Theodisé spørgsmålet afklaret

Theodisé er spørgsmålet om, hvodan ondskab eksisterer side om side med en almægtig Gud. Selv efter 2000 år på banen er det ikke lykkedes Kirken at komme med en intelligent forklaring. De kristne, der i øjeblikket diskuterer spørgsmålet her i gruppen, har ikke engang stillet sig selv det indlysende spørgsmål om, hvorfor en almægtig Gud tillader ondskab. De Det er selvfølgeligt intet problem i Vaishnava-religionen. Som sædvanligt brillierer den vediske version.
Karma har intet med tro at gøre. Det er et et observerbart faktum, hvadenten man tror på det eller ej. Det er ligesom reinkarnation. Det er fuldstændigt ligegyldigt hvad man tror på. Enten er reinkarnation et faktum eller også er det ikke. Det har intet at gøre med, hvad folk tror på. Ian Stevensons forskning tyder desuden stærkt på, at reinkarnation er et faktum.
Karma beskrives desuden i Bibelen med ordene - som man sår, så høster man.
Den udtalelse er meningsløs uden reinkarnation. Det er klart, at man høster lige fra fødslen af. Man høster en særlig krop, nation, køn, samfund, skæbne osv. Hvornår skulle man have sået det, man høster ved fødslen, hvis ikke i et tidligere liv?
Hvis man ikke accepterer den vediske version om karma og reinkarnation, så står man overfor det kedelige problem, man har i Kirken, med at Gud er en lunefuld, uretfærdig gammel satan, der kaster folk ned på jorden til vidt forskellige skæbner. Nogle bliver født med en guldske i munden til et liv i sus og dus, mens andre fødes i Iraq under et amerikansk bombeangreb.
Selv efter 2000 år på banen, har Kirken stadig ikke formået at give et ordentligt svar på dette problem. Og alligevel er der fanatikere, der hævder, at Gud ikke kunne gøre det bedre end Bibelen. Den slags fanatiske sekterikere er langt værre end ateister. Ateister fornægter bare Gud, men de kristne, der hævder, at Bibelen og Kirken er den eneste sande udgave af Gud, ja de håner Gud og giver Ham et dårligt navn. Intet under, at folk udvandrer i massevis fra sådan en Kirke og bliver ateister.
Men i den vediske version er der intet problem med theodise spørgsmålet. De vediske vismænd havde løst theodise problemet allerede tusinder af år forinden, der var nogen, der havde tænkt på kristendommen.
Her er en URL til Dr. Ian Stevensons forskning, der videnskabeligt beviser reinkarnation. Enhver kan iøvrigt slå ham op på Google. http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm

Så ifølge din tro er det folks egen skyld de har det dårligt? Er du handikappet skulle du jo nok have opført dig bedre i dit tidligere liv, ikke! Er du i den nederste kaste så de rige i de gode kaster kan gøre ved dig som det passer dem: Tough luck, det er fordi de var gode i deres tidligere liv, mens du var ond!
Det eneste din lære løser er, at det fastlåser uretfærdighederne i samfundet!
Begge disse ting har jeg set i mit tomme liv:
Retfærdige, der går til grunde trods deres retfærdighed,
og uretfærdige, der lever længe trods deres ondskab.

