• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A priest a vegetarian?

Should priests and other such like "personnel" of churchs be vegetarians?

  • No

  • I don't care

  • It would be for the best

  • Doesn't have anything to do with anything

  • Yes

  • Aren't They?


Results are only viewable after voting.

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Should they be vegetarians? Or vegans?

Obviously a question mainly of ethics but also of morals.
It's not unethical to eat meat. I'm vegan except for twice a month I eat hamburger. My body seems to need it; it seems to glue my skeleton back together, which seems to fall apart during the interim.

The early humans had no option except to eat meat, and this for hundreds of thousands of years. Why is it suddenly wrong now? I doubt they cleanly killed the animals to minimize their suffering.
 

Shushersbedamned

Well-Known Member
It's not unethical to eat meat. I'm vegan except for twice a month I eat hamburger. My body seems to need it; it seems to glue my skeleton back together, which seems to fall apart during the interim.

The early humans had no option except to eat meat, and this for hundreds of thousands of years. Why is it suddenly wrong now? I doubt they cleanly killed the animals to minimize their suffering.
Im nit sure if you mean it isn't unethical at all (which it is) or that it isn't for a priest.
 

Shushersbedamned

Well-Known Member
It's not unethical to eat meat. I'm vegan except for twice a month I eat hamburger. My body seems to need it;.....
......Why is it suddenly wrong now?
Your body does not need a hamburger.

Have you any idea how the animals are raised and treated before they're killed? And the assumption they are now killed without suffering is very ignorant.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
It's more in line with some oriental religions. Last times I've visited Church they had sugar-free and sugar alternatives, but nothing for vegetarians. It was quite some time ago though.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Your body does not need a hamburger.

Have you any idea how the animals are raised and treated before they're killed? And the assumption they are now killed without suffering is very ignorant.
I've learned that you have to watch out when talking to our carnivorous brethren about the terrible facts that exist behind their meat consumption. They get quite defensive when you cast their behavior as anything near "wrongdoing." As soon as you've attacked their penchant for eating meat (almost no matter how subtly, or even whether you meant it as an attack or not) they shut down and won't listen to facts. Or they'll even admit that they know the facts, but that they "don't care." Not that they say it so bluntly, but that is definitely the gist of their ultimate response. And that only because they know they have no better argument than apathy.

Be ready for ridicule also - it's one of the tactics people turn to to try and get everyone laughing and ignoring you. It's all so obvious, and their insecurity nearly palpable at that point. I've changed up my tactics, and no longer tell anyone anything unless they ask. For example, I was once invited to a clay-pigeon course event - shotguns, but no animals involved. We all went to breakfast before, and while everyone else was ordering their eggs, bacon, sausage, etc. I ordered what I could from the establishment - a fruit plate and bowl of oatmeal. This immediately drew questions from the rest of the group. The first was rather hilarious: pointing at my plate, the guy across from me asks "What's wrong?" As if something had to be "wrong" for someone to order only fruit and oatmeal. And this is what you will find yourself up against... at least for the time being. Ignorance so heavy it nearly stinks up the air.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I didn't vote because the moral imperative of vegetarianism/veganism should not be limited to "priests and other such like personnel of churchs". That moral imperative extends to all humans.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I voted "no" even though I personally consider going vegetarian to be best for both our bodies and our planet. However, I'm not a vegetarian but I do restrict my meat consumption whereas probably more than 3/4 of my meals are meatless.

So, reducing our consumption of meat makes sense, but I don't consider it as being any kind of litmus test for being a good priest or minister or lay person.
 

Shushersbedamned

Well-Known Member
They, like anyone else, should do what they want.
There are quite a few people I wish would not do what they want. And the majority of meat eaters could easily be "cured" if they were shown how their "meat" is really done and what else they put into it. I.e. they would not want it.
 

Shushersbedamned

Well-Known Member
Sure. Everyone should, if it is reasonably possible to become such.


How do you distinguish between the two disciplines?
Morals are the built in (no I don't mean they can't be developed just that they are deep in the core of the human mind) 'principles' (hate that word) that 'tell' (oh my...phew) a person what is right and what is wrong.

Ethics are principles not in the human mind, but in the society that do the same thing less effectivey but in a greater quantity.
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
Should they be vegetarians? Or vegans?

Obviously a question mainly of ethics but also of morals.

If there is plenty of cheap vegetarian food, then it would obviously make sense to give up a non-vegetarian diet. You are saving that many animals from having their necks cut and shrieking in agony, so that their flesh can tickle people's taste buds.

It also makes sense from a health point of view.


Vegetarians lead a healthier life than meat-eaters: Oxford study - Times of India

Scientific research has shown that non-vegetarians have a greater incidence of cancer, greater risk for cardiac events ( heart attack) and death from cardiac causes, greater risk for diabetes,

It also makes sense from an environmental pov by cutting down on emissions of greenhouse gases in a major way.

Plant-based diets could save millions of lives and dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions

Eat less meat to avoid dangerous global warming, scientists say
 
Top