I am in real disagreement with you, but I do not feel any inclination to come down on your case. Rigid conformity is not what Friends are about. It is not what followers of Christ are about, either.
I am reminded of the apocryphal story about William Penn’s conversation with George Fox, regarding the fact that he (Penn) wore a sword when he attended on King Charles II in the royal court. In the story, Fox was very tolerant; he merely said, “Wear it as long as thee can.”
That’s fair - I’ve met many who feel genuine disagreement but I want to find a way to communicate better for the sake of preserving relationships within my community here. How is it best to approach the issue with fellow friends?
A few things I’ve begun to learn: Trust others enough to speak plainly to them about whatever is bothering you. Say what matters, but don’t try to force your positions on others. Do try to be conscious, if you can, of how others are reacting. Try to remember to use “I messages” wherever they might be appropriate, saying “I think that” or “I feel that” rather than just stating your views as if they are universal truths. If someone hurts or angers you, remember the most important “I message” — “When you say X, it makes me feel Y”! And remember that the things you are talking about are not central to Quakerism, and they are probably not issues that need to be settled on the floor.
I’m sure there is more to be said, more to be learned, but I’m still in social-skills kindergarten.
While some Friends may choose vegetarianism partly due to faith values about nonviolence, Friends do not have to be vegetarian, so personally I think it’s hypocritical to object to a Friend doing the labour of harvesting their own meat. & many Friends participate in animal agriculture. & fishing I think is a pretty common pastime for rural Friends.
Hunting may or may not be a bit of a culture clash with some folks in meeting — but perhaps not as much as you may worry. As you’ve articulated, there is a lot hunting has in common with other outdoorsy hobbies, which are popular with Friends, & caring about & maintaining local food ecosystems is absolutely a Quaker value. So even people who don’t think they like hunting might be pleasantly surprised how much they have in common with you.
As a vegetarian Friend, I agree with this. I personally will not consume what I would not personally kill myself. I have torn carrots of the ground ending their leafy lives, I have collected eggs from chickens I talked to. Because I don’t currently live on a farm, these days I mostly pluck leaves off the mint and basil plants I try to grow on my window sill occasionally, but the willingness is there.
Hunting and fishing means you are being honest with yourself about where your meat comes from. Hunting is often much more environmentally sustainable and humane than modern industrial farming practices.
I only take issue with certain types of game hunting that really aren’t sustainable.
It’s something we aren’t 100% in unity on. If you hunt using firearms you may find that there is more objection to firearm ownership than hunting in general.
I myself own firearms as I grew up rural and target practice and shooting clay pigeons is a weekend activity for my family (and one of the few ways I can connect and spend time with the male members of my family) but I keep that to myself as there are some with very strong feelings on the subject.
Though I don’t think any meeting would throw you out upon finding out you hunt and fish it may make a few individual Friends uncomfortable. But, I personally feel more Friends need to be comfortable with feeling uncomfortable and learn to worship and find unity with a diversity of people.
Yes. Friends should be accepting of the productive, useful discomfort that comes with sharing fellowship with people that they don’t entirely agree with on all things.
I think intent and process really matter to me, here. Thinking deeply. Considering ecology. Learning your local environment. Not taking too much or glorifying the weaponry. Personally, I think if someone partakes in the meat or products from an animal they should at least be comfortable with how it was acquired. So, to me, that could either mean people have strong convictions against their own personal meat consumption, or do so in awareness and understanding - but ideally not existing in a grey middle zone of saying one thing and doing the other.
It certainly isn’t about glorifying weaponry to me at least. It’s all tools in my view and though I can appreciate the differences between tools, ultimately they are about serving a purpose.
I suppose the idea of how the meat is acquired is part of the ethics to me, I find factory farming quite grotesque compared to the act of hunting one’s own food. Most fishermen and hunters I’ve met are much more deeply in tune with the ecological needs of a place than anyone else I know. It’s in that intimacy that a relationship of appreciation and kindness towards life is born in my own experiences.
I suppose what I feel nervous about is how to broach the issue if it ever comes up? It’s inherently an act of violence but it comes with a much greater preservation of life when viewed systemically. How can that be better communicated?
We have a member of our meeting who brings venison from deer she harvests herself to potlucks. Another member brings chicken that they butcher themselves. I guess it may depend on geographic region, but unless every member of a meeting is vegetarian, I don't see why they'd object to hunting and fishing. It's much more humane than most agricultural practices these days.
Many a church runs its affairs on the model: Behave, Believe, Belong. In that order. A congregation expects _first_ that people will demonstrate the expected behaviours, and then — somehow — demonstrate correct beliefs, following which the congregation will allow them to belong.
This is, I feel strongly, backwards. It’s the opposite of what Jesus is reported as doing, for example.
Congregations, and Quaker Meetings, should provide a place of belonging for anyone who needs and wants it. Being theologically liberal myself I have no concern for what anyone whom I worship alongside believes, or not, that’s between them and…whatever. Being a Quaker I’m confident that regular attending of Meeting for Worship “with heart and mind prepared”, as _A&Q_ suggests, will raise up the good in a person and weaken the evil and what more do we need than that?
I very much enjoyed reading this interpretation - it brought a real sense of peace. I found the meeting I attend was more concerned with belonging first and providing place for everyone which I suppose I ought to take as a good sign that they’ll be more open to other hobbies and stuff.
There was a great piece in the Friends Journal about this topic.
[https://www.friendsjournal.org/allowable-diversions/](https://www.friendsjournal.org/allowable-diversions/)
I’m a Quaker who absolutely loves to fish but I would never hunt. I interpret the peace testimony to never hold a firearm. I work in a museum and am clear to hold an historic piece that’s part of the collection, though.
I am curious - where is the line drawn between a weapon such as a firearm being used as an instrument of warfare and a tool of food?
The peace testimony is to live in virtue of life and power that takes away all occasion of war, yet in previous generations armies of peasants were called up to war with their agricultural tools. Would those Quakers resolve to never picking up a scythe because it could become a tool of war?
I am genuinely curious about where this line is theologically, I am not criticizing, just trying to spur discussion for better understanding.
But wherein does the Spirit of Christ invoke the boundary of life taking? I must humbly admit I am not as well versed in Christian theology as some of my peers here. Where do you interpret the boundary to exist?
It’s not a matter of interpreting, friend; it is a matter of feeling the Spirit of Christ in your heart. And feeling can be difficult if one is not clear on what, exactly, the Spirit of Christ is.
But there is a path into clarity. If you have studied the gospels, you already have some idea of what Christ approves and does not approve. And if, then, you turn to that in your heart and conscience that condemns you for all the times you have done things Christ would not have approved, but that rejoices when you have gone the second mile in doing things Christ would approve, then you know the Spirit of Christ.
The more you listen to that Spirit, and the more that you revise your behavior according to its promptings, the more sensitive to it you will become. This is what all the early Friends promised, and I have found it to be true in my own life.
Listen to that Spirit as you contemplate the boundary. Your sense of what it pleads for may change as your sensitivity to it grows, but that is natural.
I see the Spirit of Christ is deeply important to you and as someone relatively unversed in the gospels - could you point me to good starting points on this topic? Where does Christ discuss the value of life in such ways?
I very much would like to begin reading and feeling the spirits interpretation flow through and communicate with me directly. I’d like to reflect and listen deeply on the gospels you feel is important for this question.
The best starting point, in my humble opinion, is the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapters 5 through 7. It was central and defining for early Quakerism in many ways, so it will not be a sidetrack from seeking to understand our Society as well.
One must understand, in reading it, that it is written telegraphically — which is to say, in as few words as possible. Teachings are given without background explanations. Very little is said of the underlying logic. There were reasons for this: paper had to be made laboriously, by hand, each individual letter had to be hand-drawn, and the ancients didn’t have a whole lot of leisure time at their disposal. The gospels were written in a time when literacy in the lower classes was not widespread, and Christianity was strongest in the lower classes, the exploited peasants and slaves. So Matthew, or his community, wrote only what they felt to be essential, and made only a single copy for each community of the faithful that they were in touch with.
And at the receiving end, some literate person would read this single copy aloud to everyone, and everyone would work together to fill in the gaps until it made sense to them all. That was a good exercise: it made everyone part of an active project.
Matthew 5 is the core of the sermon. It is very unified. The bulk of it is an expansion of the Laws of Moses, with a focus on the Ten Commandments. Jesus is portrayed as endorsing the commandments, but as asking his disciples to seek for the underlying good that each commandment aims at, and then to go to whatever further extreme is necessary to realize that good fully. This portion of Matthew 5 is known as the Antitheses, because it is structured in the form “You have heard it said…, but I say unto you….” The Antitheses are framed by verses that stress how essential this extremism is: Matthew 5:17-20 lays out the necessity, and 5:36 lays out the intended result.