Sebl skrev: "Så ifølge din tro er det folks egen skyld de har det dårligt? Er du handikappet skulle du jo nok have opført dig bedre i dit tidligere liv, ikke! Er du i den nederste kaste så de rige i de gode kaster kan gøre ved dig som det passer dem: Tough luck, det er fordi de var gode i deres tidligere liv, mens du var ond!"
Så ifølge din tro er Gud en lunefuld, gammel, ondskabsfuld satan, der skaber nogle sjæle til et liv i sus og dus, mens Han skaber andre til krøplinge og et liv i lidelse? Er det sådan det er?
Så giver den vediske version da uendelig mere mening, nemlig at man selv vælger sin skæbne gennem sine handlinger. Det er da langt bedre at vide, at man selv er årsag til sin skæbne, end det er at tro på, at alting er helt tilfældigt, eller endnu værre, som du foreslår - at det er Guds skyld.
Karma og reinkarnation udtrykkes iøvrigt i Bibelen - som man sår så høster man, står der. Man høster lige fra fødslen af - man høster en særlig krop, køn, nation, evner, udseende osv. osv. Hvornår skulle man have sået det, hvis ikke i et tidligere liv?
Så skriver Sebl videre: "Det eneste din lære løser er, at det fastlåser uretfærdighederne i samfundet!"
Ja, for samfundet var virkeligt retfærdigt i middelalderen, dengang kirken styrede det??? hahaha :)
Desuden er der intet uretfærdigt ved at kende årsagen til sine skæbne, nemlig sine egne handlinger. Det er helt retfærdigt, at man nyder eller lider i overensstemmelse med den måde, man opfører sig på overfor andre levende væsener.
Lever man fx. i en slagtehuskultur, hvor andre levende væsener blot ses som mad og profit, så kan man være helt sikker på i sit næste liv at blive behandlet nøjagtigt som man behandlede disse slagtedyr.
"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men."
- St. Francis of Assisi
Vishnu siger:
"Når nogen nærer modvilje mod halvguderne, der er repræsentanter for Guddommens Højeste Personlighed, mod Vedaerne, der giver viden, mod køerne, mod brahminerne, Vaishnava'erne, og yderst set mod Mig, den Højeste Personlige Guddom, vil en sådan person samt hele hans civilisation hurtigt blive udryddet."
--Srimad Bhagavatam 7.4.27

Vi er med andre ord enige om at vedisk religion legitimere undertrykkelse.
Min egen opfattelse af theodise spørgsmålet er, at livet er godt så det er misvisende at spørge hvorfor det er ondt!

Du kan jo spørge de køer og grise, du mæsker dig med til dagligt, om de også syntes, at livet er så godt, at det er misvisende at stille spørgsmål ved lidelsen i verden. Eller hvad med de folk, der sulter i Somalia, livet er rigtigt fedt for dem, ik?
Hvorherrebevares, siger jeg bare.
Vismanden Shukadeva Goswami siger:
"De, der er blottede for viden om deres eget selv, stiller ikke spørsgmålstegn ved de eksistentielle problemer i tilværelsen, idet de er for knyttede til de 'fejlbarlige soldater' i form af kroppen, ægtefælle og børn. Selvom deres erfaring viser det modsatte, indser de ikke, at de går deres uundgåelige undergang i møde."
Bhagavat Purana 2.1.4

Jeg behøver ikke spørge. Hvis livet var så stor en lidelse ville alle begå selvmord.
Det er da en ret deprimerende tro du har. Intet kød, men til gengæld er folks lidelser deres egen skyld. Hvis der var bare lidt logik i din karma-tankegang ville du tørt konstatere at køerne og grisene selv er ude om det, fordi de har opført sig dårligt i deres tidligere inkarnation!!!
Du synes folk selv er ude om deres lidelser, men vil beskytte køerne og grisene: Det må være topmålet af naivitet og inkonsekvens at have din tro.

-- men, men livet er så godt så godt, der er slet ingen lidelse. Hvis der var det, ville alle nok begå selvmord.
-- og, og køer og grise er selv skyld i, at de er blevet født som dyr, så det helt i orden at slå dem ihjel og æde dem.
Gud fri mig vel. Man bliver helt målløs. Forhåbentligt har du ingen børn. Karma og reinkarnation står som sagt beskrevet i Bibelen - som man sår så høster man. At blive født i dårlige omstændigheder betyder jo ikke, at det er ok, at du gør det værre for vedkommende, vel?
-- men, men den der ko, det er dens egen skyld, at den er blevet født som ko, så lad mig slagte og æde den.
Så det du siger er, at hvis man kender årsagen til nogens lidelse og dårlige fødsel, nemlig at det reaktionerne på deres syndefulde handlinger, så retfærdiggør det, at man ser ned på dem og slår dem ihjel?? Er det din såkaldt kristne medfølelse og barmhjertighed? Formodes man ikke som kristen at udvise medfølelse mod andre levende væsener?
Jeg mener, kan man blive dummere og mere bevidstløs? Og du skal gå for at være religiøs? hahaha🙂Du slår selv ftg i afstumpethed, og det siger sateme ikke så lidt.
Prøv at se, du er med i Vedaerne - Kong Pariksit siger:
Forherligelse af Guddommens Højeste Personlighed foregår i parampara systemet, hvilket vil sige at det viderebringes fra åndelig mester til discipel. Sådan forherligelse udføres af dem, der ikke længere er interesserede i den falske, midlertidige forherligelse af den kosmiske manifestation. Beskrivelser af Herren og Hans gerninger er den rette medicin for den betingede sjæl, der gennemgår gentagen fødsel og død. Hvem andre, undtagen den der slår dyr eller sit eget selv ihjel, vil derfor nægte at lægge øre til sådan forherligelse?
-- Srimad Bhagavatam 10.1.4

