Interview with Dr. Stephen Webb
(I sent Dr. Stephen Webb a copy of my own 2003 book on the subject of
religion and animal rights, They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy.)
A: "I would say that vegetarianism is the diet of hope, an eschatological
diet. It's not morally obligatory, though it's morally commendable."
The Bible supports abortion rights, too (Exodus 21), as it does slavery and
the subjugation of women! If killing animals is a "choice," then so is the
killing of the unborn!
Nearly all biblical commentators, Jewish and Christian, conservative or
liberal, agree that Genesis 9:3 represents a concession, and not God's
highest intent for humanity, as spelled out in Genesis 1:29-31 and Isaiah
11:6-9.
One Jewish writer comments, "Only after man proved unfit for the high moral
standard set at the beginning was meat made part of the humans' diet."
According to this interpretation, while it would not be a sin to eat meat,
it would be morally better to abstain.
The concession to kill animals carries with it the prohibition against
consuming animal blood, which is repeated throughout both 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, 21:25)
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.
This commandment against consuming animal blood was first given to Noah, who
was not Jewish; it was intended for all mankind. (Acts 21:25)
Rabbi Samuel Dresner makes this observation: "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."
The prohibition against consuming animal blood was repeated by James, the
brother of Jesus, in Acts 15.
Even James, who according to orthodox sources such as Hegisuppus and
Augustine, was a lifelong vegetarian, did not dare to contradict Genesis
9:3; instead, he merely repeated the prohibition against consuming animal
blood, indicating that it is applicable to gentiles as well as Jews, and
thus that man ideally should not eat meat or kill animals to begin with.
Commenting on Genesis 9:3 in A Vegetarian Sourcebook, Keith Akers writes:
"Some vegetarians have argued that this passage actually supports
vegetarianism, since it is impossible to drain the blood entirely from an
animal. Others have only quoted the phrase 'But you must not eat the flesh'
out of context.
"Both the Ebionites in the first century AD, and the Society of Bible
Christians in the nineteenth century, argued that blood could never be
entirely drained from the animal.
"In the context of the rest of the Bible this argument is questionable. The
prohibition in Genesis 9:3-4 is clearly against eating blood, not against
eating flesh; and there is no indication that the draining of blood would be
a particularly difficult task.
"Parallel passages in Deuteronomy (12:213-24,27-28) imply that the
injunction against eating blood is fulfilled if you pour the blood 'out on
the ground like water.'"
I agree with Keith Akers. The Bible teaches compassion towards animals and
upholds vegetarianism as a moral ideal.
The Bible was not spoken to the same class of men as was the Bhagavad-gita.
You will not find the same level of morality, metaphysics, or detailed
knowledge of a personal God, what God looks like, what are His different
incarnations and expansions, or what kind of activities He performs in His
spiritual kingdom.
A: "No matter what we eat, we're going to take away food from other animals.
Even if we turn all of America into cropland we will inflict suffering on
animals because you have to keep animals out of the field."
This argument is foolish. By raising and killing animals for food, we
indirectly kill many more plants and animals, than we would if we merely ate
the plants directly.
Over 200,000 porpoises are killed every year by fishermen seeking tuna in
the Pacific. Sea turtles are similarly killed in Carribean shrimp
operations.
Some animals are killed because, as carnivores, they compete with the human
predator for the right to kill other animals for food, including wild game
and domesticated species reduced by livestock ranchers.
Alaskan hunters are eager to reduce the wolf population in their state
because this animal is a predator of moose. Cougars, coyotes and wolves are
considered a menace to the cattle and sheep industries, and livestock
ranchers have engaged in a large-scale campaign to exterminate them.
Herbivorous animals that inhabit rangeland areas are also killed by the
livestock industry because they compete with cattle and sheep for food.
Large numbers of kangaroos are being killed in Austalia, while in the U.S.,
livestock ranchers seek to destroy wild horses, wild burros, deer, elk,
antelope and prairie dogs.
