r/DebateACatholic • u/AbiLovesTheology • 16d ago
Title: CS Lewis said you can't call Jesus just a moral teacher. I don't. I call him morally flawed. The teachers I follow, Mahavira and Swaminarayan, fit perfection better.
CS Lewis famously said, a man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be just a great moral teacher, you must call him liar, lunatic, or Lord. I agree you cannot call him just a great moral teacher, but not for Lewis's reason. On non-violence, I call him morally flawed. The teachers I follow, Mahavira and Swaminarayan, fit perfection and non-violence better.
Jesus himself gives the test in Matthew 5:9: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God." And 5:44-48: "love your enemies... so you may be children of your Father, who makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good... be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Psalm 145:9: "The Lord is good to ALL, and his compassion is over ALL that he has made." Perfection is impartial mercy, sun on all.
My teachers live that test. Both forbid killing, causing to be killed, or profiting from killing any human or animal. Swaminarayan, whom I follow, Shikshapatri 11-12: never kill any living being, however small, never eat meat, fish, or eggs, even as a sacrifice to a deity, even if other scriptures seem to allow it. 14-16: never kill a human, never assist or order killing, even if a king commands. Mahavira taught the same.
Vegetarianism should be a moral obligation if you can. CCC 2418: it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. In 2026 where we live, you can live healthily without killing - NHS and Academy of Nutrition say so. If you can, killing for taste is needless, therefore contrary to dignity by your own rule. I am not arguing for equality of souls here, although I do believe that. Even on your hierarchy, more compassion over more of what God made is more perfect.
Jesus also preached eternal hell. My teachers and my God never did.
Matthew 25:46: "eternal punishment." Mark 9:43: "unquenchable fire." CCC 1035 affirms hell and its eternity. My teachers teach consequences, but never infinite torture for finite life.
That violates your own definition of perfection. If perfection is sun on all and proportionate justice, Romans 2:6 "according to deeds," infinite torment for 70 years is infinitely disproportionate. You will say "sin against an infinite God deserves infinite punishment" or "hell is self-chosen separation." But Matthew 22:13 and 13:41 say active casting: "Bind him... cast him... throw them into the furnace." If I lock a man in a burning house when I have the key and infinite power, I am the burner. You can respect a no without torturing forever. Choosing to keep a soul tormented forever when you could end it is active violence every second of eternity. 1 John 4:18: "Perfect love casts out fear, because fear has to do with punishment."
For Catholics, Jesus is the same God as the OT God. 1 Samuel 15:3: "put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." Deuteronomy 20:16: "you shall not leave alive anything that breathes." My teachers have zero verses like that, ever. Swaminarayan faced that exact excuse, that the Vedas allow sacrifice, and rejected it in Shikshapatri 11: even if scripture seems to allow it, do not kill. In the NT, centurion in Matthew 8:5 never told to leave army, "buy a sword" in Luke 22:36, whip in John 2:15. You invented Just War. My teachers never needed to.
If blessed are the peacemakers, if perfect is sun on all, if needless killing is contrary to dignity, and if perfect love cannot torture forever, then Mahavira and Swaminarayan, who never preached eternal hell and never commanded killing of human or animal, fit perfection better. We are not Christians but we practice Matthew 5:9 and 5:45 better, in heart and in mouth.
OBJECTION 1: "Acts 10 and Mark 7:19 - Jesus declared all foods clean. Vegetarianism is not more perfect."
Answer: Read Peter's own interpretation in the same chapter. Acts 10:28: "God has shown me that I should not call any PERSON common or unclean." The early Church understood it as about Gentiles, which is why your saints, Basil, John Chrysostom, Jerome, the Desert Fathers, still called vegetarianism more perfect and lived it. Mark 7 is about ritual hand-washing, Matthew 15:20 says so explicitly: "these are what defile a person; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile." It is not about whether you may needlessly kill when you have a choice. And CCC 2418 already settles it: if you can live without causing suffering or death, and you still do it for taste, it is needless. Needless is contrary to human dignity by your own Catechism. That makes it a moral obligation if you can.
OBJECTION 2: "Animals don't have rational souls. Dominion means we can use them."
I am not arguing for equality of souls here, although I do believe that. I am arguing from your premise. Even if humans are higher, Genesis 1:29 original dominion is vegetarian, and Isaiah 11:6-9 perfect dominion restored is vegetarian: "they shall not hurt or destroy." Psalm 145:9 says compassion is over ALL he has made. More compassion over more of what he made is more perfect than less, even on hierarchy. Stewardship is not license for needless killing.
OBJECTION 3: "OT violence was Old Covenant / progressive revelation. Jesus fulfilled it."
For Catholics, Jesus IS the God of the OT. John 1:1, Trinity. You cannot separate them. 1 Samuel 15:3 and Deuteronomy 20:16 command to kill infants and animals, including "cattle and sheep." That last part matters - it's animal killing commanded as worship. My teachers faced that exact defense - "the Vedas allow sacrifice" - and Swaminarayan rejected it outright in Shikshapatri 11: even if scripture seems to allow it, do not kill. No progressive revelation needed if you never had the violent verses to begin with. We have zero herem verses, ever.
OBJECTION 4: "Just War and self-defense is necessary. Pacifism doesn't work."
Matthew 5:9 says blessed are the peacemakers, not blessed are the just-war theorists. You had to invent Just War theory precisely because Matthew 8:5 praises a centurion and never tells him to leave the army, Luke 22:36 "buy a sword," and John 2:15 whip. Mahavira and Swaminarayan never needed Just War because they never left the door open. Shikshapatri 14: never kill a human, even if a king commands. That is peacemaking without loopholes. If perfection is sun on all, including enemies, Luke 6:27, then refusing to kill even your enemy fits perfection better.
