The real beef.
Yep, what’s interesting is while Hindus accept is a religious thing (Not a fan of religions), anti dog eaters take a more we’re objectively morally superior approach which really grinds my gears.
Considering we are eating a god right in front of them, they are remarkable civil about it all. I’m not a fan of religion either, as I’ve seen it bring out the worst in people. I wish there was more patience, understanding and empathy in the world.
I’m not Hindu but my Hindu friends have said that a misunderstanding of the religion. You don’t eat the cow because it’s produce milk. As such it’s more useful alive. You get fertilizer
It’s not a god. It’s more like the communion wafer.
I could be wrong but that’s what I’ve been told my multiple Hindus
In Catholicism a communion wafer is quite literally the body of Christ – not symbolic. And Christ, as part of the holy trinity, is literally God. So Catholics do actually believe they’re chomping down God every Sunday morning.
This is what confuses the shit out of me -
-
You’re eating the body of another human (symbolically, but still), wtf
-
Christian God will toss you into hell fire for eternity if you call someone else a God, yet people call Jesus a God even though he’s a distinct entity from his father, wtf
Cows by contrast are easier to explain imo - they’ve been and still are extremely important economically for a majority of the population. Treating them with care keeps a lot of people well off.
Not claiming this makes sense, but(in traditional Christian belif) Jesus is not a distinct entity from God.
God is one being made up of: the father(the being you are refering to as Christian god in your comment),
the son(jesus, who is gods humansona but the father does not stop existing when Jesus mode is active, and Jesus has always exsisted i.e.he wasn’t created when he was born, and will always exist)
and the holy spirit (god’s spiritual power or force e.g in an exorcism it’s the holy spirit that actually casts the deamon out ). these are all ‘aspects’ of a single being, to reference St.Patrick its like how a shamrock has 3 leaves but they make up one plant
these are all ‘aspects’ of a single being, to reference St.Patrick its like how a shamrock has 3 leaves but they make up one plant
“I’m gonna stop ya right there, Patrick. Yeah, hold yer horses, Patrick. You’re about to confess ‘partialism.’”
“Partialism?”
“Yes partialism, a heresy which asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct persons of the Godhead but are different parts of God, each composing one third of the divine.”
“And who confesses the heresy of partialism?”
“The first season of the cartoon program Voltron where five robot lion cars merge together to form one giant robot samurai, obviously.”
Damnit!! I knew I’d forgotten something, told myself it was a good enough explanation.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/KQLfgaUoQCw?si=qQak3S_mLQyXrqc8
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
The thing is theologists made that up in the Middle Ages to explain how having the three “god” entities made sense in the context of the rest of the religion. Jesus and Jehovah seemed to conflict with the “one god” thing, and who really knows about the “holy spirit”, so they invented the Doctrine of the Trinity to try to make it make sense.
I too like cows. They make sense to me.
The eating-a-human thing is symbolic. I take it as a reminder to have respect for the sacrifice made by the animals that died to make the food we eat. They support our life and so a level of respect is called for.
People think of Jesus as an avatar, like god playing a computer game on earth. So in that sense Jesus is video game god.
I hate the whole hellfire thing. It seems very manipulative.
People think of Jesus as an avatar, like god playing a computer game on earth. So in that sense Jesus is video game god.
That sounds conceptually similar to Hinduism, where most of the Gods are avatars of a few Gods, appearing in different places/eras
It’s symbolic but it’s supposed to the body and blood of Christ. It’s sacred.
I was raised Catholic. I still go to mass. I’m for the most part an atheist.
Of all the things, communion never bothered me as I find it as you said a reminder
-
I don’t understand how it can be not symbolic when it is still demonstrably a cracker.
But I know religion is full of brute assertions that have no “reason” behind them so this is probably just another one.
I always assumed pretty much that. There is so much obvious utility in this prohibition.
I’m sure a farmer may be tempted to eat his ox but then he’s pretty much fucked as a farmer forever.