John Robbins points out in Diet for a New America that 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 repleace lost soil, we're chopping down our forests. Since 1967, the rate
of deforestization in the U.S. has been one acre every five seconds.
A vegan diet means less killing overall.
A: "One problem with vegetarianism is that it often gives rise to
self-righteousness, a sense of holier-than-thou purity. It can be
schismatic, which I think is why the church has seldom embraced it."
I think much of the "self-righteousness" on the part of vegetarians comes
from not being taken seriously by the Christians and/or the church, and, in
fact, being met with ridicule.
Back in 1990, when some Christians tried to preach to me, I made it clear to
them that I distinguish between the teachings of Jesus and those of Paul.
Rather than get into a debate with them about the history of Christianity, I
told them that I respected them for their piety, and merely asked them to
include the animals in their faith, just as they have learned to do with
blacks or with the unborn.
A simple request. They should have appreciated the fact that I wasn't asking
them to follow a different set of scriptures, worship a different god, etc.
As I wrote to my friend Greg in 1995, having my ethical system referred to
as "so much garbage" everywhere I go is what turned me into a
Christian-basher!
Which is unfortunate, because I would rather see the Christians as allies in
the campaign to respect the sanctity of ALL life. I wish there were more
Christians like Dr. Webb!
Q: "It's a diet of witnessing to your hope that, in the end, God will
restore the entire world to God's original intentions. That God will redeem
humans and animals alike. Redeem animals from what? Not their own sins?"
A: "You have to rethink heaven. It's not just for people who sin--it's for
any creature who has suffered, whose life has been incomplete, who's been a
victim. Heaven is about the restoration of all things to their original
goodness."
This is John Wesley's theology, the "General Deliverance" of all creatures.
I wouldn't want to go around judging everyone who eats meat, but I do think
vegetarianism is an act that witnesses to our faith. In one of the first
Christian Vegetarian Association (CVA) pamphlets originally put out several
years ago, the CVA claimed to be witnessing to the peace of Christ through a
vegetarian diet.
Q: "When you say that the Bible mentions animals in heaven, do you mean a
verse like 'the lion shall lie down with the lamb'?"
A: "In the Hebrew prophets, definitely. A lot of people know that Isaiah
passage, but there are many more such passages in Amos, Micah, and Ezekiel
that portray the Kingdom of God as a restoration of the world to its Edenic
state.
"It portrays that world as entailing peace between humans and animals, not
just peace between humans.
"I interpret the four "living beings" who surround the throne of the Lamb in
Revelation as evidence that heaven will be populated with non-human
species.
"Some Bible translations say "creatures," but the Greek is zoon-it clearly
should be animals.
Yes, this point is made by Regina Hyland in her 1988 book, The Slaughter of
Terrified Beasts, now reprinted for the new century, as God's Covenant with
Animals.
A: "One of the early church fathers tried to interpret allegorically the
scene in Revelations of animals in heaven by saying these four animals were
actually the four gospel writers."
Regina effectively debunked this interpretation in an issue of Humane
Religion from the late 1990s, insisting there are animals in heaven.
Q: "So when the kingdom of God comes, animals and humans will be together?"
A: "Yes. There is a Bible passage that says, 'You save humans and animals
alike, O Lord.' (Psalm 36:6).
"And Jesus not only drove the animal sellers out of the temple, but he
compared God's creation to a hen taking care of her chicks."
Q: "I thought Jesus was driving out the moneychangers?"
A: "Mark says they had turned the temple into a 'den of robbers.' That's
where you get the idea that Jesus was angry at the economic transactions.
"But if you read Matthew 21 and Luke 19, it's also very explicit that Jesus
drove out the animals from the temple."
Keith Akers points out that when Jesus cleansed the Temple with the words,
'My house shall be called a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of
thieves...'
...he was quoting a passage beginning at Jeremiah 7:11 and ending at
Jeremiah 7:22-23, which concludes:
"Add whole-offerings and eat the flesh if you will, but when I brought your
forefathers out of Egypt, I said nothing about sacrifices. I said not a word
about them."
