your views on edenic diets

Hi Ava

Most traditions have some kind of dietary suggestions/laws - Buddhism is the one that most people know about, but Judaism, Islam and most of the less known traditions all have inbuilt nutritional advice, whether those suggestions have survived or not. Gratitude is also common to all.

Bought a book a long time ago: "Return to Eden" by Jethro Kloss, first published in 1939. Didn't use supplements, but instead was a very healthy diet, instructions on how to make herbal teas, tinctures and capsules, build a bread oven from scratch ... I found it fascinating, useful and informative. It remains in my library.

Had a look around the website you posted. Don't recognise it as a similar tradition.

Having said that, it looks rather updated for the modern age and aimed at seniors, pretty much. Prefer the original version.

Fx

Fiona,

You are quite right about the Hallelujah Diet being marketed towards older folk. However I like the idea that conventional middle class older folk are drinking raw vegetable juices and eating a vegan diet. I was a vegan for 15 years, and it was very rarely that I met a vegan over age 45. Today I watched an older person happily eating a sticky pastry in St Mary's church cafe, and it made me think about the Hallelujah Diet. I wondered if this lady were shown how to make juices, and soak beans, and make salads, and raw soups etc... would she do so? I am wondering if the HD appeals more to the evangelical Christian in the US, than the more moderate one in the UK?

Veganism is a very pure diet, and so I can see how it could appeal to those who practise ascetic lifestyles. However I've frequently wondered why practising Christians aren't vegan, or at least vegetarian.

Ava x

Veganism is a very pure diet, and so I can see how it could appeal to those who practise ascetic lifestyles. However I've frequently wondered why practising Christians aren't vegan, or at least vegetarian.

Vegetarianism was widespread in early Christianity. The early 'Jewish' Christians were vegetarian but the Apostle Paul (who wasn't, it seems) was a bit sensitive about the subject. In Romans 14:1-4 he ridiculed vegetarian Christians (whilst at the same time warning believers to stop passing judgment on one another based on what they eat!). He appears to feel insecure on the subject and gives the impression here that he feels judged by the longer established vegetarians...

1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.
2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

In Acts 15:19-20 new Gentile believers have to be educated in Christian vegetarianism...

19Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,
20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

It's because of this passage that Jehovah Witnesses refuse blood transfusions, as well as Leviticus 17:12...

Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘No one among you shall eat blood, nor shall any stranger who dwells among you eat blood.’

I've discussed this a few times with Jehovah Witnesses. They refuse transfusions of blood and its components on the basis of these passages even though the verses refer to animal blood. They seem to have decided this refers only to human blood nowadays (though during one discussion a JW lady did tell me that she returned some meat to the supermarket because there was too much blood coming from it. It turned out she swapped it for one that wasn't bleeding as much :o).

The 'Kingdom' of the Jehovah Witnesses is meant to be a new Eden and when I've reminded them that humans in Eden were vegetarian they've told me that they have to go away and consult before they can discuss it further. I'm still waiting for them to come back.

Vegetarianism is still practiced in Orthodox, Jewish, and Gnostic Christian communities, and the Seventh Day Adventists and many Quakers are vegetarian or vegan.

Hi Ava

it was very rarely that I met a vegan over age 45.

I hope you mean they've gone on to a less vegetarian diet! Lol!

I doubt very much that the lady eating the sticky bun would be willing to soak beans and make juices ... although having said that juicers are very popular, so she might.

Hi Barafundle

You know I always rather thought St Paul - being the "Apostle to the Gentiles" meant the main Jewish dietry laws in his writings. It was he, in fact who insisted that gentiles didn't have to be circumcised or to follow the dietry laws at the time, because it rather put people off converting. He was the first of the Church pragmatists to my mind - starting a long and distinguished lineage including one of the Alexanders, who converted the English gently by superimposing church feasts on the pagan ones already there!

I digress

Before Noah's Arc, Ava, apparently everyone was vegetarian. After the flood, they were given permission to eat the animals they had so carefully preserved - so ironic.

Leviticus and Deuteronomy list various dietary and hygene laws that Jewish people have to follow, taking for granted that they are eating meat. One of the main dietary/hygene laws is the separation of meat and milk - many Jewish households going so far as to have two kitchens, but it's more normal to have two sets of cutlery, china and pots; the fridge divided into two, two sets of cupboards - but all in the same kitchen

At the time of the early Christians, many of the Apostles were fishermen and they were all Jewish so they were eating at the very least, sheep. Much of the symbolic language and storytelling in the New Testament is about sheep and shepherds, wolves and lambs, so Christianity didn't really start out vegetarian. Christ was Jewish, so he would have spoken the symbolic language his audience would recognise.

Fx

You know I always rather thought St Paul - being the "Apostle to the Gentiles" meant the main Jewish dietry laws in his writings. It was he, in fact who insisted that gentiles didn't have to be circumcised or to follow the dietry laws at the time, because it rather put people off converting. He was the first of the Church pragmatists to my mind

I agree, but would not say that was necessarily a positive thing. I don't get too caught up in this sort of thing though. There are many ways of interpreting anything that's said in the Bible, and there's also the two thousand years of editing to consider. The core of it's message is basically one of love and compassion, and I would extend that to all of life.

There are lots of questions answered here about Christian vegetarianism...

