Raw milk
ernestus Wrote:Good point gladius. But we read in Deuteronomy and Leviticus that certain animals were forbiden to eat. I have often wondered why? Was it for health reasons? Or did God just decide that He would give them extra laws for the heck of it?
I also wonder that the animals, pre-flood, if they ate a vegan diet? And what exactly would the animals have eaten on the ark? Did they eat eachother? Or were they all hibernating? And while I'm on the bible: Genesis 1:29 says that the seeds and trees shall be my meat.
What St. Thomas Aquinas says about this, for what it's worth:

Reply to Objection 1. As stated above (5, ad 4,5), the Law distinguished a twofold pollution or uncleanness; one, that of sin, whereby the soul was defiled; and another consisting in some kind of corruption, whereby the body was in some way infected. Speaking then of the first-mentioned uncleanness, no kind of food is unclean, or can defile a man, by reason of its nature; wherefore we read (Matthew 15:11): "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man": which words are explained (Matthew 15:17) as referring to sins. Yet certain foods can defile the soul accidentally; in so far as man partakes of them against obedience or a vow, or from excessive concupiscence; or through their being an incentive to lust, for which reason some refrain from wine and flesh-meat.
If, however, we speak of bodily uncleanness, consisting in some kind of corruption, the flesh of certain animals is unclean, either because like the pig they feed on unclean things; or because their life is among unclean surroundings: thus certain animals, like moles and mice and such like, live underground, whence they contract a certain unpleasant smell; or because their flesh, through being too moist or too dry, engenders corrupt humors in the human body. Hence they were forbidden to eat the flesh of flat-footed animals, i.e. animals having an uncloven hoof, on account of their earthiness; and in like manner they were forbidden to eat the flesh of animals that have many clefts in their feet, because such are very fierce and their flesh is very dry, such as the flesh of lions and the like.
 For the same reason they were forbidden to eat certain birds of prey the flesh of which is very dry, and certain water-fowl on account of their exceeding humidity.
In like manner certain fish lacking fins and scales were prohibited on account of their excessive moisture; such as eels and the like. They were, however, allowed to eat ruminants and animals with a divided hoof, because in such animals the humors are well absorbed, and their nature well balanced: for neither are they too moist, as is indicated by the hoof; nor are they too earthly, which is shown by their having not a flat but a cloven hoof.
Of fishes they were allowed to partake of the drier kinds, of which the fins and scales are an indication, because thereby the moist nature of the fish is tempered. Of birds they were allowed to eat the tamer kinds, such as hens, partridges, and the like.
Another reason was detestation of idolatry: because the Gentiles, and especially the Egyptians, among whom they had grown up, offered up these forbidden animals to their idols, or employed them for the purpose of sorcery: whereas they did not eat those animals which the Jews were allowed to eat, but worshipped them as gods, or abstained, for some other motive, from eating them, as stated above (3, ad 2).
The third reason was to prevent excessive care about food: wherefore they were allowed to eat those animals which could be procured easily and promptly.
With regard to blood and fat, they were forbidden to partake of those of any animals whatever without exception. Blood was forbidden, both in order to avoid cruelty, that they might abhor the shedding of human blood, as stated above (3, ad 8); and in order to shun idolatrous rite whereby it was customary for men to collect the blood and to gather together around it for a banquet in honor of the idols, to whom they held the blood to be most acceptable. Hence the Lord commanded the blood to be poured out and to be covered with earth (Leviticus 17:13).
For the same reason they were forbidden to eat animals that had been suffocated or strangled: because the blood of these animals would not be separated from the body: or because this form of death is very painful to the victim; and the Lord wished to withdraw them from cruelty even in regard to irrational animals, so as to be less inclined to be cruel to other men, through being used to be kind to beasts. They were forbidden to eat the fat: both because idolaters ate it in honor of their gods; and because it used to be burnt in honor of God; and, again, because blood and fat are not nutritious, which is the cause assigned by Rabbi Moses (Doct. Perplex. iii). The reason why they were forbidden to eat the sinews is given in Gn. 32:32, where it is stated that "the children of Israel . . . eat not the sinew . . . because he touched the sinew of" Jacob's "thing and it shrank."
The figurative reason for these things is that all these animals signified certain sins, in token of which those animals were prohibited. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faustum iv, 7): "If the swine and lamb be called in question, both are clean by nature, because all God's creatures are good: yet the lamb is clean, and the pig is unclean in a certain signification. Thus if you speak of a foolish, and of a wise man, each of these expressions is clean considered in the nature of the sound, letters and syllables of which it is composed: but in signification, the one is clean, the other unclean."
The animal that chews the cud and has a divided hoof, is clean in signification. Because division of the hoof is a figure of the two Testaments: or of the Father and Son: or of the two natures in Christ: of the distinction of good and evil. While chewing the cud signifies meditation on the Scriptures and a sound understanding thereof; and whoever lacks either of these is spiritually unclean.