Like Amos 5:25 and other biblical passages, this suggests Mosaic Law never
condoned animal sacrifice to begin with.
According to Rabbi Shmuel Golding in A Guide to the Misled, the orthodox
Jewish position concerning sacrifices is that it was a concession, just as
when God allowed Israel to have a king (I Samuel 8).
A: "We often forget that the temple was a slaughterhouse. The main point of
it was to be a place where animals could be sacrificed to mediate humanity's
relationship with the divine. The point was to lay your hand on an animal.
A: "Many scholars think that symbolized the transfer of sin or guilt to the
animal. Then the priest would sacrifice the animal. There were also
complicated regulations about the blood.
A: "So the temple would have been a loud, noisy, and bloody place, full of
the sound of animals dying. It would have sickened most people today.
A: "So Jesus goes there to cleanse it and run out the animal sellers. That
scene has been interpreted as Jesus not wanting the temple polluted with
money. But when you read the text with the eyes of animal compassion, it's
clear that Jesus is putting an end to animal sacrifices."
Q: "In one of the gospels it says Jesus drove out the animal sellers and the
animals-it's almost like he's freeing the animals. Is this about Christians
no longer needing to adhere to Mosaic law?"
A: Jesus quotes from Hosea, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." He continues
the prophetic critique of the temple sacrifices."
I agree with Keith Akers, that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law and the
prophets (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17), but only the
institution of animal sacrifice (Matthew 9:10-13, 12:6-7, 21:12-14; Mark
11:15; John 2:14-15; Hebrews 10:5-10), and that the gentile world, beginning
with Paul, mistook this for a rejection of the entire Law of Moses.
Q: "It almost sounds like you're setting up a conflict between the 'rule'
books-like Leviticus-and the Hebrew prophetic books in terms of how to treat
animals."
A: "I don't want to do that, because so many of the Levitical commandments
have to do with animal compassion. The Sabbath regulations applied to
domestic animals.
"Why does the text mention the cattle? It could have just said, 'Let
everyone take the day off.' It's interesting that the cattle are
enumerated.
"There are many such rules: An ox and ass are not to be yoked together since
the difference between them would put a strain on the weaker one. Mother
cattle are not to be slaughtered on the same day as their young (Lev 22:28)
--which would cause anxiety to the mother."
Q: "A lot of people say that's just some obscure law."
A: "Why should God care if the mother and offspring are killed on the same
day? Thank goodness we Christians have overcome these superstitious
rituals!
"But if you read it with the eyes of animal compassion, you start piecing
together a real pattern.
"For example, you're obligated to help your neighbor's donkey if it falls
under too heavy a load.
"The rabbis read that text to mean that you should help any animal that
looks to be in distress. I think Jesus read the text the same way."
Jesus was a rabbi. Jesus was called "Rabbi," meaning "Master" or "Teacher,"
42 times in the gospels.
The ministry of Jesus was rabbinic. Jesus related Scripture and God's laws
to everyday life, teaching by personal example.
Jesus engaged in healing and acts of mercy.
Jesus told stories or parables--a rabbinic method of teaching.
Jesus 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 justified his healing by referring to biblical passages calling for
the humane treatment of animals. (Luke 13:10-16, 14:1-5)
He compared saving sinners who had gone astray from God's kingdom to
rescuing lost sheep, recalling a Jewish legend about Moses' compassion as a
shepherd for his flock. (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:3-7,10)
It was Paul (I Corinthians 9:9-10), not Jesus, who taught that God doesn't
care for oxen.
Frances Arnetta of Christians Helping Animals and People claims that Paul's
words were translated incorrectly in the King James Version of the Bible.
But Rose Evans, editor and publisher of publisher of Harmony: Voices for a
Just Future, points out that Aquinas and his followers justified animal
cruelty by citing Paul's words in I Corinthians 9:9-10, and THEY WEREN'T
USING the King James Version!
A: "Another example is the manna in the wilderness, when the Israelites
were fleeing Egypt.
