Talk:Christian vegetarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Christian vegetarianism is within the scope of WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Seventh-day Adventist Church and Seventh-day Adventist Church-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church To-do:
To-do list for Christian vegetarianism: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • introduce at least some Biblical passages which may be used in support or opposition of vegetarianism
Added Biblical references from [1]
References deleted here, see talk.

Contents

[edit] Sources?

Is this article about real, large enough group with sufficiently long history? Isn't it just artificial complement to other vegetarian articles? Pavel Vozenilek 20:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

This, I imagine, is a general article from which the more specific articles can hang. Kingturtle 22:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The story is two thousand years old. That is "sufficiently long." Das Baz 16:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too wishy-washy

  • It is thought by some Christian vegetarians that the movement away from vegetarianism began with Paul, and that they need to return to pre-Pauline early Christianity.
  • There are also some Christian vegetarians who believe that the Christian principles of compassion and nonviolence require a vegetarian diet whether the original Christians were historically vegetarians or not. Some believe a vegan diet such as fruitarianism was the original diet of humankind in the form of Adam and Eve, and if we are ever to return to Eden then we will have to go back to a holistic diet.
  • Yet others point out that the Christian mandate to feed the hungry can be fulfilled on a world-wide scale by adopting a vegetarian diet, since a carnivorous diet consumes and destroys too large a portion of the world's food resources.

Who are these "somes" and "others"? Can we get some names and citations please? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:40, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

If we don't find out who these critics are, I'm going to remove the cited text. -Willmcw 20:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keith Akers, Stephen R. Kaufman, Nathan Braun, Leo Tolstoy, Ammon Hennacy, Christian anarchists and the Charismatics, for example --86.133.239.0 09:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Great. Can we plug those names into the slots now filled by "some"s and "yet others"? That would make it more specific. -Willmcw 09:45, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
No problem, consider it done. --86.133.239.0 12:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
That's much better, thanks! -Willmcw 20:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

A NPOV tag has been added by Spookfish. Explain/discuss please. --nirvana2013 16:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No reply received after 7 days. Removed NPOV tag. --nirvana2013 10:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scripture

Some of the assertions in this article seems to contain very obvious conflicts with the common mainstream interpetations of certain New Testament verses -- for example, it would be extremely difficult to participate in a Passover feast at that time without eating some lamb (which was the main part of the feast, as mentioned in Luke 22:7), and Paul in Romans 14:2-3 says that vegetarianism is merely a personal preference, which should not be made a source of divisiveness within the Christian community. AnonMoos 23:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the Gospel of the Hebrews, Jesus insisted that no lamb, or any other flesh, would be consumed at his Passover. Das Baz 18:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
That's nice -- Luke 22:7 and Romans 14:2-3 are in the Bible as accepted by the vast majority of Christians, while the Gospel of the Hebrews isn't. AnonMoos 21:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the Christian Vegetarian Association Paul was not referring to vegetarianism which was not an issue in those times, but to the practice of not eating meat from the meat market because of fear that it been sacrificed to an idol as was the custom in those days. Also, Jesus ate the Passover lamb as required by God's law. Other than that, meat eating was entirely discretionary. What people don't understand is that God only permitted meat eating with certain health related restrictions due to the ignorance of the people and their "craving" for meat. The vegan diet was the best and that was why He tried to establish it in the beginning. Genesis 1:29-31.

[edit] Vegetarianism and the flood?

Vegetarianim is clearly not commanded anywhere in the Bible, however has anyone heard this theory?

That before the flood the patriarchs did not eat meat, which accounted for their long life spans, (800 - 1000 years), and that after the flood God 'allowed' them to eat meat, which caused them to have much shorter lifespans.

I have heard and read this in different places. Anybody got a source? Terrible Tim 23:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I read about this idea in an issue of The Final Call, published by Louis Farrakhan. The article was a reprint of an article (or book page) by Elijah Muhammad, a leader of the Nation of Islam. Whether this idea originated with Elijah Muhammed I can't say. The Nation of Islam and The Final Call do advocate vegetarianism. williamaswensonjr 3 December 2006.

[edit] consideration of cannabis

I am curious about this, as the pro-marijuana movement frequently refers to the Genesis quote regarding seeded plants (which C. sativa is). How sweeping is this movement? Just food itself, or promotion of using plants for everything (e.g., being more toward the vegan end of things). ... aa:talk 07:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romans 14

I'm removing the passages from Romans 14 from both the "Advocating vegetarianism" and the "Advocating meat" sections, as it is original research to claim the passages advocate either. The most straightforward interpretation of Romans 14 is that meat-eaters shouldn't be judgmental about vegetarians, and vice versa, but it doesn't advocate either side of the argument. If someone can cite a source from an author who has used passages from Romans 14 to advocate one side or the other, we can add it back (pointing out that this is that author's point of view, not necessarily Paul's). —Angr 12:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Following on from my comment above, it seems the whole "Biblical references to diet" is original research. We can't find Biblical passages and then say of our own accord "this passage advocates vegetarianism", "this passage advocates eating fish", or "this passage advocates eating meat". We need to find sources showing that the pro and con sides of the issue themselves have used these passages to make their arguments. —Angr 14:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and removing it now. It's really a morass of original research and it's getting worse rather than better.