I’m probably not explaining it as well as my friend explained it but it was not the cow is a god. It was scared but more because of everything it provides.
It made a lot of sense the way he explained it. Made it seem more deep and spiritual.
I’m an atheist, so most this crap goes over my head. I’m Catholic by culture but I don’t have real faith. So the logical explanation made sense.
He does not eat animals flesh except during certain religious festivals he has fish. He does consume milk and sometimes eggs for baked goods because in America it’s impassible to avoid eggs.
I used to eat the communion wafer, so maybe that’s the source of my misunderstanding! Always cool to learn something new, thanks.
Incorrect. Cow is a sacred animal in the Hindu culture. It is because one of the Hindu gods has a cow as his servant. People also refer to cow as their mother and worship cows at some places too.
Your Hindu friends probably aren’t familiar with their own culture.
Sacred doesn’t mean god. Many things are scared in religions but that’s not the same as a god.
Here is cite that seems to match what I was told.
https://www.nhsf.org.uk/2007/05/why-do-hindus-worship-the-cow/
Never said it means the same thing. But the reason you were stating for Hindus not eating cow wasn’t correct.
By your logic it would be just as bad to kill a goat in the Hindu culture.
Did you read the cite? That would show why you’re confused.
The original comment said they view cows as gods which is incorrect.
So I have no clue what you’re babbling about as it’s not relevant to what started the conversation.
Here is another cite that closely matches what I said.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_in_religion_and_mythology
“You don’t eat the cow because it’s produce milk. As such it’s more useful alive. You get fertilizer” You were incorrect because this isn’t the reason Hindus consider eating the cow forbidden. Irrespective of whatever started the conversation I was replying to your comment. Perhaps you should have read my previous babble properly or talked to people who actually live in India before sending me citations written by whitewashed Indians about my own culture.
I really have no problem with people eating any animal. You just have to separate the animals you have for pets and the animals you eat. Don’t mix them.
If people have a dog for eating, I have no issue with that. But if someone takes a dog that they’ve loved and played with for years and then eats it? That’s going to mess their family up.
Naaa that’s ridculous. You’ve never lived on a farm I presume. Or raised any sort of traditional libestock. We eat chickens and cows and goats we raise, the heirarchy of worth of conciousness is the issue here.
That’s not what they’re saying. Raising an animal for slaughter is not the same as raising an animal as a pet. People bond with their pets the way they bond with family members. Chickens and cows and goats might be loved right up until the day they are killed for food, but it’s expected that they will die and be eaten.
I grew up on a farm.
We had goats we named and we’re sort of pets. And we had goats that we butchered and ate. No problem.
deleted by creator
And the next step along this thought process is: “All taboos and cultural norms around food are a social construct and there is no right or wrong.”
Something being a social construct doesn’t make it inherently incorrect, subjective, or pointless. What it does mean is it is not a law of the universe, it is open to critique, reform, and dismantling. If a culture has a food taboo rooted in ethical beliefs or medical beliefs for example I feel like the words right and wrong are applicable.
However, consider that false accusations of the form “That tribe over there eat human flesh” are much more common than tribes that actually eat human flesh.
There are some very common rules. Don’t eat your neighbor; don’t have sex with your mom; don’t shit in the well; the tannery goes downwind of town …
I think it boils down to “and ye harm none, do what ye will.”
Well that’s my saturday night busted…
Crazy how pigs are as intelligent as a three year old and nobody cares when they’re killed for food but all the carnists get mad when i go looking for my next meal at the local daycare. All of a sudden low intelligence isn’t a good excuse to kill sentient beings
(/s if it isn’t obvious, i’m strongly against killing anyone from any species, especially when it’s for pleasure. And let’s be real, if you’re reading this odds are you don’t need to eat dead animals to survive, so the real reason boils down to the pleasure you get from their dead body)
all the carnists get mad when i go looking for my next meal at the local daycare.