"God gave them a diet. God provided them with something white and fluffy
that tasted something like coriander seed."
Q: But didn't God also give them meat?
A: "The manna was clearly a non-animal diet, and some people got tired of
it. Numbers 11:4 reads, 'if only we had meat to eat..'
A: "They longed for the 'fleshpots of Egypt,' which quite literally means
the abattoirs, the places where animals were sacrificed. God gets angry with
this and sends them a ton of meat to eat.
A: "When you read it from an animal-compassion perspective, it's almost like
God is saying, 'You're sick. That's how I feel about your desire for meat."
A: "Sure enough, it happens. Number 11:34 says that God struck the
ungrateful people with the plague and they had to bury 'the people who had
the craving."
A: "Some people would read that story naturalistically, saying maybe the
quail carried disease. And I would say, yeah.
A: "But look what the story says...
God gave the people a vegetarian diet. The the Bible at least two times when
an attempt was made to try the Israelites out on a vegetarian diet. During
the period of exodus from Egypt, the Hebrews lived entirely on manna. They
had large flocks which they brought with them, but never touched.
The Israelites were told that manna "is the bread which the Lord has given
you to eat." (Exodus 16:5) For forty years in the desert, the Israelites
lived on manna. (Nehemiah 9:15,21)
The apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon (16:20) calls manna the food of the angels.
Manna is described as a vegetable food, like "coriander seed" (Numbers
11:7), tasting like wafers and honey. (Exodus 16:31)
On two separate occasions, however, the men rebelled against Moses because
they wanted meat.
The meat-hungry Hebrews lamented, 'Would that we had died by the hand of the
Lord in the land of Egypt when we sat by the flesh pots.' God ended this
first "experiment in vegetarianism" through the miracle of the quails.
A second 'experiment in vegetarianism' is suggested in the Book of Numbers,
when the Hebrews lament once again, 'Oh, that we had meat to eat.'"
(Numbers 11:4)
God repeated the miracle of the meat, but this time with a vengeance:
"And while the flesh was between their teeth, before it was even chewed, the
wrath of the Lord was kindled against the people, and He struck them down
with a great plague." (Numbers 11:33)
The site where the deaths took place was named "The Graves of Lust."
(Numbers 11:34; Deuteronomy 12:20) The meat was called "basar ta'avah," or
"meat of lust."
The Talmud (Chulin 84a) comments that: "The Torah teaches a lesson in moral
conduct, that man shall not eat meat unless he has a special craving for it,
and shall eat it only occasionally and sparingly."
Here, according to scholars, as in the story of the Flood, "meat is given a
negative connotation. It is a concession God makes to man's imperfection."
Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook taught that because humans had an insatiable desire
to kill animals and eat their flesh, they could not yet be returned to a
moral standard which called for vegetarianism.
Kook regarded Deuteronomy 12:15,20 ("Thou mayest slaughter and eat...after
all the desire of thy soul,") as poetically misleading. He translated this
Torah verse as: "because you lust after eating meat...then you may slaughter
and eat."
A: "The image of manna gets picked up in Jesus' teaching. He often talks of
himself being the bread of life. When he had an ideal meal with his
disciples, it was a frugal dinner of bread and wine."
Q: "But wasn't it likely that they would have eaten lamb at a Passover meal?
Wasn't it a traditional part of the meal?
A: "It was, but there's no mention of lamb in the gospel accounts. I think
the omission s intentional. To me, it makes sense that they didn't eat lamb
at the Last Supper."
Q: "Why?
A: "Because here was Jesus: he'd just gone temple would be destroyed. He
brought disciples together to tell them the secret of his ministry: that he
was going to be the last sacrifice.'
A: "That he was going to be killed like an animal, and that the mystery of
his death would somehow bring an end to the need for the sacrificial system.
People would have a more direct and immediate access to God through his
death, and would no longer need to sacrifice animals in order to placate
God.
A: "When he said "This is the blood of the new covenant," I think it would
have been ridiculous if he'd had lamb, sitting there. Serving lamb would
have made a mockery of his own death."
