Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

meat and the holocaust

Expand Messages
  • prolifedem1963
    In an e-mail dated March 20, 2003, the late Reverend Janet Regina Hyland (1933 - 2007), wrote to animal activist Eileen Weintraub: Hi, Eileen, I ve been
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 17, 2013
      In an e-mail dated March 20, 2003, the late Reverend Janet Regina Hyland (1933 - 2007), wrote to animal activist Eileen Weintraub:

      Hi, Eileen,

      I've been thinking about what you told me re: all the discussion about using the term "holocaust" in regard to the torture and slaughter of animals. 

      And since I'm out-of-the-loop in regard to online discussion formats, I was wondering if anyone has pointed out the fact that Animal Rights people did not borrow the term from those who use it to describe the horror of what happened to the millions of persons who were burnt to death in the ovens of the concentration camps.

      To the contrary: the word "holocaust" was taken from the biblical term used to describe the total immolation of sacrificed animals -- they were known as whole-burnt offerings. The word holokaustos is Greek and was used in the translation of the Hebrew scrolls as far back as 250 BC. 

      The translation (called the Septuagint) was completed for the Jews who lived in Alexandria and could no longer read or speak Hebrew. So referring to the death of millions of animals as a holocaust was used 2,000 years before people applied it to the torture and slaughter of human beings. 

      It is not we animal rights people who have linked the death of animals and the death of people. It is those who were appalled at the human carnage of Nazi Germany, who likened it to the death of millions of animals...

      Onward & upward,

      Regina
       
      ****
       
      The debate over whether God Himself clothed Adam and Eve in animal skins after the Fall is discussed in the May/June 1998 issue of Humane Religion

      In her article "After the Fall", Reverend Janet Regina Hyland writes:

      "...this verse of scripture...has nothing to do with killing any creature. The Bible is filled with analogy, hyperbole, metaphor and simile and, in most instances, scholars are quick to point out such things. 

      "In the book of Job, for example, the term "skin of my teeth" is explained as meaning a narrow escape: 'I am escaped with the skin of my teeth.' (Job 19:20) And in the same book, Job exclaims that it is God who has 'clothed me with skin and flesh.' (Job 10:11). 

      "In this instance, no one makes the claim that God killed animals to clothe Job. It is obvious that the phrase means that man was clothed--covered--with skin as a protective covering, just as all animals are clothed with skin. 

      "But when the same expression is used about Adam and Eve, in Genesis 3:21, no one bothers to explain this. And no one points out the context in which it appears. This verse of scripture immediately precedes the account of the man and woman having to leave Eden, forever. 

      "Henceforth they would live in a harsh and unyielding environment which would reflect the low estate to which they had fallen. The land in which they were going to live would bring forth "thorns and thistles" instead of the lush bounty of the Garden. And they would suffer the ill effects of a harsh climate in which they would eat their bread 'in the sweat' of their face.

      "Previously, they had lived a paradisical existence for which their bodies were well-suited. But now their survival demanded a tougher, hardier, kind of body. One that could withstand the rigors of an inhospitable environment. They needed, literally, to develop a 'thicker skin.' So just before they left Eden, the necessary adaptation was made.

      "And the Bible explains this by saying that God clothed the man and woman with coats of skin. That thicker skin covered what had been a more delicate and sensitive organism. But little attention has been given to this exegesis of the narrative. Mostly by default, scholars have allowed the unsubstantiated, popular interpretation of the event. 
      to prevail."

      ****

      Regarding the parable of the Prodigal Son: a vegetarian interpretation of this parable is given by Dr. Upton Clary Ewing in his 1961 book, The Essene Christ: A Recovery of the Historical Jesus. The book is long out of print, but a copy can be found in the UC San Diego Central Library. Dr. Ewing writes:

      "...it (the parable) has all the earmarks of a deliberate interpolation. The words, 'Bring hither the fatted calf and kill it and let us eat of it,' are again emphasized near the end of the parable by the words, 'Thou has killed for him the fatted calf.' 

      "The intent here is rather tactlessly exposed...by crudely emphasizing the selection of food for the feast, in the words, 'kill it and eat it,' is self-incriminating. It appears that all the other dishes for the feast were purposely omitted to make the killing and eating of the fatted calf a 'standout.'

      "Again, in the same parable, flesh meat is represented as the sole means of celebrating: 'Thou never gavest me a kid that I might make merry with my friends.' 

      "Here it is quite obvious that the original parable contained the word WINE and that the word *kid* is the result of a later rather awkward substitution. Wine was always the traditional means of 'making merry' with one's friends.

