Why Christianity is False from Vegetarianism

[boatsnguitars]

(1) If it is immoral to eat animals, then Christianity is false.
(2) It is immoral to eat animals.
(3) Therefore, Christianity is false.

Arguments for (1)
-Jesus could not act immorally because he was God.
-Jesus ate animals
-Therefore, if eating animals is immoral and Jesus in fact ate animals, then he is not God.

Arguments for (2)
-it is immoral to cause unecessary suffering to sentient beings
-it is not necessary to eat meat to live healthily. Indeed, many nutritionists argue the exact opposite.
-we are causing suffering to sentient beings by eating their meat.
-thus, we are causing pain unecessarily.

[Clownboat]

(1) If it is immoral to eat animals, then Christianity is false.
(2) It is immoral to eat animals.
(3) Therefore, Christianity is false.

Arguments for (1)
-Jesus could not act immorally because he was God.
-Jesus ate animals
-Therefore, if eating animals is immoral and Jesus in fact ate animals, then he is not God.

Arguments for (2)
-it is immoral to cause unecessary suffering to sentient beings
-it is not necessary to eat meat to live healthily. Indeed, many nutritionists argue the exact opposite.
-we are causing suffering to sentient beings by eating their meat.
-thus, we are causing pain unecessarily.

All a person must do is reject your starting premise that eating animals is immoral. Furthermore, animals are killed in agriculture. Which would make not eating meat also immoral due to those unnecessary sufferings/deaths.

Perhaps a better line of reasoning would be:
- It would be immoral to punish a child for eternity (infinitely) for stealing a cookie from the cookie jar (finite).
Infinite punishments for finite crimes. Now there is something immoral.

[boatsnguitars]

(1) If it is immoral to eat animals, then Christianity is false.
(2) It is immoral to eat animals.
(3) Therefore, Christianity is false.

Arguments for (1)
-Jesus could not act immorally because he was God.
-Jesus ate animals
-Therefore, if eating animals is immoral and Jesus in fact ate animals, then he is not God.

Arguments for (2)
-it is immoral to cause unecessary suffering to sentient beings
-it is not necessary to eat meat to live healthily. Indeed, many nutritionists argue the exact opposite.
-we are causing suffering to sentient beings by eating their meat.
-thus, we are causing pain unnecessarily.

All a person must do is reject your starting premise that eating animals is immoral. Furthermore, animals are killed in agriculture. Which would make not eating meat also immoral due to those unnecessary sufferings/deaths.


Perhaps a better line of reasoning would be:
- It would be immoral to punish a child for eternity (infinitely) for stealing a cookie from the cookie jar (finite).
Infinite punishments for finite crimes. Now there is something immoral.

Your argument works, too, but I did provide my reasoning why eating animals is immoral, so it's not right to wave it off, you'd have to address the "Argument for (2) (For why eating animals is immoral):
-it is immoral to cause unecessary suffering to sentient beings (If it's not wrong, say why)
-it is not necessary to eat meat to live healthily. Indeed, many nutritionists argue the exact opposite. (If it is necessary to eat meat, or even healthier, say why)
-we are causing suffering to sentient beings by eating their meat. (if we aren't causing suffering to sentient beings when we eat meat, say why)
-thus, we are causing pain unnecessarily. (if we aren't causing pain unnecessarily, then say why).

Just as we wouldn't wave off your argument by saying, all we do is reject your premise that punish children for eternity is immoral . (Theists do believe it's moral to torture children for eternity)

[JehovahsWitness]

(2) It is immoral to eat animals.

One man's "moral" is another mans "immoral". It is not a universal truth that eating animals is immoral, it is essentially an opinion or a belief system.

Biblically all life belongs to the Creator and only He ultimately has the right to declare what is misuse of life. Since in the bible God is depicted as giving humans the right to kill animals for food, it is not for bible believers "immoral" to do so.

JEHOVAHS WITNESS






RELATED POSTS

Was Jesus kind to animals?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 55#p992555

Does the bible teach God will burn up all the animals ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 90#p964790

Where do animals go when they die?
viewtopic.php?p=347553#p347553

Will there be pets in heaven?
viewtopic.php?p=1027090#p1027090

Do animals have a spirit?
viewtopic.php?p=1081468#p1081468

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

ANIMALS , DONKEYS and ...THE EARTHLY PARSDISE

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #4

One man's "moral" is another mans "immoral". It is not a universal truth that eating animals is immoral, it is essentially an opinion or a belief system.

Okay, then.

One man's "moral" is another man's "immoral". It is not a universal truth that extramarital sex is immoral, it is essentially an opinion or a belief system.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. I think you and our pal J.W have pointed up the answer and the problem with it. Humans make laws about sex and that has no weight as it's human opinion. God's rules about it are objective. Because God made everything.

But that fails because God's laws are immoral. Slavery is the touchstone case here; eating animals is another. I'm not vegetarian myself but I have a grudging respect for those who are. But what is the excuse for God's immorality when they can't wriggle out of it (and we see how they try) "God can do as he likes".

Fir the Believer who makes that argument, they probably feel they have the ultimate win, but to me it looks like the ultimate loss of the argument. We do not have morals, we have only a Diktat.

The problem of course is the old one and the basic one.

"If God exists, He bosses everything. Better toe the line."

But if we don't believe, the use of the moral argument as evidence that there must be a moral law - giver has failed. That's what the believers can never see.

Cue Pascal's wager and 'What if you're wrong?' That failed twenty years ago, too.

[1213]

(1) If it is immoral to eat animals, then Christianity is false.
(2) It is immoral to eat animals.
(3) Therefore, Christianity is false.

Arguments for (1)
-Jesus could not act immorally because he was God.
-Jesus ate animals
-Therefore, if eating animals is immoral and Jesus in fact ate animals, then he is not God.

Arguments for (2)
-it is immoral to cause unecessary suffering to sentient beings
-it is not necessary to eat meat to live healthily. Indeed, many nutritionists argue the exact opposite.
-we are causing suffering to sentient beings by eating their meat.
-thus, we are causing pain unecessarily.

Firstly I think it would be good to notice, Jesus tells there is only one true God that is greater than him. That is why it is wrong to call him God.

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

...the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

Secondly, it is possible that eating animals doesn't cause unnecessary suffering for sentient beings.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #7

it is possible that eating animals doesn't cause unnecessary suffering for sentient beings

"Sentient" or not, animals are living things with real feelings.

[Tcg]

Moderator Action


Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.



[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]

[Clownboat]

Your argument works, too, but I did provide my reasoning why eating animals is immoral, so it's not right to wave it off, you'd have to address the "Argument for (2) (For why eating animals is immoral):
-it is immoral to cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings (If it's not wrong, say why)

You have your work ahead of you I fear. Many will not agree that it is immoral to kill a mosquito buzzing around their ear for example. If your starting premise cannot be agreed upon, you have a non start.

-it is not necessary to eat meat to live healthily. Indeed, many nutritionists argue the exact opposite. (If it is necessary to eat meat, or even healthier, say why)

Again, all it takes is disagreement from your opponent. Some may note how important protein is and how abundant it is in meat for example and then feel justified.

-we are causing suffering to sentient beings by eating their meat. (if we aren't causing suffering to sentient beings when we eat meat, say why)

Humans cause suffering by eating meat and by swatting mosquitos and by plowing our fields to plant crops. If you argument is to not cause suffering, we'll need to stop all of this.

-thus, we are causing pain unnecessarily. (if we aren't causing pain unnecessarily, then say why).

We do cause pain... Please note the animal kingdom we are a part of and the pain involved in said animal kingdom. Would the lion respect your words?

Just as we wouldn't wave off your argument by saying, all we do is reject your premise that punish children for eternity is immoral.

Your premise is too easily disagreed with. Punishing children for eternity as being wrong will be agreed upon by all, so your comparisons is not apt.

Humans do cause pain and suffering. Humans do not punish children for eternity.

Again, my point was to only point out how easily your starting premise is to reject. "Nuh uh" is all your opponent need say and they will feel justified.
That and think of the plants! Forced into the ground against their will! How cruel!