The gospel writers depict events that would not have happened "had the
crucifixion of Jesus happened on Friday (Passover)."
Crowds would not have carried weapons; there would have been no Jewish
involvement in the Roman legal proceedings against Jesus; nor would the
trial and crucifixion of Jesus had occurred.
Simon the Cyrenian would not have journeyed from the country; nor would
Joseph of Arimethia have been able to purchase a linen shroud and see to the
burial of Jesus' body.
The fact that Jesus was quickly taken down from the cross and buried in his
tomb is consistent with the Jews' deisre that he not be left on the cross
once the feast had begun.
The Fourth Gospel (John) specically states (13:1-2, 18:28, 19:14) that the
crucifixion took place on Thursday, the day of Preparation for Passover.
Jesus prophesized that he would be resurreted on the third day (Sunday)
folowing his execution (Matthew 16:21; Mark 10:34; Luke 18:3)
A trial and execution on Thursday, the day of Preparation for Passover, is
therefore, more consistent with Scripture.
Q: "In your book, you seem to say that fish are a slightly different
case-they're not bloody, for one thing.
Q: "The gospel tells the story of the loaves and fishes, and we see Jesus
eating fish after his resurrection, after he's presumably put an end to the
sacrificial system, as you say. How does that fit with your theory?"
A: "The only time we see Jesus eating fish is in the post-resurrection
accounts. Many scholars argue that those are later additions to the
gospels.
Matthew 14:19 only mentions Jesus multiplying loaves and not fishes.
Abbot George Burke writes:
"...there is a very interesting distinction made between the bread and the
fish in the Gospels of Saints Mathtew (14:19), Mark (6:41), and John
(6:11).
"When writing of the feeding of the five thousand, all three Evangelists are
careful to note that Jesus first took the bread, blessed it, divided it and
gave it for distribution. But the fish He simply gave for distribution!
"He gave no blessing to the eating of fish because it was not given by God
to man for food. Moreover, since it was already dead He did not kill
anything--He just made more of it."
The early church father Irenaeus, in his great thesis Against Heresies
(180-188 AD) mentions the miracle of Jesus feeding the multitudes, but makes
no mention of fish!
"It's possible that early copies of the gospels made no mention of fish
being fed to the multitudes, while later copyists added this symbol in order
to enhance the miracle.
"The oldest New Testament manuscript we have, the Codex Sinaiticus can be
found in the British Museum. It was written in 331 AD. We have no New
Testament manuscripts from before this time.
Q: "You'd rather see Jesus not resurrected than eating fish?"
A: "(Laughs) No, I believe in the resurrection. But the point of those
stories is to persuade the readers that Jesus was fully resurrected, and
what better way than to show him eating fish."
Reverend Andrew Linzey writes in Christianity and the Rights of Animals
(1987):
"...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."
A: "But I have no problem thinking Jesus ate fish. If he had been a strict
vegetarian, he would have sent the wrong message to his followers.
A: "Vegetarianism at the time of Jesus meant Gnostic dualism."
Q: "Meaning the spirit is good and matter is bad."
A: "Exactly."
The gnostics came later. If Jesus was a vegetarian, then, like Pythagoras,
the ancient world would have taken notice. Even a vegetarian rabbi would
have stood out!
The gospel writers were careful to note John the Baptist's diet of locusts
and wild honey, as well as his abstinence from alcohol. If Jesus was a
vegetarian, would they not have taken notice as well?
Proverbs 23:20 condemns winebibers and gluttonous eaters of meat. Jesus
contrasted his own ministry with John's asceticism, by pointing out that
when the multitudes saw John neither eating nor drinking, they assumed, "he
has a devil in him," but when the Son of Man came eating and drinking, they
said, "behold, a glutton and a winebiber!"
On the other hand: referring to Proverbs 23:20, Jesus condemned one who
"eats and drinks with the drunken." (Matthew 24:49; Luke 12:45) Jesus was a
rabbi in the Jewish tradition, which teaches compassion for animals and
upholds vegetarianism as a moral ideal.