In like manner those fish that have scales and fins are clean in signification. Because fins signify the heavenly or contemplative life; while scales signify a life of trials, each of which is required for spiritual cleanness.
Of birds certain kinds were forbidden. In the eagle which flies at a great height, pride is forbidden: in the griffon which is hostile to horses and men, cruelty of powerful men is prohibited. The osprey, which feeds on very small birds, signifies those who oppress the poor. The kite, which is full of cunning, denotes those who are fraudulent in their dealings. The vulture, which follows an army, expecting to feed on the carcases of the slain, signifies those who like others to die or to fight among themselves that they may gain thereby. Birds of the raven kind signify those who are blackened by their lusts; or those who lack kindly feelings, for the raven did not return when once it had been let loose from the ark. The ostrich which, though a bird, cannot fly, and is always on the ground, signifies those who fight God's cause, and at the same time are taken up with worldly business. The owl, which sees clearly at night, but cannot see in the daytime, denotes those who are clever in temporal affairs, but dull in spiritual matters. The gull, which flies both in the air and swims in the water, signifies those who are partial both to Circumcision and to Baptism: or else it denotes those who would fly by contemplation, yet dwell in the waters of sensual delights. The hawk, which helps men to seize the prey, is a figure of those who assist the strong to prey on the poor. The screech-owl, which seeks its food by night but hides by day, signifies the lustful man who seeks to lie hidden in his deeds of darkness. The cormorant, so constituted that it can stay a long time under water, denotes the glutton who plunges into the waters of pleasure. The ibis is an African bird with a long beak, and feeds on snakes; and perhaps it is the same as the stork: it signifies the envious man, who refreshes himself with the ills of others, as with snakes. The swan is bright in color, and by the aid of its long neck extracts its food from deep places on land or water: it may denote those who seek earthly profit though an external brightness of virtue. The bittern is a bird of the East: it has a long beak, and its jaws are furnished with follicules, wherein it stores its food at first, after a time proceeding to digest it: it is a figure of the miser, who is excessively careful in hoarding up the necessaries of life. The coot [Douay: 'porphyrion.' St. Thomas' description tallies with the coot or moorhen: though of course he is mistaken about the feet differing from one another.] has this peculiarity apart from other birds, that it has a webbed foot for swimming, and a cloven foot for walking: for it swims like a duck in the water, and walks like a partridge on land: it drinks only when it bites, since it dips all its food in water: it is a figure of a man who will not take advice, and does nothing but what is soaked in the water of his own will. The heron [Vulg.: 'herodionem'], commonly called a falcon, signifies those whose "feet are swift to shed blood" (Psalm 13:3). The plover [Here, again, the Douay translators transcribed from the Vulgate: 'charadrion'; 'charadrius' is the generic name for all plovers.], which is a garrulous bird, signifies the gossip. The hoopoe, which builds its nest on dung, feeds on foetid ordure, and whose song is like a groan, denotes worldly grief which works death in those who are unclean. The bat, which flies near the ground, signifies those who being gifted with worldly knowledge, seek none but earthly things. Of fowls and quadrupeds those alone were permitted which have the hind-legs longer than the forelegs, so that they can leap: whereas those were forbidden which cling rather to the earth: because those who abuse the doctrine of the four Evangelists, so that they are not lifted up thereby, are reputed unclean. By the prohibition of blood, fat and nerves, we are to understand the forbidding of cruelty, lust, and bravery in committing sin.
Reply to Objection 2. Men were wont to eat plants and other products of the soil even before the deluge: but the eating of flesh seems to have been introduced after the deluge; for it is written (Genesis 9:3): "Even as the green herbs have I delivered . . . all" flesh "to you." The reason for this was that the eating of the products of the soil savors rather of a simple life; whereas the eating of flesh savors of delicate and over-careful living. For the soil gives birth to the herb of its own accord; and such like products of the earth may be had in great quantities with very little effort: whereas no small trouble is necessary either to rear or to catch an animal. Consequently God being wishful to bring His people back to a more simple way of living, forbade them to eat many kinds of animals, but not those things that are produced by the soil. Another reason may be that animals were offered to idols, while the products of the soil were not.
The Reply to the Third Objection is clear from what has been said (ad 1).
Reply to Objection 4. Although the kid that is slain has no perception of the manner in which its flesh is cooked, yet it would seem to savor of heartlessness if the dam's milk, which was intended for the nourishment of her offspring, were served up on the same dish. It might also be said that the Gentiles in celebrating the feasts of their idols prepared the flesh of kids in this manner, for the purpose of sacrifice or banquet: hence (Ex. 23) after the solemnities to be celebrated under the Law had been foretold, it is added: "Thou shalt not boil a kid in the milk of its dam." The figurative reason for this prohibition is this: the kid, signifying Christ, on account of "the likeness of sinful flesh" (Romans 8:3), was not to be seethed, i.e. slain, by the Jews, "in the milk of its dam," i.e. during His infancy. Or else it signifies that the kid, i.e. the sinner, should not be boiled in the milk of its dam, i.e. should not be cajoled by flattery.