      "It has long been recognized by scholars that the original text of the parable--before it was somewhat clumsily made to sanction the self-indulgent customs of the heathen Christians -- presented only harmless or innocent food such as described by Pliny in discussing the habits of the early Christians of Bithynia under Peter."

      ****

      The following letter was written by the late Reverend Janet Regina Hyland (1933 - 2007), and has been sent to thousands of Protestant pastors across the United States since 1998.

      Humane Religion
      Post Office Box 25354.
      Sarasota, FL 34277.

      October 12, 1998.

      Dear Pastor,

      Our commitment to Christian service includes the responsibility of providing moral leadership, and a very effective way of doing this would be to declare your church a fur-free zone.

      We have outlawed drinking and smoking within our sanctuaries and there is no reason why we cannot forbid the wearing of furs. There is certainly a precedent. Although ministers do not usually speak out against hunting, they do not allow the trophies of recreational killing to be hung in their churches. The heads of deer, and other slain creatures, are not allowed to adorn the sanctuary walls. Neither should the fur of dead animals adorn the bodies of worshippers.

      In a culture where synthetic fabrics provide more warmth and better protection than fur, raising animals in order to kill them for the covering provided by their Creator is a serious moral evil. And the reed of those who do this is matched only by the covetousness of those who are willing to deprive other creatures of their lives, in order to satisfy their vanity. The very least our churches can do is distance themselves from such immorality by banning the wearing of furs in buildings that have been dedicated to the worship of God.

      We hope you will prayerfully consider this matter.

      In fellowship,

      Rev. J.R. Hyland, IMF
      Viatoris Ministries

      HUMANE RELIGION IS A DIVISION OF VIATORIS MINISTRIES.

      ****

      --Vasu
       

    • Maynard S. Clark
      There s the CURRENT debate on Wikipedia about Adolf Hitler s presumed vegetarianism (which IMO needs to be refereed), where those who SAY that Hitler was
      Message 2 of 2 , Aug 23, 2013
        There's the CURRENT debate on Wikipedia about Adolf Hitler's presumed vegetarianism (which IMO needs to be refereed), where those who SAY that Hitler was vegetarian have dominated the discussion with 'strong arm' tactics.


        I am very happy that NONE of Rynn Berry's arguments (against the article's thesis) appear in the body (though his article and book appears in the bibliography).

        Maynard         
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        Maynard S. Clark, MS (Management: Research Administration)
        Google Voice (617-615-9672) reaches all phones | GoogleChat: Maynard.Clark | Skype: MaynardClark
        RAC/GCRA, CIPP, RTP, NIH rDNA, REACH Intermediate certificates (+others)

        LinkedIn | ResearchGate | Academia.edu | Google+ | Xing | Blog Links Twitter | Facebook | Google Profile | VegWeb  | Wikipedia

        Welcoming connections on LinkedIn and FANS at Facebook





        On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:59 PM, <vasumurti@...> wrote:
         

        In an e-mail dated March 20, 2003, the late Reverend Janet Regina Hyland (1933 - 2007), wrote to animal activist Eileen Weintraub:

        Hi, Eileen,

        I've been thinking about what you told me re: all the discussion about using the term "holocaust" in regard to the torture and slaughter of animals. 

        And since I'm out-of-the-loop in regard to online discussion formats, I was wondering if anyone has pointed out the fact that Animal Rights people did not borrow the term from those who use it to describe the horror of what happened to the millions of persons who were burnt to death in the ovens of the concentration camps.

        To the contrary: the word "holocaust" was taken from the biblical term used to describe the total immolation of sacrificed animals -- they were known as whole-burnt offerings. The word holokaustos is Greek and was used in the translation of the Hebrew scrolls as far back as 250 BC. 

        The translation (called the Septuagint) was completed for the Jews who lived in Alexandria and could no longer read or speak Hebrew. So referring to the death of millions of animals as a holocaust was used 2,000 years before people applied it to the torture and slaughter of human beings. 

        It is not we animal rights people who have linked the death of animals and the death of people. It is those who were appalled at the human carnage of Nazi Germany, who likened it to the death of millions of animals...

        Onward & upward,

        Regina
         
        ****
         
        The debate over whether God Himself clothed Adam and Eve in animal skins after the Fall is discussed in the May/June 1998 issue of Humane Religion

        In her article "After the Fall", Reverend Janet Regina Hyland writes:

        "...this verse of scripture...has nothing to do with killing any creature. The Bible is filled with analogy, hyperbole, metaphor and simile and, in most instances, scholars are quick to point out such things. 