There is nothing in the synoptic gospels of Jesus to suggest a fundamental
break with Judaism. Keith Akers writes that if Christians claim Jesus is the
messiah, the one meant to bring about God's kingdom of peace, and the Old
Testament prophecies are to be taken seriously, it would be hard to imagine
Jesus being anything but a vegetarian.
Jesus opposed the buying and selling of animals for sacrifice; teaching God
desires mercy and not sacrifice. From church history and apocryphal
literature such as the Clementine Homilies, we learn the Jerusalem apostles,
Peter, James and John were vegetarian.
James was Jesus' brother. James was raised a vegetarian; wouldn't this mean
Jesus' parents were vegetarian and that they raised Jesus as a vegetarian as
well? According to Clement of Alexandria, the apostle Matthew was a
vegetarian.
From history we learn the earliest Christians were vegetarians as well as
pacifists. Clemens Prudentius, the first Christian hymn writer, in one of
his hymns, exhorts his fellow Christians not to pollute their hands and
their hearts by killing animals, and points to the nourishing foods
available without blood-shedding.
The Ebionites, the original (Jewish) faction of the church at Jerusalem were
vegetarian, and their Gospel of Matthew (written in Hebrew, not Greek!)
depicted both John the Baptist and Jesus as vegetarians, with Jesus saying
clearly that he came to abolish animal sacrifice.
I agree with historian Rynn Berry of the North American Vegetarian Society,
that the evidence (Scriptural, theological, historical, etc.) that Jesus was
a vegetarian is circumstancial at best, but nonetheless, compelling.
Q: "People who were vegetarian at the time of Jesus-and there were a
lot-were so based on either superstition or denial of the goodness of the
earth. Heretics like the Manicheans tended to be vegetarian.
A: "Their superstitious reasons included a belief in the reincarnation of
souls, or that animal souls could be demons, and if you eat an animal you
let a demon into your body. That seemed to be a common belief."
Belief in karma and reincarnation is NOT "superstition", but rather part of
an enlightened world view.
I gave a similar response to Robert Andrews on the Society of Ethical and
Religious Vegetarians (SERV) email list in 2002.
Our main scripture, the Bhagavad-gita (5.18) clearly states:
"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
(outcaste)."
Social ills such as racism, sexism, nationalism, caste-ism, and specieism
rise because souls falsely identify with their temporary bodies. On the
spiritual platform, we are all equal.
(Compare this to Colossians 3:11, which says: "In Christ there is no Grek or
Jew, slave or free").
Western theology has been unable to resolve the "problem of evil." Why does
an omnipotent and merciful God allow suffering? Why are some people born
handicapped or in poverty, while others are born into wealth and privilege?
The explanation taught by Hindus, Buddhists and Jains are the twin doctrines
of karma and reincarnation: we reap what we sow, life after life.
Rabbi Harold S. Kushner didn't consider karma and reincarnation when he
wrote his 1983 bestseller, When Bad Things Happen to Good People.
Kushner's solution to the "problem of evil" is that God is not omnipotent!
According to Kushner, God is just as outraged as we are about injustices,
but there is nothing He can do to stop them.
Asking millions of synagogue-church-and-mosque going Americans to take up an
Eastern religion, worship a long-haired, flute-playing, cowherd boy, and
believe in karma and reincarnation may seem crazy and radical, but millions
of Americans are now doing something more radical: they are becoming
worshippers of God-the-not-almighty.
Finally, I don't think belief in reincarnation is extreme or absurd. Origen,
whose influence on the church was only second to that of Augustine, openly
espoused reincarnation.
Although, sadly, when he advocated Christian vegetarianism, he did so on
ascetic grounds, rather than out of concern for animals.
In Contra Celsus, Origen contrasted Christian ascetic vegetarianism with
that of the Pythagoreans, saying: "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 uncleanliness, inordinate affectin, evil concupiscence'
(Colossians 3:5), and we use every effort to 'mortify the deeds of the
flesh." (Romans 8:13)
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 Kabbalic 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."