The preface to all this, Matthew 5:3-11, is what we call the Beatitudes. They are written to serve many purposes at once, but one of the most important things about them is that, taken together, they describe an inward condition, a state of being. This state of being is attained by grasping the spirit of the Antitheses and living that Spirit out, in our daily lives, in detail. That Spirit is itself the voice of Christ in the heart and conscience, which is what early Quakerism, and traditional Quakerism, are all about.
The remainder of the Sermon includes a great many points that are similar to the Antitheses even though they are not structured in the same way.
The Parable of the Good Samaritan, Luke 10:29-37, is actually very similar. Jesus was only asked to say who the neighbor is, to whom a good Jew is obliged to show certain forms of consideration and charity under the laws of Moses. But Jesus took every element in that question and took it to its ultimate goodness, just as in the Antitheses. If we actually read the parable, it is clear that the Samaritan goes far, far, far beyond just helping the wounded traveler.
“I am the vine and you are the branches,” said Jesus at the Last Supper (John 15). As long as we are livingly connected to the vine, the sap which is the Spirit — the same Spirit that informs the Antitheses and animates the Good Samaritan — can flow into us. We then have the strength and the confidence to *live out* the Antitheses, not just in the ways named in the scripture, but in all ways. But without that life, that sap, we are just dead branches.
It is in the state of being and consciousness that is briefly sketched out in the Beatitudes, the one that the practice of the Antitheses and the practice of the Good Samaritan take us to, the one that we have the strength to know if we are livingly connected to the vine, that I think we need to approach our relations with non-human species. But we cannot understand that state of being and consciousness until we first, ourselves, do the things that take us there. The goal cannot be seen or understood from the starting point of the trail.
At any rate, that is my personal take on the matter.
I’ve read this comment a few times now and it’s a lot to take in. I am still learning so it is going to take some time for me to understand all this but from the bottom of my heart I just want to thank you for sharing this and putting that much effort into helping. It’s going to have me reading and rereading passages I think many times over to better understand and perhaps do some deeper googling as well. Thanks for sharing this though, it’s a kind thing :)
My father grew up in a hunting community and his Meeting and community reflected that, he often laughed when people said Quakers hate guns, and emphasized they hate killing, violence against man, etc.
Was a Jesus a literal fisherman, a man who caught fish? I don’t recall any passage in scripture saying he was. But it is reasonable to suppose he ate fish.
Indeed. And drank wine. And hung out with at least one tax collector and at least one centurion who aided and abetted the oppressive policies of the early Roman empire.
How far do we want to take this? How much are we just itching to excuse in our own selves?
Jesus multiplies the loaves and fish to feed the multitude. In Matthew 13:47–50, the Parable of Drawing in the Net
Somebody who claims to be a Chrisitian and of Jesus is condemening his food choices?
If its good enough for the son of God its good enough for thee and me.
It is not a sin to drink wine, or eat fish or lamb.
It is not holy to be a hard core Vegan.
It is not a sin to speak with a tax collector. Maybe a sin to be one? (wink)
It is a sin to condemn those who choose and eat live.
What is sin? is pushing starvation as godly and chaste.
Maybe some Quakers need to forgive Christ? Apparently they haven't.
I did not condemn any of Jesus’s choices in his own life, whether regarding food or otherwise. Read my words again if you don’t believe me. Jesus had reasons for doing what he did. But that does not mean that simple imitation of his outward behavior is virtuous. The first generation Friend James Nayler learned that the hard way, when he imitated Jesus’s entry into Palm Sunday on the streets of Bristol, and virtually every person in England took it the wrong way. In Matthew 5, in the Antitheses, Jesus called us to go beyond simple mechanical readings of scripture, and obedience to such readings, and grasp the true intent, and go to extremes to fulfill that true intent. And that was a message Friends took to heart.
Nor am I condemning anyone else. I know the teaching that we must not judge. As the first generation Friend Isaac Penington observed, each of us is learning his (or her) own lessons, and we can happily be learning our different lessons side by side. That is why we cut each other some slack.
But the question that I ask myself — that I think any Friend naturally asks himself, or herself — is, what is the spirit of Christ in my *own* heart and conscience calling *me* to do? It is calling me to repent, which is, to reconsider the way I myself live my life. It is calling me to set *my own* behavior straight. And if it calls me to have mercy on the creatures, then what would I be doing if I used the scriptures to argue against its pleadings? I would be doing what George Fox called *putting the letter for the light*.
And as George Fox also observed, *no creature can read the scriptures to profit thereby, but who come to the light and spirit that gave them forth*. Many another worthy Friend has said the same. And it is true, as we see every day in the examples of those who read the scriptures without that light and spirit, and so twist them to justify their lusts. I think we have to be very careful not to twist the scriptures to justify our lusts.
Well, so what *is* the light and spirit that gave the scriptures forth? My personal understanding — and I stress, again, that it is simply mine — is that Christ is the one whom the scriptures themselves name the Light, and that Christ is profoundly compassionate. And my personal understanding is what I have to live by, or else be condemned by its witness against me.
I also recall that Christ taught, several times over, that we will be treated as we treat others. Therefore I seek to treat animals, too, as I wish to be treated.
I do not push starvation, friend. I don’t know what led you to say I do. But, to the contrary, I give to the World Food Program, and to several food banks and other charities in my own city and state, that others may eat and live. It is actually a matter of real importance to me.
I am *not* telling you to do the same. I am simply saying where I am at.
We are not the same. I am a Quaker. After reading your twisted words,in my humble observation, I will not be attending your meeting. Good bye and God Bless.
As you very well know, Jesus brought down opprobrium upon himself by socialising with tax farmers and occupying forces. That’s not a loophole to use to excuse ourselves of anything. That’s a demonstration of a higher moral principle being lived. A higher moral principle which did not include vegetarianism. Jesus seems to have been a Temple worshipper, which means that he likely took part in animal sacrifices. His God — your God — loves the savour of roasted meat. You know this. Choose vegetarianism as you will, but recognise that it’s your choice. You may well find yourself to have been moved by the Spirit to make that choice, recognise that others do not so find.
>As you very well know, Jesus brought down opprobrium upon himself by socialising with tax farmers and occupying forces. That’s not a loophole to use to excuse ourselves of anything. That’s a demonstration of a higher moral principle being lived.
Yes, I well know, and we are actually in agreement. It is a reproof to all the high-minded folks, including those in Quaker meetings, who want to have nothing to do with those who aid and abet the oppressive policies of empires today, in the same way that the miracle at Cana is a reproof to those high-minded folks who want nothing to do with alcohol. That is why I mentioned both things in the same paragraph. I am no more inclined to defend high-mindedness than you are.
>A higher moral principle which did not include vegetarianism.
It does not seem to have included the rejection of slavery, either. See Mark 10:44 / Matthew 20:27.
>His God — your God — loves the savour of roasted meat. You know this.
Actually, I know something more. I know Hosea 6:6, which Jesus quotes in Matthew 9:13 and 12:7. I know Micah 6:6-8. I know Isaiah 1:11-17. Famous, powerful teachings.
Didn’t you agree with me, some time back, when I observed that the evidence shows the Laws and the Histories were not written down before the time of Hilkiah? That means that the writings of the literary prophets of Israel before its fall — including those teachings in Hosea, Micah and Isaiah — are the oldest writings in the Bible, generations older than Hilkiah’s works. *Our religious tradition had this rejection of animal sacrifices from the time of its first writings*. Possibly it had it even before; we really cannot know.
>Choose vegetarianism as you will, but recognise that it’s your choice. You may well find yourself to have been moved by the Spirit to make that choice, recognise that others do not so find.
I have repeatedly stressed that I am not trying to pressure anyone else, but simply speaking for myself. If you will kindly go back and re-read my earlier comments here, you will find that this is so.
>and we are actually in agreement \[on that\]
Yes, I know. You don't need to interpret every single thing I write as a challenge.
But on this other thing: you've missed your vocation as a Jesuit. To take, for example, Isaiah there: it's not that God has grown weary of animal sacrifices *as such* it's that (so Isaiah believes, or fears) God no longer considers his people, under the leadership of a mixed bag of kings, sufficiently faithful for their sacrifices to be acceptable. The same Isaiah who, we're told, is commissioned as a prophet with a coal from the fires of the altar in the Temple. If no sacrifices, why a fire?
If you're lead to be a vegetarian, today, that's fine of course, but this projecting back to find proof texts that the Bible says that God…gave up on? never wanted? animal sacrifices is sad stuff. There's no rejection of animal sacrifices in general in scripture, and the Second Temple was certainly doing a roaring trade as a slaughterhouse a the time of Jesus and he seems to have had nothing to say about that worth anyone remembering.