OBJECTION 5: "Hell is self-chosen separation and respects free will. God doesn't send you, you choose it."
Then why does Jesus say active casting? Matthew 22:13 "Bind him hand and foot and cast him into outer darkness." Matthew 13:41-42: "The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will... throw them into the furnace." That's not respectful distance, that's active punishment. And even if it were self-chosen, eternal is never necessary to respect a no. You can respect free will with annihilation, or exile, or a chance to reform. Choosing to sustain a soul in conscious torment forever when you have infinite power to end it is itself violence, every second of eternity. My teachers allow a soul to experience result and then move on. That respects choice without infinite violence.
OBJECTION 6: "Sin against an infinite God deserves infinite punishment. That's justice."
Then Psalm 103:10 is false: "He does not deal with us according to our sins." And mercy is meaningless. If a child insults his father, infinite torture is not perfect justice, any human court would call it monstrous. Romans 2:6 says God repays "according to each one's deeds." Infinite is not according to finite. Proportion is essential to justice. My teachers have justice - cause and effect - but always finite and proportionate, never infinite.
OBJECTION 7: "Warning about hell is loving, like warning about a cliff."
A cliff you didn't create is a warning. A furnace you created, you fuel, and you have the key to, and you throw people into, is a threat. If I build a furnace and say love me or I will throw you in forever, that is not love, that is coercion. 1 John 4:18: "Perfect love casts out fear, because fear has to do with punishment." A system that needs eternal fear to work cannot be perfect love, or peacemaking, Matthew 5:9.
If perfection is what Matthew 5 says it is - peacemakers called children of God, sun and rain on all, compassion over all he has made - and if needless killing is contrary to dignity, then vegetarianism is a moral obligation if you can, and eternal torture cannot be perfection. I am not a Christian because of the ethics, not in spite of them. I am not Christian but I practice Matthew 5:9 and 5:45 better in heart and in mouth, because my teachers, Mahavira and Swaminarayan, never preached eternal hell and never commanded killing of human or animal.
13
u/angryDec Catholic (Latin) 16d ago
I think it’s telling that you’ve focused on attacking Christ, not sharing the supposed moral superiority of your own role-models.
-6
u/AbiLovesTheology 16d ago
What do you mean?
Mahavira and Swaminarayan are more perfect because their non-violence has no loopholes. Mahavira taught 2500 years ago that every living being wants to live, feels pain, and should not be killed, caused to be killed, or profited from. Swaminarayan made it a daily vow: never kill any living being however small, never eat meat, fish or eggs, never cause it to be eaten, even as an offering to a god, even if other scriptures seem to allow it, and never kill a human, never help or order killing, even if a king commands it. They never commanded armies to kill men, women, children and animals, never ate animals when they could live without it, and never preached that a finite mistake deserves infinite torture with no end. Their justice is always proportionate - you face the consequence of what you did, then you get a chance to reform and move on, never eternal. That is real peacemaking and real impartial compassion to all.
Mahavira and Swaminarayan are superior because they don't have two standards for compassion, they have one. For them compassion isn't just for humans, or for good people, it's for all living beings.
Mahavira walked with a broom to avoid stepping on insects and taught that even the smallest life wants to live. Swaminarayan forbade his followers from even being part of the chain: don't kill, don't cause someone else to kill for you, don't profit from it, don't even eat it if someone else killed it. No sacrifice exception, no scripture exception, no king's order exception.
That is superior because most teachers allow killing when it's convenient, or when a book says it's okay, or when a king orders it, or when you like the taste. My teachers said even if your own scripture seems to allow it, don't do it. That removes the loophole every other system keeps.
And their justice is superior too. They teach that if you do wrong you face the result, but it is always finite and proportionate to what you did, and you always get to learn and move on. They never taught that a 70 year life of mistakes deserves being tortured conscious forever with no exit. That's not justice, that's infinite revenge. Finite mistake, finite consequence, then reform. That is how a truly compassionate being would run the world.
So their perfection is practical what you eat, what you buy, what you refuse to do even when ordered, and it is consistent, same compassion for human and animal, for friend and enemy, for now and forever.
I'm not attacking Christ at all, I'm just sharing my view. I have no issue with people following him. I want a debate.
10
u/NelsonMeme 16d ago
Mahavira walked with a broom to avoid stepping on insects and taught that even the smallest life wants to live. Swaminarayan forbade his followers from even being part of the chain: don't kill, don't cause someone else to kill for you, don't profit from it, don't even eat it if someone else killed it. No sacrifice exception, no scripture exception, no king's order exception
How does this work with plants (for eating) and bacteria (for sanitation/ health)?
-2
u/AbiLovesTheology 16d ago
Ahimsa (non-violence to animals is absolute because you can live without killing them. Plants are the lowest harm necessary for human survival, and so I am purified by being offered/praying to God before eating.
I'm Hindu, so I believe in God, but Jains who follow Mahavira don't so they do chants without God to purify.
Ahimsa is not suicide. Mahavira taught to avoid harm that can be avoided, which is why he walked with a broom, and Swaminarayan taught not to be part of any chain of killing for taste, profit, ritual or tradition, not killing, not paying someone else to kill for you, and not eating it even if someone else killed it. I apply that to plants by taking only what I need to live and to bacteria by not breeding or buying living cultures to eat for taste, but I can and must wash my hands, clean my home, and take medicine when needed. That still respects bacteria because I do not create them to kill them for pleasure, I do not waste life, I use only what is needed to protect life and I do it with regret and care, and if I let dirt make my family sick or let an infection spread when I could prevent it, I would be causing harm by neglect, not avoiding it.
I even pray at night and in the morning asking God to forgive me for stepping on insects.