Q: "How does that fit into Jesus sending a demon into the pigs?
A: "It doesn't say that Jesus sent the pigs over the cliff."
Q: "So you're saying Satan sent the pigs over the cliff?"
A: : "Yes, clearly. Jesus did not destroy those pigs.
A: "In the ancient world, it was believed you could not send demons into
inanimate matter. If Jesus was going to cure the man, the demons had to be
sent somewhere.
A: "You could argue that is the lesser of two evils. I don't believe animals
are of equal worth to humans. If you have to make a decision between a human
life and an animal life, you should value human life higher."
Some animal rights activists would disagree with that. My position is that
as far as everyday ethics are concerned, there are no morally relevant
differences between humans and animals.
There's the old joke about carrying political correctness too far, e.g.: an
advertisement for lamaze classes for "pregnant persons"!
To deny an animal a college education is not discrimination; to deny an
animal the right to life and liberty is.
Q: "In your book, you say Adam and Eve ate a vegetarian diet.
A: "Yes, it's clear that they're given fruits and nuts and are not given
animals to eat. They're not eaten until after the Fall.
Q: "So the term 'dominion' in Genesis didn't refer to eating the animals.
A: "Right, because the commandment that they were to eat fruit of trees
comes after they're given dominion. So the dominion over animals couldn't
mean they could eat them. I continue to be amazed that most Christians today
refuse to acknowledge that."
Reverend Linzey makes this point in Christianity and the Rights of Animals
("Herb-eating dominion is not despotism"), as does Richard Schwartz in his
1982 edition of Judaism and Vegetarianism, that human dominion in Genesis
1:26-28 does not justify meat-eating, because God immediately proclaims He
created the plants for human consumption (Genesis 1:29).
A: "In the ancient world, that was common knowledge. It made sense: there
was no fire, no need for animal sacrifice, no spilling of blood. Eden was a
paradise; it was a perfect ecosystem."
Q: "As part of this theological idea of dominion, you think it's OK to own
pets."
A: "Part of my running battle with some of the extreme animal rights
advocates is the idea that animals have the same rights as humans. I do
think humans are placed on this planet to be stewards of God's creation; we
have moral authority over animals. I don't think it's wrong to own animals.
In fact, I think it's the destiny of all animals to end up as pets."
Compassionate stewardship is better than the mentality of most Christian
denominations, which is nearly Cartesian in scope. If ANYTHING, the theistic
position of "human dominion" DEMANDS that humans show greater love,
compassion and mercy towards animals.
A: "Isaiah says in the end time the "lion and lamb will lie down together."
They'll obviously be friends--in a sense, domesticated."
Q: "So you think human beings will lead the animal kingdom to a point where
animals will be friends?"
A: "Yes, and I think that's already happening. We are to be spiritual
leaders towards the animals; we're responsible for them. Obviously we can't
change all of their diets, but we can try to minimize suffering in the wild.
We save animals when there are hurricanes and floods; we separate animals
who might kill each other."
Q: "So you think humans, using their divinely-given dominion over animals,
could spiritually guide a deer and a wolf not to be at each other's
throats-many centuries down the line?"
A: "I think that that is the destiny of planet Earth. The number of wild
areas in the world are decreasing rapidly. The number of places where
animals can battle each other are diminishing rapidly."
Q: "By managing animals, we're making the world more holy?"
A: "It's one of the tasks of humans. We can't completely save the world-only
God can. But as ambassadors of God, as stewards of his creation, we can
begin to do now what God will finish later. And we are doing that now: we're
making nature a less violent place by domesticating animals-dogs, cats,
birds."
As a practicing Hindu, believing in karma and reincarnation, I really have a
hard time accepting this! It's our understanding that carnivorous species
exist to facilitate the desires of the living entities.