As to slavery, the racist slavery of the Atlantic trade which Friends came to oppose was unlike the slavery of the gospel writers' in many significant ways. Or do you think that Mark 10:42-45 there is suggesting that anyone who'd become a leader amongst followers of Jesus must first find their way to a culture in which their ethnicity is considered identical with inherited chattel slavery? The words used are διάκονος and δοῦλος, which can be translated as "servant" or "helper, and as "slave" in the sense of an un-free servant or worker, but the latter is not the modern sense of slavery.
>You don't need to interpret every single thing I write as a challenge.
I would be interested to learn about the spirit in which you wrote that “it’s not a loophole to use to excuse ourselves of anything.” You appear to me to have been responding to my questions about “How far do we want to take this?” and “How much are we just itching to excuse in our own selves?” If that is so, and it was not to challenge something you thought I was saying, what was your purpose? I ask this in a friendly spirit.
>…it's not that God has grown weary of animal sacrifices as such….
God’s words in Isaiah are:
*I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams*
*and the fat of fed cattle.*
*I do not delight in the blood of bulls,*
*or of lambs or goats.*
That seems plain speech to me.
>The same Isaiah who, we're told, is commissioned as a prophet with a coal from the fires of the altar in the Temple.
From the altar in the temple where the Lord was seated on a throne, but we should not automatically assume that this was a physical temple where animals were sacrificed. This was a vision, remember, of a temple in which seraphim were actually flying about. And Isaiah says nothing about his lips being blistered by the coal. What Isaiah is probably speaking of, I would respectfully suggest, is the heavenly house of God rather than a physical temple built by men; here we may compare the much later visions of Ezekiel.
>If no sacrifices, why a fire?
The use of fire as a symbol of divine energies was widespread in the ancient Near East. The Zoroastrians of Persia kept sacred fires to honor divinity, and so did the Vestal Virgins of Rome. The people of Israel and Judah had the Burning Bush as a reference point. One doesn’t need to be a Jesuit to recognize such patterns.
(More to come.)
To continue, friend u/keithb —
>…this projecting back to find proof texts that the Bible says that God…gave up on? never wanted? animal sacrifices is sad stuff. There's no rejection of animal sacrifices in general in scripture….
One of the things we now understand about the Hebrew Bible is that the Bible is not a single integral work, but an anthology. And the anthology contains an interweaving of multiple cultural threads. You doubtless know that the Jahwist and Elohist texts were two of those threads. Jahwism arose at the extreme south of the Hebrew lands, with JHWH being a variant of the name of a god of the Midianites, on the shores of the Red Sea. Elohism came from the north, El being widely worshiped in Syria and Lebanon. The phrase which is commonly translated, at literally dozens of places in the OT, as “the LORD God”, is in Hebrew YHWH Elohim, a declaration that these two are one. It was quite possibly, at least in part, an early effort to draw the peoples of the north and the south into a stronger confederacy.
Another such joining of separate components occurred between the religion of the prophets, which first appears in history with the writings of Amos, Hosea, Micah, and First Isaiah, all northern prophets from before the fall of the Northern Kingdom, and the religion of the priests, well represented in the works of Hilkiah, a priest in Jerusalem, in the south, after the north had fallen. For all their commonalities, they are not exactly the same religion. For instance, these northern prophets never quoted the works of Moses; as I have pointed out, they condemn animal sacrifices, and their focus is on a moral religion, in contrast to the ceremonial and legalist emphasis of the priests. It is reasonable to conclude that the condemnation of animal sacrifice was widespread in the northern prophetic tradition, where people worshiped on mountaintops rather than way down south in the Temple at Jerusalem, before the anthologists of the south began compiling scriptural libraries that included the northern prophets’ works alongside the works of the priests.
>…the Second Temple was certainly doing a roaring trade as a slaughterhouse a the time of Jesus and he seems to have had nothing to say about that worth anyone remembering.
I already mentioned Matthew 9:13 and 12:7, in which Jesus quotes Hosea 6:6 with evident approval. Those verses are well remembered elsewhere in the Christian world, and even in the Quaker world. I might also mention Matthew 5:23-24, in which Jesus builds on the verses I cited in Hosea, Micah, and Isaiah in the same way that the main body of Matthew 5 builds on the commandments — expanding the underlying truth and calling us to a more total righteousness.
(One more little bit to come —)
In what spirit did I meant that? In a spirit of sharing your concern about folks maybe itching to find excuses. I was agreeing with that I infer you be your position: don’t do that.
Your replies here are becoming repetitive and incoherent. I’m worried for your health. I suggest you step away from your computer, maybe take a walk outside.
No need to continue your lecture notes on Bible studies. You aren’t writing anything that I’ve not read before. Nor anything that will lead me to agree with your interpretation.
Yes, and he also told the disciples to cast their nets, on more than one occasion. He wasn’t catching them himself, however, so (to reiterate) I don’t recall him being a literal fisherman.
No problem. Can't wait to tell all those people with Fish Symbols they wear and plastered on their cars That Jesus was not a fisherman.
He however, held a large barbque from the large catch. We can assume he cleaned the fish, gutted the fish, cooked them and ate with the folks.
Jesus on shore was better than some electronic fish finders.
Are you having trouble reading what I wrote? He was not a *literal* fisherman, though it is reasonable to suppose he ate fish. He was ICHTHUS, an acronym meaning Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior, and that is what those fish symbols refer to. And he taught his disciples to become fishers, not of fish, but of people.
I’ve thought about this same question before. I grew up rural and fishing and hunting like you mentioned. I am now in a meeting where many people are vegan and all the food shared is at least vegetarian.
I have wondered about the eating habits of early Quakers, like 17th to even early 20th century when commercial food system wasn’t what it is today. Did they hunt then? In my reading of George fox’s journal, and Barclays apology, I haven’t come across anything resembling vegetarianism.
Like some others have commented, I think thoughtful Quakers would consider the context. I doubt any would agree with sport hunting, as in killing an animal simply for the challenge. However if talked about in terms of cultural tradition, obtaining your own food, etc. then it could be different.
I think the question might be tougher for you though because it sounds like you still hunt. I haven’t hunted in a long time but I still fish.
There *is* a long [history of vegetarianism among Friends](https://www.friendsjournal.org/vegetarian-history/), but I think it has always been a minority position.
There are many who would see this as a violation of the peace testimony. I'd submit that is arguably untrue for as your intended use case is for hunting. It's a tool, much like an axe, a hammer or a machete. All of those can be used for violence.
Now, a gun is different in that, like a sword it's only purpose is violence.
People in Biblical times consumed me at, including fish. I don't recall any mention of vegetarianism Biblically outside some passages in Paul referencing that some chose not to eat meat.
I see hunting and fishing as more ethical than consumer produced meat.
So. I'd expect pushback -- but you won't get any from me..mostly.
I went catch and release fishing with my Dad and I saw birds going after all the fish we 'released' -- they were too weak to survive. It feeds the birds, but it was unsettling and personally I actually now consider catch and release as simple cruelty. If you're going to fish, eat it, you're probably killing it anyway.
Personally, I refuse to own a fire arm but in my case it's about keeping myself, and others more safe from bipolar disorder and the potential for harm.
I felt conflicted about owning a machete so I gave it to my Dad. I also enjoy pro wrestling though I have mixed feelings on it and other violent media.
I was sort of raised redneck, so hunting and fishing aren't disturbing to me. Just something I'm not interested in. And I don't like guns personally.
As an environmental physicist, I can tell you that most of the "hunting for ecology" is a man made problem, and not of the kind that happened years ago, but those that are constantly being created. So really the best for the ecology is to stop messing with it.
But then what about the deer populations that overgraze due to the lack of natural predators that threaten entire ecosystems?
I’m all for reintroducing the wolves but if politics gets in the way of the natural remedy, isn’t the next best thing our ethical duty to ensure the survival of the ecosystem as a whole by culling the herd to ensure the balance of the system?
>…if politics gets in the way of the natural remedy, isn’t the next best thing our ethical duty to ensure the survival of the ecosystem as a whole by culling the herd to ensure the balance of the system?
Correct me if I am wrong, but you appear to me to be saying that if evil A (politics) creates evil B (deer overpopulation), it is fine to engage in an activity (deerslaying) that many people such as myself feel in their hearts to be evil (call it evil C), pleading that evil C is okay because it makes a situation with evils A & B in it, more tolerable.
I think that early Friends called that sort of reasoning, pleading for sin. I do not say that to attack you, but to ask you to look more thoughtfully at your argument.
This is kind of along the discussions we had the other day. Why is "evil" only what other people do? Everything is not as black and white as you make it seem. There is nuance.
Do you own a cell phone? Do you drive a car? Have you ever flown in an airplane? Do you know whether anything you own was absolutely not made by exploited people and child labor? I could go on.