Jeg lagde ikke nogen moralsk målestok ned over det at spise kød. Jeg gjorde opmærksom på, at jeres ideer om at køer står over mennesker i niveau ikke passer med at de rent faktisk bliver slagtet, hvis din filosofi om karma holder: Altså er den gal med jeres karma-ide.
Er der noget galt i at spise kød? Det sker hele tiden i naturen, så det er der næppe. Men det ville være sundere, hvis vi spiste mindre af det.
Naja, forresten, angående din brug af Bibelen: Det der med at som man sår høster man, skal ses i et større perspektiv ifølge kristendommen: Livet ender med at være retfærdigt.
Forøvrigt har jeg børn.

"The religion and philosophy of the Hebrews are those of a wilder and ruder tribe, wanting the civility and intellectual refinements and subtlety of Vedic culture."
- Henry David Thoreau
If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.
- St. Francis of Assisi
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on earth
as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet" -Albert Einstein
You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

Jesus & vegetarianism
So when we talk about changing one's life, giving one's time, life, energy, mind, resources to God and worship him with all one's heart mind soul, etc., well we all agree to that.
To be non violent, not to kill others (humans and animals alike, not even for food (it is quite clear that the Early Christians were vegetarians, see below), we all agree on that. We are citizens of the spiritual world and we should not unnecessarily use our valuable time in mundane pursuits. Unless we give up material life and turn with great determination towards spiritual life our life will be a loss and end up in disappointment.
On the other side when we start taking about the resurrection of the flesh and that Jesus died for our sins, well these are theological concepts that were superimposed on the teachings of Jesus from Paul on and really miss the point of his actual teachings to mankind.
Quote from the book "Food for peace":
Major stumbling blocks for many Christians are the belief that Christ ate meat and the many references to meat in the New Testament. But close study of the original Greek manuscripts shows that the vast majority of the words translated as "meat" are trophe, brome, and other words that simply mean "food" or "eating" in the broadest sense. For example, in the Gospel (Luke 8:55) we read that Jesus raised a woman from the dead and "commanded to give her meat." The original Greek word translated as "meat" is phago, which means only "to eat". So, what Christ actually said was, "Let her eat."
The original Greek word for meat is kreas ("flesh"), and it is never used in connection with Christ. In Luke 24:41-43 the disciples offered him fish and a honeycomb and he took it (singular, we can guess which one). Nowhere in the New Testament is there any direct reference to Jesus eating meat.
This is in line with Isaiah's famous prophecy: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat butter and honey, so that he may know the evil from the good." (Isaiah 7:14-15) (this itself says that meat eating destroys all good discretion in man. It is quite typical, that the second part of the sentence is omitted in Matthew 1:23).
Jesus rebuked strongly the pharisees with the words: "...and if you had known what it means: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice, ...you would not condemn the innocent," (Matthew 12:6) which clearly disapproves of the killing of animals, as this is a verse taken from Hosea 6:6: "I desire mercy instead of sacrifice, the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings..." (note: again the the 2nd part of the sentence is omitted in Matthew 12:6).
He strongly opposed the custom of temple animal sacrifices, violently driving those who were selling oxen, sheep and pigeons and the money-changers out of the temple (John 2:13-15).
His words: "...you shall not make my father's house a house of trade (which in earlier translations always was translated as "murders' den").
We all know that according to Matthew 3:4 John the Baptist was refusing to eat meat. ("...and his food was wild locust (bean) and wild honey." (orig. Greek: enkris, oil cake and akris: locust/honey)
But we never hear of the sheer overwhelming evidence which points to Jesus being a vegetarian: No less than seven of Jesus' twelve disciples refused meat food (the rest we do not know). This naturally reflects the teachings of Jesus, as: "...a servant is not greater than his master..." (John 14:16).
The seven are:
1. Peter, "...whose food was bread, olives and herbs..." (Clem. Hom. XII,6)
2. James: Church Father Eusebius, quoting the Churchfather Hegesippus (about 160 AD) is stating:
"...But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his memoirs. He writes as follow: '...James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our savior to the present day; for there were many that bore the name James.
'He was holy from his mother's womb; he drank no wine, nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head, he did not anoint himself with oil and he did not use the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place; for he wore no woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel in consequence of constantly bending them on his worship of
God...'" (Eusebius, Church History II, Ch. XXIII,5-7, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Oxford, N.Y., 1890, Vol I, p.125)
It is interesting that Hegesippus is saying that James, the brother of Jesus, was holy from his mother's womb on which would apply that Mary was not eating meat either and that she never fed him meat as a child. That being the case one would think it to be clear that the whole family of Jesus and naturally he himself was vegetarian. In that sense the statement of Churchfather Eusebius "he was holy from his mother's womb" is most indicative pointing towards the vegetarianism of Jesus.
3. Thomas: The apocryphal Acts of Thomas (Ch. 20), which actually were widely in use among early Christian sects, depict this disciple of Jesus as ascetic: "He continually fasts and prays, and abstaining from eating of flesh and drinking wine, he eats only bread, with salt and drink and water, and wears the same garment in fine weather and winter, and accepts nothing from anyone, and gives whatever he has to others."
4. Matthew: "It is far better to be happy than to have a demon dwelling with us. And happiness is found in the practice of virtue. Accordingly, the apostle Matthew partook of seeds and nuts, fruits and vegetables without of flesh. And John, who carried temperance to the extreme, ate locusts and wild honey..."