Well sure. That’s not free range.
I heard a great story from an Indian student years ago, that as he left to come to school in American, his mom looked him dead in the eye and said “don’t eat beef.” In school in Texas he was offered Chicken Fried Steak… chicken, right? So he tried it and loved it. After a few times he found out the truth, but it’s so delicious he still eats it (don’t tell his mom).
He’s in the meat closet.
Why the f is it called that?
It’s prepared like fried chicken
Wait till the learn about Chicken Fried Chicken!
Because it’s made like fried chicken. So it’s “chicken fried” steak.
Why would these things be equal?
In India, cows are revered as living deities. I know I don’t worship my dog. While both mindsets lead to a revulsion at the idea of eating said meat, I don’t think we’re talking about the same emotions at all.
I don’t think we’re talking about the same emotions at all.
Yes, we are.
Love and respect.
I know I don’t worship my dog.
So you would be ok with me killing it and serving it to you? (no, I never would)
Serving my dog? No.
Serving a farm raised dog intended for consumption like a pig or cow? Yeah I’d try it.
My personal oddities aside, I still disagree. I don’t think worshipping a holy entity is at all the same as loving your pet. Maybe it is for you, but I know I don’t feel commonality between what I feel for my pet dog and what I feel for God.
For example, I give my pet treats and teach him to do tricks. My relationship with God is one of respect and wondering. Would you say that’s similar or different?
My personal oddities aside, I still disagree. I don’t think worshipping a holy entity is at all the same as loving your pet. Maybe it is for you, but I know I don’t feel commonality between what I feel for my pet dog and what I feel for God.
This is actually a good point because as someone who doesn’t really believe in god - or rather, any god that mankind thought up, I definitely don’t think the same way of my cat.
This is also true and a really valid perspective to consider.
I feel like the answer OP was trying to go for was “they both love the thing so much they couldn’t do it” but that’s a really narrow-minded view of human experiences. I’m actually wondering how many people are like me and believe in God but feel no more love for God than they do any random things in life.
I’m actually wondering how many people are like me and believe in God but feel no more love for God than they do any random things in life.
Exactly! I would probably think more of my cat because to me, god is just some character from a book that may or may not be real.
Well, your relationship with your dog involves another being, so it certainly seems different to me.
Your relationship with your dog is much more significant since he probably cares about you, is a good companion and can be proven to exist (unless you’re making him up for the purpose of these comments). A relationship with god is a one-sided time/effort/focus sink that provides no benefit to anyone involved unless they’re in on the con and passing around a collection plate.
If someone doesn’t eat beef or tries to discourage others from doing so because it might be magic, they ought to lay off their bullshit. Stuff like that carves out a blind spot in peoples’ critical thinking where things like ayurveda, homeopathy, chiropractors and acupuncturists can hide and prey on the desperate. Accepting the less-harmful aspects makes it harder to reject the dangerous ones.
This is why I’m bringing up Indian culture where the cow worship is pretty wellknown.
For them, again, cows are sacred beasts. Basically a living deity so whether you agree or not about the deity or existence of Gods you can’t disagree that cows exist.
So from there I’m attempting to conceptualize how Indians feel towards Cows (worship of deity) and see if it’s similar to how I feel about my pet dog.
At least that’s what I took from the post.
Yes, I think your comment captures my showerthought. It was an excercize in empathy. I do realize that the love for a sacred animal is significantly more profound than the way I feel about my dog. That being said, I do have respect and love for my dear canine companion, which causes an inhibition for eating him.
Mmm I see I see. I don’t personally agree but I agree when looking at it from your perspective.
I did a bit of a dive for it in a different comment but for me I do not share that love for sacred thing that you do which generated some interesting discussion. All around I’d say discussion mission was successful
It was just a showerthought, but this platform turned it into an interesting discussion. How amazing.
I have read that it is important to create content for Lemmy, in order to feed it. This has been my first post, I think. Better to get it done than put it off. I am glad people have been able to discuss.