In conversation with French Roman Catholic Cardinal Jean Danielou in 1973,
our spiritual master said: "God is very kind. If you want to eat animals,
then He'll give you full facility. God will give you the body of a tiger in
your next life so that you can eat flesh very freely. 'Why are you
maintaining slaugterhouses? I'll give you fangs and claws. Now eat.' So the
meat-eaters are awaiting such punishment. The animal-eaters become tigers,
wolves, cats, and dogs in their next life--to get more facility."
The biblical argument that even the animals were meant to be vegetarian
(Genesis 1:30; Isaiah 11:6-9) may have been given to prevent people in that
part of the world from trying to justify flesh-eating by appealing to nature
(i.e., predators are found in the wild, preying on other animals is natural,
etc.)
A: "What are zoos but places where animals flourish without having to eat
each other?"
Q: So you approve of zoos.
A: "Yes I do. It's not a popular position among many animal rightists. In
well-run zoos, they can live longer, healthier lives without having to kill
or be killed."
Would it be ethical to put humans on display for the same reasons?
"And the worlds built of age are a stage
"Where we act out our lives
"And the words in the script seem to fit
"'cept we have some surprise
"I just want this to last
"Or my future is past and all gone
"And if this is the case
"Then I'll lose in life's race from now on
"I don't wanna classify you
"Like an animal in the zoo
"But it seems good to me to know
"That you're Homosapien too..."
--Pete Shelley, "Homosapien" (1981)
In a leaflet from the mid-'90s entitled Why Imprison Animals in Zoos?, the
Animal Rights Connection (ARC) in San Francisco, CA, reports:
"In 1906, the Bronx Zoo displayed Ota Benga, a Congolese Pygmy, in a cage
with an orangutan. Most of us will never see a Congolese Pygmy, or an
Eskimo, or an Australian aborigine, or an African nomad. But we respect
their feelings and their interests in living free, so we do not kidnap them
and display them in cages. We do not have the right to imprison beings
different from ourselves simply because we cannot see them otherwise."
According to the ARC:
"Zoos are unnatural, cramped, depriving, monotonous, often filthy and
hopelessly depressing to the imprisoned animals, destroying their natural
zest for life. This boring, dismal existence causes them to display neurotic
behavior...
"The cement floors are painful... The animals are so stressed that they
rarely breed or care for their young, who are born in captivity. Their
sexual desire and reproduction are often violated...
"Zoos insult and belittle the intelligence and magnificence of our fellow
creatures. A sanctuary is a place of refuge and protection. A zoo is not a
sanctuary. It is a collection of living animals for exhibition."
An episode of Star Trek, the animated series, from 1973, has the crew of the
Enterprise encounter the Aztec god Kukalkan, in reality a space alien who
visited Earth millennia ago. Kukalkan takes the crew of the Enterprise on a
tour of his spaceship, which includes an area where many life forms from
other star systems are on display.
Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott says, "I could never be proud of putting
animals in cages. It's a practice we've long since abandoned on Earth."
A Twilight Zone episode entitled "People Are Alike All Over" featured actor
Roddy MacDowell as an astronaut imprisoned in a zoo on the planet Mars.
MacDowell went on to star in the acclaimed Planet of the Apes films and
television series, which also helped break down the barriers of speciesism.
This trend continues in mainstream secular American society through films
like Harry and the Hendersons, Free Willy, and now Blackfish.
Q: "When we die, what will we experience in terms of animals?"
A: "I don't know, but I think the pet relationship gives us a glimpse of
that. The intensity and passion that people experience with their companion
animals has such depth, that that's a window onto the next life. Many people
have written me about their companion animals, and were so disappointed when
they did not get any affirmation from their ministers or priests.
A: "My book has a whole chapter about that, a nuanced position. If God saves
us, God will save animals. God's salvation is not just about humans, it's
about justice. All who have suffered will be restored to God's original
intention. That definitely includes animals. Animals in heaven will be a
gift to us, a circle of life that will have great harmony and joy. It's what
it was before the Fall, and what it will be again someday."
Interview by Laura Sheahen
Go on to: Is Abortion Victimless
Return to: Articles