(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, II.I,16: On Eating)
(Note here the strong hint of Clement towards the vegetarianism of John the Baptist.)
5. Matthias (who filled the place of Judas - Acts 1:21-26). His food as told by Church Father Clement of Alexandria was the same as Matthews. (Clement/Stromata III,4,26)
6. Andrew and 7. Jude: Andrew (Peter's brother in both flesh and faith) and Jude of Bethsaida, originally two of John the Baptists' followers, must have followed the Baptist's austere diet. (See above under Matthew)
Paul also says: "...It is good neither to drink wine or eat flesh..." (Roman 14:20-21) though his commitment altogether seems altogether somewhat less categorical.
Beyond that there are strong arguments of a similar nature by many of the Fathers of the early Church:
"...How unworthy do you press the example of Christ as having come eating and drinking into the service of your lusts: I think that He who pronounced not the full, but the hungry and thirsty 'Blessed,' who professed His work to be the completion of His Father's Will, I think that he was wont to abstain, instructing them to labor for that 'Meat' which lasts to eternal life, and enjoying in their common prayers petition, not for flesh food but for bread only..." - Quintus Septimius Tertullianus (AD 155).
This knowledge of Tertullianus was supported by fragments of the writings by the Apostolic Father Papias (AD 60 - 125).
"...The unnatural eating of flesh is as polluting as the heathens worship of devils with its sacrifices and impure feasts, through participation in which a man becomes a fellow eater with devils..." (2nd century scripture Clemente Homilies - Hom. XII)
Clemens Prudentius, the first Christian hymn writer exhorts in one of his hymns his fellow Christians "...not to pollute their hands and hearts by the slaughter of innocent cows and sheep..."
Accordingly the Apostle Matthew, "partook of seeds, and nuts, and vegetables, without the use of flesh... is there not within a temperate simplicity, a wholesome variety of eatables, vegetables, roots, olives, herbs, milk, cheese, fruits?" - Churchfather Clement of Alexandria (Titus Flavius Clemens, AD 150 - 220)
"...We, the Christian leaders, practice abstinence from the flesh of animals to subdue our bodies. The unnatural eating of flesh is of demonic origin." And about the early Christians: "...No streams of blood are among them. No dainty cookery, no heaviness of head. Nor are horrible smells of flesh meats among them or disagreeable fumes from the kitchen.." - St. Chrysostomos (AD 347-404)
A most important purport to a controversy, much cherished and much cited by meat-eating Christians we find in the writings of the Churchfather Jerome (AD 340 - 420), who gave us the Vulgate, the authorized Latin version of the Bible still in use today.
The controversy is based on the fact that in Genesis 1:29 meat-eating is clearly forbidden, "...I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food..."
However after the flood it appears that meat-eating is all of a sudden
permitted: "...The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it..." (Genesis 9:2-4)
Writing in confutation of Jovinian, a monk of Milan, who abandoned asceticism, St. Jerome (died A.D. 440) holds up vegetarianism as the Christian ideal and the restoration of the primeval rule of life.
St. Jerome says:
"...He (Jovinian) raises the objection that when God gave His second blessing, permission was granted to eat flesh, which had not in the first benediction been allowed. He should know that just as divorce according to the Saviour's word was not permitted from the beginning, but on account of the hardness of our heart was a concession of Moses to the human race, (Matthew 9:8: "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.") ...so too the eating of flesh was unknown until the deluge. But after the deluge, like the quails given in the desert to the murmuring people, the poison of flesh-meat was offered to our teeth. The Apostle writing to the Ephesians (Eph. 1:10) teaches that God had purposed in the fullness of time to sum up and renew in Christ Jesus all things which are in heaven and in earth. Whence also the Saviour himself in the Revelation of John says (Rev. 1:8; 22:13), "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending."
At the beginning of the human race we neither ate flesh, nor gave bills of divorce, nor suffered circumcision for a sign. Thus we reached the deluge. But after the deluge, together with the giving of the law which no one could fulfill, flesh was given for food, and divorce was allowed to hard-hearted men, and the knife of circumcision was applied, as though the hand of God had fashioned us with something superfluous. But once Christ has come in the end of time, and Omega passed into Alpha and turned the end into the beginning, we are no longer allowed divorce (see Matthew 19:3-9), nor are we circumcised, nor so we eat flesh, for the Apostle says (Rom. 14:21), "It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine." For wine as well as flesh was consecrated after the deluge." (Against Jovinianus, Book I,18)
"The steam of meat darkens the light of the spirit... One hardly can have virtue when one enjoys meat meals and feasts..." - St. Basil (AD 320 - 79)
Besides that contemporary heathen observers describe the early Christians as abstaining from meat:
Pliny, Governor of Bithynia (where Peter preached) referred to the early Christians in a letter to Trajan, the Roman Emperor, as a ..."contagious superstition abstaining from flesh food..."
Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD), stoic philosopher and tutor of Nero, describes the Christians as "...a foreign cultus or superstition (under imperial suspicion) who abstain from flesh food..."
And Josephus Flavius says about the early Christians: "...They assemble before sunrising and speak not a word of profane matters but put up certain prayers... and sit down together each one to a single plate of one sort of innocent food..."
The scholar E.M. Szekely claims to have recovered and translated from an old Aramaic scripture, "...Therefore, he who kills, kills his brother... And the flesh of slain beasts in his body will become his own tomb. For I tell you truly, he who kills, kills himself, and who so eats the flesh of slain beasts, eats of the body of death... Kill neither men, nor beasts, nor the food which goes into your mouth... For life comes from life, and from death comes always death. For everything which kills your foods, kills your bodies also. And your
bodies become what your foods are, even as your spirits become what your thoughts are..." - E.M. Szekely, Gospel of Peace
And Albert Schweitzer says: "...Ethics has not only to do with mankind but with the animal creation as well. This is witnessed in the purpose of St. Francis of Assisi. Thus we shall arrive that ethics is reverence for all life. This is the ethic of love widened universally. It is the ethic of Jesus now recognized as a necessity of thought... Only a universal ethic which embraces every living creature can put us in touch with the universe and the will which is there manifest..."
Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801 - 90) says: "...Cruelty to animals is as if man did not love God... They have done us no harm, they have no power of resistance... there is something dreadful, so satanic in tormenting those who have never harmed us and who cannot defend themselves, who are utterly in our power..."
Tolstoy and Dukhobor (Orthodox Russian Christian) were of the opinion that meat-eating is against the tenets of Christianity.
His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Founder-Acarya of ISKCON (Hare Krishna Movement) concludes: "...There are many rascals who violate their own religious principles. While it clearly says according to Judeo-Christian scriptures, "Thou shalt not kill," they are giving all kinds of excuses. Even the heads of religions indulge in killing animals while trying to pass as saintly persons. This mockery and hypocrisy in human society has brought about unlimited calamities..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul's teachings and interpretations

