Non-Vegan Ready to discuss!

Vegans and non-vegans alike are welcome.
Post an intro here first to have your account authenticated by a mod, then you'll be able to post anywhere.
Even if you're here to lurk, please drop a short intro post here to let us know you're not a spammer so you aren't accidentally deleted.

Forum rules
Please read the full Forum Rules
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Non-Vegan Ready to discuss!

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Lauradf36 wrote:Ok. So I have talked this over with my parents and unfortunately I will not be responding to your posts any more.
Read the forum rules: this is a discussion forum, and you are not allowed to ignore others' rational arguments.
Just as I should respond to your arguments, the same is expected from you. This is a place of discussion, not coddling or a safe space where people are protected from ideas they don't like.

I have not assaulted you, I have made analogies.
Lauradf36 wrote:But I won't put up with this:
If you disagree and you can actually argue against it, then do so. I strongly criticize your ideas, and how you are using Christianity to justify evil here.
You actually said the holocaust was God's plan and thus you are saying it is a good thing. That's as bad as any neo-nazi.
God would have stopped Hitler if he wasn't doing God's work, according to you. Every rapist and murderer is doing good, ultimately, according to you, and if they use the Bible to justify it and believe in Jesus it's 100% OK. According to you, there's no reason to stop death and suffering in the world, because it's all God's plan.

This is the wrong way of practicing Christianity. I'm trying to help you understand why with analogies.
This is an evil belief. Not your Christian belief, but this particular evil interpretation you choose to hold.

That's not a Christian belief, that's how you are twisting it. Think about it. If you are actually open minded, you can participate in a difficult discussion on that subject without running away like a coward who can't defend her beliefs (and that is what you are doing now).
Nothing said on this forum will permanently scar you: it will only makes you a stronger and better person if you toughen up and engage with critical views.
Lauradf36 wrote:Nor will I put with constant comparisons with me being a Nazi on every post.
It's an analogy to help you understand, but you might as well be one the way you defend the atrocities of the holocaust as God's plan.
Lauradf36 wrote:Nor do my parents want to have me mentally or physically injured.
That is absurd. You will not be injured here. You only risk having your ideas challenged, and being criticized about things you are wrong on. You only risk being made a better and stronger person.

You're an adult, you can make up your own mind: whether you want to argue for what you believe or run away and hide is up to you.
If you break the forum rules, though, you'll get banned. Go read them if you have not.
Lauradf36 wrote:A) In my opinion, the Bible does not condone slavery.
Is it your "opinion" that the sky is green and the grass is blue? It is a FACT that the Bible condones slavery, and I proved it in my posts. You can't argue against fact with opinion: that's called being closed minded and delusional.

The Bible condones slavery and meat, but only in Biblical times (for both). If you say one applies to the present but the other does not, you are being dishonest and cherry picking.
Lauradf36 wrote:These directions given to Israel must be measured relative to the war tactics of the world they lived in and to the heineousness of the sins of the cultures of Canaan. Because it happened and is recorded in the Bible does not automatically mean it is God's will for every age and every culture (e.g., food laws, holy war, polygamy, slavery, subjection of women, etc.).
YES! You finally seem to get it, but maybe only because your parents corrected you. That's what I said. And the SAME applies to meat.

The Bible condones slavery in a PARTICULAR context. The same with meat. NOT for all of time and every situation.

IF you use the Bible to defend meat based on the assertion that the law is unchanging based on circumstance and applies everywhere and for all time, THEN the same must apply to slavery.

Either meat AND slavery are justified everywhere and for all time OR both of them can only be regarded as justifying the actions in those Biblical contexts: it does not say that slavery or meat are moral today in the modern context.

Lauradf36 wrote:B) Either way, I absolutely do not support slavery.
C) I absolutely do not support rape and find it highly offensive for that to be suggested.
If you do not, then you should not use the Bible to support meat. You need to be consistent.

Either you support slavery, rape, genocide, and meat, or you support none of them. You can't pick and choose, and use inconsistent reasoning.
Lauradf36 wrote:D) I absolutely do not support genocide. "Oh but the animals..." Animals aren't people to me. That's the difference.
I wasn't talking about non-human animals, I was talking about human beings.
Lauradf36 wrote:God is loving, compassionate, & just though I may not be.
If that's true, then you should be open to some difficult criticism. You shouldn't need everything candy coated to consider it: you're an adult, so act like it. I have said nothing here that contradicts Christianity: I'm criticizing your flawed human interpretation of it.