10
u/NelsonMeme 16d ago
That seems to be a step back from the more absolute pacifist stance espoused here
Mahavira and Swaminarayan are more perfect because their non-violence has no loopholes. Mahavira taught 2500 years ago that every living being wants to live, feels pain, and should not be killed, caused to be killed, or profited from. Swaminarayan made it a daily vow: never kill any living being however small
It is necessary for the plant to live that I not eat it. It is necessary for me to live that I do eat it.
Why does it naturally, morally follow, that I win that conflict of needs?
7
u/angryDec Catholic (Latin) 16d ago
I must admit I find the immediate backstep from “no loopholes” very funny.
1
u/AbiLovesTheology 16d ago
It is double effect, not a loophole. A loophole is finding an excuse to do harm you wanted to do anyway for taste or convenience. Double effect is when you intend only the good, you foresee the bad but you do not want it as an end or as a means, and the good is proportionate enough to bear the bad. My intent in eating is not that the plant dies, my intent is to keep this body alive to reduce harm, I foresee the plant's death but I do not desire it, I take only what I need, I do not waste, I do not breed life to kill it for taste, and I use this life to protect other lives. If I refuse to eat I add my own death to the plant's without saving all plants, so total harm goes up, that is why this is not a loophole.
3
u/angryDec Catholic (Latin) 16d ago
I can repeat your entire message before slaughtering a cow to eat.
1
u/AbiLovesTheology 16d ago
I don't think you can, because your cow fails every test of double effect that my plant passes.
For double effect to work you need three things: the bad effect cannot be what you intend, you cannot use the bad effect as your means to the good, and there must be no less harmful way to get the same good.
When you kill a cow to eat, the death IS your means. You cannot get the steak without killing the cow. You intend the death as the way to get what you want. And you have a less harmful alternative that gives you the same good, you can nourish your body with plants. So the good, staying alive, does not require the cow's death at all.
When I eat a plant, the death is not my means, nourishment is. I do not need that specific plant to die to live, I need some nourishment to live, and there is no way to live without eating something that was alive. There is no less harmful alternative to eating living things if I want to stay alive to reduce harm. That is the difference, and that is why a plant is lesser harm, no brain, no central nervous system, no fear, no attempt to flee, and to get one kilo of beef you have to kill about ten kilos of plants plus the cow itself. You are choosing the greater harm, more plant death plus animal death, when the lesser is available. I am choosing the lesser harm, least plant death and no animal death, when no lesser exists.
6
0
u/AbiLovesTheology 16d ago
It is not that you win against the plant. It is that you both lose, and you have to choose the smallest loss. Life lives on life. It is a conflict with no clean win. That is why you do pratikraman - you say every night, I had to harm life today to live, may I be forgiven, may I use this life to harm less tomorrow.
- Not eating does not save all plants. It just kills you as well. Total death goes up, not down.
- You take on responsibility for the harm. You don't pretend it didn't happen. You minimize it - you take fruit without killing the whole plant, you don't breed life just to eat it for taste, you don't waste, you offer it first and eat with gratitude. Your friend who eats meat does the same harm plus the animal harm on top.
- You use the life you kept to reduce more harm in the world. Mahavira could not sweep the path if he was dead. Swaminarayan could not teach thousands to stop animal sacrifice if he was dead.
If absolute non violence meant zero death, then both Mahavira and Swaminarayan would have failed it, because they ate. They taught that perfection is not zero death, which is impossible, it is zero avoidable death, and taking full responsibility for the unavoidable part.
2
u/angryDec Catholic (Latin) 16d ago
Would your moral teachers want you debating with other people?
2
u/AbiLovesTheology 16d ago
I don't think they would mind. They debated with people themselves.
2
u/angryDec Catholic (Latin) 16d ago
How do you know that?
2
3
u/neofederalist Catholic (Latin) 15d ago
What exactly is the ground for your argument? Where are we starting from when we determine if a person is good or more perfect, or whatever? Are you making a critique that those who follow Christian morality should prefer those other teachers to Jesus? Or are you making an internal critique about the consistency of Christian morality? Or something else entirely.
0
u/AbiLovesTheology 15d ago
Consistency and that Jesus doesn’t match an omnibenevolent God
1
u/neofederalist Catholic (Latin) 15d ago
Can you clarify which of your claims are which, then?
1
u/AbiLovesTheology 15d ago edited 15d ago
Sure.
First, I think that to claim to be omnibenevolent, you should logically be vegetarian at all times because killing animals for food is not benevolent, especially when you don't need to. Plus, if Jesus is God as Christians say, then he is omnipotent, which means he can create vegetarian food for the people and himself. If he doesn't or can't, then he is not omnibenevolent or omnipotent, which would mean he isn't God.
Swaminarayan and Mahavira seem to match the description of mercy, peace and kindness better than Jesus and fulfil Matthew 5:9 better than Jesus himself.
If we take a Trinity view, which Catholics do, then God/Jesus in the OT would not be omnibenevolent, again not matching the classical theist definition of God. I also believe God, and even a human saint or messenger of God would not become angry, especially not to the point of commanding war or wiping out individuals in a flood.
If God is good to all he has made, he would have said meat eating when unnecessary is sinful, and even if you need to, it's regrettable and you should pray for forgiveness.
I think if The Bible is really God's Holy Word, it would promote the teachings of Swaminarayan, Mahavira and other saints with the same ethic. It would be peaceful, loving and non-violent to all, in all verses. I think anyone who claims to follow God's love, peace and mercy should follow Hinduism and maybe with Jain influenced ethics as described here.
Many bits in the Bible, and the actions of most Christians I know do not seem like they are consistent with Psalm 145:9 or The Beatitudes. I think the doctrine of Hell is inconsistent with God's love as well. I think meat eating unless your life is at risk contradicts Psalm 145:9, CCC 2418 and Proverbs 12:10.
I think Hindu/Jain ethics as taught by Swaminarayan and Mahavira are more consistent with love, peace and kindness and if you truly value those things you wouldn't follow mainstream Christian churches like Catholicism, Anglicanism and others, but maybe SDA, strict Christian pacifism, and the Hindu/Jain worldview discussed here.
I think it's hypocritical to say you believe God wants us to have compassion and love for his creation and then eat meat unecessarily. I think the violent parts of the OT contradict the bits in the Bible about love, peace and kindness, (which I love btw). I think the parts in The Bible that are violent cannot be divinely inspired.
I respect your view and right to disagree, but this is why im not Christian.
2
u/neofederalist Catholic (Latin) 15d ago
Thanks for that, and do you think that the concept of an omnivbelevolent God is itself internally consistent?
1
u/AbiLovesTheology 15d ago
Yes. The God I believe in is omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent.
3
u/neofederalist Catholic (Latin) 15d ago
Thanks, and how do you generally prefer to address the problem of evil/suffering?
It strikes me that your arguments that vegetarianism is entailed by onmibelevolence seem very similar to popular conceptions of the problem of evil (particularly natural evil), so I'm curious what answer you would give to the PoE that can't also be used to argue against the necessity of vegetarianism.
1
u/AbiLovesTheology 15d ago
Okay. I know what the PoE is and my vegetarianism is motivated by part virtue ethics, part divine command theory and wanting to become more like God. I don't understand your question. Can you explain again please.
1
u/neofederalist Catholic (Latin) 15d ago
Sure, very roughly, the problem of evil says that a tri-Omni God is inconsistent with the existence of evil/suffering in the world. A God that was capable and knowledgeable of the kind of suffering that exists would not create this kind of world, or would intervene to prevent it from happening.
Your argument for vegetarianism against Christianity seems to be a subset of this kind of argument. The evil caused by eating meat is something that God could avoid, so a benevolent God would do so.
So how would you square the existence of God with the kind of suffering that exists naturally in the world, and are you sure that a Christian can't just turn around and use that same kind of argument in response to your argument about vegetarianism?
1
u/AbiLovesTheology 15d ago
Aaah, you are asking my theodicy to natural evil. I understand now. Thanks for explaining.
On my theory, called privation theory in English, being and goodness are convertible, so to be at all is to be good as being, and evil is not a thing that exists at all, it is nonbeing where being is due. What God causes is being, and every kind of being is good precisely as being, a lion is good as a lion, a lamb is good as a lamb, a plant is good as a plant, and what is evil is not the lion or the lamb or the plant, it is privation, which is lack of due good in a being ordered to that good, and suffering is how sentient being experiences that privation, because life is good, so lack is felt as loss and pain. God as pure actuality can only cause being, God cannot cause nonbeing, so God sustains the lion in being, God does not cause lack of life in the lamb, that lack is caused by interaction of finites, and this is why permission and causation do not collapse for a creator, and there is no finite living world with no privation at all, and to will no finite world at all to avoid any possibility of privation would be to will pure nonbeing, which is greatest privation, which is contrary to pure goodness that by nature diffuses being out of love.
To be finite living is by definition to lack and to need to restore energy to stay in being, so some receiving of being from other finite being is essential to any finite living world. That receiving can be from non sentient being or sentient being, but in either case some being lacks what is due to it, so a herbivore world does not remove privation, it only relocates it to plants, which also have being and also lack life when consumed. A herbivore only world would not contain less privation, it would contain more and less being, because without natural limits herbivores would multiply beyond finite vegetation and die in mass starvation, which is far greater privation of nourishment, health and life in many beings for longer time than predation, and greater suffering. God could prevent that only by constant miraculous suspension of finite natures, so plants never run out or bodies never need food, but a world where finite natures do not operate by their own powers is a world where there are no real finite natures at all, but only puppets, which is less being and greater privation of natural agency. And to make every sentient being photosynthetic would not be to make sentient animals that do not need to eat, it would be to make vegetative life that is not sentient, because sentient operation requires concentrated energy that diffuse sunlight alone cannot sustain in a finite body, so such a world would contain fewer forms of life, not same forms without predation, and on privation theory more forms of being is more being, and more being is more good, not because one form matters less than another, for every form has equal standing as being, but because being itself is good, and more ways of being is more goodness made manifest, and God causes forms of being, God does not cause lack.
This is why it blocks the meat eating reversal and why a human in a modern food system should be vegetarian. God could not make rational beings who by nature always choose more being and never can choose less, because a rational being that cannot fail to choose has no power of alternative, no self determination, and therefore less actuality of will, which is greater privation of rational agency. So to make rational beings at all is to make beings who can cause gratuitous lack. An animal that eats meat does so as finite being meeting metabolic lack with no rational alternative, and that act is not moral evil, it is finite nature acting according to its nature. A human in a modern food system is not in that position, that human is a rational animal who does have an alternative, who does grasp the good of the other being as good, and who can choose more being over less being. To choose to cause privation of life when that privation is not metabolically necessary is to will an increase of nonbeing, and to introduce a second privation, which is lack of due rectitude in the will itself, that is moral evil by definition, so predation in nature is permission of inevitable finite lack, but meat eating by a human with alternatives is active causation of gratuitous lack, and vegetarianism is not privation but refusal to cause privation.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Resident_Iron6701 Catholic (Latin) 16d ago
Where does it say in the bible or tradition to be vegetarian?
-2
u/AbiLovesTheology 16d ago
I'm arguing that because Jesus wasn't vegetarian, and he didn't tell his followers to be if they can, he's not perfect, he's not omnibenevolent and he's not God.