And it's absolutely amazing that Paul actually tells it himself:
"...One man's faith (in the idea of salvation from the cross) allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith (in the cross) is weak, eats only vegetables..." (Roman 14:2)
The smoking gun is right there: It is Paul's concept of faith in the salvific nature of the cross, declaring the Torah obsolete which leads him to view the vegetarianism of the apostles as dietetic fanaticism of Nazarene Jewish origin and hence dispensable.
Further proof are at hand. In fact the following statements make no sense whatsoever, unless we agree that Paul needed to convince a large section of early Christians, that there was no problem with eating meat.
"Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.
All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God..." (Rom 14:20-22)
In other words it is O.K. to eat meat as long as nobody is offended and the community of Christians is not disturbed.
He goes on:
"If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake-- the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:27-31)
In other words as far as eating meat, even when offered in sacrifice, Paul had no scruples unless it is declared, that meat is offered in sacrifice. In this case do not eat it, to avoid to offend others.
It is very clear: It needed to be saying that meat eating is allowed. There were Christians who are vegetarians. Beware of meat offered in sacrifice. Because besides the vegetarian Christians there were others who were less strict but who would not approve of the idea of eating meat offered in sacrifice. Meat eating in general is allowed, according to Paul:
"Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, 'The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.'"
(1 Cor 10:25-26)
Again, this makes no sense unless there must have been Christians who found it difficult to reconcile with their conscience to buy meat in the market.
And again more:
"As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died." (Roman 14:14-15)
Later this point of view is reflected in Timothy, possibly addressing early Christian sects like the later banned Enkratites:
"...They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving..." (1 Timothy 4:3-4)
So we can see that there was obviously a large group of people who did not agree with meat eating in general (hence he says don't let it be a matter of conscience to you when buying meat in the market). Definitely the issue was not about eating food offered in sacrifice, as made out by Christian theologians.
The tensions between Paul are further reflected in the way how he addresses the disciples of Jesus. He makes it perfectly clear that their opinions are not what Paul is overly concerned with.
He sarcastically describes the Apostles in Jerusalem (James, Peter) as "those Super Apostles", "those reputed to be the Pillars":
"...But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles." I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way."
(2 Cor 11:5-6)
He clearly is preaching a different Jesus then the Apostles in Jerusalem. Hence he warns his followers:
"...For if someone comes to you and preaches A JESUS OTHER THAN THE JESUS WE PREACHED, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."
(2 Cor 11:4)
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" (Gal 1:8-9)
"And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." (2 Cor 11:12-14)