        "In the book of Job, for example, the term "skin of my teeth" is explained as meaning a narrow escape: 'I am escaped with the skin of my teeth.' (Job 19:20) And in the same book, Job exclaims that it is God who has 'clothed me with skin and flesh.' (Job 10:11). 

        "In this instance, no one makes the claim that God killed animals to clothe Job. It is obvious that the phrase means that man was clothed--covered--with skin as a protective covering, just as all animals are clothed with skin. 

        "But when the same expression is used about Adam and Eve, in Genesis 3:21, no one bothers to explain this. And no one points out the context in which it appears. This verse of scripture immediately precedes the account of the man and woman having to leave Eden, forever. 

        "Henceforth they would live in a harsh and unyielding environment which would reflect the low estate to which they had fallen. The land in which they were going to live would bring forth "thorns and thistles" instead of the lush bounty of the Garden. And they would suffer the ill effects of a harsh climate in which they would eat their bread 'in the sweat' of their face.

        "Previously, they had lived a paradisical existence for which their bodies were well-suited. But now their survival demanded a tougher, hardier, kind of body. One that could withstand the rigors of an inhospitable environment. They needed, literally, to develop a 'thicker skin.' So just before they left Eden, the necessary adaptation was made.

        "And the Bible explains this by saying that God clothed the man and woman with coats of skin. That thicker skin covered what had been a more delicate and sensitive organism. But little attention has been given to this exegesis of the narrative. Mostly by default, scholars have allowed the unsubstantiated, popular interpretation of the event. 
        to prevail."

        ****

        Regarding the parable of the Prodigal Son: a vegetarian interpretation of this parable is given by Dr. Upton Clary Ewing in his 1961 book, The Essene Christ: A Recovery of the Historical Jesus. The book is long out of print, but a copy can be found in the UC San Diego Central Library. Dr. Ewing writes:

        "...it (the parable) has all the earmarks of a deliberate interpolation. The words, 'Bring hither the fatted calf and kill it and let us eat of it,' are again emphasized near the end of the parable by the words, 'Thou has killed for him the fatted calf.' 

        "The intent here is rather tactlessly exposed...by crudely emphasizing the selection of food for the feast, in the words, 'kill it and eat it,' is self-incriminating. It appears that all the other dishes for the feast were purposely omitted to make the killing and eating of the fatted calf a 'standout.'

        "Again, in the same parable, flesh meat is represented as the sole means of celebrating: 'Thou never gavest me a kid that I might make merry with my friends.' 

        "Here it is quite obvious that the original parable contained the word WINE and that the word *kid* is the result of a later rather awkward substitution. Wine was always the traditional means of 'making merry' with one's friends.

        "It has long been recognized by scholars that the original text of the parable--before it was somewhat clumsily made to sanction the self-indulgent customs of the heathen Christians -- presented only harmless or innocent food such as described by Pliny in discussing the habits of the early Christians of Bithynia under Peter."

        ****

        The following letter was written by the late Reverend Janet Regina Hyland (1933 - 2007), and has been sent to thousands of Protestant pastors across the United States since 1998.

        Humane Religion
        Post Office Box 25354.
        Sarasota, FL 34277.

        October 12, 1998.

        Dear Pastor,

        Our commitment to Christian service includes the responsibility of providing moral leadership, and a very effective way of doing this would be to declare your church a fur-free zone.

        We have outlawed drinking and smoking within our sanctuaries and there is no reason why we cannot forbid the wearing of furs. There is certainly a precedent. Although ministers do not usually speak out against hunting, they do not allow the trophies of recreational killing to be hung in their churches. The heads of deer, and other slain creatures, are not allowed to adorn the sanctuary walls. Neither should the fur of dead animals adorn the bodies of worshippers.

        In a culture where synthetic fabrics provide more warmth and better protection than fur, raising animals in order to kill them for the covering provided by their Creator is a serious moral evil. And the reed of those who do this is matched only by the covetousness of those who are willing to deprive other creatures of their lives, in order to satisfy their vanity. The very least our churches can do is distance themselves from such immorality by banning the wearing of furs in buildings that have been dedicated to the worship of God.

        We hope you will prayerfully consider this matter.

        In fellowship,

        Rev. J.R. Hyland, IMF
        Viatoris Ministries

        HUMANE RELIGION IS A DIVISION OF VIATORIS MINISTRIES.

        ****

        --Vasu
         


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.