Edited to add:
My two cents: Needeless cruelty to animals is an evil. Even if cruelty were to somehow give pleasure to man -- such as the taste of foie gras as a result of force-feeding geese, for ex., or if it is the case that the hormones released during fear makes meat tastier (though I think the opposite is the case) -- pleasure isn't the operating principle. It's one thing to kill a goose as quickly and painlessly as possible; it's another to force food down its throat so you can enjoy the flavor of its liver even more.
Animals aren't "totally different" from man; they are fundamentally different, but have some commonalities, for ex., the capacity to suffer. Respecting that capacity isn't a matter of respecting any "rights" animals have (because animals don't have "rights"); it is to respect our own humaneness. From the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on Cruelty to Animals:
Quote: But while these animals are, in contradistinction to persons, classed as things, it is none the less true that between them and the non-sentient world there exists a profound difference of nature which we are bound to consider in our treatment of them. The very essence of the moral law is that we respect and obey the order established by the Creator. Now, the animal is a nobler manifestation of His power and goodness than the lower forms of material existence. In imparting to the brute creation a sentient nature capable of suffering -- a nature which the animal shares in common with ourselves -- God placed on our dominion over them a restriction which does not exist with regard to our dominion over the non-sentient world. We are bound to act towards them in a manner conformable to their nature. We may lawfully use them for our reasonable wants and welfare, even though such employment of them necessarily inflicts pain upon them. But the wanton infliction of pain is not the satisfaction of any reasonable need, and, being an outrage against the Divinely established order, is therefore sinful.
I didn't read this whole thread but just wanted to say that my family does raw milk and is starting a milk goat farm.  If anyone is in Colorado and wants some let me know. 
Croppyboy Wrote:
Quote: originally posted by ernestus

I'm just wondering if anyone here has ever killed an animal before. What was it like?

