaven alive. The correct interpretation of the Scripture is this. Like the other followers of Jesus, Peter was a Jew, and he thought the Gospel of Jesus Christ was meant only for the nation of Israel. But God was showing him, through the analogy of food, which Peter being hungry, could relate to, that Jesus died for all humankind, and that the Gospel was also meant to be taken to the gentiles, whom Peter considered unclean.

"The proof of this is that after reflecting on the vision, Peter was led by the Spirit of God to go to the house of Cornelius, a gentile, and he preached the Messianship of Jesus to him, saying, 'God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.' So one cannot find a command to eat meat in this passage or in any other in the New Testament."

Chapter 15 of the Book of Acts gives an account of a dispute which had divided the early church: to what extent were the gentile converts to observe the Law of Moses? The final verdict came from James, the brother of Jesus (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19). He said the gentile converts were to abstain from food offered to pagan idols, from blood, from anything that had been strangled, and from fornication. (Acts 15:29, 21:25)

These commands were not whimsically concocted; they were originally given by God Himself concerning any strangers dwelling among the Israelites (Leviticus 17:1-18,30). The prohibition against consuming animal blood was given by God to Noah (Genesis 9:3) who was not a Jew, and is repeated throughout the Old and New Testaments (Genesis 9:3; Leviticus 17:10-12, 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:16,23,25, 15:23; Acts 15:19-20,29). The Bible identifies blood with life itself: "...for the blood is the life..." (Deuteronomy 12:23) The blood of a slain animal, which symbolizes the essence of life, must be returned to the Giver of Life.

Rabbi Samuel Dresner observes: "The removal of blood...is one of the most powerful means of making us constantly aware of the concession and compromise which the whole act of eating meat, in reality, is...it teaches us reverence for life." According to Dresner: "...the eating of meat is itself a sort of compromise... Man ideally should not eat meat, for to eat meat a life must be taken, an animal must be put to death." Again, this prohibition against consuming animal blood was intended for the entire human race; thus the Bible upholds vegetarianism as a moral ideal.

Author Joseph Benson noted, "It ought to be observed that the prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites...has never been revoked, but, on the contrary, has been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts XV; it is, thereby, a perpetual obligation."

Christian theologian Etienne de Courcelles (1586-1659) believed the apostles had discouraged at least the eating of blood, if not meat altogether. "Although some of our brothers would reckon it a crime to shed human blood, they did not think the same against eating animal (blood). The apostles, by their decree, wished to remedy the ignorance of these persons."

Church history relates that when the early Christians were accused of eating children, a woman named Biblias (AD 177) bravely protested against such charges, even under torture: "How would such men eat children, when they are not allowed to even eat the blood of irrational animals?"

Centuries later during the Trullan council held at Constantinople in AD 692, the following rule was established: "The eating of the blood of animals is forbidden in Holy Scripture. A cleric who partakes of blood is to be punished by deposition, a layman with excommunication."

William Bancroft Hill explains the Apostles' decree in his book, The Apostolic Age: "A pious Jew shrank from contact with the gentile world, because it seemed to him everywhere foul with pollution of idols, disgusting foods and licentiousness. Food offered to idols was held to be a communion with demons (Deuteronomy 32:17; I Corinthians 10:20), blood was the life element and therefore sacred to God; things strangled retained blood."

According to Hill, the rule against fornication referred not only to sex outside of marriage (I Thessalonians 4:3-5), but also to incest, which was prevalent among the gentiles. (I Corinthians 5:1). Many temples in the gentile world also functioned as religious brothels. The apostle Paul had to warn his followers of all this. (I Corinthians 6:15,18)

Contemporary Bible scholar William Barclay describes the impact of Christianity upon gentile converts: "...Christianity would disrupt their social life. In the ancient world, most feasts were held in the temple of some god...part of the meat went to the priests as their prerequisite; and part of this meat was returned to the worshipper. With his share he made a feast for his friends and relations.

"One of the gods most commonly worshipped was Serapis. And when the invitations to the feast went out, they would read: 'I invite you to dine with me at the table of our Lord Serapis.' Could a Christian share in a feast held in the temple of a heathen god? Even an ordinary meal in an ordinary house began with a libation, a cup of wine, poured out in honor of the gods. It was like a grace before meat.

"Could a Christian become a sharer in a heathen act of worship like that? Again, the Christian answer was clear. The Christian must cut himself off from his fellows rather than by his presence give approval to such a thing. A man had to be prepared to be lonely in order to be a Christian."