It sounds like your parents already helped to correct you about your claims regarding context in Biblical times and necessity. If so, that's good.
But you need to read and respond to my arguments in accordance with the forum rules.

Proverbs 27:17
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another."


Don't let some strong criticism chase you away. If you give up and run away now, you will forever be dull. The only thing you risk in debate is being made stronger.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Non-Vegan Ready to discuss!

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Lauradf36 wrote:
A wise person can read these passages and recognize that the difference was not God or morality changing, but mortal circumstances on Earth which make these otherwise wrong practices justified temporarily.
And yes. It did change! But what I understand was that it was not because of biological/scientific circumstances. I don't think Christian ethics are based on necessity.
I think your parents already set you straight on this, since in the last post you indicated some understanding of the circumstances that allowed slavery (e.g. the incivility of the enemies, and the nature of tribal warfare).
If you're still confused on this, we can discuss it more, but I'm going to assume that you no longer assume slavery and meat to be justified today given that the circumstances and needs are different from Biblical times.

I don't understand how you didn't understand it when I made the same argument (unless you aren't actually reading what I write), but whatever: as long as you understand now that the Bible can not be used to justify today laws that existed in an ancient context (whether that's slavery or about eating meat) then that's fine. :D

Lauradf36 wrote:
Blame all the world's evils on God's inaction: must mean he wants all of this, so it's good!
Yeah but I don't see it as evil. That's the thing.
You don't see Hitler's actions in the holocaust as evil? Seriously?

If everything is God's plan, and you think no action is evil, then anybody could just run around raping and murdering -- because it's God's plan -- and that's OK by you.
Can't you understand how f***ed up that is?

Such an idea is morally revolting. It stems from your bad theodicy.
Do you know what a theodicy is? Do you even realize there are other options?

Read up, will you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
Theodicy (/θiːˈɒdɪsi/), in its most common form, attempts to answer the question why a good God permits the manifestation of evil. Theodicy addresses the evidential problem of evil by attempting “to make the existence of an All-knowing, All-powerful and All-good or omnibenevolent God consistent with the existence of evil” or suffering in the world.[1]
The most common explanation of evil is as a result of human free will.

E.g. the holocaust was horrible, and God didn't want it to happen, but he could not stop Hitler because to do so would be to interfere with human free will. God must allow evil people to be evil, and good people to be good, and to interfere would be against human interests because it would deny humans free will.

This is an interesting bit:
in his book The Tao is Silent, Raymond Smullyan proves that it is logically impossible to have sentient beings without allowing evil, even for God, just as it is impossible for him to create a triangle in the Euclidean plane having an angular sum other than 180°. So the capability of feeling implies free will, which in turn may produce evil, understood here as hurting other sentient beings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy#History

You can argue whether this is the best explanation, or even a good one, but it's MUCH better than your evil explanation of denying that evil exists and saying the holocaust was good and God wanted it to happen (which makes Hitler some kind of saint, right? For doing so much of God's will. Did you know he was a Christian and talked about doing God's will? He was a mistaken Christian following a corrupted form, but HE thought it was true.).

The thing we should learn from Hitler is that Christianity, when corrupted, is capable of doing great evils. The same was arguably true in the witch trials and the inquisition.

It's important for Christians to not just assume at what God wants based on what they want to do, but use reason to understand that there are both GOOD interpretations, and EVIL interpretations that can be created from the corruption of religion to human ends.

Lauradf36 wrote:Yayyy I'm evil again! Fantastic.
And again, you're just flippant and insulting about this. Evil is nothing to laugh about and make jokes on. Ideas have power, and that can harm people, and even lead otherwise good people to do wrong because they are mistaken.
You think I'm being casual about the holocaust? I'm not. You are. You're just ignorant of what caused it. It was a corrupted ideology that created that suffering. Ideology can move the world, and an evil ideology can do great harm. It's the kind of ideology YOU have been supporting.