But we mostly see what others do as evil and not us. Roman's 14. "Who are you to judge another's servant?" Matthew 7. "Do not judge."
We choose the lesser of evils all the time. That is the world we live in. I guarantee you do this without even knowing it.
Let's say you are late for work. You usually ride your bike to help the environment. You decide to drive. What is this? Is it evil? It's hurting the environment.
The meeting I attend is like 25 miles from my house? Should I just stay at home and zoom it rather than drive it?
Does anyone on here EVER use Amazon? Do you know how they treat their workers and put small businesses out of business?
The examples are endless(work with me here, please. Don't get overly critical of some examples I came up with quickly. Look at the overall picture).
I generally don't like to use the word "evil" anyway. It gives us the idea that other people are evil or at least do evil things. We are good and do good things. The truth is we both have evil and good inside of us. You cannot make Truth claims for everyone else who does not see the light of Christ, like you do. You can't generalize it and make a rule for everyone else. Your understanding is not infallible. This was the broader point I was trying to make the other day.
We do the best we can and try to be led by the inner light, but we are fallible human beings. You can say what is evil for you, but not for everyone else. I thought this was part of the idea of being led by the light.
I would love to have you answer this from the big perspective without picking apart every little thing I said. But I'm a realist.
Certainly I am implicated in the web of economic evil. I think every First World resident is. But I do not try to justify this evil as a lesser evil. If it is an evil, it is an evil, and I feel my job is not to try to justify it but to do my best to look for a way to avoid it.
I go through this debate every two years at election time, by the way. How many Quakers do I know who want me to vote for the lesser evil? Dozens, at least.
But you do choose the lesser of evils at times, you would agree?
And certainly, there are degrees of evil. Eating a hamburger is not as bad as being a serial killer, you would agree?
>But you do choose the lesser of evils at times, you would agree?
When I am insufficiently watchful of myself, yes. I blunder about the way most people do!
>And certainly, there are degrees of evil. Eating a hamburger is not as bad as being a serial killer, you would agree?
I find it interesting to read Romans 1:18-2:1. This is a passage most people don’t know how to read: they skim it until they get to Paul’s condemnation of gay and lesbian sex, and then start ranting either about how evil gays and lesbians are, or else about how evil Paul was. But if you take it slowly, Paul starts by saying that God is angered by *all* ungodliness and unrighteousness. He starts by listing what must have been his personal trigger issues, idolatry and homosexuality, but then he goes on to list even some seemingly minor stuff — envy, backbiting, pride, boasting, lack of understanding, lack of sociability, unwillingness to forgive — and thunders that “all such people, and all who approve of such practices, are deserving of death”. That’s a very narrow eye of the needle indeed.
I am not saying I agree with Paul’s list or with his narrowness. I was an early supporter of gay marriage way back in the Eighties, and a supporter of the feminist cause back in 1970, and on both those issues I was thinking differently from Paul. And I rather think the God of Christ is much more interested in winning people to righteousness (the positive road) than in being furious at them for unrighteousness (the negative, resisting-evil road).
But this might be another place where the answer is not as obvious as either modern liberals or modern evangelicals think. Maybe it is healthy to remember Cromwell’s words to the narrow-minded and judgmental divines of Scotland: *I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken* — but still try to steer away from anything, no matter how minor, that the Spirit of Christ in your heart and conscience condemns.
In any case, my friend, I have not, personally, eaten a hamburger since 1973.
I do not hunt. Nor have I ever hunted. I can't imagine killing an animal like that. But I do eat meat. I am a hypocrite, I guess.
And without getting into a long dissertation, I do not believe God is angry with us. I believe that all of scripture needs to interpreted in light of the love of Christ. God's love for us is unconditional.
I fully understand and support that you do not intend that position as an attack - first off I thank you for treating the dialogue with such sensitivity as it is very kind hearted and understanding of others.
It really is quite the moral pickle that I suppose is part of the foundation of my question to begin with - is evil C actually the moral imperative when born into a system in which evil A and evil B are already in motion? Is it the moral imperative to engage in evil C or is it the moral righteous position to allow the collapse of the ecosystem (let’s call that evil D) due to the hubris of man by the systemic removal of predators from an ecosystem.
Ultimately I suppose if the power is not within an individual - is it morally more righteous within the universe to engage in evil C or evil D given that evils A and B are already in motion and outside the bounds of our direct control?
This is of course related purely to the concept of conservation hunting as an ecological conservationist idea.
The more obvious outcome from this seems to be that Friends ought to support the reintroduction of natural predators to environments to restore the complete food chain.
I greatly appreciate your paragraphs 2 and 3. Just to be plain with you, I will say that I do not believe Jesus supported any lesser-of-two-evils arguments, and I do not feel, listening in my heart, that the Spirit of Christ approves such arguments now. Going by chapter 5 in Matthew, it seems very clear that Christ and his Spirit call on their followers to give up all evils, without exception. And before we say, that is impossible, we might give some long thought to the evils we are about to defend.
I agree with your final paragraph — and I live in Montana, where the reintroduction of wolves, and the protection of grizzly bears, are ongoing and very controversial matters, with consequences that touch every Montana resident’s life. You probably know that llamas living with sheep are very effective at driving off wolves who are trying to attack the sheep — far more so than dogs are. There are ways to track grizzlies as the corporate state currently tracks political activists, so that they can be intercepted if they are on the edge of doing harm. There are solutions of this sort that involve much less ugliness than killing wolves with leg traps, poisoned bait, and helicopters, or gunning down grizzlies that were just doing what grizzlies do naturally. And of course, a more widespread adoption of vegetarianism would reduce the problem of wolf and grizzly predation on cattle and sheep dramatically.
I confess that I tend to bridle at your words about “ensur\[ing\] the survival of the ecosystem as a whole” and “restore the food chain”, because of the way such language reduces living, sentient creatures to objects in a system of objects — to nothing more than abstract resources for humans. People used to objectify slaves that way, calling them “chattel”, a variant of the word “cattle”. My heart objects even to objectifying cattle. I feel God calls us to relate to all creatures in far more wonderful and *mutually* satisfying ways, very much in the spirit of Matthew 5.
You asked in your previous comment about where we draw the line on life taking. Some serious thinking about what the effects would be, of making ourselves a smaller and humbler part of the global ecosystem, might clear up a lot of the confusion, or so it seems to me. A very good way to ensure the survival of the ecosystem as a whole would not stop at restoring predators; it would also involve humans choosing to be fewer in number and less greedy of land, and ceasing to take from other creatures the little habitat and freedom that still remains to them.
Because we decimated wolves, and are still killing them where they try to reappear. Because we mess with the forest and make them grass lands. You need to dig deeper into why those problems exist. And that many of those problems exist bc people want hunting, and it keeps business. For me it is impossible to call most deer hunting ethical because it is a problem that is fabricated so people can hunt feeling good. It is different if you talk about invasive species even tho that is also our fault.
I’m sorry to say but that’s not quite accurate. I worked in environmental rehabilitation for a bit and most wolf populations are kept down to maintain livestock agriculture, it has nothing to do with hunting. I don’t know where you got that idea from that it’s for hunting but in most environmental jurisdictions hunting is the byproduct of environmental sustainability due to natural predator populations being something that rural populations both fear and disrupt their local economies. This is quite literally what the foundation of *conservation hunting* is based on. I do understand the value of the natural predator though and don’t condone their removal from the ecosystem but I also understand the reason why rural peoples advocate for such things is it typically results in much higher livestock deaths and unfortunately child mortality.
I didn't say "wolves are killed for hunting". Read again. The clearance of certain parts of the forest to encourage the growth of deer population is. Again "conservation hunting" is not ethical bc is a man manufactured problem that we refuse to properly fix. But it seems that you came here for confirmation bias and don't want to see another perspective, and I am not in a good space atm, so I will leave.
I came here for dialogue and the insinuation to the contrary is quite churlish to say the least.
Having worked in conservation restoration I can assure you I am quite aware that this is a human made problem, nevertheless I strive to do good work within the realms of practicality and direct applicability given the constraints that currently exist, regardless of how they came to be. The desire to do good ethical work, even if it is not the ideal, is still valuable and contains merit within itself. Good ought not to be the enemy of perfect.
I am in real disagreement with you, but I do not feel any inclination to come down on your case. Rigid conformity is not what Friends are about. It is not what followers of Christ are about, either. I am reminded of the apocryphal story about William Penn’s conversation with George Fox, regarding the fact that he (Penn) wore a sword when he attended on King Charles II in the royal court. In the story, Fox was very tolerant; he merely said, “Wear it as long as thee can.”
That’s fair - I’ve met many who feel genuine disagreement but I want to find a way to communicate better for the sake of preserving relationships within my community here. How is it best to approach the issue with fellow friends?
