Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All the christians who honor life so very much that they can tell others what to do probably eat meat.
But is that any different from vegetarions who tell others to not eat meat, just like they do? For instance is there a difference between carnivores and carrion eaters, besides the fact that carrion eaters do not rob lives to eat meat.
Yes, there is a Buddhist philosophy of ahimsa that I subscribe to: Ahimsa or non-injury, of course, implies non-killing. But, non-injury is not merely non-killing. In its comprehensive meaning, Ahimsa or non-injury means entire abstinence from causing any pain or harm whatsoever to any living creature, either by thought, word, or deed. Non-injury requires a harmless mind, mouth, and hand.
It's also a bonus to know that I'm not part of the demand for dead animal flesh that causes greed and unsanitary conditions for the butchering of animals, as seen in mad cow disease and the massive meat recalls that frequently occur.
I can't answer your question, Tricky. I don't partake of animal, fowl or fish. I don't care that others do, that's up to them.
I do shake my head when people who eat fish or fowl call themselves vegetarian, but that's up to them. I'm not of the opinion that fowl or fish are vegetables.
But, non-injury is not merely non-killing. In its comprehensive meaning, Ahimsa or non-injury means entire abstinence from causing any pain or harm whatsoever to any living creature, either by thought, word, or deed. Non-injury requires a harmless mind, mouth, and hand.
This is a noble goal, but in my opinion impossible to realise.
It is fairly easy to not hurt others by hand but trying to do the same with mind or words is impossible; some people are already 'hurt' ( read: insulted) when you only disagree with them.
tricky theres a reason why the budist religion is the most moral out of them all. By far, im not a vegetarian but i agree with the Buddhist morals and much of the philosophy.
However im still pro choice i agree with the notion when the kid gets a heart its alive, i would rather like to say when it is conscious of surroundings and can fear and have emotions its alive but i really dont know when that happens.
and all the pro life movies need to stop showing the post month period gets anoying because there just ussing peoples emotions blindly to do what they want by show how cute the baby at 8months. its cute but thats way past the limit date and its off topic to how cute the baby is.
I also hate the fact the Christians more the catholic side is trying once again to force their ways on another person and is again willing to do whatever it takes to achieve its goal. This is happen through history countless times and realy i just sick of it.
happening not only here today but in aferica europe and for crying out loud they even tried it in the middle east.
(most of them got shot when they tried it there damn fools)
dont want to edit
If u cant read this without 100% edit i feel sorry for u
tricky theres a reason why the budist religion is the most moral out of them all. By far, im not a vegetarian but i agree with the Buddhist morals and much of the philosophy.
Being moral has nothing to do with eating meat or not.
Carnivores eat meat because they'd die if they tried otherwise.
Anywayz, carnivores should eat meat otherwise the herbivores will eat the world empty, so omnivores came into existence to preserve the balance of life.
The problem nowadays is that we humans create as much herbivores as we want, because we believe that we should eat meat just because we want to; that our wants are more important than our needs. Only fanatical (religious) zealots live in the impression that our wants (our idealism) should be more important than our needs (reality).
I'm sorry, but I'm against the death penalty. Too many people, who have been proven innocent after their executions, were wrongly convicted. It's too much and just wrong, in my opinion.
But somewhat neutral on the abortion issue. I think if you were raped and got pregnant by a close relative (i.e. father, uncle, brother, cousin) then that would be a good reason to have an abortion. But I think it's the only good reason to.
I'm sorry, but I'm against the death penalty. Too many people, who have been proven innocent after their executions, were wrongly convicted. It's too much and just wrong, in my opinion.
But somewhat neutral on the abortion issue. I think if you were raped and got pregnant by a close relative (i.e. father, uncle, brother, cousin) then that would be a good reason to have an abortion. But I think it's the only good reason to.
I think any time you compound a rape with a murder it never helps the situation. Oh it might get the child out of your way, but murdering the innocent just adds to the crime, only now the woman who was raped becomes the abuser.
Actually, I think pro-choice is spot on. Many people in the pro-choice movement have personal views that are not pro-abortion. They are pro "a woman's right to choose."
The proper wording is pro-choice and anti-choice.
I think we should call a spade a spade. Some would like to do away with the term pro-life because it's not comfortable for some. The fact is, pro-choice really means pro-death. Why try to hide behind words and slogans. When a woman has the right to choose, she is choosing to have her child cut up into little peices and tossed into a dumpster. Thats the reality of it all. And that's what's happening all around the world 24-7. Woman destroying defenseless children, because they have the right to do so. No matter how you play with the words, your still killing an innocent life.
Actually, I think pro-choice is spot on. Many people in the pro-choice movement have personal views that are not pro-abortion. They are pro "a woman's right to choose."
The proper wording is pro-choice and anti-choice.
I think we should call a spade a spade. Some would like to do away with the term pro-life because it's not comfortable for some. The fact is, pro-choice really means pro-death. Why try to hide behind words and slogans. When a woman has the right to choose, she is choosing to have her child cut up into little peices and tossed into a dumpster. Thats the reality of it all. And that's what's happening all around the world 24-7. Woman destroying defenseless children, because they have the right to do so. No matter how you play with the words, your still killing an innocent life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For instance is there a difference between carnivores and carrion eaters, besides the fact that carrion eaters do not rob lives to eat meat.
Impossible!!!
Only fanatical (religious) zealots live in the impression that our wants (our idealism) should be more important than our needs (reality).