Lauradf36 wrote:According to my view, God did want all these things. [...]I believe in an omniscient God who both created & sustains the universe and everything in it, so nothing happens without His divine will.
If that's true, then God is not good. Do you believe in an evil God? If you believe and serve an evil god, then you are evil.

Read about theodicy, as I posted above. There are other alternatives: like that it's impossible to have free will in sentient beings without some evil occurring as a result.

Being omnipotent doesn't necessarily mean you can do impossible things. Can God violate his own nature? Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it? Of course not, those things are impossible.

God may be very powerful, but you can't expect him to be illogical and inconsistent.

If you are a good person, you should only worship a good God, and if God is good, then there's another explanation for evil: like that there wasn't a choice, because it was logically necessary, not because he wanted the evil.
Lauradf36 wrote:He has a plan bigger than my human mind can understand!
Then don't presume to speak for God and say he wanted the holocaust to happen.
Understand instead that it was the unfortunate result of human free will.
Lauradf36 wrote:Of course He is compassionate & loving & just and HATES to see His people go through suffering
You're contradicting yourself again. If he hates it, he can stop it: unless he can't stop it because it's part of human free will. You can't then say that he wants it.
Lauradf36 wrote:The last one. "God could make everyone accept Jesus and just be nice to each other" - I guess part of God's plan was to not control everyone. We have free will. We have choice. That not only allows us to experience emotions, but to have & choose a true relationship with Him - our ultimate design! :)
You can understand that letting people choose is necessary for free will, despite them choosing wrong not being God's will -- why do you deny that evil in the world is a consequence of free will, and not God's will?

You seem very confused.
Lauradf36 wrote:I don't think my reasoning is bad, I believe in it.
Hitler didn't think his reasoning was bad. He believed in it. Virtually nobody goes around saying "I'm going to be evil today!". Everybody thinks he or she is the good guy. But bad ideas, and evil beliefs, have consequences. People can think they're doing good by -- say, murdering all of the jews-- and actually do evil. Just as you deny you're doing evil by eating meat, or by propagating these harmful beliefs and corrupting Christianity to defend it.

I'm trying to help you open your eyes to your mistake so you can become one of the good Christians, rather than one of the bad ones.
Lauradf36 wrote:You know what? That happens sometimes in the world. Am I going to go around telling everyone they're evil? Nope!
And sometimes it results in death and suffering. People who hold and identify with evil beliefs can become evil by vice of those beliefs. It's your choice to believe the wrong interpretations of the Bible. Nobody forced you. There are good interpretations that could make you more compassionate instead of let you rationalize harmful action to others. You could believe in those instead.
Lauradf36 wrote:However, I do think understanding others have different religions & world views is important too.
I understand that, and it's important to understand, but it's also important to understand that SOME but not all of those views are harmful and dangerous. Some of the views are good, some are bad. It depends on how they affect others.
Lauradf36 wrote:And that, if I achieved, is what I call true peace. :)
Really? Are you going to respectfully "dialogue" with a Jihadist who is trying to blow you up? Are you going to dialogue with a pedophile who is molesting children to understand his position?

I already know these people's positions. I understand them through psychology.

The pedophile wants to do something evil, but he thinks he's a good guy, so he rationalizes how molesting Children is actually OK so he can "have his cake and eat it too", or have his morality and molest children too. He needs to be medicated and have therapy to teach him this is wrong, and help him control his urges, or he needs to be in jail to protect children from him.
The Jihadist is filled with anger and frustration stoked by religious tensions, and seeks cosmic purpose in his life which he thinks he's found through martyrdom. He's become isolated from his peers and has put himself in an echo chamber of other Jihadists who have talked themselves up and gotten angrier by trading rhetoric about their holy war. It's based on a violent and evil corruption of Islam, which needs to be stamped out by the peaceful and good interpretations.

"Dialogue" doesn't help this stuff: these people need to understand how and why their views are wrong. They need to be persuaded to change.

Dialogue is the first step to debate, because we have to understand what we're arguing against to do it effectively, but then we have to target the beliefs. Just telling somebody you believe something different and not challenging them is of little use, because it doesn't encourage change, and it lets innocent victims suffer in the meantime.