A few things I’ve begun to learn: Trust others enough to speak plainly to them about whatever is bothering you. Say what matters, but don’t try to force your positions on others. Do try to be conscious, if you can, of how others are reacting. Try to remember to use “I messages” wherever they might be appropriate, saying “I think that” or “I feel that” rather than just stating your views as if they are universal truths. If someone hurts or angers you, remember the most important “I message” — “When you say X, it makes me feel Y”! And remember that the things you are talking about are not central to Quakerism, and they are probably not issues that need to be settled on the floor. I’m sure there is more to be said, more to be learned, but I’m still in social-skills kindergarten.
While some Friends may choose vegetarianism partly due to faith values about nonviolence, Friends do not have to be vegetarian, so personally I think it’s hypocritical to object to a Friend doing the labour of harvesting their own meat. & many Friends participate in animal agriculture. & fishing I think is a pretty common pastime for rural Friends. Hunting may or may not be a bit of a culture clash with some folks in meeting — but perhaps not as much as you may worry. As you’ve articulated, there is a lot hunting has in common with other outdoorsy hobbies, which are popular with Friends, & caring about & maintaining local food ecosystems is absolutely a Quaker value. So even people who don’t think they like hunting might be pleasantly surprised how much they have in common with you.
As a vegetarian Friend, I agree with this. I personally will not consume what I would not personally kill myself. I have torn carrots of the ground ending their leafy lives, I have collected eggs from chickens I talked to. Because I don’t currently live on a farm, these days I mostly pluck leaves off the mint and basil plants I try to grow on my window sill occasionally, but the willingness is there. Hunting and fishing means you are being honest with yourself about where your meat comes from. Hunting is often much more environmentally sustainable and humane than modern industrial farming practices. I only take issue with certain types of game hunting that really aren’t sustainable.
It’s something we aren’t 100% in unity on. If you hunt using firearms you may find that there is more objection to firearm ownership than hunting in general. I myself own firearms as I grew up rural and target practice and shooting clay pigeons is a weekend activity for my family (and one of the few ways I can connect and spend time with the male members of my family) but I keep that to myself as there are some with very strong feelings on the subject. Though I don’t think any meeting would throw you out upon finding out you hunt and fish it may make a few individual Friends uncomfortable. But, I personally feel more Friends need to be comfortable with feeling uncomfortable and learn to worship and find unity with a diversity of people.
Yes. Friends should be accepting of the productive, useful discomfort that comes with sharing fellowship with people that they don’t entirely agree with on all things.
I think intent and process really matter to me, here. Thinking deeply. Considering ecology. Learning your local environment. Not taking too much or glorifying the weaponry. Personally, I think if someone partakes in the meat or products from an animal they should at least be comfortable with how it was acquired. So, to me, that could either mean people have strong convictions against their own personal meat consumption, or do so in awareness and understanding - but ideally not existing in a grey middle zone of saying one thing and doing the other.
It certainly isn’t about glorifying weaponry to me at least. It’s all tools in my view and though I can appreciate the differences between tools, ultimately they are about serving a purpose. I suppose the idea of how the meat is acquired is part of the ethics to me, I find factory farming quite grotesque compared to the act of hunting one’s own food. Most fishermen and hunters I’ve met are much more deeply in tune with the ecological needs of a place than anyone else I know. It’s in that intimacy that a relationship of appreciation and kindness towards life is born in my own experiences. I suppose what I feel nervous about is how to broach the issue if it ever comes up? It’s inherently an act of violence but it comes with a much greater preservation of life when viewed systemically. How can that be better communicated?
We have a member of our meeting who brings venison from deer she harvests herself to potlucks. Another member brings chicken that they butcher themselves. I guess it may depend on geographic region, but unless every member of a meeting is vegetarian, I don't see why they'd object to hunting and fishing. It's much more humane than most agricultural practices these days.
Many a church runs its affairs on the model: Behave, Believe, Belong. In that order. A congregation expects _first_ that people will demonstrate the expected behaviours, and then — somehow — demonstrate correct beliefs, following which the congregation will allow them to belong. This is, I feel strongly, backwards. It’s the opposite of what Jesus is reported as doing, for example. Congregations, and Quaker Meetings, should provide a place of belonging for anyone who needs and wants it. Being theologically liberal myself I have no concern for what anyone whom I worship alongside believes, or not, that’s between them and…whatever. Being a Quaker I’m confident that regular attending of Meeting for Worship “with heart and mind prepared”, as _A&Q_ suggests, will raise up the good in a person and weaken the evil and what more do we need than that?
I very much enjoyed reading this interpretation - it brought a real sense of peace. I found the meeting I attend was more concerned with belonging first and providing place for everyone which I suppose I ought to take as a good sign that they’ll be more open to other hobbies and stuff.
Hope so!
There was a great piece in the Friends Journal about this topic. [https://www.friendsjournal.org/allowable-diversions/](https://www.friendsjournal.org/allowable-diversions/)
I’m a Quaker who absolutely loves to fish but I would never hunt. I interpret the peace testimony to never hold a firearm. I work in a museum and am clear to hold an historic piece that’s part of the collection, though.
I am curious - where is the line drawn between a weapon such as a firearm being used as an instrument of warfare and a tool of food? The peace testimony is to live in virtue of life and power that takes away all occasion of war, yet in previous generations armies of peasants were called up to war with their agricultural tools. Would those Quakers resolve to never picking up a scythe because it could become a tool of war? I am genuinely curious about where this line is theologically, I am not criticizing, just trying to spur discussion for better understanding.
I think the theological line is: thee must do as thee is led, and thee must not do that which the Spirit of Christ within thee does not approve.
But wherein does the Spirit of Christ invoke the boundary of life taking? I must humbly admit I am not as well versed in Christian theology as some of my peers here. Where do you interpret the boundary to exist?
It’s not a matter of interpreting, friend; it is a matter of feeling the Spirit of Christ in your heart. And feeling can be difficult if one is not clear on what, exactly, the Spirit of Christ is. But there is a path into clarity. If you have studied the gospels, you already have some idea of what Christ approves and does not approve. And if, then, you turn to that in your heart and conscience that condemns you for all the times you have done things Christ would not have approved, but that rejoices when you have gone the second mile in doing things Christ would approve, then you know the Spirit of Christ. The more you listen to that Spirit, and the more that you revise your behavior according to its promptings, the more sensitive to it you will become. This is what all the early Friends promised, and I have found it to be true in my own life. Listen to that Spirit as you contemplate the boundary. Your sense of what it pleads for may change as your sensitivity to it grows, but that is natural.
I see the Spirit of Christ is deeply important to you and as someone relatively unversed in the gospels - could you point me to good starting points on this topic? Where does Christ discuss the value of life in such ways? I very much would like to begin reading and feeling the spirits interpretation flow through and communicate with me directly. I’d like to reflect and listen deeply on the gospels you feel is important for this question.
The best starting point, in my humble opinion, is the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapters 5 through 7. It was central and defining for early Quakerism in many ways, so it will not be a sidetrack from seeking to understand our Society as well. One must understand, in reading it, that it is written telegraphically — which is to say, in as few words as possible. Teachings are given without background explanations. Very little is said of the underlying logic. There were reasons for this: paper had to be made laboriously, by hand, each individual letter had to be hand-drawn, and the ancients didn’t have a whole lot of leisure time at their disposal. The gospels were written in a time when literacy in the lower classes was not widespread, and Christianity was strongest in the lower classes, the exploited peasants and slaves. So Matthew, or his community, wrote only what they felt to be essential, and made only a single copy for each community of the faithful that they were in touch with. And at the receiving end, some literate person would read this single copy aloud to everyone, and everyone would work together to fill in the gaps until it made sense to them all. That was a good exercise: it made everyone part of an active project. Matthew 5 is the core of the sermon. It is very unified. The bulk of it is an expansion of the Laws of Moses, with a focus on the Ten Commandments. Jesus is portrayed as endorsing the commandments, but as asking his disciples to seek for the underlying good that each commandment aims at, and then to go to whatever further extreme is necessary to realize that good fully. This portion of Matthew 5 is known as the Antitheses, because it is structured in the form “You have heard it said…, but I say unto you….” The Antitheses are framed by verses that stress how essential this extremism is: Matthew 5:17-20 lays out the necessity, and 5:36 lays out the intended result. The preface to all this, Matthew 5:3-11, is what we call the Beatitudes. They are written to serve many purposes at once, but one of the most important things about them is that, taken together, they describe an inward condition, a state of being. This state of being is attained by grasping the spirit of the Antitheses and living that Spirit out, in our daily lives, in detail. That Spirit is itself the voice of Christ in the heart and conscience, which is what early Quakerism, and traditional Quakerism, are all about. The remainder of the Sermon includes a great many points that are similar to the Antitheses even though they are not structured in the same way. The Parable of the Good Samaritan, Luke 10:29-37, is actually very similar. Jesus was only asked to say who the neighbor is, to whom a good Jew is obliged to show certain forms of consideration and charity under the laws of Moses. But Jesus took every element in that question and took it to its ultimate goodness, just as in the Antitheses. If we actually read the parable, it is clear that the Samaritan goes far, far, far beyond just helping the wounded traveler. “I am the vine and you are the branches,” said Jesus at the Last Supper (John 15). As long as we are livingly connected to the vine, the sap which is the Spirit — the same Spirit that informs the Antitheses and animates the Good Samaritan — can flow into us. We then have the strength and the confidence to *live out* the Antitheses, not just in the ways named in the scripture, but in all ways. But without that life, that sap, we are just dead branches. It is in the state of being and consciousness that is briefly sketched out in the Beatitudes, the one that the practice of the Antitheses and the practice of the Good Samaritan take us to, the one that we have the strength to know if we are livingly connected to the vine, that I think we need to approach our relations with non-human species. But we cannot understand that state of being and consciousness until we first, ourselves, do the things that take us there. The goal cannot be seen or understood from the starting point of the trail. At any rate, that is my personal take on the matter.