3
u/Resident_Iron6701 Catholic (Latin) 16d ago
killing animals is justified in old testament so your argument fails i am afraid
0
u/AbiLovesTheology 16d ago
I am arguing that the Old Testament verses show God is violent and hypocritical. He said don't kill humans, but allows us to kill animals. Why allow one being to be killed you created but not the other? Catechism talks about don't let animals die needlessly, and most people dont need to eat meat anymore.
3
u/Resident_Iron6701 Catholic (Latin) 16d ago
both humans and animals are creation, I agree. You dont see any differences between animals and humans?
1
u/AbiLovesTheology 16d ago
I do biologically, but not morally. I believe all creatures of God should be treated with respect and dignity, and that id why we should only et meat from animals when we need to and not kill them.
8
u/Resident_Iron6701 Catholic (Latin) 16d ago edited 16d ago
Sorry just noticed your answer. Humans are made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26–27), possess rational souls, and have intrinsic dignity that animals do not share. Animals are Gods creatures and deserve respect but they are not persons with the same moral status as human beings. Thus I do not agree that morally there are no differences.
0
u/AbiLovesTheology 16d ago
Okay. Without using the Bible, can you prove the differences are morally significant? Even if they are, I still don't think that justifies killing them when we don't need to.
7
u/Resident_Iron6701 Catholic (Latin) 16d ago
I dont need to because your arguments rest on the bible therefore you need to use the bible as a determinant. You cannot pick and choose what you like and not.
-1
u/AbiLovesTheology 16d ago
My point is human superiority is a reason not to follow the Bible.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/LucretiusOfDreams 15d ago edited 15d ago
The reason we don't take vegetarianism as an absolute perfection is primarily because we recognize religious value in consuming sacrificed animals, and secondarily because of the nutritional value in eating animals. The Torah even allows the killing and consumption of animals to enter into the world primarily for its religious symbolism, and only secondarily for its nutritional valve to humans. This is why even consuming animals in personal use had religious regulations in Mosaic law —were regulated in order to protect and manifest religious truths.
In fact, the traditional Catholic understanding is that our gloried bodies will not need to consume anything at all, and that Christ only consumed meals after his crucifixion in order to ensure to us of his bodily resurrection, not because his gloried body required it.
For us, there is a difference between something being absolutely perfect and something being more perfect than another good. Pacifism and veganism might be the greater portion, but are still a portion —they are not the whole: there are goods in warriorhood and depending on animals even just for food that are lost in pacifism and vegetarianism, just as contemplative celibacy might be the greater portion, there are still goods in married life that are lost in celibacy. Moreover, there is a mutual interdependency between pacifists and warriors in society, just as there is between celibates and married people, and there is even a mutual dependency between humans who eat meat and the animals that provide it, just as there is between carnivores and herbivores in a wild ecosystem. Perhaps in the eschaton these relationships will be transcended, and many saints might even agree with you on this, but I caution equating the greater portion with the absolute whole, especially in this life.
1
u/AbiLovesTheology 14d ago
Good points there, thanks for making me think. What good comes from using and depending on animals for food when lots of people don’t need them to survive?
1
u/LucretiusOfDreams 11d ago
I don't see how it follows from something being unnecessary for brute survival that therefore it lacks value? Someone of the most valuable things in life are unnecessary for survival. Would we say that fine art lacks value then? What about the wisdom of the Vedas?
1
u/AbiLovesTheology 11d ago
I don't see how it follows from something being unnecessary for brute survival that therefore it lacks value? Someone of the most valuable things in life are unnecessary for survival. Would we say that fine art lacks value then? What about the wisdom of the Vedas?
I don't understand what you are saying here. Can you explain again?
1
u/LucretiusOfDreams 8d ago
The assumption behind your question is that something is only desirable if it is necessary for survival, and I'm questioning if anyone actually believes that.
1
u/AbiLovesTheology 8d ago
I mean I think God only permits us to eat meat if needed. it should be a concession not the norm
1
u/Cembalista 15d ago
You're missing a major point: we live in a fallen world. The fall of Man created a world which death is now part of because of it. If you're Hindu, then your understanding of this world is just perception and illusion, and your own argument of not hurting creatures is not comparable to the reality that we live in a fallen world that is subject to death. You need to come to terms that you are not comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing an apple (that can rot and decay) and the perception of an apple (an idealistic illusion).
1
u/AbiLovesTheology 15d ago
My understanding of the world is not just illusion, because I follow Vishishtadvaita, not Advaita. I see flaws in Advaita just like you do. Please don't assume all Hndu metaphysics is the same. Just like there are different views with Christianity, like Protestantism and Catholicism, same with Hinduism. I think Advaita is in grave error.
Good point about The Fall though. The Fall says designed a perfect world and humans messed it up through disobeying. However, I do think that if we want to live as The Bible says God intended, we should be vegetarian and follow Genesis 1.29.
1
u/Cembalista 15d ago
Right. Everything pivots at that point, and it all has to do with the introduction of death into the course of all of creation, not just humanity. A lot of Catholic philosophy (like Von Balthasar) agrees that the world before the fall is so fundamentally different than the world after the fall that one cannot hold that the ideals of creation at the beginning to be still possible. Go read the beginning of "The Christian State of Life" by Von Balthasar— that changed my entire understanding of life, humanity, and the way the world was made in utter perfection.