I understand you said you came here to learn, and you may have gotten more than your bargained for. But you made a claim: You said that Christianity is a defense for eating meat. That claim is subject to criticism. You followed up that claim with many more false claims.
You have been corrected.

Whether you actually came here to learn is yet to be seen. We'll see how you respond, if you respond.

And finally, I'll cover this (because you asked)
Lauradf36 wrote:
Do you really think it was wrong to eat meat in the garden, and then God just changed his mind? Is it right or wrong? Or is God just making it up as he goes? (I suggest you look into Euthyphro before you try to answer that.)
Didn't really understand the whole Euthyphro thing - do you mind trying to explain it? Something about piety and moral dilemmas?
It's the question:

Is good whatever God says? Like if God said to sodomize your children, would that be good by definition because God said it? If so, "good" has no meaning, and you can't define God as good, because that's circular logic.
E.g. "God is good and good is whatever god says/does"
I would be omnibenevolent by that definition, if I just say I'm good, and good is whatever I say and do.
That's just a form of moral relativism, it's meaningless.

OR:

Does good exist as a principle of the universe, eternal and unchanging, and logical. And God just happens to embody that principle as perfect goodness.
User avatar
Philosophical Vegan
Moderator
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: Non-Vegan Ready to discuss!

Post by Philosophical Vegan »

Lauradf36 wrote:Ok. So I have talked this over with my parents and unfortunately I will not be responding to your posts any more. I have tried several times to express my not tolerating this kind of verbal assault... but it continues. I may respond to others but only if they are respectful.
Welcome Laura. Please read the forum rules here: http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2115
Forum Rules wrote:1. This is a discussion forum. Please come here willing to discuss. This isn't a place to lecture, and then refuse to address others' rational arguments or even answer others' questions.
Everybody here is expected to respond to arguments. That goes both ways, and nobody will be allowed to ignore you either or refuse to answer your questions.
This is good for everybody. Imagine if somebody said something ignorant against Christianity, and then just wouldn't answer questions or listen to your views on how they were mistaken, but instead just doubled down, kept making the claims, and misleading others. That's bad for discussion.

Here are some ideas on how you can respond if you aren't prepared to engage somebody:

"I read your post, and I still disagree, but I don't know how to argue against it now. I need some time to study and learn, and if I can think of something I'll post it later."

"I read your post, and I see now it was hasty of me to make that claim. I don't know if it's true or not now. I need some more time to think and study"

"This conversation is too stressful for me today, I need a few days. When I have a better day and I'm up for it, I promise I'll reply fully."

"I don't know how to counter your arguments, but my friend/teacher/pastor does, and I have invited him/her to the forum to pick up this discussion where I left off. I agree with his/her perspective, so he/she can represent my argument better."
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Non-Vegan Ready to discuss!

Post by PsYcHo »

brimstoneSalad wrote:
PsYcHo wrote: We challenge beliefs here, not people, so be prepared to defend your position.
That's the ideal, at least, although it doesn't always work.

When religious beliefs come in, sometimes people identify so strongly with those beliefs that they'll say "this belief is who I am as a person", and when that's the case, challenging a belief IS challenging a person. If somebody, existentially, defines his or herself by dogmatic adherence to an evil belief (of course, I'm not satying that's the case here, I don't know yet), then how can we differentiate the belif and its physical avatar?

That might be a bit too philosophically deep to go into here. It gets a bit at the root of self, personhood, and the 'soul'.
By realizing that people are not beliefs, and beliefs can be changed. All people who have changed a belief have done so because at some point, the seed of change was planted in their mind. Just as you cannot rush a seed to sprout, you cannot rush a mind to change. With proper care and time, the seed may grow to a tree, and bare seeds of its own. Some seeds take longer, and some never sprout, but how the seed is nurtured can make a difference.

On a related yet different note, I recently read a piece of historical fiction involving Socrates, and it piqued my interest in philosophy. Besides Socrates, any other recommended authors to start with?
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
inator
Full Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 3:50 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Non-Vegan Ready to discuss!