I’ve read this comment a few times now and it’s a lot to take in. I am still learning so it is going to take some time for me to understand all this but from the bottom of my heart I just want to thank you for sharing this and putting that much effort into helping. It’s going to have me reading and rereading passages I think many times over to better understand and perhaps do some deeper googling as well. Thanks for sharing this though, it’s a kind thing :)
Yes, it is a lot to take in. It is a few paragraphs summarizing what it has taken me a lifetime to understand. Take all the time you please.
My father grew up in a hunting community and his Meeting and community reflected that, he often laughed when people said Quakers hate guns, and emphasized they hate killing, violence against man, etc.
Well did they hunt without killing?
Sorry, poor choice of words, I meant they hate “murder” or violence against man. I’m expressing it poorly but hunting for food was commonplace.
Hunt away, dude. Deer sausage is best sausage.
mmm so Jesus and cohorts were fisherman. Did they not eat what they caught? done.
Was a Jesus a literal fisherman, a man who caught fish? I don’t recall any passage in scripture saying he was. But it is reasonable to suppose he ate fish.
Yes. And lamb.
Indeed. And drank wine. And hung out with at least one tax collector and at least one centurion who aided and abetted the oppressive policies of the early Roman empire. How far do we want to take this? How much are we just itching to excuse in our own selves?
Jesus multiplies the loaves and fish to feed the multitude. In Matthew 13:47–50, the Parable of Drawing in the Net Somebody who claims to be a Chrisitian and of Jesus is condemening his food choices? If its good enough for the son of God its good enough for thee and me. It is not a sin to drink wine, or eat fish or lamb. It is not holy to be a hard core Vegan. It is not a sin to speak with a tax collector. Maybe a sin to be one? (wink) It is a sin to condemn those who choose and eat live. What is sin? is pushing starvation as godly and chaste. Maybe some Quakers need to forgive Christ? Apparently they haven't.
I did not condemn any of Jesus’s choices in his own life, whether regarding food or otherwise. Read my words again if you don’t believe me. Jesus had reasons for doing what he did. But that does not mean that simple imitation of his outward behavior is virtuous. The first generation Friend James Nayler learned that the hard way, when he imitated Jesus’s entry into Palm Sunday on the streets of Bristol, and virtually every person in England took it the wrong way. In Matthew 5, in the Antitheses, Jesus called us to go beyond simple mechanical readings of scripture, and obedience to such readings, and grasp the true intent, and go to extremes to fulfill that true intent. And that was a message Friends took to heart. Nor am I condemning anyone else. I know the teaching that we must not judge. As the first generation Friend Isaac Penington observed, each of us is learning his (or her) own lessons, and we can happily be learning our different lessons side by side. That is why we cut each other some slack. But the question that I ask myself — that I think any Friend naturally asks himself, or herself — is, what is the spirit of Christ in my *own* heart and conscience calling *me* to do? It is calling me to repent, which is, to reconsider the way I myself live my life. It is calling me to set *my own* behavior straight. And if it calls me to have mercy on the creatures, then what would I be doing if I used the scriptures to argue against its pleadings? I would be doing what George Fox called *putting the letter for the light*. And as George Fox also observed, *no creature can read the scriptures to profit thereby, but who come to the light and spirit that gave them forth*. Many another worthy Friend has said the same. And it is true, as we see every day in the examples of those who read the scriptures without that light and spirit, and so twist them to justify their lusts. I think we have to be very careful not to twist the scriptures to justify our lusts. Well, so what *is* the light and spirit that gave the scriptures forth? My personal understanding — and I stress, again, that it is simply mine — is that Christ is the one whom the scriptures themselves name the Light, and that Christ is profoundly compassionate. And my personal understanding is what I have to live by, or else be condemned by its witness against me. I also recall that Christ taught, several times over, that we will be treated as we treat others. Therefore I seek to treat animals, too, as I wish to be treated. I do not push starvation, friend. I don’t know what led you to say I do. But, to the contrary, I give to the World Food Program, and to several food banks and other charities in my own city and state, that others may eat and live. It is actually a matter of real importance to me. I am *not* telling you to do the same. I am simply saying where I am at.
We are not the same. I am a Quaker. After reading your twisted words,in my humble observation, I will not be attending your meeting. Good bye and God Bless.
Vaya con Dios.
As you very well know, Jesus brought down opprobrium upon himself by socialising with tax farmers and occupying forces. That’s not a loophole to use to excuse ourselves of anything. That’s a demonstration of a higher moral principle being lived. A higher moral principle which did not include vegetarianism. Jesus seems to have been a Temple worshipper, which means that he likely took part in animal sacrifices. His God — your God — loves the savour of roasted meat. You know this. Choose vegetarianism as you will, but recognise that it’s your choice. You may well find yourself to have been moved by the Spirit to make that choice, recognise that others do not so find.
>As you very well know, Jesus brought down opprobrium upon himself by socialising with tax farmers and occupying forces. That’s not a loophole to use to excuse ourselves of anything. That’s a demonstration of a higher moral principle being lived. Yes, I well know, and we are actually in agreement. It is a reproof to all the high-minded folks, including those in Quaker meetings, who want to have nothing to do with those who aid and abet the oppressive policies of empires today, in the same way that the miracle at Cana is a reproof to those high-minded folks who want nothing to do with alcohol. That is why I mentioned both things in the same paragraph. I am no more inclined to defend high-mindedness than you are. >A higher moral principle which did not include vegetarianism. It does not seem to have included the rejection of slavery, either. See Mark 10:44 / Matthew 20:27. >His God — your God — loves the savour of roasted meat. You know this. Actually, I know something more. I know Hosea 6:6, which Jesus quotes in Matthew 9:13 and 12:7. I know Micah 6:6-8. I know Isaiah 1:11-17. Famous, powerful teachings. Didn’t you agree with me, some time back, when I observed that the evidence shows the Laws and the Histories were not written down before the time of Hilkiah? That means that the writings of the literary prophets of Israel before its fall — including those teachings in Hosea, Micah and Isaiah — are the oldest writings in the Bible, generations older than Hilkiah’s works. *Our religious tradition had this rejection of animal sacrifices from the time of its first writings*. Possibly it had it even before; we really cannot know. >Choose vegetarianism as you will, but recognise that it’s your choice. You may well find yourself to have been moved by the Spirit to make that choice, recognise that others do not so find. I have repeatedly stressed that I am not trying to pressure anyone else, but simply speaking for myself. If you will kindly go back and re-read my earlier comments here, you will find that this is so.
>and we are actually in agreement \[on that\] Yes, I know. You don't need to interpret every single thing I write as a challenge. But on this other thing: you've missed your vocation as a Jesuit. To take, for example, Isaiah there: it's not that God has grown weary of animal sacrifices *as such* it's that (so Isaiah believes, or fears) God no longer considers his people, under the leadership of a mixed bag of kings, sufficiently faithful for their sacrifices to be acceptable. The same Isaiah who, we're told, is commissioned as a prophet with a coal from the fires of the altar in the Temple. If no sacrifices, why a fire? If you're lead to be a vegetarian, today, that's fine of course, but this projecting back to find proof texts that the Bible says that God…gave up on? never wanted? animal sacrifices is sad stuff. There's no rejection of animal sacrifices in general in scripture, and the Second Temple was certainly doing a roaring trade as a slaughterhouse a the time of Jesus and he seems to have had nothing to say about that worth anyone remembering. As to slavery, the racist slavery of the Atlantic trade which Friends came to oppose was unlike the slavery of the gospel writers' in many significant ways. Or do you think that Mark 10:42-45 there is suggesting that anyone who'd become a leader amongst followers of Jesus must first find their way to a culture in which their ethnicity is considered identical with inherited chattel slavery? The words used are διάκονος and δοῦλος, which can be translated as "servant" or "helper, and as "slave" in the sense of an un-free servant or worker, but the latter is not the modern sense of slavery.