Animals are God's creatures, not human property, nor utilities, nor resources, nor commodities, but precious beings in God's sight...Christians whose eyes are fixed on the awfulness of crucifixion are in a special position to understand the awfulness of innocent suffering. The Cross of Christ is God's absolute identification with the weak, the powerless, and the vulnerable, but most of all with unprotected, undefended, innocent suffering.

- Rev. Andrew Linzey

Before Noah's Arc, Ava, apparently everyone was vegetarian. After the flood, they were given permission to eat the animals they had so carefully preserved - so ironic.

I read something about that recently. The interpretation was that permission to eat meat was given as a temporary measure because there was no plant life available. To take this story literally though one has believe every animal in the world got onto a very large boat. 🙂

Some Jewish writers blame the dramatic shortening of the human life span on the b'sar ta'avah, 'meat of lust' following the flood, so named because animal flesh was desired, but not considered a necessity for life.

At the time of the early Christians, many of the Apostles were fishermen and they were all Jewish so they were eating at the very least, sheep.

There's some interesting reading here...
[url]A vegetarian view of the Torah[/url]

Hi Barafundle

I wouldn't say pragmatism is a good thing either ... but the alternative at the time was conversion by the sword. Alexander was so taken by a beautiful young boy in the Roman slave market that he asked where the boy was from and learning the answer, sent one of his bishops to convert this most attractive people to the "true God" ... plus ca change ...

Yes Gen 9:2-3 indicate permission to eat meat with no (time) limit on it. Interestingly, verses 4 and 5 place limits on the way that meat will be cared for and eaten "For I will require the blood of your lives at the hand of every beast ... " (Gen 9:5)

Certainly could be interpreted to be a preference for organic, rather than factory farms, though I am not inclined to interpret it as either a time limit or a proscription on meat eating.

Interesting websites you link to - have had a bit of a scan of them.

I would argue with the Rev Kook that the permission to eat meat was given to Noah, who had proven himself to be spiritual enough to listen to and act on what he was being told by the divinity. The degenerates were lost in the flood.

Of course, if he - and you! - are vegerarian, any argument in favour of meat eating is likely to be lost on him.

I would agree that the verses indicated above do strongly suggest looking after the animals, rather than making them suffer. I think we all pretty much disapprove of factory farming.

Also it has to be born in mind that for Christians the new covenant of the New Testament is supposed to supercede the old covenants of the Old Testament.

For Judaeism the blood of a lamb is essential for Passover. No getting away from it.

Things change. At least they did in those days. Sometimes I wonder about now.

Fx

Certainly could be interpreted to be a preference for organic, rather than factory farms, though I am not inclined to interpret it as either a time limit or a proscription on meat eating.

On the subject of being proscriptive, there is 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. The commandment isn't 'Thou Shalt Not Kill Thy Neighbour'. It seems plain enough, but I've always found it strange that evangelical Christians, who are proud to boast they follow every word of the Bible literally and without subjective interpretation, choose not to take literally those four simple words.

What reinforces the message of compassion and non violence in the Bible for me is the corroboration there is in the Hindu, Jain and Buddhist traditions.

The discarding of meat is the highest refuge of religion, of heaven, and of happiness. Abstention from injury is the highest religion. It is, again, the highest penance. It is also the highest truths from which all duty proceeds.

Mahabharata 13.115

Of course, if he - and you! - are vegetarian, any argument in favour of meat eating is likely to be lost on him.

As regards the argument for meat eating, it's now fairly well accepted, based on all the evidence available, that a vegetarian/vegan diet reduces the risk of a person developing many serious diseases. The main reason I hear for meat eating is that the person enjoys it.

But apart from that, if, through the examination of one's faith, one comes to the realisation that a vegetarian/vegan diet is necessary for one's spiritual progress, then there really is no other option for that person.

I am fascinated by your knowledge Barafundle! It makes for interesting reading and agree with you.

As regards the argument for meat eating, it's now fairly well accepted, based on all the evidence available, that a vegetarian/vegan diet reduces the risk of a person developing many serious diseases. The main reason I hear for meat eating is that the person enjoys it.

But apart from that, if, through the examination of one's faith, one comes to the realisation that a vegetarian/vegan diet is necessary for one's spiritual progress, then there really is no other option for that person.

It has been shown that good/balanced vegetarian diets reduce the incidence of many serious diseases, and reduce symptoms of those who have the problems (eg rheumatoid arthritis) when the patient adopts vegetarianism. It is however quite possible to avoid meat and eat an apalling diet (high fat, high sugar, poor protein balance), when the benefits will not be apparent.

I adopted vegetarianism for spiritual reasons, but my doctor insisted that I eat some meat, because after some years on the diet I had become short of some dietary elements and I'd become intolerant to to too many foods. I must admit it was very difficult to start eating meat again - the smell put me off as much as anything. I now eat meat only occasionally and I can't say I really enjoy it.

I look at organised religion obliquely - and prefer to follow my own path. Too much dogma and misinterpretation has been involved with religion and we have lost the ability for individual contact with the Source, relying on interpretation by clerics in all aspects.