Post by inator »

PsYcHo wrote:On a related yet different note, I recently read a piece of historical fiction involving Socrates, and it piqued my interest in philosophy. Besides Socrates, any other recommended authors to start with?
Socrates left no writings of his own, but you can read about him from second hand sources, like Plato's dialogues. if you're interested in ancient philosophers, the famous triad - Socrates, Plato, Aristotle - is a good place to start.
It may be more enjoyable to go for an introduction to philosophy before jumping into a specific philosopher's work. Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' or something of the sort.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Non-Vegan Ready to discuss!

Post by brimstoneSalad »

PsYcHo wrote:By realizing that people are not beliefs,
Are people contiguous colonies of cells? What is a person without any beliefs at all? An empty husk.

To the extent we are "souls", we are memetic constructions. Self-identifying and self-actualizing.

If somebody identifies existentially with a belief, and would say something like. "I am Christian, it is the core of who I am as a person, and if I was no longer Christian I wouldn't be me anymore" that's a pretty strong statement we shouldn't casually dismiss. Self preservation extends to beliefs in these cases. There are many people who would rather die than lose their faith.
PsYcHo wrote:and beliefs can be changed.
People can change. The old homunculus can wither and die and a new one can be born.
It's very hard won indeed, because the old beliefs will hold on with a death grip.
PsYcHo wrote: On a related yet different note, I recently read a piece of historical fiction involving Socrates, and it piqued my interest in philosophy. Besides Socrates, any other recommended authors to start with?
I would focus more on contemporary philosophy. You could benefit from reading Peter Singer, and watching some of the debates.
The vast majority of ancient philosophy isn't usually very relevant anymore. Wikipedia can give you plenty of context. Definitely become familiar with the laws of thought and how formal logic works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Non-Vegan Ready to discuss!

Post by PsYcHo »

inator wrote: Socrates left no writings of his own, but you can read about him from second hand sources, like Plato's dialogues. if you're interested in ancient philosophers, the famous triad - Socrates, Plato, Aristotle - is a good place to start.
It may be more enjoyable to go for an introduction to philosophy before jumping into a specific philosopher's work. Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' or something of the sort.
Thanks! I'm familiar with them in passing, but haven't actually studied them specifically.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Are people contiguous colonies of cells? What is a person without any beliefs at all? An empty husk.

To the extent we are "souls", we are memetic constructions. Self-identifying and self-actualizing.

If somebody identifies existentially with a belief, and would say something like. "I am Christian, it is the core of who I am as a person, and if I was no longer Christian I wouldn't be me anymore" that's a pretty strong statement we shouldn't casually dismiss. Self preservation extends to beliefs in these cases. There are many people who would rather die than lose their faith.
Well now I finally understand what the hell meme means. (Researching memetic. Says something about society that auto-correct doesn't recognize it, doesn't it? ) I've read your mentions of Dawkins before, but haven't delved into it yet. I'll think on this a bit.
brimstoneSalad wrote: People can change. The old homunculus can wither and die and a new one can be born.
It's very hard won indeed, because the old beliefs will hold on with a death grip.
So two things I've learned. (Tiny sperm men huh? I thought creationist were crazy. ;) )
brimstoneSalad wrote: I would focus more on contemporary philosophy. You could benefit from reading Peter Singer, and watching some of the debates.
The vast majority of ancient philosophy isn't usually very relevant anymore. Wikipedia can give you plenty of context. Definitely become familiar with the laws of thought and how formal logic works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought
I'll check out singer, but ancient philosophy seems a good place for me to start. Learning about the giants upon whose shoulders others stand and all.

Thanks!
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
inator
Full Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 3:50 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Non-Vegan Ready to discuss!

Post by inator »

Was Laura banned or did she just choose to stop replying to everyone? Would've been interesting to see how well street epistemology works in this format, I've only seen it done face-to-face.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Non-Vegan Ready to discuss!

Post by brimstoneSalad »

inator wrote:Was Laura banned or did she just choose to stop replying to everyone? Would've been interesting to see how well street epistemology works in this format, I've only seen it done face-to-face.
She just left.

It's hard to use Street Epistemology on a forum, because the responses are so slow. It's good in a live chat or face to face, though.
teo123
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Non-Vegan Ready to discuss!

Post by teo123 »

I think I can add something to the story. So, the slavery Bible supports is different than the slavery we think of. Well, so is the meat industry Bible supports different than meat industry we think of. There were no factory farms back then. Is this a valid argument?
Post Reply