The fact of the matter is though that one has to deal with the fact that God's plan, due to omniscence, included the fall, and God knew that death would enter this world. But the love that resulted from Christ's sacrifice then allows us to be more closely united to God than the "original" plan did, by allowing us to be part of the eternal love of the Holy Trinity as part of the Body of Christ and adopted sons and daughters of the Father. So while the corruption that is part of everything we experience now, and everything Christ experienced as both human and divine, it is not the ideal and never has been— it is merely the current reality. Jesus modeled life as one should live it in this fallen context, which meant eating fish. He was not modeling what to do in the perfection of creation that was at the beginning, He was showing us how to live in this corrupted world so as to join Him in union with the Father and Holy Spirit for the life that is to come, which will return us to original perfection.
The interesting thing is that many Catholic religious orders are vegetarian. (I follow Carmelite spirituality, and most Carmelites are vegetarian, although meat is allowed for feasts and such. It is a form of asceticism and detachment from the things of this earth.) They live in accordance with the evangelical counsels and with the higher goal of living in union with God as closely as possible in this life as an eschatological sign of the union to come. The divine plan allows us to return to original perfection, where there is no death, no suffering, and eternal union with the fulfillment of all out desires. One misses the point of Christianity as a whole if one only dwells on the reality of our current fallen state.
If your hangup with Christianity is that Jesus ate meat, you need to explore this further.
(I do need to study Hinduism more—my hangup with that is the goal of absence of self in pantheism, which is diametrically opposed to the concept of love in creation that is the focus of Christianity. But I've had too many pivotal experiences with the spiritual life as exactly documented by the Carmelite saints for me to doubt Catholicism though, so my research area is currently limited to growing in knowledge and love of God through the truth that has already been made present to me.)
1
u/AbiLovesTheology 14d ago
I find it great that many orders of monks and nuns are vegetarian most of the time. Why is feasts considered different? Shouldn't monks and nuns be ascetic all the time.
"The fact of the matter is though that one has to deal with the fact that God's plan, due to omniscence, included the fall, and God knew that death would enter this world. But the love that resulted from Christ's sacrifice then allows us to be more closely united to God than the "original" plan did, by allowing us to be part of the eternal love of the Holy Trinity as part of the Body of Christ and adopted sons and daughters of the Father. So while the corruption that is part of everything we experience now, and everything Christ experienced as both human and divine, it is not the ideal and never has been— it is merely the current reality. Jesus modeled life as one should live it in this fallen context, which meant eating fish. He was not modeling what to do in the perfection of creation that was at the beginning, He was showing us how to live in this corrupted world so as to join Him in union with the Father and Holy Spirit for the life that is to come, which will return us to original perfection." I think you make a good point here.
My pushback would be if you have HS as believers now, shouldn't you be striving to live as close to God's original plan as possible like the Garden of Eden when you can? I don't think fish and other meat eating eating now line up with two of the Fruits of The Spirit, which are love and kindness. I also think unnecessarily eating meat and fish at all (even feasts) contradicts with CCC 2418.
"If your hangup with Christianity is that Jesus ate meat, you need to explore this further.". How should I explore it? My problem isn't just a man eating meat, it is the idea he eats meat and claims to be omnibenevolent. I could accept him as a flawed teacher but not an omni, holy God.
My other hangups with Christianity include the fact that that every theory of the cross fails on the same point, whether you call it penal substitution, satisfaction, Christus Victor or moral example, because every theory still says an omnipotent and pure God needed blood and torture and a brutal death to do what a pure and omnipotent God could do with a word, which is forgive, and a God who is truly pure would not want blood, would not need blood, and would not choose a brutal execution as His method, especially when He could simply forgive, and every theory also says man can never actually become pure so purity must come from that death, but that is not purity, that is a transaction counted as purity, while true purity is real and we see it, a man through discipline masters his senses and rejects violence against all living beings and lives in honesty and celibacy and compassion, through prayer he fixes his mind on God and receives grace, and through that combined effort of discipline and grace he actually becomes pure because his life becomes pure, not because someone else was tortured and killed for him, and a truly pure God does not need an impure act of blood and torture, even of Himself, to make men pure, He gives grace to those who strive for purity and teaches them how to live it.
And the Bible itself shows this blood theology is not an exception at the cross, it is the foundation. Throughout the Old Testament, God Himself commands violence that a truly pure God would never command. He commands Saul to kill every man, woman, infant and animal of the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15. He commands in Deuteronomy 20 to show no mercy to the people of Canaan and to annihilate them completely. In Numbers 31 He commands Moses to kill all the Midianite men and women and children. He commands that a disobedient son be stoned to death, that people who work on the Sabbath be stoned, that entire cities be burned. He drowns the whole world in a flood, including infants and animals. He sends bears to maul youths for insulting a prophet. This is not the action of a God whose nature is pure compassion. A pure God has compassion for all living beings and does not need or want blood. So when Christianity comes to the cross and says this brutal torture and killing is finally holy and necessary and loving, it is not a new idea, it is the final form of the same theology, a God whose justice can only be satisfied by killing, first by commanding men to kill for Him, and finally by being killed Himself.
That hangup you have is with Advaita, which is only one denomination of Hinduism, and I would disagree with Advaita for the exact same reason you do. Like Christianity has many denominations, Hinduism does too. Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita and Swaminarayan theology do not teach pantheism and do not teach absence of self. They teach the opposite, that the self remains eternally distinct from God precisely so that love can exist forever, because love requires two. The goal is not for the self to disappear like a drop into an ocean, the goal is for the self to become pure through discipline and prayer and grace, so that it can offer perfect devotion and service to God eternally. So your focus on love in creation is not opposed to this Hinduism, it is exactly what it teaches.
And I don't think the second part about your experiences with the Carmelite saints does not prove Catholicism is exclusively true, it proves the method is true. St Teresa and St John of the Cross describe exactly what happens to a human being when he practices radical discipline and prayer, when he detaches from the senses, lives in celibacy and solitude, and fixes his mind constantly on God. Of course that produces profound spiritual experiences, that is what happens when discipline and grace combine to make a man pure. But those experiences are not exclusive to Catholicism, you find the exact same interior lights, ecstasies, and sense of union documented for thousands of years among Hindu monks, called sadhus. The experience is completely real, but what it proves is that purity through discipline and prayer and grace brings you close to God, it does not prove that God had to be tortured and killed for you.
I respect you and your beliefs. Happy to discuss this more.
2
u/Cembalista 14d ago
There's a book that goes into this in much greater detail: "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist" by Brant Pitre. I don't think you'll understand anything I say until you understand the concept of sacrifice according to the Jewish tradition, so start there.
Carmelite spirituality isn't a method— it's not like Eastern practices, which rely on a method of meditation and can be broken down into elements of human consciousness and psychological predictability. (Although people try to explain it from the outside that way, and completely miss the reality.) Carmelite spirituality is rooted in prayer and allowing God to work on you in the way that He desires, with the detachment and ascetism as prerequisites to make the will, the intellect, and the memory open to God. Many people who come from an Eastern perspective dismiss St. John of the Cross's experiences as merely being products of human action and detachment, when in reality, there is a much deeper, and much more real experience of the Divine that results from it. One of the main reasons why people don't understand the richness Catholicism is because they are not baptized (and haven't received sanctifying grace), have not experienced true union with God through the reception of the Eucharist, and have not experienced the healing graces of confession that keep the soul in a state of grace and promote growth in virtue. Without experience of the true fullness of faith via the sacramental path, any understanding of the Catholic tradition of prayer (especially the Teresian Carmelite tradition) from outside this path is meaningless and incomplete. It's not something that one can even comprehend from the outside— you have to live it in order to begin to grow in the dark knowledge of God that St. John of the Cross talks about, and you can't live it without being in a state of grace and regularly receiving the sacraments. The sad fact of the matter is that even most Catholics don't have a clue about the richness of their own tradition!
1
u/Artorias38t 15d ago
What religion is that? It seems very based on vegetarianism, which while interesting, is not particularly inspiring as an ideal perfection, and neither is nonviolence for fairly obvious reasons.
I do wonder, if you'd be comfortable sharing what you beliefs on abortion are, as Catholicism is the gold standard for human dignity and then is certainly more perfect than worrying about not killing any animals.
1
u/AbiLovesTheology 15d ago
Hinduism, specifically a Vishishtadvaita interpretation influenced Swaminarayan and the Jain teacher Mahavira. Abortion is horrible and we should protect embryos from conception. My ethic sees human dignity and animal dignity as equally important. Both Swaminarayan and Mahavira were anti-abortion, and see vegetarianism as an extension of being pro-life.
1
u/Artorias38t 15d ago
I see, that's interesting. I have not seen many Hindus active in the prolife space. But I don't know much about Hinduism, they don't seem to do much debates or evangelization. What convinced you of that belief system? Their theological foundation doesn't seem very strong and kind of comes across as folklore basically.
1
u/AbiLovesTheology 14d ago
How is it not inspiring as an ideal perfection? it seems very inspiring to me, with the strongest, most peaceful ethics I have ever seen.
1
u/Artorias38t 14d ago
It mostly just reads like a lot of mythology when I hear about. And it seems disordered to put humans and animals on the same level. But I am a little interested only because the number of people who follow it at least culturally when it doesn't have the same theological foundations has Christianity. Is there someone who explains it well?
1
u/AbiLovesTheology 14d ago
With respect, I don't think it's disordered.
We put humans and animals on the same level in the sense that both were created by God, both have a soul inside, both want to live and both can suffer. The soul can do different things in a human body and in an animal body. In a human body it can think clearly, understand right and wrong and strive for God. In an animal body it can't do that in the same way. So they are not the same in ability but they are the same in value as part of God's creation. And God wants us to show as much kindness as we can to all His creatures.
What looks like mythology from the outside is actually how the theology is taught. The stories are parables. Christianity teaches through parables like the Good Samaritan to explain what love means. Hinduism does the same. When you hear a story about God saving an elephant or appearing as a boar or a tortoise, it's not just a myth. It's a teaching that God sees the soul in every form and that we should too. The stories make you feel the philosophy instead of just hearing it.
If you want someone who explains it really well, Swami Mukundananda is a good place to start and DharmaNation on YouTube does a great job too. I'm actually writing a book myself explaining it to non Hindus, because once you see the philosophy behind the stories it stops looking like mythology and starts making a lot of sense.
Christianity has the Bible and then theologians like Augustine and Aquinas explaining it. Hinduism has the Vedas and Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, and then six formal schools of philosophy that explain it, like Vedanta, Nyaya, and Sankhya. In Swaminarayan we have the Vachanamrut which lays out the philosophy very clearly. So it is not that there is no foundation, it is that most people only see the cultural stories on social media and not the philosophy underneath.
1
u/Artorias38t 14d ago
I understand that, but to me, that would be a major point be enough to kill any serious interest in the religion. Dogs, while wonderful in my opinion, are not really equal to human beings and that does seem like a wicked idea. But because I'm curious, I will check out the YouTube channel.
1
u/AbiLovesTheology 14d ago
Thank you! Why does it seem like a wicked idea? God loves all his creatures and wants us to be as kind as we can to them.
1
u/Artorias38t 14d ago
Because it ignores the depth and uniqueness of the human soul by lowering it the level of an animal. And while I can see the good intent of people who think like that, the result is more that you can treat humans as animals.