Hi

Yes, many Eastern traditions abjure meat ... and if you look at that in the context of the culture you can see why: heat tends to spoil meat, encourage parasites and promote disease. With a long growing season and no real methods of preservation, there really isn't an argument to eat a great deal of meat. Unfortunately B12, essential for health, is not something we can make for ourselves and can only be found in animal products, including milk, cheese and eggs. You will note in most of these cultures there's a tradition of fermentation of various meat products against which there are no proscriptions. Here's an article from the Vegan Society about why small amounts of B12 can be found in some vegetables, although not in enough concentration to be of any moment: . This would also be a reason for the specificity of the dietary laws in both Islam and Judaeism.

@Barafundle

Most of these things need to be taken in context, both of the text and in culture. "Thou shalt not kill" needs to be taken in the context of the other commandments as well as in that of a society that was basically a nomadic desert tribe. You will note the specificity of the proscriptions against coveting - there are two of them and they specify what not to covet: thy neighbour's *Donkey* and his *wife*. The lack of specificity does not mean a blanket ban but a ban only on the obvious: another person (male).

Also true that all traditions promote love and compassion. Although, again, how that manifests differs according to culture and context.

If you are into Eastern traditions, perhaps you will find the (paraphrased) attitude of the Dalai Lama as enlightening as I did: religion is a reflection of a culture's relationship with nature/the divine/God/whatever.

All traditions are culturally specific. There may be some movement between traditions, but proportionally, not much. When one changes religion, one is, in effect, changing cultural perspective - which may go some way to explaining why converts are so very rule orientated.

In the West, with the shorter growing seasons and little means of preservation at the time (ie when the traditions were growing up), other than snow, salt, smoke and sugar (in the form of honey), none of which are particularly conducive to preserving veg over the long winters, that the religious traditions of the West place no real emphasis on vegarianism. It was necessary to eat meat in order to survive.

You're right, though - there is no real need for it in the modern world. Although if we all stop eating meat tomorrow, I do wonder what we would do with all the animals we, as a culture, have raised for that purpose.

Interesting discussion 🙂

Fx

I adopted vegetarianism for spiritual reasons, but my doctor insisted that I eat some meat, because after some years on the diet I had become short of some dietary elements and I'd become intolerant to to too many foods. I must admit it was very difficult to start eating meat again - the smell put me off as much as anything. I now eat meat only occasionally and I can't say I really enjoy it.

That's an awkward situation to find yourself in, Caroline.

Some years ago a relative of mine spent some time in hospital, one day the consultant came around and when he saw on her notes that she was vegan he made the comment that he didn't think much of her diet! She wasn't in hospital for anything related to her diet and he had no idea what her diet consisted of! On top of that the hospital food at the time was appalling.

The hospital incident was quite a while ago so I hope attitudes have changed.There are now excellent cancer clinics in Britain that recommend patients follow a vegan diet.

Yes, many Eastern traditions abjure meat ... and if you look at that in the context of the culture you can see why: heat tends to spoil meat, encourage parasites and promote disease. With a long growing season and no real methods of preservation, there really isn't an argument to eat a great deal of meat.

An interesting idea, but if that were the case then vegetarianism would be widespread across Africa and the Middle East. Storage of meat isn't much of a consideration if you eat it soon after slaughter.

Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism all came out of northern India, and all were preceded there by Vedic philosophy which itself has its roots in prehistory. The great teachers that have emerged from those traditions have given instruction on diet as part of a science of spirituality.

Most of these things need to be taken in context, both of the text and in culture. "Thou shalt not kill" needs to be taken in the context of the other commandments as well as in that of a society that was basically a nomadic desert tribe.

Not sure about the logic of that, Coerdelian. Nomadic tribes traditionally rely on animal foods rather than crop based, as animals are mobile.

The Five Precepts of Buddhism are instructions for lay followers of the Buddha, and they are also all included amongst the ten Christian commandments. The first precept is the rule to abstain from taking life. I see it as a core part of a spiritual science.

By the way, John the Baptist is said to have survived on locusts and wild honey when living in the wilderness. The 'locust' refers to the pod of the carob tree, the locust bean, also known as 'St. John's bread'. Not many people know that as I've found during conversations with the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons that have made the mistake of straying too close to my house. 🙂

the religious traditions of the West place no real emphasis on vegarianism. It was necessary to eat meat in order to survive.

Many of the Celtic saints are known to have been vegetarian, as were their followers. Saint David wouldn't allow animals to be used for agricultural work and for centuries after him the bishops of Saint David's were all vegetarian. When one bishop ignored the rule (some time in the middle ages I think) he died suddenly and it was said that it was because he had broken the vegetarian rule.

Another reason that you may not find vegetarianism mentioned much in early western Christian writing is because meat made up a very much smaller part of most people's diet compared to today.

An interesting idea, but if that were the case then vegetarianism would be widespread across Africa and the Middle East. Storage of meat isn't much of a consideration if you eat it soon after slaughter.

Except when there is famine. Africa is prone to droughts, insect depredations and famine. They eat what they can get when they can get it - particularly in ancient times, which is when these traditions grew up.

Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism all came out of northern India, and all were preceded there by Vedic philosophy which itself has its roots in prehistory. The great teachers that have emerged from those traditions have given instruction on diet as part of a science of spirituality.

Very true. Fasting is recognised by all faiths as a route to closer relationship with the divine.

Not sure about the logic of that, Coerdelian. Nomadic tribes traditionally rely on animal foods rather than crop based, as animals are mobile.

You make my point for me - desert tribes gather what they can, preserve what they can and take their flocks with them. That's why they're meat eaters with specific rules around hygene.

The Five Precepts of Buddhism are instructions for lay followers of the Buddha, and they are also all included amongst the ten Christian commandments. The first precept is the rule to abstain from taking life. I see it as a core part of a spiritual science.

The Five Precepts are Buddhist as you point out. As I have pointed out, each culture has its own relationship with the divine. Jewish people are not Buddhists, they are Jewish and thus their cultural relationship with the divine reflects their own circumstances.

As you pointed out above:

Nomadic tribes traditionally rely on animal foods rather than crop based, as animals are mobile.

Buddhist precepts would make no sense to nomadic tribes.

By the way, John the Baptist is said to have survived on locusts and wild honey when living in the wilderness. The 'locust' refers to the pod of the carob tree, the locust bean, also known as 'St. John's bread'.

Does it? I always thought it referred to locusts. Many peoples live on insects and I assumed John the Baptist did too. You may be right ... or, with respect, you may be interpreting through the lens of your own belief system.

Many of the Celtic saints are known to have been vegetarian, as were their followers. Saint David wouldn't allow animals to be used for agricultural work and for centuries after him the bishops of Saint David's were all vegetarian. When one bishop ignored the rule (some time in the middle ages I think) he died suddenly and it was said that it was because he had broken the vegetarian rule.

Hmm ... many of the "Celtic Saints" were in fact gods from a far older religion, with the more recent Christian "saints" superimposed on them.

A quick google of "St David Celtic saint" doesn't bring any information up about him being a vegetarian ... although the one you refer to may well have been different to the patron saint of Wales.

Another reason that you may not find vegetarianism mentioned much in early western Christian writing is because meat made up a very much smaller part of most people's diet compared to today.

Or perhaps because it wasn't an option. Although having said that there were various fasts and abstinence days (for penance) in the Christian calendar - Lent, Advent, Fridays etc. The "fast" was specific to meat - it was not allowed on fast days. Abstinence referred to a reduction in the amount - I think to 4 oz, but don't quote me - until it was discarded altogether from the Roman tradition at Vatican II.

Fasting as penance is common to many of the great traditions - eg, Ramadan in Islam and the Day of Atonement in Judaeism

Fasting in the Christian sense isn't really fasting in terms of not eating anything. However, like most traditions, in the monastic life fasting may well mean not eating. The great mystics tended to fast in order to, as you suggest, become closer to their divinity. However, that was for those in the monastic life, not those of the faithful living their everyday lives.

This is an interesting conversation, Barafundle - thank you. You're making me think 🙂

Fx

Very true. Fasting is recognised by all faiths as a route to closer relationship with the divine.

I'm not only referring to fasting. According to Vedic philosophy there are three fundamental attributes that can dominate and influence a person's life, and these are Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas.

The highest and purest attribute is Sattva, and a Sattvic diet is vegetarian. Rajas if I remember rightly is associated with spices and food prepared in oils etc., and can be eaten in moderation by householders. A Tamasic diet consists of decaying matter such as meat and should be avoided. Yogis eat only Sattvic food.

You make my point for me - desert tribes gather what they can, preserve what they can and take their flocks with them. That's why they're meat eaters with specific rules around hygene.

I thought your point was that they couldn't eat much meat?...

if you look at that in the context of the culture you can see why: heat tends to spoil meat, encourage parasites and promote disease.

Anyway, The Israelites, during their travels in the desert apparently did not have animals with them to provide meat, but instead were provided by God with manna to eat. After a while some of them grew tired of the manna and desired meat, and as a consequence of eating quail they were struck by a plague...

All that day and night and all the next day the people went out and gathered quail. No one gathered less than ten homers. Then they spread them out all around the camp. But while the meat was still between their teeth and before it could be consumed, the anger of the LORD burned against the people, and he struck them with a severe plague. Therefore the place was named Kibroth Hattaavah, because there they buried the people who had craved other food.

- Numbers 11:32 - 35

The Five Precepts are Buddhist as you point out. As I have pointed out, each culture has its own relationship with the divine. Jewish people are not Buddhists, they are Jewish and thus their cultural relationship with the divine reflects their own circumstances.

But the commandments are the same.

Buddhist precepts would make no sense to nomadic tribes.

Nomadic tribes on the Mongolian steppes were Buddhist.

Does it? I always thought it referred to locusts. Many peoples live on insects and I assumed John the Baptist did too. You may be right ... or, with respect, you may be interpreting through the lens of your own belief system.

I didn't make this up, Carob is native to the Mediterranean and Middle East, it's not my pet theory...

[DLMURL] http://food.oregonstate.edu/glossary/l/locustbeangum.html [/DLMURL]

Hmm ... many of the "Celtic Saints" were in fact gods from a far older religion, with the more recent Christian "saints" superimposed on them.
A quick google of "St David Celtic saint" doesn't bring any information up about him being a vegetarian ... although the one you refer to may well have been different to the patron saint of Wales.

I do know a little about this subject as I've worked on several books on the subject of the Celtic saints and have done a bit of research over the years. Whilst the some miracles described in legends attached to a few saints can be said to be echoes of a pre Christian mythology, the lives of many 5th and 6th century saints are remarkably well documented.

As for Saint David, yes it is the Welsh one...

His earliest Life* appeared around 1090 and was composed by a son of Sulien, bishop of St. David's... The Life tells us that St. David founded ten monasteries (including Glastonbury) and that the monks were vegetarian.

Regarding early Christians being vegetarian, I read these a long time ago and looked them up again for this thread...

It is far better to be happy than to have your bodies act as graveyards for animals. Accordingly, the apostle [St.] Matthew partook of seeds, nuts and vegetables, without meat.”
-St. Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215)

James, the brother of the Lord ... was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat meat.
- Hegesippus (c.180) (first church historian) quoted in Eusebius’ The Church History (325)

The eating of meat was unknown up to the big flood, but since the flood they have put the strings and stinking juices of animal meat into our mouths, just as they threw 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 (c.340 – 420) (priest, monk, theologian, first translator of the Bible into Latin)

[The apostle St.] Peter said, ‘I live on olives and bread to which I rarely only add vegetables.’ … [For] the unnatural eating of meats is as polluting as the heathen worship of devils, with its sacrifices and its impure feasts, through participation in it a man becomes a fellow eater with devils."
- Clementine Homolies (2nd Century A.D.)

The eating of meat was unknown up to the big flood, but since the flood they have put the strings and stinking juices of animal meat into our mouths, just as they threw 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 (c.340 – 420) (priest, monk, theologian, first translator of the Bible into Latin)

There were lots more but you get the idea :).

I remember reading somewhere that vegetarianism diminished as Christain practice following the first Council of Nicaea in the 4th century.

Hi Barafundle - been away for a couple of days in Norfolk.

Fasting is common to all traditions. Vedic fasting is vedic fasting.

My point is that desert tribes - as opposed to Mongolian, of which more later - gather, preserve and herd. Which point you made for me. And because of the heat they have very specific hygene laws in order to prevent disease.

According to Exodus 25:5, rams skins were to be dyed red and volet in order to make the Ark. Bit difficult if they didn't have any rams.

Further Exodus 22 describes the punishments for various thefts, some of which concern the theft of oxen and sheep. If they didn't have any oxen and sheep, why bother describing the punishment for stealing them?

Exodus 16 describes the Lord giving them quail at night and manna in the morning for six days of the week, the seventh being the sabbath.

You quote Numbers 11:33 - a different version to the Douay on my shelf, published in 1963. My version doesn't have a verse 35. Within the context of Numbers 11, the meat they were punished for eating was something other than the quail provided for them by the Lord.

Moving on to the Precepts. Perhaps. However, the Precepts are Buddhist and the commandments are Jewish. Some ideas are common to all traditions, but must be understood in the context of the relevant culture tradition.

Mongolian Steppes are a bit different to deserts. As are the cultures that grew up on them.

Your pardon - I did not mean that you are making it up about locusts, simply that you prefer one kind of locust over the other.

As to Christianity being built on vegetarianism and tee totalism, it seems unlikely since Christ was Jewish, ate lamb, quite possibly beef (since he talks about "killing the fatted calf" in the Prodigal Son parable) and fish, turned water into wine and partied with tax collectors and prostitutes.

Love the quote from St Jerome. Unfortunately, he appears a little confused in the light of the above.

Saints do have a tendency to be rather judgemental.

St Peter was a fisherman. It may be he gave it up as penance for denying Christ, but seems unlikely.

Your church historians are around the time when the "editing" of the gospels began, no? By the sixth century, the church had persuaded itself that a little editing here, a little change there was not only quite acceptable, but a blessing on the faithful who might be upset if it were left in.

Hmmm .... St James. It seems to me that if James was the brother of Christ he would be being fed the same food - his mother, if she had any sense, would not be encouraging faddiness, particularly when it came to the holy meals at Passover, for example. I think your source was highly unlikely to know for certain ... and perhaps considered vegetarianism holy for its own sake? An opinion, only ...

Fx

It's because of this passage that Jehovah Witnesses refuse blood transfusions, as well as Leviticus 17:12...

Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘No one among you shall eat blood, nor shall any stranger who dwells among you eat blood.’

I've discussed this a few times with Jehovah Witnesses. They refuse transfusions of blood and its components on the basis of these passages even though the verses refer to animal blood. They seem to have decided this refers only to human blood nowadays (though during one discussion a JW lady did tell me that she returned some meat to the supermarket because there was too much blood coming from it. It turned out she swapped it for one that wasn't bleeding as much :o).

The 'Kingdom' of the Jehovah Witnesses is meant to be a new Eden and when I've reminded them that humans in Eden were vegetarian they've told me that they have to go away and consult before they can discuss it further. I'm still waiting for them to come back.

In the Jehova's Witness's little book "What does the bible really teach" it talks about blood transfusions and the eating of blood.

It specifically says:

After the flood, Jehovah told Noah and his sons: "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you." However, God set this restriction: "Only flesh with its soul [or, life] - its blood - you must not eat." (Genesis 1:29; 9:3, 4)

So, JW's are not restricted to vegetarianism, they are just not permitted to partake of the blood of an animal.

On the part about blood transfusions, this is something I've looked into regarding their teachings and reasoning. Their literature quotes parts of the Kane and Able story as the reason for abstaining from blood transfusions, but the way in which they have interpreted the words are clearly from a different bible to any of the ones I have for reference (and I have a few). Whilst you could possibly interpret the words in the way they desire to indicate a need to abstain from transfusions, when I read that story in any of the versions I have, it reads to me as a teaching about simply not taking the life of another human. I can only think they've read more into it than intended, possibly because of the numerous translations and interpretations from the ancient original scriptures. I do have to laugh at the way some people take thinks like the bible, which has been translated and re-translated and interpreted by "scholars" :rolleyes: and then insist on taking the words very very literally in the version they read. These stories come from very ancient times and much of the original intention could not possibly be known or could easily be misinterpreted. Even looking something more recently written such as Shakespear's works, we have translations of them and different interpretations depending on which "scholar" or school is discussing them. If we don't truly know the meaning of such recent works, how could we possibly know as fact the meaning behind such ancient ones.

I personally don't think people should follow something just because someone else tells them to. They should go with their own moral understanding and seek the truth from inside themselves.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Fasting is common to all traditions. Vedic fasting is vedic fasting...Mongolian Steppes are a bit different to deserts...Saints do have a tendency to be rather judgemental...It seems to me that if James was the brother of Christ he would be being fed the same food - his mother, if she had any sense, would not be encouraging faddiness

An opinion, only ...

I was going to give a detailed reply to your post, Fiona, but then I thought that if you're as fundamentally resistant to the idea of Christian/spiritual vegetarianism as you seem to be, then no amount of evidence I give will alter your opinion, but that's OK. I've looked into the question with as much intelligence as I can muster and have come to conclusions that satisfy me.

We could argue about who said what to whom and when, but Christianity is about compassion, and that's the bottom line for me.

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.
-John Greenleaf Whittier (1807-92 American Quaker, poet and abolitionist)

So, JW's are not restricted to vegetarianism, they are just not permitted to partake of the blood of an animal.

In my experience Jehovah Witnesses admit that the ideal pre flood diet was vegetarian and say that meat eating was allowed post flood (the relevant passges were mentioned earlier in this thread). They aren't supposed to consume animal blood, and specific methods of slaughter were developed in order to meet the post flood instruction, but Jehovah Witnesses in our society do not follow those rules today and buy meat from the same sources as everyone else, blood and all.

I do have to laugh at the way some people take thinks like the bible, which has been translated and re-translated and interpreted by "scholars" :rolleyes: and then insist on taking the words very very literally in the version they read.

I agree, Giles. When in conversation with Jehovah Witnesses I've explained to them my view that God can have many names as what we call the Absolute, and how we relate to it is an intensely personal thing. It's subject to geography, culture, and temperament. They tell me that God's name is Jehovah and nothing else. I happily accept it as being one of the many names of God, but their pronunciation and spelling of the original Hebrew word probably did not exist much before the 13th century.

God can have many names as what we call the Absolute, and how we relate to it is an intensely personal thing. It's subject to geography, culture, and temperament.

Which is what I've been saying ... 🙂

Fx

Which is what I've been saying ... 🙂

And I haven't disagreed with that aspect of what you've said, but this thread, being in the vegetarian and vegan forum, is about the part vegetarianism plays in that relationship, particularly in regard to Christianity. I've just been presenting the case as I see it. 🙂

And I haven't disagreed with that aspect of what you've said, but this thread, being in the vegetarian and vegan forum, is about the part vegetarianism plays in that relationship, particularly in regard to Christianity. I've just been presenting the case as I see it. 🙂

As have I ... 🙂

Fx

As have I ... 🙂

I was rather getting the impression that you were just saying 'No it isn't' whenever I say 'Yes it is.' You have said that Buddhist precepts would make no sense to nomadic people. When I then tell you of nomadic people who are Buddhist, you say they're the wrong type of nomad because they live in a different sort of desert! Mongolian nomads live in the Gobi Desert.

It just goes round and round :o.

You say 'Vedic fasting is Vedic fasting.' Apart from not really knowing what that means, I haven't mentioned Vedic fasting. You also say 'Saints do have a tendency to be rather judgemental', and I don't know what that means either. When I say that John the Baptist ate locust beans (another name for which is St. John's Bread!) you say I'm 'interpreting through the lens of my own belief system'. You seem to be interpreting everything I say through the lens of your own disbelief system, and reject it all out of hand.

But never mind :).

I am pointing out that different cultures, growing up with different geography tend to have differently expressed relationships with the divine. You just said that and I'm agreeing with you.

Where we differ is that, for me, all those expressed relationships with the divine are different and equally valid. As far as I can see you seem to be saying that they are all versions of your belief system.

I have no preference for any of them (since they are all equally valid) and you clearly do - or is that a mistake on my part?

The term "edenic" applies only to Christianity, Judaeism and Islam, since they are the only ones who have that creation story in common. I am putting forward the argument that the edenic diet is not part of any of those traditions and giving reasons for it.

Now on to the next point. There does not seem to be any rule in those traditions that the faithful *must* eat meat, just that they can. In those traditions, abjuring meat tends to be a form of penance.

The edenic diet is simply a vegan diet, which has been proven to be healthy, provided one supplements with B12. I think that the one Ava refers to is wrapped up in Christianity as a commercial selling point, rather than having any valid religious basis.

Fx

You say 'Vedic fasting is Vedic fasting.' Apart from not really knowing what that means, I haven't mentioned Vedic fasting.