The apostle Paul repeatedly attacked idolatry. (Romans 1:23; I Corinthians 6:9-10; II Corinthians 6:16; Galatians 5:19-21) He recognized the immorality of accepting food offered to idols and pagan gods: "...that which they sacrifice they are offering to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons." (I Corinthians 10:20) Yet Paul then proceeded to give his followers permission to eat food offered to pagan idols! "You may eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience; for the earth is the Lord's and everything in it." (I Corinthians 10:14-33)

Paul told his followers they need only abstain from such foods if it offends their "weaker" brethren: "For if someone sees you...sitting at the table in an idol temple, will not his conscience, weak as it is, encourage him to eat food offered to idols?...If my eating causes my brother to stumble, I shall eat no meat for ever, so that my brother will not be made to fall into sin." (I Corinthians 8:1-13)

Not only does this contradict the Apostles' decree concerning gentile converts (Acts 15), it contradicts the teachings of Jesus himself. In Revelations 2:14-16,20, the resurrected Jesus specifically instructs John to write to two churches that they not eat food offered to pagan idols. Secular historian Dr. Martin A. Larson writes in The Story of Christian Origins that the seven Asian churches Jesus wrote to (Revelations 1:4) were Jewish Christian churches that had repudiated Paul. (II Timothy 1:15)

Paul, who once persecuted the brethren, considered himself a Roman (Acts 22:25-26) and an apostate from Judaism (Philippians 3:4-8). Jesus, on the other hand, insisted that even seemingly insignificant demands from the Law of Moses could not be set aside. (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17) It is hard to tell at times if Paul rejected the entire Law or only its Pharisaic excesses, since he quoted the Law as spiritual authority (e.g., I Corinthians 14:21,34). On at least one occasion, he acknowledged the Law to be spiritual, but admitted his own inability to observe it. (Romans 7:12,14-25)

On another occasion, Paul stated that laws are laid down for the lawless: morality is meant for those who would otherwise lack morals. (I Timothy 1:8-11) Many of Paul's statements are not against the Law itself, but against the hypocrisy with which it was being enforced or observed (Galatians 2:1-14), and the fact that the gentiles were not obliged to follow all of Mosaic Law. (Acts 15)

Paul told his gentile followers that it is best to abstain from meat or from food offered to pagan idols so as not to offend the "weaker" brethren. (Romans 14; I Corinthians 8:1-13) Paul's use of the word "weak" has been debated. Christian theologian Dr. Upton Clary Ewing believes Paul used the word "weak" with a positive connotation. According to Paul, "God has chosen the weak things in the world to shame the strong." (I Corinthians 1:27)

Describing his tribulations for the cause of Christ, being caught up in the heavenly spheres, and a revelation from Jesus, Paul wrote:

"If I must boast, I shall boast of matters that show my weakness...I will boast, but not about myself--unless it be about my weakness...the Lord...he told me, '...my strength comes to perfection where there is weakness.' Therefore," Paul concluded, "I am happy to boast in my weaknesses...I delight, then, in weaknesses...for when I am weak, then I am strong." (II Corinthians 11:30; 12:1-10)

Paul wrote further that Jesus "was crucified out of weakness, yet he lives through divine power, and we, too, are weak in him; but we shall live with him for your benefit through the power of God...We are happy to be weak when you are strong." (II Corinthians 13:4,9)

Taken in this context, the word "weak" suggests complete dependence upon God.

Since Paul refers not only to his vegetarian brethren as "weak," but also the brethren who refrain from eating food offered to pagan idols, he was either a false prophet contradicting the resurrected Jesus (Revelations 2:14-16,20), or he was using the word "weak" with a positive connotation.

Again, if Jesus really did come to abolish the Law and the prophets, Peter would not have resisted a divine command to kill and eat both "clean" and "unclean" animals (Acts 10). Nor would there have been a dispute in the early church as to what extent the gentiles were to observe Mosaic Law (Acts 15). The final verdict for gentile converts came not from Paul (a Roman), but from James, the brother of Jesus (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19).

When Paul, a Roman who used to persecute Jesus' followers, visited the church at Jerusalem, James and the elders told him all its members were "zealous for the Law." They reminded Paul that the gentile converts to Christianity were to abstain from idols, blood, strangled meat, and fornication. (Acts 21:20,25) James wrote an epistle refuting Paul's misinterpretation of salvation by faith. James stressed obedience to Jewish Law (James 2:8-13), and concluded (2:26) that "faith without works is dead."

Paul says if anyone has confidence in Mosaic Law, "I am ahead of him" (Philippians 3:4-8). Would that include Jesus, who said he did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets? Would that include Jesus, who said whoever sets aside even the least of the laws demands shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19)? Would that include Jesus, who taught that following the commandments of God is the only way to eternal life (Mark 10:17-22)? Would that include Jesus who said that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid (Luke 16:17)?

Paul may have regarded his previous adherence to Mosaic Law as "so much garbage," but it should be clear by now that JESUS DIDN'T THINK THE LAW WAS "GARBAGE"!

If Christians assign greater value to Paul's teachings over those of Jesus, then "Christianity" really is "Paulianity".

I'm not saying Christians should all be circumcised and following Mosaic Law. The Reverend Andrew Linzey, the foremost theologian in the field of animal-human relations and author of Christianity and the Rights of Animals (1987), rejected such an approach in a 1989 interview with the Animals' Agenda. I'm merely saying that Christianity for the past 2000 years has been based on a misunderstanding. My friend Rankin Fisher (a former Missionary Baptist minister), quoted a Methodist minister friend of his as having admitted, "We (Christians) aren't really following Jesus. We're following Paul."