Haha, du anvender alverdens tilfældige tekster som sande, bare de passer ind i dit kram. Men nej, hverken Jesus eller hans disciple var vegetarer:

Så kom den dag under de usyrede brøds fest, da påskelammet skulle slagtes. Og Jesus sendte Peter og Johannes af sted og sagde: »Gå hen og forbered det påskemåltid, vi skal spise.« De spurgte: »Hvor vil du have, at vi skal forberede det?« Han svarede dem: »Når I kommer ind i byen, vil I møde en mand, som bærer på en vandkrukke. Følg efter ham til det hus, han går ind i, og sig til husets ejer: Mesteren siger til dig: Hvor er der et rum, hvor jeg kan spise påskemåltidet sammen med mine disciple? Så vil han vise jer et stort rum ovenpå med hynder; dér skal I forberede det.« De gik og fandt det sådan, som Jesus havde sagt, og de forberedte påskemåltidet.
Da timen var inde, satte han sig til bords sammen med apostlene, og han sagde til dem: »Jeg har længtes meget efter at spise dette påskemåltid sammen med jer, før jeg skal lide, for jeg siger jer: Jeg skal aldrig mere spise det, før det fuldendes i Guds rige.« (Lukas Evangeliet 22:7-15)

Johannes Døberen levede af græshopper og honning (altså det han kunne finde). Græshopper er ikke vegetarmad, hvis du skulle være i tvivl!