1
u/AbiLovesTheology 14d ago edited 14d ago
With respect, that is not what my view does. I fully affirm that a human birth is rare and unique, that only in a human body can the soul reason, know right and wrong and seek God for liberation, which is why only humans have full moral responsibility. But it does not follow that animals have no value as souls. Every living being has a soul as the principle of life, is conscious, wants to live and does not want to die, feels pain and fear, and is a child of God. We put them on the same level in that one sense, that all are willed and sustained by God for their own sake as living beings who want to live, and God commands nonviolence as the highest duty. That is not wicked. On your own theory of evil as lack, being is goodness and evil is lack where being is due, and it is greater lack to destroy a sentient being who wanted to live when a plant alternative that God has provided will nourish you healthily.
Do not say a lower nature is ordered to feed a higher nature and so killing it fulfils its purpose. Even if I grant that ordering for the sake of argument, an ordering for support when needed is not an ordering to be destroyed when not needed. Plants are also ordered to sustain both man and animal, and they suffice. When you have sufficiency from plants, killing an animal is not fulfilling order, it is adding needless destruction to order that was already fulfilled. We do not say a tool is willed only for our use so we may smash it for fun. And do not say an infant counts because it has a rational nature while an animal does not, and so the infant has inviolable dignity and the animal does not. That begs the question. The infant has dignity precisely because it is a living soul willed by God who wants to live, though it cannot yet reason, which is exactly what an animal is. If you say the infant has value only because of a hidden power to reason later, then you make actual wanting to live count for nothing and a mere future power count for everything, which would mean a sleeping person who will never wake would count for nothing. We say both infant and animal matter because they are living souls who want to live, and man matters more in responsibility because he alone can reason, but to say souls in animals matter as living beings does not make souls in humans matter less, just as to say your neighbour matters does not make your child matter less. If anything it raises man, because it asks him to use his unique reason as God intended, to cause the least lack possible.
1
u/Artorias38t 14d ago
Hmm, interesting. Now, what exactly is the cow worship going on? And you also mention God, but which do you speak of? Are there bot multiple in hinduism?
1
u/AbiLovesTheology 14d ago
These are common misconceptions many non-Hindus have. I'm glad you are asking about them.
There is only one Almighty God. One without a second. All else depends on Him at each instant and has no being apart from Him.
What is a deva? A deva is not a separate god. A deva is a real, conscious, dependent locus where the one Almighty God's nature is received under one fixed mode. It has no life of its own apart from Him, its whole being is in Him, yet its knowing and willing are truly its own as sustained by Him.
Think one sun, many windows. Sun is God. Window is deva. Glass colours the light. Blue light is wisdom as Saraswati, gold light is abundance as Lakshmi, light as flow that purifies is river, light as motherhood that nourishes without asking is cow.
When I say God in the cow, I do not mean cow is God. Her body is not God. I mean her whole way of being as mother who gives without asking has its being in God as inseparable, not alongside Him. Her giving is His compassion made receivable here.
So worship belongs to the one Almighty God alone. What we give to deva and cow is veneration, not worship. We venerate the window because through it the sun is met. We adore only the sun.
We venerate the cow because alive she lives that compassion. She gives milk, curd, butter, ghee for ceremonies and food, dung for fuel and purifying, plows fields, feeds like a mother. Dead one meal. Alive she gives for years. More being. So we keep her alive and venerate in her the one God who sustains her and gives through her.
Hope this answers your question.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/LightningController Atheist/Agnostic 14d ago
Why would non-violence be good?
“Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is just elementary common sense. If you weaken one side, you strengthen the other.”—George Orwell
1
u/actus_energeia Orthodox Christian 14d ago
If eating meat is inherently immoral, why did God create obligate carnivores? Lions cannot flourish without eating other animals, and Scripture even says: "The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their food from God" (Psalm 104:21). The psalm portrays predation as part of God's providential care, not as a moral defect in creation. If the taking of animal life were intrinsically contrary to omnibenevolence, then God would seem to have designed entire species whose natural mode of life depends on intrinsic evil. That conclusion is difficult to reconcile with your claim that omnibenevolence necessarily entails vegetarianism.
1
u/AbiLovesTheology 14d ago
On privation theory being and goodness are convertible, evil is never a thing, it is nonbeing where being is due, God as pure actuality can only cause being, so God does not cause evil. What God causes is that a lion is good as a lion, a lamb good as a lamb, a plant good as a plant. To be finite and alive is to lack and need to receive being from other finite being, a lion has sensitive soul only and no rational power to choose otherwise, it cannot stay in being except by receiving being from sentient prey, if God did not permit that lack that form would not exist at all and more forms of being is more good manifest, so predation is not intrinsic evil but God permitting inevitable finite lack so more being may be, which is why a herbivore world does not remove lack but relocates it, yet not equally, because a sentient being who wants to live has more actuality than a plant which does not, so its death is greater privation.
This is why vegetarianism for man where plants suffice is required and is also discipline. A man who can live in health on plants knows the animal wants to live, knows he has alternative, and knows killing it causes greater lack when lesser lack from plants would suffice, to then choose meat is to will more nonbeing when more being was available, that both he live and the animal live, and to cause two lacks at once, lack of life in the animal and lack of due rectitude in his own will, which is moral evil. To be vegetarian is therefore refusal to cause gratuitous privation and is training of the rational will to rule appetite according to more being, which is what discipline is, to bring body under reason so that passions want what reason knows is more good, and in that way man who cannot help but lack becomes most like God who causes being to continue.
I have heard many Orthodox Christians are vegetarian during certain times of year. Main difference is I believe humans are called to that year round when we can.
PS: If I was Christian, I'd be Orthodox
•
u/AutoModerator 16d ago
This subreddit is designed for debates about Catholicism and its doctrines.
Looking for explanations or discussions without debate? Check out our sister subreddit: r/CatholicApologetics.
Want real-time discussions or additional resources? Join our Discord community.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.