Author Topic: Any vegans here? (Read 9201 times)

TKGS · « **Reply #15 on:** June 26, 2017, 06:38:37 PM »

Quote from: Peter15and1 on June 26, 2017, 02:21:47 PM

... you would have to provide actual evidence that the word "vegan" carries with it the baggage you claim.

It seems that others have already done so.

What you seem to want "vegan" to mean already has a word in English, "vegetarian". Why use the term, "vegan", if not to connote something different? The rest of society does indeed use it for an unholy idea. If you still simply "disagree" after reading what has been posted, I have to wonder why.

Peter15and1 · « **Reply #16 on:** June 26, 2017, 08:34:36 PM »

Quote from: TKGS on June 26, 2017, 06:38:37 PM

It seems that others have already done so.

What you seem to want "vegan" to mean already has a word in English, "vegetarian". Why use the term, "vegan", if not to connote something different? The rest of society does indeed use it for an unholy idea. If you still simply "disagree" after reading what has been posted, I have to wonder why.

No. "Vegan" and "vegetarian" have two clearly different meanings, neither of which includes anything political.

"Vegetarian" means someone who doesn't eat flesh from animals.

"Vegan" means someone who doesn't eat any animal products, including things like milk and eggs.

These are dictionary definitions. If you "disagree" with them, I have to wonder why.

TKGS · « **Reply #17 on:** June 26, 2017, 08:41:06 PM »

Quote from: Peter15and1 on June 26, 2017, 08:34:36 PM

No. "Vegan" and "vegetarian" have two clearly different meanings, neither of which includes anything political.

"Vegetarian" means someone who doesn't eat flesh from animals.

"Vegan" means someone who doesn't eat any animal products, including things like milk and eggs.

These are dictionary definitions. If you "disagree" with them, I have to wonder why.

ok. whatever. You can be a vegan. Go ahead and ignore reality and go with what your dictionaries tell you.

TKGS · « **Reply #18 on:** June 26, 2017, 08:45:46 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on June 26, 2017, 04:04:51 PM

A Catholic would have serious issues with such a practice or agenda.

WHY are you abstaining from any product that comes from animals? Because they "animals are people too"? Because monkeys evolved into man, and so for all we know dolphins and other animals might be intelligent life? Because God didn't give animals to us for our use? Because only cavemen (like the Patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, saints, etc.) would be so primitive as to eat meat? Because there isn't a God in the first place? Because God doesn't know what's good for our health?

Think about it.

Also, whatever health benefits vegetarianism provides, there is NO health benefit to not using "animal products" like leather. The only reason to abstain from leather is due to pagan, new-age, or other non-Catholic beliefs.

Let's put it this way: abstaining from all animals (and animal products) in a vegan manner suggests that "God made a mistake" -- a blasphemy that any Catholic should hold in horror.

This. Put much better than I could.

TKGS · « **Reply #19 on:** June 27, 2017, 10:18:06 AM »

Quote from: Peter15and1 on June 26, 2017, 02:21:47 PM

I do understand the objection, I just disagree with it. The word "vegan," to me, means a person who refrains from eating animal products, and nothing more. Clearly, the word means something different to you, and includes with it certain political connotations. The dictionary agrees with me. Perhaps most of society would agree with you, I don't know. For you to make the claim, however, that a Catholic is undermining the faith by calling himself a vegan, you would have to provide actual evidence that the word "vegan" carries with it the baggage you claim.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/vegan?s=t
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegan

Funny, I just looked at these dictionary definitions and it appears that you didn't since both of these dictionaries say that a vegan is more than what you say vegan means. Even your own evidence condemns you. These are the definitions that society has determined vegan to mean.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #20 on:** June 27, 2017, 10:45:14 AM »

Quote from: TKGS on June 27, 2017, 10:18:06 AM

Funny, I just looked at these dictionary definitions and it appears that you didn't since both of these dictionaries say that a vegan is more than what you say vegan means. Even your own evidence condemns you. These are the definitions that society has determined vegan to mean.

Wow! They do not even use wool !!!!!! Taking wool from an animal does not hurt the animal it actually relieves it. These vegans are sicker than I thought.

Definition of vegan:

1. a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet.

2. a person who does not use any animal products, as leather or wool.

Geremia · « **Reply #21 on:** June 27, 2017, 04:01:58 PM »

Quote from: TKGS on June 26, 2017, 06:35:36 AM

a person may very well choose to abstain from meat and all animal products as a personal sacrifice but he will never announce himself as nor accept the label "vegan".

Why do you assume adopting a vegan diet is a "personal sacrifice"? That makes it seem somehow the vegan diet is deficient rather than a great benefit to health. Adopting a vegan diet does not necessarily mean one is fasting; one could still be a complete glutton while avoiding eating all animal products.

cf. what St. Thomas says about fasting in "Whether it is fitting that those who fast should be bidden to abstain from flesh meat, eggs, and milk foods?":

Quote

Objection 2: Further, some fish are as delectable to eat as the flesh of certain animals. Now "concupiscence is desire of the delectable," as stated above (FS, Question [30], Article [1]). Therefore since fasting which was instituted in order to bridle concupiscence does not exclude the eating of fish, neither should it exclude the eating of flesh meat.