—Angr 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is some place here for such a section. Christians have indeed used various passages to support or criticise vegetarianism. A large section of Christianity interprets the bible outside a rigorous teaching authority and its reasonable to reflect those diverse views here rather than regard it all as original research. GoldenMeadows 19:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
That's fine as long as there are reliable sources that can be cited to show that certain influential people have used these passages to make the argument. For Wikipedia to list Bible passages that could be interpreted as pro-veg, pro-fish-eating, or pro-meat-eating, without any evidence that these passages have been used for such advocating in published sources is original research. —Angr 21:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No covenant with the fish?

No covenant made with "fish of the sea" for protection during the millennium (Hosea 2:18)

Huh? That seems a bit a strange way to advocate fish-eating. Who uses this? --Terrible Tim 22:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I use it. Why would you consider this a strange way to advocate fish eating? Do you have another explanation for why "fish of the sea" was left out of the covenant? Do you believe in Old Testament prophecy?

It's unfortunate that some people believe it's their duty to block the free exchange of information and ideas to others. There has been a lot in the media and the health literature about the many health benefits of fish eating. Would it have hurt anyone to have left this explanation in? It should be up to the reader to believe or not to believe. Williamaswensonjr 20:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for advocacy. If you can find and cite a published, reliable source showing that this passage has been used to advocate eating fish, you can add it. But adding the information on the basis of the fact that you do so yourself is original research. —Angr 08:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meat in the Bible

Haven't any critics mentioned all the instances of meat-eating and fishing in the Bible? Feeding the multitude comes to mind. -LtNOWIS 03:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably someone has. We just need to be able to cite a reliable source showing that a specific author has made this argument in a published work. —Angr 09:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

why is there a criticism of vegetarianism linked from this page? what does it have to do with christian vegetarianism?

i think that section should be deleted. i think arguments for keeping it would be weak. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.118.198 (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

I went ahead and deleted the bit criticizing vegetarianisms as environmentally unsound -- it was totally off topic. I think a criticism section is warranted, but that particular criticism belongs on the environmental vegetarian page, not this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.3.140 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 12 July 2007

I think the sentence "Critics suggest that the decision to be vegetarian or omnivore is purely a personal choice" needs to be either deleted or re-worded. The sentence suggests that only critics and not proponents of Christian vegetarianism believe in personal choice or free will. Both Ammon Hennacy and Leo Tolstoy were Christian vegetarians and Christian anarchists, believing people are free to choose their own path without the interference from any governing power other than God. The sentence should read "Critics and proponents suggest that the decision to be vegetarian or omnivore is purely a personal choice", but then there is no point including it in the Criticism section or even the article. Also various critics, or Christian Biblical literalists, believe eating meat is God's instruction from Genesis 9:1-3 and therefore not a choice at all !!! nirvana2013 13:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If all Christian vegetarian advocates agreed that "the decision to be vegetarian or omnivore is purely a personal choice", then there would never have been any controversy in the first place. The only reason a controversy exists at all is because some Christian vegetarian advocates do NOT agree "the decision to be vegetarian or omnivore is purely a personal choice". AnonMoos 13:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
So what about the critics who believe that eating meat is not a personal choice but a God given instruction? nirvana2013 08:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Those people who go around telling vegetarians that they must chow down a medium-rare sirloin to be able to receive the salvation of Jesus Christ must be much less militant and strident than Christian vegetarianism advocates, because I've never heard of them. AnonMoos 18:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The Christian right promote many things, including eating meat. They can be just as strident as vegetarians, or even more so, as unlike Christian vegetarians most certainly don't believe in nonviolence. nirvana2013 11:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The Christian right take many controversial positions, but it has never come to my attention that any prominent Christian-right spokesman has declared that chowing down on a medium-rare sirloin is essential to be able to receive the salvation of Jesus Christ. Meanwhile, PETA took out billboard advertisements in several cities with the Biblically-false assertion that "Jesus was a vegetarian"[sic].
Having little sympathy with the assertion that vegetarianism is religiously obligatory on Christians is not the same as actively asserting that meat-eating is religiously obligatory on Christians, and I've never heard of anybody who advocated the latter position... AnonMoos 13:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So mention the "it's a matter of choice" criticism(if you can call it that) alongside a paragraph on "The Controversy". Without any of that Peta advocacy stuff, the criticism doesn't make much sense to the reader. The environmental vegetarianism criticism belongs in the environmental vegetarianism article. --Dodo bird 05:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter's Dream

In Acts Peter has a dream, all the animals are running amock God say what do you want to eat, Peter says none they are unclean, God sya I made them they are pure —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterkeith99 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC).