I wrote my speech and gave it to my speech class this week. One person was impressed. There was this one guy who said, "God made us have these teeth to chew meat," when I said something about us being more fit for vegetables and fruit. It pissed me off that someone believes it was god's will for us to eat meat when, in the bible, I believe it says "thou shall not kill."
And He said "However, you may slaughter and eat meat within all your gates, whatever your heart desires, according to the blessing of the Lord your God which He has given you; the unclean and the clean may eat of it, of the gazelle and the deer alike." but enough about meaningless scriptures, lets see this speech
Ah what you do. Some people are just too deep into their own selfish wants. Focus on the postive, you impressed someone. I second posting your speech. It sounds great. TTFN Sage PS If you want some good Bible quotes check out Isaiah. Lots of pro veggie stuff there. (killing an ox is as bad as killing a man. Well words to the effect anyway) Not that I've any truck with religion, and certainly not Christianity.
actually that thing being meant to eat meat is taken out of context. what it's really saying is if you don't eat meat you shouldent hate someone who does, as well as someone who eats meat shouldent hate someone who doesn't. plus a lot of the english versions of the Bible are bad translations, in a lot of them when it says "meat" it really just means "food" in genral. also in genesis God's highest ideal for us was to be vegetarian. meat wasn't eaten untill the fall of man,
Not to be a bible-banger or a meathead, but these lines from Genesis made me chuckle when I first saw them after going vegetarian, it sounds like god is on the atkins diet: Genesis 4 1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. 2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. 3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: 5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Many of the bibles' modern translations are way off. A man, I forgot the name, he translated the old bible, from latin and greek, into english. It turned out a lot different than what most think of. Anyways, I'll try to put the speech up here soon.
Ever read different translations of something in latin? Latin is a very ambiguous language, and can often have several different meanings for the same set of words. Ontop of that, there are often "fuzzy* areas in the transcript that scholars debate about. Its not uncommon that people come up with different translations, however, normally there is an accepted translation.
I could find plenty of links on the internet saying that we are more equipped to eat vegetables than meat. For example our intestines say alot.
vegetarianism in homo sapiens is a new thing. When you go back far enough to Australopithcines, we were vegetarians...that however was 4.5 million years ago. Scientists have discovered that Homo habilis was a scavenger and ate meat, and they date back 2.5 million years. Our ancestors were once vegetarians..but we werent until recently. While we may be better equipped to be vegetarians...thats the function of evolution from our ancestors only not because modern man(homo sapiens) was meant to eat as a vegetarian.
Has anyone read Norm Phelps book "Dominon of Love" its about animal rights and the bible, it’s a good book and he’s not fanatical either way. One section is about this translation thing e.g. in Genesis, where animals and humans are created, apparently in the original text before translation, the same exact word meaning breathe of life/soul is used for both animals an human, but then after translation in our modern bibles it calls animals ‘creatures’ etc whilst humans still get a soul. So much for the ‘animals don’t have a soul’ excuse….I find it very disturbing how the words have been changed so much To orginal poster, i agree it would be great to read your speech.
really? thats interesting. I'm curious to see what the old texts say, though i think they are in hebrew and aramaic
I typed this out from the book, please excuse typos. "In the story of creation we are told that "God created the great sea monsters and every Nephesh Chayah [prounounced roughy Nef-esh Hi-yah] that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind…" (Genesis 1:21) Then "God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth [every] Nephesh chayah after their kind, cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind.’" (genesis 1:24) Chayah means "living" "alive" Nephesh means the animating force, the whatever it is that makes a person or an animal a conscious, sentient individual. My nephesh is what makes me uniquely me and your nephesh is what makes you uniquely you. And our nephesh is what both gives us awareness and will. When our nephesh leaves our body we die. A little further on, Genesis tells us that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. And man became a Nephesh Chayah."(Genesis 2:27) And later still we are told that God brought all of the birds and land animals before Adam ‘and whatever the man called a nephesh chayah, that was its name’ (Genesis 2:19) According to Genesis, the life force, the divine breath that brings will and consciousness, is the same in animals as it is in human beings. Tragically, our English Bibles hide this fundamental truth by translating Nephesh one way when it refers to animals and another when it refers to humans. The King James Version translates Nephesh Chayah in genesis 1:21 and 24 as "living creature’. Then in 2:27, where it refers to a human being, the KJV translates nephesh chayah as "living soul’.But in 2:19, where it again refers to animals, Nephesh chayah reverts to "living creature’, obscuring the fact that the Bible makes no distinction between the nature of the living spirit with which God endowed humanity and that with which God endowed the animals. Unfortunately, most modern translators have followed suit, although in an apparent effort to head off precisely the argument I am making here, they usually avoid the word ‘soul" altogether. The NASB, NIV, and the New Revised Standard Version, which are all Protestant sponsored, translate Nephesh chayah as "living being" when it describes humankind and "living creature’ when it describes animals, as does Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, which is the translation of the Jewish Publication Society. The catholic New American Bible is more circumspect, while still concealing the identical nature of the life force in humans and animal. It constructs the English sentence in verse 19 in such a way that Nephesh Chayah is translated "them’." (Dominion of Love, Phelps Norm, Lantern Books New York, 2002, (pg. 58)). And it goes on & on about this translation thing with the word Nephesh.... theres a few bits and pieces about this on the net too.
Interesting, thanks for posting that. Though, im sure the problem goes back to atleast the romans. The romans used the word "Anima" as the "soul" of the being, basically every living thing has one. For humans, they used the word Animus, which is the rationality of the soul, and only humans have that.
Speech!! Speech!! InTheFlesh~we want to read your speech. ps, why does every thread in this forum turn into a debate?
Looks that way. Eithier we are a very antagonistic bunch or just don't get out enough. Maybe even both. I quite like debating here though. Offline there isn't anyone to talk to, they're all stubborn omnis. TTFN Sage