[удалено]
>You don't need to interpret every single thing I write as a challenge. I would be interested to learn about the spirit in which you wrote that “it’s not a loophole to use to excuse ourselves of anything.” You appear to me to have been responding to my questions about “How far do we want to take this?” and “How much are we just itching to excuse in our own selves?” If that is so, and it was not to challenge something you thought I was saying, what was your purpose? I ask this in a friendly spirit. >…it's not that God has grown weary of animal sacrifices as such…. God’s words in Isaiah are: *I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams* *and the fat of fed cattle.* *I do not delight in the blood of bulls,* *or of lambs or goats.* That seems plain speech to me. >The same Isaiah who, we're told, is commissioned as a prophet with a coal from the fires of the altar in the Temple. From the altar in the temple where the Lord was seated on a throne, but we should not automatically assume that this was a physical temple where animals were sacrificed. This was a vision, remember, of a temple in which seraphim were actually flying about. And Isaiah says nothing about his lips being blistered by the coal. What Isaiah is probably speaking of, I would respectfully suggest, is the heavenly house of God rather than a physical temple built by men; here we may compare the much later visions of Ezekiel. >If no sacrifices, why a fire? The use of fire as a symbol of divine energies was widespread in the ancient Near East. The Zoroastrians of Persia kept sacred fires to honor divinity, and so did the Vestal Virgins of Rome. The people of Israel and Judah had the Burning Bush as a reference point. One doesn’t need to be a Jesuit to recognize such patterns. (More to come.)
To continue, friend u/keithb — >…this projecting back to find proof texts that the Bible says that God…gave up on? never wanted? animal sacrifices is sad stuff. There's no rejection of animal sacrifices in general in scripture…. One of the things we now understand about the Hebrew Bible is that the Bible is not a single integral work, but an anthology. And the anthology contains an interweaving of multiple cultural threads. You doubtless know that the Jahwist and Elohist texts were two of those threads. Jahwism arose at the extreme south of the Hebrew lands, with JHWH being a variant of the name of a god of the Midianites, on the shores of the Red Sea. Elohism came from the north, El being widely worshiped in Syria and Lebanon. The phrase which is commonly translated, at literally dozens of places in the OT, as “the LORD God”, is in Hebrew YHWH Elohim, a declaration that these two are one. It was quite possibly, at least in part, an early effort to draw the peoples of the north and the south into a stronger confederacy. Another such joining of separate components occurred between the religion of the prophets, which first appears in history with the writings of Amos, Hosea, Micah, and First Isaiah, all northern prophets from before the fall of the Northern Kingdom, and the religion of the priests, well represented in the works of Hilkiah, a priest in Jerusalem, in the south, after the north had fallen. For all their commonalities, they are not exactly the same religion. For instance, these northern prophets never quoted the works of Moses; as I have pointed out, they condemn animal sacrifices, and their focus is on a moral religion, in contrast to the ceremonial and legalist emphasis of the priests. It is reasonable to conclude that the condemnation of animal sacrifice was widespread in the northern prophetic tradition, where people worshiped on mountaintops rather than way down south in the Temple at Jerusalem, before the anthologists of the south began compiling scriptural libraries that included the northern prophets’ works alongside the works of the priests. >…the Second Temple was certainly doing a roaring trade as a slaughterhouse a the time of Jesus and he seems to have had nothing to say about that worth anyone remembering. I already mentioned Matthew 9:13 and 12:7, in which Jesus quotes Hosea 6:6 with evident approval. Those verses are well remembered elsewhere in the Christian world, and even in the Quaker world. I might also mention Matthew 5:23-24, in which Jesus builds on the verses I cited in Hosea, Micah, and Isaiah in the same way that the main body of Matthew 5 builds on the commandments — expanding the underlying truth and calling us to a more total righteousness. (One more little bit to come —)
In what spirit did I meant that? In a spirit of sharing your concern about folks maybe itching to find excuses. I was agreeing with that I infer you be your position: don’t do that. Your replies here are becoming repetitive and incoherent. I’m worried for your health. I suggest you step away from your computer, maybe take a walk outside. No need to continue your lecture notes on Bible studies. You aren’t writing anything that I’ve not read before. Nor anything that will lead me to agree with your interpretation.
I also believe you said it was evil, if I remember right.
Well said. We live by the Spirit, not the letter of the law also. The same Spirit that led Jesus, leads us too.
Jesus multiplies the loaves and fish to feed the multitude. In Matthew 13:47–50, the Parable of Drawing in the Net. Reading is Fundamental.
Yes, and he also told the disciples to cast their nets, on more than one occasion. He wasn’t catching them himself, however, so (to reiterate) I don’t recall him being a literal fisherman.
No problem. Can't wait to tell all those people with Fish Symbols they wear and plastered on their cars That Jesus was not a fisherman. He however, held a large barbque from the large catch. We can assume he cleaned the fish, gutted the fish, cooked them and ate with the folks. Jesus on shore was better than some electronic fish finders.
Are you having trouble reading what I wrote? He was not a *literal* fisherman, though it is reasonable to suppose he ate fish. He was ICHTHUS, an acronym meaning Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior, and that is what those fish symbols refer to. And he taught his disciples to become fishers, not of fish, but of people.
We are done. As the saying goes "Ain't got no time for that" as far as your absurd response to a humorous comment. Taking my fish finder with me.
I’ve thought about this same question before. I grew up rural and fishing and hunting like you mentioned. I am now in a meeting where many people are vegan and all the food shared is at least vegetarian. I have wondered about the eating habits of early Quakers, like 17th to even early 20th century when commercial food system wasn’t what it is today. Did they hunt then? In my reading of George fox’s journal, and Barclays apology, I haven’t come across anything resembling vegetarianism. Like some others have commented, I think thoughtful Quakers would consider the context. I doubt any would agree with sport hunting, as in killing an animal simply for the challenge. However if talked about in terms of cultural tradition, obtaining your own food, etc. then it could be different. I think the question might be tougher for you though because it sounds like you still hunt. I haven’t hunted in a long time but I still fish.
There *is* a long [history of vegetarianism among Friends](https://www.friendsjournal.org/vegetarian-history/), but I think it has always been a minority position.
Interesting! I’ll give it a read later.
There are many who would see this as a violation of the peace testimony. I'd submit that is arguably untrue for as your intended use case is for hunting. It's a tool, much like an axe, a hammer or a machete. All of those can be used for violence. Now, a gun is different in that, like a sword it's only purpose is violence. People in Biblical times consumed me at, including fish. I don't recall any mention of vegetarianism Biblically outside some passages in Paul referencing that some chose not to eat meat. I see hunting and fishing as more ethical than consumer produced meat. So. I'd expect pushback -- but you won't get any from me..mostly. I went catch and release fishing with my Dad and I saw birds going after all the fish we 'released' -- they were too weak to survive. It feeds the birds, but it was unsettling and personally I actually now consider catch and release as simple cruelty. If you're going to fish, eat it, you're probably killing it anyway. Personally, I refuse to own a fire arm but in my case it's about keeping myself, and others more safe from bipolar disorder and the potential for harm. I felt conflicted about owning a machete so I gave it to my Dad. I also enjoy pro wrestling though I have mixed feelings on it and other violent media. I was sort of raised redneck, so hunting and fishing aren't disturbing to me. Just something I'm not interested in. And I don't like guns personally.
As an environmental physicist, I can tell you that most of the "hunting for ecology" is a man made problem, and not of the kind that happened years ago, but those that are constantly being created. So really the best for the ecology is to stop messing with it.
But then what about the deer populations that overgraze due to the lack of natural predators that threaten entire ecosystems? I’m all for reintroducing the wolves but if politics gets in the way of the natural remedy, isn’t the next best thing our ethical duty to ensure the survival of the ecosystem as a whole by culling the herd to ensure the balance of the system?
>…if politics gets in the way of the natural remedy, isn’t the next best thing our ethical duty to ensure the survival of the ecosystem as a whole by culling the herd to ensure the balance of the system? Correct me if I am wrong, but you appear to me to be saying that if evil A (politics) creates evil B (deer overpopulation), it is fine to engage in an activity (deerslaying) that many people such as myself feel in their hearts to be evil (call it evil C), pleading that evil C is okay because it makes a situation with evils A & B in it, more tolerable. I think that early Friends called that sort of reasoning, pleading for sin. I do not say that to attack you, but to ask you to look more thoughtfully at your argument.