I have . . . and it was great!!!

You would not believe the immense feeling of power you get as you watch little helpless Bambi stumble to the ground!!!

Facetiousness aside . . . what kind of absurd question is this? “What was it like?” Do you think that hunters receive some sort of megalomaniacal “thrill” from killing animals? I am sorry to disappoint you . . .

What was it like when you steamed the life out of those vegetables?

[Image: rofl.gif][Image: rofl.gif][Image: rofl.gif][Image: rofl.gif][Image: rofl.gif][Image: rofl.gif][Image: rofl.gif][Image: rofl.gif][Image: rofl.gif][Image: rofl.gif][Image: rofl.gif][Image: biggrin.gif][Image: biggrin.gif][Image: biggrin.gif][Image: beer2.gif]
Bambi had it comin'.
These are the funniest I've seen in a looooong time!
Quote: originally posted by ernestus

That really isn't necessary. But thank you for teaching me the valuable vocabulary lesson.

You are welcome. I apologize if my definition was extraneous, but it appeared from what you wrote (“it's not like I have a subscription to it like a magazine.”) that you did not understand my use of the word.

Quote: originally posted by ernestus

How about the SPCA, or the Humane Society? Do they have an agenda?

Well, since these organizations are currently operational, I would assume they do have an agenda. However, these organizations would hardly qualify as being radical, which is the term I used to qualify my original statement.

I don’t think you will find the SPCA equating meat with murder.

Quote: originally posted by ernestus

If you are scared that the 'eco-terrorsists' are going to get you for driving an SUV, or wearing a fur coat, you needn't worry.

Since I do neither, I don’t worry.

Quote: originally posted by ernestus

It's this: Have any of these so called extremist groups ever done anything to you which directly affects the way you live? In my case, that would be a big zilch.

I am still unsure about the nature of this question. Are you trying to imply that because I have not been directly affected by one of these “so called” extremist groups that I am prevented from passing judgment on their actions?

Quote: originally posted by ernestus

I wonder though, how it is that you do not like environmentalist groups, even though it is by their hand we even have organic farming today.

Hmm . . . I hate to burst your bubble, but I think you will find that organic farming has been around far longer than the 30 – 40 years that the environmental groups have been active.
Quote: originally posted by ernestus

And in none of my posts have I ever even suggested that it's wrong for others to eat meat.

Quote: originally posted by ernestus

That sounds patently absurd. No hunter 'derives pleasure from the chase'. The hunter is usually in it for the money he gets from selling tusks or other parts like horns or shells. Killing animals makes men feel superior. But men are wimps without their guns. Why don't men fight fair?

Quote: originally posted by ernestus

That sounds no different though, than say a serial murderer.

Quote: originally posted by ernestus

What is the point then of having animal rescue shelters? And this seems like the euthanasia mind set. Thats how it starts. First we do it animals, then we do it men. It's the same pattern with testing chemicals and drugs on animals first, then men. Although nowadays, I think they just skip right to testing chemicals on men.

Quote: originally posted by ernestus

Animals are inferior to us humans, but that does not give us the right to abuse them.

Quote: originally posted by ernestus

Why don't you get a knife and kill your food for once. Show those animals that you're the man!

Quote: originally posted by ernestus

One other thing, how about hunting for sport? Is it okay to kill animals so that we can have a big deer head hanging on the wall?

While it is true that you have not explicitly stated it is wrong for others to eat meat, your comments seem to suggest that you view the killing of animals by humans as being morally repugnant.