Do you have any data on this:
A relationship with god is a one-sided time/effort/focus sink that provides no benefit to anyone involved unless they’re in on the con and passing around a collection plate.
If you’re asking me for data to show that it’s a one-sided relationship with nobody on the receiving side of the worship and praise being directed at the idea of a god, I can’t help you with that. The existence of a god has yet to be proven but more and more of what has historically been answered with “god did it” is being explained by scientific inquiry. If somebody comes forward with high-quality evidence of a god, I’d be very interested in seeing it.
If you’re asking about data showing the benefits of having a daily routine and social interaction within your community, that’s something I believe I can find along with data that demonstrates a link between drinking an appropriate amount of water and not being dead. Making it a religious practice (daily prayer, regular church attendance) is unnecessary and adds nothing but an open door for manipulators and scam artists.
If you’d like to understand how receiving churchgoers’ money benefits the clergy selling the idea of a god, that one’s pretty obvious so I can’t say whether it’s been studied or what kind of data there is to present here.
Can you please clarify your question so I’ll have a better chance of addressing it if I haven’t already?
It’s a pretty straightforward question. Do you have any data that backs up what you claimed? I don’t see what other way there is to interpret that question.
Okay, please see my reply above where I’ve identified the parts of my statement I think you’re asking about. I’m asking you to specify because there are a few different (though related) ideas involved. I’ll restate them here so you can select one or more and, if you wish, refer to them by the letter before each sentence.
a.) A relationship with one or more gods is one-sided.
b.) Spending any amount of time, effort, focus (or other resources like money, for that matter) on religious endeavors is a waste of those things.
c.) A person who gives their resources mentioned above (in part b) to a religious organization or in the process of worship receives no benefit unless they’re working with the ones fleecing the other believers.
Let me know which of these you are interested in or if there’s something else you had in mind.
deleted by creator
For example, there are some herbs that fell under the umbrella of homeopathy that turned out to have very valuable medicinal properties when properly studied.
If they’re being used in homeopathy, they’re not being used in homeopathy. The method of preparation for homeopathic “medicine” dilutes it to the point where it’s statistically unlikely to be present in the final product. If there is any of it in the product and especially if there enough for it to have any effect, it wasn’t made by any process that meets the description of homeopathy and is some other type of (probably less-than-strictly-regulated) supplement with the homeopathy label slapped on for marketing.
A substance with beneficial properties that is studied and used to treat an illness or injury may become medicine. Some quack including it in a recipe book for their snake oil doesn’t make their quackery valid.
You are right, I’ll delete my comment. I didn’t realize that homeopathy meant those crazy people that use ridiculous dilutions. I heard that it’s improbable that even 1 molecule of ‘active’ ingredient is left over after they dilute and dilute.
That whole industry is a wacky rabbit hole you could spend a lifetime exploring and still not reach the end of it. It’s a bit of a hot-button issue for me due to the harm it causes when seriously ill people decide to forego actual medicine and waste money on a sugar pill instead. That’s something they won’t get back while tumors grow, cancer spreads or other long-term damage is done. Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Medicine practitioners collect a paycheck giving false hope to people who might not have the time and money to spare.
Serving my dog? No.
Why not?
See comments like this leave people concerned. What are you attempting to say with this?
Are you questioning why I would have issues eating an animal I love after it has been murdered and cooked? Or is this some edgy bullshit argument to try to prove that you’re right?
Are you questioning why I would have issues eating an animal I love
No, I was asking you to actually say it.
Oh. So you’re saying something shocking to elicit a specific answer so that you can have your All star ™️ response that “wins the argument”?
Well whenever you decide to discuss things without “winning” I wrote up how I feel regarding the two situations here https://lemmy.world/comment/3124935 and would love to see howyour experience is similar or different.
Could you edit the title to include the entire showerthought? See rule 2.
I’m sorry about that.
deleted by creator