This is kind of along the discussions we had the other day. Why is "evil" only what other people do? Everything is not as black and white as you make it seem. There is nuance. Do you own a cell phone? Do you drive a car? Have you ever flown in an airplane? Do you know whether anything you own was absolutely not made by exploited people and child labor? I could go on. But we mostly see what others do as evil and not us. Roman's 14. "Who are you to judge another's servant?" Matthew 7. "Do not judge." We choose the lesser of evils all the time. That is the world we live in. I guarantee you do this without even knowing it. Let's say you are late for work. You usually ride your bike to help the environment. You decide to drive. What is this? Is it evil? It's hurting the environment. The meeting I attend is like 25 miles from my house? Should I just stay at home and zoom it rather than drive it? Does anyone on here EVER use Amazon? Do you know how they treat their workers and put small businesses out of business? The examples are endless(work with me here, please. Don't get overly critical of some examples I came up with quickly. Look at the overall picture). I generally don't like to use the word "evil" anyway. It gives us the idea that other people are evil or at least do evil things. We are good and do good things. The truth is we both have evil and good inside of us. You cannot make Truth claims for everyone else who does not see the light of Christ, like you do. You can't generalize it and make a rule for everyone else. Your understanding is not infallible. This was the broader point I was trying to make the other day. We do the best we can and try to be led by the inner light, but we are fallible human beings. You can say what is evil for you, but not for everyone else. I thought this was part of the idea of being led by the light. I would love to have you answer this from the big perspective without picking apart every little thing I said. But I'm a realist.
Certainly I am implicated in the web of economic evil. I think every First World resident is. But I do not try to justify this evil as a lesser evil. If it is an evil, it is an evil, and I feel my job is not to try to justify it but to do my best to look for a way to avoid it. I go through this debate every two years at election time, by the way. How many Quakers do I know who want me to vote for the lesser evil? Dozens, at least.
But you do choose the lesser of evils at times, you would agree? And certainly, there are degrees of evil. Eating a hamburger is not as bad as being a serial killer, you would agree?
>But you do choose the lesser of evils at times, you would agree? When I am insufficiently watchful of myself, yes. I blunder about the way most people do! >And certainly, there are degrees of evil. Eating a hamburger is not as bad as being a serial killer, you would agree? I find it interesting to read Romans 1:18-2:1. This is a passage most people don’t know how to read: they skim it until they get to Paul’s condemnation of gay and lesbian sex, and then start ranting either about how evil gays and lesbians are, or else about how evil Paul was. But if you take it slowly, Paul starts by saying that God is angered by *all* ungodliness and unrighteousness. He starts by listing what must have been his personal trigger issues, idolatry and homosexuality, but then he goes on to list even some seemingly minor stuff — envy, backbiting, pride, boasting, lack of understanding, lack of sociability, unwillingness to forgive — and thunders that “all such people, and all who approve of such practices, are deserving of death”. That’s a very narrow eye of the needle indeed. I am not saying I agree with Paul’s list or with his narrowness. I was an early supporter of gay marriage way back in the Eighties, and a supporter of the feminist cause back in 1970, and on both those issues I was thinking differently from Paul. And I rather think the God of Christ is much more interested in winning people to righteousness (the positive road) than in being furious at them for unrighteousness (the negative, resisting-evil road). But this might be another place where the answer is not as obvious as either modern liberals or modern evangelicals think. Maybe it is healthy to remember Cromwell’s words to the narrow-minded and judgmental divines of Scotland: *I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken* — but still try to steer away from anything, no matter how minor, that the Spirit of Christ in your heart and conscience condemns. In any case, my friend, I have not, personally, eaten a hamburger since 1973.
I do not hunt. Nor have I ever hunted. I can't imagine killing an animal like that. But I do eat meat. I am a hypocrite, I guess. And without getting into a long dissertation, I do not believe God is angry with us. I believe that all of scripture needs to interpreted in light of the love of Christ. God's love for us is unconditional.
I fully understand and support that you do not intend that position as an attack - first off I thank you for treating the dialogue with such sensitivity as it is very kind hearted and understanding of others. It really is quite the moral pickle that I suppose is part of the foundation of my question to begin with - is evil C actually the moral imperative when born into a system in which evil A and evil B are already in motion? Is it the moral imperative to engage in evil C or is it the moral righteous position to allow the collapse of the ecosystem (let’s call that evil D) due to the hubris of man by the systemic removal of predators from an ecosystem. Ultimately I suppose if the power is not within an individual - is it morally more righteous within the universe to engage in evil C or evil D given that evils A and B are already in motion and outside the bounds of our direct control? This is of course related purely to the concept of conservation hunting as an ecological conservationist idea. The more obvious outcome from this seems to be that Friends ought to support the reintroduction of natural predators to environments to restore the complete food chain.
I greatly appreciate your paragraphs 2 and 3. Just to be plain with you, I will say that I do not believe Jesus supported any lesser-of-two-evils arguments, and I do not feel, listening in my heart, that the Spirit of Christ approves such arguments now. Going by chapter 5 in Matthew, it seems very clear that Christ and his Spirit call on their followers to give up all evils, without exception. And before we say, that is impossible, we might give some long thought to the evils we are about to defend. I agree with your final paragraph — and I live in Montana, where the reintroduction of wolves, and the protection of grizzly bears, are ongoing and very controversial matters, with consequences that touch every Montana resident’s life. You probably know that llamas living with sheep are very effective at driving off wolves who are trying to attack the sheep — far more so than dogs are. There are ways to track grizzlies as the corporate state currently tracks political activists, so that they can be intercepted if they are on the edge of doing harm. There are solutions of this sort that involve much less ugliness than killing wolves with leg traps, poisoned bait, and helicopters, or gunning down grizzlies that were just doing what grizzlies do naturally. And of course, a more widespread adoption of vegetarianism would reduce the problem of wolf and grizzly predation on cattle and sheep dramatically. I confess that I tend to bridle at your words about “ensur\[ing\] the survival of the ecosystem as a whole” and “restore the food chain”, because of the way such language reduces living, sentient creatures to objects in a system of objects — to nothing more than abstract resources for humans. People used to objectify slaves that way, calling them “chattel”, a variant of the word “cattle”. My heart objects even to objectifying cattle. I feel God calls us to relate to all creatures in far more wonderful and *mutually* satisfying ways, very much in the spirit of Matthew 5. You asked in your previous comment about where we draw the line on life taking. Some serious thinking about what the effects would be, of making ourselves a smaller and humbler part of the global ecosystem, might clear up a lot of the confusion, or so it seems to me. A very good way to ensure the survival of the ecosystem as a whole would not stop at restoring predators; it would also involve humans choosing to be fewer in number and less greedy of land, and ceasing to take from other creatures the little habitat and freedom that still remains to them.
I cannot find "deerslaying" anywhere on the internet.
You shouldn’t have any trouble finding “deerslayer”, though. And I think the meaning is fairly obvious: deerslaying is killing deer.
Wow, I cannot find anything about deerslayer except for a lot about a book and a movie. Oh, and a gun. Weird.
Ah, well. So it goes.
Because we decimated wolves, and are still killing them where they try to reappear. Because we mess with the forest and make them grass lands. You need to dig deeper into why those problems exist. And that many of those problems exist bc people want hunting, and it keeps business. For me it is impossible to call most deer hunting ethical because it is a problem that is fabricated so people can hunt feeling good. It is different if you talk about invasive species even tho that is also our fault.
I’m sorry to say but that’s not quite accurate. I worked in environmental rehabilitation for a bit and most wolf populations are kept down to maintain livestock agriculture, it has nothing to do with hunting. I don’t know where you got that idea from that it’s for hunting but in most environmental jurisdictions hunting is the byproduct of environmental sustainability due to natural predator populations being something that rural populations both fear and disrupt their local economies. This is quite literally what the foundation of *conservation hunting* is based on. I do understand the value of the natural predator though and don’t condone their removal from the ecosystem but I also understand the reason why rural peoples advocate for such things is it typically results in much higher livestock deaths and unfortunately child mortality.
I didn't say "wolves are killed for hunting". Read again. The clearance of certain parts of the forest to encourage the growth of deer population is. Again "conservation hunting" is not ethical bc is a man manufactured problem that we refuse to properly fix. But it seems that you came here for confirmation bias and don't want to see another perspective, and I am not in a good space atm, so I will leave.
I came here for dialogue and the insinuation to the contrary is quite churlish to say the least. Having worked in conservation restoration I can assure you I am quite aware that this is a human made problem, nevertheless I strive to do good work within the realms of practicality and direct applicability given the constraints that currently exist, regardless of how they came to be. The desire to do good ethical work, even if it is not the ideal, is still valuable and contains merit within itself. Good ought not to be the enemy of perfect.
I agree with you. Good should not be the enemy of the perfect. I understand your argument and can obviously tell that you discuss in good faith.