You seem to imply that the unenlightened humans that still hunt and/or eat meat do so out of some neanderthalistic bloodlust or megalomaniacal compulsion.
Quote: originally posted by ernestus
One other thing, how about hunting for sport? Is it okay to kill animals so that we can have a big deer head hanging on the wall?
If the man throws out the rest of the animal, letting it rot in the sun, there might be a sin there.   If he eats it, as most do, then there is clearly no sin.
No one (who is a responsible hunter) kills the animal just for the trophy.
gladius_veritatis Wrote: 
As to God's reasons for outlawing some animals, I cannot venture a guess.   I know the fellow who does the Maker's Diet has some decent insights into these matters.

FYI, I learned this stuff in my nutrition class:  All of the animals that were listed as "unclean" in the old testament are nutritionally less than ideal food.  Scavenger animals, most carnivores (except for some birds), and a few omnivores, all which neatly fit into the OT's definition of "unclean", all these animals have a very high putrification factor.  They tend to rot quickly emitting toxins that are taxing to a human's liver, and to everything else once the liver is overwhelmed by it.  I'm not sure why camels and horses are on the "not to be eaten" list, they weren't part of my nutrition course, but perhaps it's just because they are more useful as beasts of burden.
The diet outlined in the OT is a very healthy diet.  I would think the reason that people were no longer bound to it after Christ has more to do with practicality.  Since Gentiles were being saved, it is unreasonable to impose strict dietary laws that might interfere with Gentile customs.  Also, since the Israelite's were God's chosen people, it makes sense that God gave them explicit instructions to help them stay as healthy as possible.
ernestus Wrote:It's possible. But I have yet to meet another vegan who was big and fat like the majority of americans are.

I gained a significant amount of weight during my 5 year experiment with mostly vegan vegetarianism (I avoided dairy but did eat the occasional humane-egg)
I have a friend in Colorado, who has followed a rather strict vegan diet for at least 10 years.  When we were in Highschool, she was the thin one.  But she has plumped up a great deal and is over 200 lbs at present.  She has also developed some asthma problems, and digestive difficulties.
The saturated fat in animal products is essential for maintaining the lining of the lungs.  I think it's possible that our present increase in asthma has just as much to do with a fear of saturated fat as it does pollution.
Croppyboy Wrote:but it appeared from what you wrote

Croppyboy Wrote:Are you trying to imply

Croppyboy Wrote:your comments seem to suggest

Croppyboy Wrote:You seem to imply

Okay, now you are twisting what I wrote throughout this thread, trying to make it look like I said something which I didn't. I wish you would stop being a smart-allek who knows everything. First with your vocabulary lesson, and now this attack, which to me only proves yourself to be a crass individual. Remember that it was you who started it, by calling veganism 'utter rubbish' and based on manufactured 'junk science'. My responses to you were in a mild tone of explanation, and was responded to with more grand standing in an aggressive hostile tone, as if you are talking down at me, like I am one of your hunting targets. This is the mingling section of the forum. I suggest you lower your voice a little...
ernestus Wrote:Okay, now you are twisting what I wrote throughout this thread, trying to make it look like I said something which I didn't. I wish you would stop being a smart-allek who knows everything. First with your vocabulary lesson, and now this attack, which to me only proves yourself to be a crass individual. Remember that it was you who started it, by calling veganism 'utter rubbish' and based on manufactured 'junk science'. My responses to you were in a mild tone of explanation, and was responded to with more grand standing in an aggressive hostile tone, as if you are talking down at me, like I am one of your hunting targets. This is the mingling section of the forum. I suggest you lower your voice a little...
ernestus, just face it it doesn't matter what you say the truth will always be that a vegan diet is a very dangerous and unhealthy diet. You need vitamins A, D, B-12 and you can only get those from animal foods. Everything Vegan i see looks sickly pale and ready to die from cancer that's no way to live and it's not healthy. Let me ask you, "do you ever eat any meat or dairy?" Do you know that certain saturated fats are antibacterial and antiviral? Do you know the only reason some people need braces is because they don't get enough vitamin A & D from pastured animal foods? If you don't know these things please read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price, those scales may just fall off your eyes.
Kyrie eleison

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)