Enhver eftertænksom, religiøs person er selvfølgelig vegetar. Hvem andre end de mest afstumpede, uvidende mennesker vil støtte de uhyrlige massemord, der foregår dagligt på verdens slagterier? Kødindustrien er den mest skadelige, ugudelige industri på planeten.
Jesus prædikede til primitive, åndsfattige mennesker, der boede i en ørken. Det er svært at være vegetar i en ørken.
HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER
The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989

The Hunger Argument
Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60
million.
Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if
Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million
Human beings in America: 243 million
Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by
U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion
Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20
Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80
Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95
Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99
How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds
Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 20.OOO
Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 165
Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56
Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16

The Environmental Argument
Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect
Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from
fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free
diet: 50 times more
Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75
Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising:
85
Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce
meat-centered diet: 260 million
Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds
Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S.
housecat.
Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55
sq.ft.
Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical
rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year

The Cancer Argument
Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week
vs. less than once a week: 4 times
For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times
Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or
more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times
Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs.
sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times

The Natural Resources Argument
Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.:
livestock portion.
Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to
float a destroyer.
Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25
Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500
Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not
subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound
Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no
longer subsidized: 89 dollars
Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a
meat-centered diet: 13
Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260
Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million
Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient
factory farming of meat: 34.5
Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8
Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present
meat-centered diet: 33

The Cholesterol Argument
Number of U.S. medical schools: 125
Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30
Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four
years in medical school: 25 hours
Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack
How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds
Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc.
Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc.
Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood
cholesterol if it is: normal
Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your
blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc.

The Antibiotic Argument
Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55
Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in
1960: 13
Percentage resistant in 1988: 91
Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of
antibiotics to livestock: ban
Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding
of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support

The Pesticide Argument
Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by grains: 1
Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by fruits: 4
Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet suppl. by dairy products: 23
Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by meat: 55
Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat-eating mothers vs.
non meat-eating: 35 times higher
What USDA tells us: meat is inspected
Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxin
chemicals including dioxin and DDT: less than 0.00004

The Ethical Argument
Number of animals killed for meat per hour in U.S.: 500.000
Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker
Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job injury in
U.S:slaughterhouse worker
Cost to render animal unconscious with captive bolt pistol before
slaughter.: 1 cent
Reason given by meat industry for non using that pistol: too expensive

The Survival Argument
Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time
winner) Food choices of Dave Scott: Vegetarian
Largest meat eater than ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex
Last sighting of Tyrannosaurus Rex: 100.000.000 B.C.

Famous vegetarians:
-------------------------------
Candice Bergen, David Bowie, Paul Mc Cartney, Darryl Hannah, Janet
Jackson, k.d.lang, Sting
'I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wit.'
--William Shakespeare "Twelfth Night," Act I, Scene 3

Jesus forkyndte hovedsageligt i Judæa, som ikke er en ørken. Især var mange af hans disciple fiskere (de er heller ikke vegetarer). Fiskerne fiskede på Genesaret sø - en udmærket ferskvandssø med masser af vand.
Må man spise fisk ifølge din tro?

Krishna siger:
Efter mange, mange fødsler, overgiver den, der besidder virkelig viden, sig til Mig, idet han ved, at Jeg er alle årsagers årsag og alt der er til. En sådan sjæl er meget sjælden. (Bg. 7.19)
De, hvis intelligens er blevet stjålet af materielle ønsker, overgiver sig til halv-guder, og dyrker dem ifølge de særlige regler foreskrifter, der stemmer overens med deres egen natur. (Bg. 7.20)
Jeg befinder Mig i alles hjerter som Oversjælen. Så snart nogen ønsker at tilbede en eller anden halvgud, er det Mig, der gør hans tro stærk,så han hengive sig til den særlige deitet. (Bg. 7.21)
Udstyret med en sådan tro bestræber han sig på at tilbede en særlig halvgud for at få sine ønsker opfyldt. Men i virkeligheden bliver disse ønsker begundstigede ene og alene af Mig. (Bg. 7.22)
Mindre intelligente personer tilbeder halvguderne, hvis begunstigelser er begrænsede og midlertidige. De, der tilbeder halvguderne når til halvgudernes planeter (de himmelske planeter), men Mine hengivne når til sidst Min suveræne planet (den åndelige sfære). (Bg. 7.23)
Uintelligente mennesker, der ikke kender Mig rigtigt, tror at Jeg (den Højeste Personlige Guddom, Krishna) først var upersonlig, og nu har påtaget Mig denne personlighed. Pga. deres minimale viden kender de ikke Min højere natur, der er uforgængelig og suveræn. (Bg. 7.24)

Nånå

Gud moftager ikke blodoffer.
Krishna siger:
Hvis man med kærlighed tilbyder Mig et blad, en blomst, frugt eller vand, vil Jeg tage imod det. (Bg. 9.26)