ARCHIVE OF COMMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Our subjects cover: animals, religion (Christian, Jewish and others); diet and lifestyle (vegan and vegetarian); and other miscellaneous subjects.
Even through, I have been a vegetarian for almost ten years now, I do think there can be made a rationale argument for the idea that it is better to buy meat at a supermarket "dead" than to go out and kill it yourself. This argument is particularly cogent, when trying to deconstruct the "ethical hunting argument." Which oftentimes leads to more killing, than less killing - particularly when one considers that animals are killed, which normally won't be killed, under normal circumstances.
In fact, in my book, Creation Unveiled, I used this, to formulate a Christian basis for being against hunting. This argument goes back to the idea, that we are not to eat meat offered to idols. It is a very complex argument, which I am not prepared to go into right now, and it involves using a particular theorist, but the crux of the matter, is that ethical hunting far from leading one to take responsibility for the animals they kill, is very damaging to human-animal relationships and does not draw one closer to animal life or lead to the development of proper relationships. It brings out all kinds of unhealthy emotions, which far from one being repulsed by killing animals, one becomes enamored by killing things. This does not happen, or is less obvious, with eating meat.
Having said that, this does not mean that eating meat is a good thing either, in my opinion, there are plenty of good solid reasons to be vegetarian, not the least of which is the cruel and inhumane conditions of factory farms.
But, the "dead animal" argument can be used to demonstrate that ethical hunting is not a preferential option to eating store-bought meat. Of course being both vegetarian and not hunting, is the ideal solution, "the ought."
I do contend that there is something to the whole Schweitzer "Reverence for Life" thing. I have been reading lately, as part of my devotionals, that Schweitzer did in fact eat meat, which was interesting and surprising, yet he more than anyone else honored animal life, and did what that lady did, limit the unnecessary killing of animal life.
This is where the health argument comes into play, it provides a sold basis, for our contention that eating animals for food is not necessary for human survival, particularly in this day and age, one can live a very healthy and nutritionally full life being a vegetarian. In fact, the scientific evidence seems to point, that the burden of proof rests, on meat-eaters. Where the scientific and nutrimental basis for the necessity of meat, is very tenuous indeed. At best.
This is just where I am coming from on this issue!!! This is my discernment on this issue!!! Hunting is one of my pet issues!!!
Daniel Salomon, n/OEF
Go on to: Comments by Juli - 16 Feb 2009
Return to: They Were Already Dead
Your Comments are Welcome:
| Home Page
| Discussion Table of Contents |
Watercolor painting by Mary T. Hoffman - God's Creation in Art
| Home Page | Animal Issues | Archive | Art and Photos | Articles | Bible | Books | Church and Religion | Discussions | Health | Humor | Letters | Links | Nature Studies | Poetry and Stories | Quotations | Recipes | What's New? |
Thank you for visiting all-creatures.org.