Reply to Objection 2: In the institution of fasting, the Church takes account of the more common occurrences. Now, generally speaking, eating flesh meat affords more pleasure than eating fish, although this is not always the case. Hence the Church forbade those who fast to eat flesh meat, rather than to eat fish.

Thus, fasting is not about food in itself but the delectation one takes in food.

TKGS · « **Reply #22 on:** June 27, 2017, 05:51:57 PM »

Quote from: Geremia on June 27, 2017, 04:01:58 PM

Why do you assume adopting a vegan diet is a "personal sacrifice"?

Because meat and dairy products are delicious and going without them is a sacrifice. At least in my case and in my wife's case. Frankly, we found the most difficult transition to tradition were the Fridays, Ember Days, and the several Vigils which require fast and/or abstinence.

If it's not a personal sacrifice for you, by all means adopt the vegan diet for pagan reasons. I really don't care. But if you call yourself a "Vegan", I will consider you a pagan as will most people you tell. (See Matthew's post above.)

Geremia · « **Reply #23 on:** June 27, 2017, 11:14:13 PM »

Quote from: TKGS on June 27, 2017, 05:51:57 PM

by all means adopt the vegan diet for pagan reasons.

Adopting it for health reasons is not to adopt it for pagan reasons. Catholics must care about their health; failure to do so is a violation of the 5th Commandment.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #24 on:** June 28, 2017, 12:33:03 AM »

Isn't it simple enough to say, "I avoid sources of saturated fat as I believe it to be unhealthy," rather than, "I'm a vegan."

I agree that "vegan" implies that your avoidance has more to do with the animal than with yourself.

TKGS · « **Reply #25 on:** June 28, 2017, 05:34:00 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici on June 28, 2017, 12:33:03 AM

Isn't it simple enough to say, "I avoid sources of saturated fat as I believe it to be unhealthy," rather than, "I'm a vegan."

Apparently, many people feel the need adopt labels that will present themselves as more enlightened in the ways of the world so others won't think of them as Catholic.

I certainly never expected to hear a Catholic suggest that not being a Vegan is a violation of the Fifth Commandment!

Jovita · « **Reply #26 on:** June 28, 2017, 08:08:56 AM »

Daniel's fast is a Biblical record of the physical benefits of eating vegetables. Monastic orders traditionally ate this way. The Eastern churches, Orthdox and Catholic eat this way during the Great Fast and lesser fasts.
Daniel 1 (RSVCE)
Four Young Israelites at the Babylonian Court
1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoi′akim king of Judah, Nebuchadnez′zar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 And the Lord gave Jehoi′akim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God; and he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his god. 3 Then the king commanded Ash′penaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, 4 youths without blemish, handsome and skilful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to serve in the king’s palace, and to teach them the letters and language of the Chalde′ans. 5 The king assigned them a daily portion of the rich food which the king ate, and of the wine which he drank. They were to be educated for three years, and at the end of that time they were to stand before the king. 6 Among these were Daniel, Hanani′ah, Mish′a-el, and Azari′ah of the tribe of Judah. 7 And the chief of the eunuchs gave them names: Daniel he called Belteshaz′zar, Hanani′ah he called Shadrach, Mish′a-el he called Meshach, and Azari′ah he called Abed′nego.
8 But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s rich food, or with the wine which he drank; therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself. 9 And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs; 10 and the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, “I fear lest my lord the king, who appointed your food and your drink, should see that you were in poorer condition than the youths who are of your own age. So you would endanger my head with the king.” 11 Then Daniel said to the steward whom the chief of the eunuchs had appointed over Daniel, Hanani′ah, Mish′a-el, and Azari′ah, 12 “Test your servants for ten days; let us be given vegetables to eat and water to drink. 13 Then let our appearance and the appearance of the youths who eat the king’s rich food be observed by you, and according to what you see deal with your servants.” 14 So he hearkened to them in this matter, and tested them for ten days. 15 At the end of ten days it was seen that they were better in appearance and fatter in flesh than all the youths who ate the king’s rich food. 16 So the steward took away their rich food and the wine they were to drink, and gave them vegetables.
17 As for these four youths, God gave them learning and skill in all letters and wisdom; and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. 18 At the end of the time, when the king had commanded that they should be brought in, the chief of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnez′zar. 19 And the king spoke with them, and among them all none was found like Daniel, Hanani′ah, Mish′a-el, and Azari′ah; therefore they stood before the king. 20 And in every matter of wisdom and understanding concerning which the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters that were in all his kingdom. 21 And Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus.

Matthew · « **Reply #27 on:** June 28, 2017, 11:40:09 AM »

No offense, but we're Traditional Catholics here, and Trads prefer the Douay-Rheims Bible for its accuracy and fidelity to the Latin Vulgate. Yes, it's old-fashioned, but so is the Tridentine Mass! The motto of Trads is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

Trads also know that St. Jerome had access to manuscripts which were OLDER than some of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that other translations rely on. Plus St. Jerome was hand-picked and hand-trained by the hand of Providence to become a master of Latin, Greek and Hebrew from an early age.

Daniel and his companions are taken into the palace of the king of Babylon: they abstain from his meat and wine, and succeed better with pulse and water. Their excellence and wisdom.

[1] In the third year of the reign of Joakim king of Juda, Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon came to Jerusalem, and besieged it. [2] And the Lord delivered into his hands Joakim the king of Juda, and part of the vessels of the house of God: and he carried them away into the land of Sennaar, to the house of his god, and the vessels he brought into the treasure house of his god. [3] And the king spoke to Asphenez the master of the eunuchs, that he should bring in some of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed and of the princes, [4] Children in whom there was no blemish, well favoured, and skillful in all wisdom, acute in knowledge, and instructed in science, and such as might stand in the king's palace, that he might teach them the learning, and the tongue of the Chaldeans. [5] And the king appointed them a daily provision, of his own meat, and of the wine of which he drank himself, that being nourished three years, afterwards they might stand before the king.

[2] "His god": Bel or Belus, the principal idol of the Chaldeans.

[6] Now there were among them of the children of Juda, Daniel, Ananias, Misael, and Azarias. [7] And the master of the eunuchs gave them names: to Daniel, Baltassar: to Ananias, Sidrach: to Misael, Misach: and to Azarias, Abdenago. [8] But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not be defiled with the king's table, nor with the wine which he drank: and he requested the master of the eunuchs that he might not be defiled. [9] And God gave to Daniel grace and mercy in the sight of the prince of the eunuchs. [10] And the prince of the eunuchs said to Daniel: I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed you meat and drink: who if he should see your faces leaner than those of the other youths your equals, you shall endanger my head to the king.

[8] "Be defiled": Viz., either by eating meat forbidden by the law, or which had before been offered to idols.

[11] And Daniel said to Malasar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had appointed over Daniel, Ananias, Misael, and Azarias: [12] Try, I beseech thee, thy servants for ten days, and let pulse be given us to eat, and water to drink: [13] And look upon our faces, and the faces of the children that eat of the king's meat: and as thou shalt see, deal with thy servants. [14] And when he had heard these words, he tried them for ten days. [15] And after ten days their faces appeared fairer and fatter than all the children that ate of the king's meat.

[12] "Pulse": That is, pease, beans, and such like.

[16] So Malasar took their portions, and the wine that they should drink: and he gave them pulse. [17] And to these children God gave knowledge, and understanding in every book, and wisdom: but to Daniel the understanding also of all visions and dreams. [18] And when the days were ended, after which the king had ordered they should be brought in: the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nabuchodonosor. [19] And when the king had spoken to them, there were not found among them all such as Daniel, Ananias, Misael, and Azarias: and they stood in the king's presence. [20] And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the diviners, and wise men, that were in all his kingdom.

[21] And Daniel continued even to the first year of king Cyrus.

Matthew · « **Reply #28 on:** June 28, 2017, 11:45:49 AM »

So this was a question of fidelity to the Mosaic Law (which forbid certain meats as a test of obedience) or a more basic law, which requires that all men worship only the True God.

I think it's obvious that the superior health of Daniel was more of a sign from God, almost a miracle, rather than official health advice.

Should we take sheep breeding advice from the chapters about Jacob as well? I don't think Jacob's technique (showing lots of colors to sheep as they were mating) would always result in more "diverse colored" sheep being born. But God choose to give this result, to multiply Jacob's wealth.

The Holy Ghost didn't intend for Scripture to be health advice, stock advice, career advice, or any of that. Such is a Protestant mistake, because all they have is Scripture. They are like the hammer that sees everything as a nail. When all you have is a hammer (Scripture), everything is a nail!

Jovita · « **Reply #29 on:** June 28, 2017, 01:18:08 PM »

2 Timothy 3:16-17Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
I agree that Protestants use scripture as a hammer, but Catholics tend to ignore it completely. It is not a useless collection of books.

Author Topic: Any vegans here? (Read 9201 times)

TKGS

Re: Any vegans here?

Peter15and1

Re: Any vegans here?

TKGS

Re: Any vegans here?

TKGS

Re: Any vegans here?

TKGS

Re: Any vegans here?

Last Tradhican

Re: Any vegans here?

Geremia

Re: Any vegans here?

TKGS

Re: Any vegans here?

Geremia

Re: Any vegans here?

MaterDominici

Re: Any vegans here?

TKGS

Re: Any vegans here?

Jovita

Re: Any vegans here?

Matthew

Re: Any vegans here?

Matthew

Re: Any vegans here?

Jovita

Re: Any vegans here?