Can't say I've heard of vedic fasting either, although I am familiar with the 3 guna (sattva, rajas and tamas) that you mentioned earlier...

According to Vedic philosophy there are three fundamental attributes that can dominate and influence a person's life, and these are Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas.

The highest and purest attribute is Sattva, and a Sattvic diet is vegetarian.

... although this is something that has been a matter of discussion for hundreds of years. Primarily, nowadays, it is taken that a sattvic diet is lacto-vegetarian or lacto-ovo vegetarian, although it is believed that the original teachings of the bhagavad gita relating to ahimsa (non-violence) still allowed for meat to be eaten providing the animal was shown respect and love etc. (what we today call ethical meat eating, although I know you don't agree with that term yourself Barafundle, but I'm just stating information ;)) With different faiths taking up the teachings of the gita and the upanisads, they each take the teachings by their own interpretation with the Hindu, Buddhist and Jains each taking it to different extremes.

Rajas if I remember rightly is associated with spices and food prepared in oils etc., and can be eaten in moderation by householders. A Tamasic diet consists of decaying matter such as meat and should be avoided. Yogis eat only Sattvic food.

Yes, anything that causes a disruption to the body is considered rajasic, as well as eating too quickly; and tamasic does relate to certain foodstuffs as you say, as well as eating too much. However, some yogis are (apparently, so I've read in some information) known to eat meat for ritual purposes.

If we consider the 3 guna as the different types of energy in life (sattva - light/enlightened, rajas - energetic/creative, tamas - regulating/destructive), then as with most models of living, it's important to maintain a balance throughout our daily lives. Being purely sattvic would only exist rajas and tamas no longer exists i.e. when the body dies. Until that time, it is necessary to maintain the other energies and allow them to work together.

You also say 'Saints do have a tendency to be rather judgemental', and I don't know what that means either.

I can see how saints could be seen to be judgemental, so I can see what cordelion is perhaps getting at, but I also think that that is a perception enhanced by the 'church' in order to use the 'fear of God' concept to control the masses. i.e. if you take on the belief that the saints are judgemental then you will judge yourSelf.

When I say that John the Baptist ate locust beans (another name for which is St. John's Bread!) you say I'm 'interpreting through the lens of my own belief system'. You seem to be interpreting everything I say through the lens of your own disbelief system, and reject it all out of hand.

Is this not just human nature though? We can discuss and agree to disagree with each other, but still remain friendly in the process. Definitely a good excuse to use loadsa smileys. :D:):rolleyes::o

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Where we differ is that, for me, all those expressed relationships with the divine are different and equally valid. As far as I can see you seem to be saying that they are all versions of your belief system.

I subscribe to the philosophy of Sanathana Dharma which encompasses all spiritual paths.

As different streams coming from various sources ultimately flow into one ocean, so do the many religions of the world, emerging from innumerable sources, at long last mingle in the great ocean of love.

This truth is in the very atmosphere; it exists eternally, in every human heart. It only waits to be unfolded.

If you go to the source, you will find that the same truth lies beneath all religions.

- Swami Prabhavananda

I have no preference for any of them (since they are all equally valid) and you clearly do - or is that a mistake on my part?

I've mentioned what I admire about Christianity, Hinduism, jainism and Buddhism. I also admire Islam. My background is Anglican, but I prefer Quakerism and my religious practices most resemble Hindu.

The term "edenic" applies only to Christianity, Judaeism and Islam, since they are the only ones who have that creation story in common. I am putting forward the argument that the edenic diet is not part of any of those traditions

It's clear in Genesis that Adam and Eve, living in Eden, were not eating their fellow creatures...

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Genesis 1:29 - 30

And there's more vegetarianism to come according to the Isaiah...

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Isaiah 11:6-7

The edenic diet is simply a vegan diet, which has been proven to be healthy, provided one supplements with B12. I think that the one Ava refers to is wrapped up in Christianity as a commercial selling point, rather than having any valid religious basis.

It might just be business, I don't know and I can't judge. To be honest I'm cautious when anyone tries to sell me anything.

The minister who promotes the Hallelujah diet says he experienced a dramatic improvement in his health following a diagnosis of colon cancer, and he did this by altering his diet. He subsequently wrote a book which contains Bible verses relating to the subject, so it would seem that for him it has a valid religious basis.

I don't think anyone can argue that educating people away from what the minister aptly calls SAD, the Standard American Diet, can be a bad thing.

Primarily, nowadays, it is taken that a sattvic diet is lacto-vegetarian or lacto-ovo vegetarian,

I notice that nowadays it's also referred to as the yoga diet. Most vegetarian Hindus that I know don't eat eggs.

We can discuss and agree to disagree with each other, but still remain friendly in the process. Definitely a good excuse to use loadsa smileys. :D:):rolleyes::o

Absolutely. A vegetarian diet can also be very effective in reducing violent emotions. 🙂

I subscribe to the philosophy of Sanathana Dharma which encompasses all spiritual paths.

Ah, so what you are saying is that they are all part of your spiritual preference. I don't. I think they are specific to culture and geography as you said.

It's clear in Genesis that Adam and Eve, living in Eden, were not eating their fellow creatures...

True. And that creation story is common only to Judaeism, Islam and Christianity. The other traditions have other creation stories.

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Genesis 1:29 - 30

With respect you are repeating yourself. We already covered this. And the fact that the Jewish people were a desert nomadic tribe with all that that implies.

And there's more vegetarianism to come according to the Isaiah...

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Isaiah 11:6-7

That is a prophecy about heaven, not earth. You will note verse 13 of the same chapter, which describes how Israel will rule and all other nations will be subject to them. If one is to take the bible literally, one cannot pick and choose. Of course, people do ... but that's a bit convenient, isn't it ...

It might just be business, I don't know and I can't judge. To be honest I'm cautious when anyone tries to sell me anything.

Me too. Particularly when it is as expensive as this one.

The minister who promotes the Hallelujah diet says he experienced a dramatic improvement in his health following a diagnosis of colon cancer, and he did this by altering his diet. He subsequently wrote a book which containing Bible verses relating to the subject, so it would seem that for him it has a valid religious basis.

If he had altered the diet without the bible verses, I think it would have had much the same effect. Certainly research into vegetarian/vegan diets indicates as much

Perhaps I am too cynical when it comes to American evangelists ... we British consider them a bit OTT.

I don't think anyone can argue that educating people away from what the minister aptly calls SAD, the Standard American Diet, can be a bad thing.

No argument there 🙂

Absolutely. A vegetarian diet can also be very effective in reducing violent emotions. 🙂

Very true. Too much red meat has been seen to be very irritating.

Fx

Ah, so what you are saying is that they are all part of your spiritual preference. I don't. I think they are specific to culture and geography as you said.

I didn't say they are specific to culture and geography. What I said was that everyone, everywhere expresses their spirituality differently. Spiritual preference? They're part of my life experience! You think I should have stuck to Anglicanism because of my parents and where I was born? My study of Hinduism is what made Christianity make sense to me. I'm not sure what you're saying here and it comes across a little demeaning.

True. And that creation story is common only to Judaeism, Islam and Christianity.

You are confusing me again, Fiona. When you say something isn't so, I say it is, then you say it is too, but not in the right way :confused:. My head's starting to spin.

If he had altered the diet without the bible verses, I think it would have had much the same effect. Certainly research into vegetarian/vegan diets indicates as much

True, but in the case of the minister the Bible is what convinced him that it was beneficial.

I do wonder why you oppose every point I make. Is it that you are ideologically opposed to vegetarianism? In a normal conversation about stuff like this I'd expect the other person to accept at least some of what I say as containing a grain of truth. You won't entertain any of it :).

I didn't say they are specific to culture and geography. What I said was that everyone, everywhere expresses their spirituality differently. Spiritual preference? They're part of my life experience! You think I should have stuck to Anglicanism because of my parents and where I was born? My study of Hinduism is what made Christianity make sense to me. I'm not sure what you're saying here and it comes across a little demeaning.

Demeaning? How?

I am not saying that anyone should stick with any kind of Christianity - or any particular tradition, for that matter - but that its birth and development are specific to the cultures it grew up in - Christianity of most types, for example, has something of the martial in it, reflecting its ancient Roman ties.

When we study a religion, we are studying culture through millenia.

I do wonder why you oppose every point I make. Is it that you are ideologically opposed to vegetarianism? In a normal conversation about stuff like this I'd expect the other person to accept at least some of what I say as containing a grain of truth. You won't entertain any of it :).

I am enjoying exploring the subject with you and debating it - it's intellectually stimulating. Do you not find it so?

Fx

I am enjoying exploring the subject with you and debating it - it's intellectually stimulating. Do you not find it so?

I think I'd enjoy it more if this exchange didn't feel so much like a competition. I know that in the written word a person's true intentions can come across differently from how they're meant, but your tone sometimes seems too dismissive, and a little bit sarcastic. Maybe it's my misinterpretation :o. Maybe I miss a few phrases like 'That's very interesting, but have you considered...', or 'Really? I never knew that, but what about...'.

Maybe I feel as if it shouldn't feel like hard work to make a sensible point. Maybe no one else is reading this anyway, or the ones who are think I'm talking rubbish and should stop right now. 🙂

Hi Barafundle

How odd you should interpret my enthusiasm for competition. I've said several times how much I'm enjoying this thread - and you. I very much appreciate how hard you're making me work.

Fx

I've said several times how much I'm enjoying this thread - and you.

As long as you're enjoying me too then that's alright. 🙂

Originally Posted by Barafundle [url][/url]
Absolutely. A vegetarian diet can also be very effective in reducing violent emotions. 🙂

Very true. Too much red meat has been seen to be very irritating.

Do we have any evidence to show this?
As a meat eater, I would be a little concerned if people automatically view me as likely to have violent emotions or that I'm irritating (ok, don't say it. :D) just because I eat meat.

Surely emotional conduct is, like Fiona's belief about edenic diets, due to social interaction (and geography?) as well as religious beliefs and upbringing etc.

I know meat is seen as tamasic and this is seen to be a root cause of anger etc., but if a person leads a life that also cultivates the other guna such as rajas and sattva, then these can surely counter-balance the effects of the tamasic meat? e.g. If someone lives compassionately for the service of others, partakes in positive actions and meditates regularly, thus increasing their sattva energy, would this not prevent the eating of meat from having any dire effect on the tamasic energy?

:rolleyes:

All Love and Reiki Hugs