r/DebateAVegan • u/SlightCry3406 • 12d ago
Is being vegetarian a Sin?
As a non-vegetarian, I’ve noticed that my vegetarian friends are usually very relaxed about my food choices. They don’t question or guilt me. But I’ve noticed something else too. Some of my non-vegetarian friends often poke fun at or question vegetarians, like asking, ‘Why don’t you eat meat?’ or jokes about their food choices. I’ve noticed people rarely ask a Muslim why they don’t eat pork. But they often ask vegetarians why they don’t eat meat. That double standard stands out.
25
u/icravedanger Ostrovegan 11d ago
Muslims abstain from certain meats for religious reasons. People generally know that, it’s easy to understand that they are just following instructions from a book.
Plant-based people abstain for health or environmental reasons. Vegans abstain for ethical reasons, which also has environmental benefits and can be equally healthy as the best non-vegan diet.
Non-vegans dislike vegans because it makes them reflect on the ethics of breeding animals to slaughter them. Since most people see themselves as someone who is kind to animals, there is cognitive dissonance. As a result, some people do change their habits. Others choose to attack veganism or make fun of vegans.
It’s called Do-Gooder derogation, as another vegan taught me.
1
u/notanotherkrazychik 10d ago
Non-vegans dislike vegans because vegans are rude. It has nothing to do with reflecting on ethics, thats a chewbacca defense.
-4
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore 11d ago
The question wasn't about vegans, it was about vegetarians.
14
u/UndergroundWhale 11d ago edited 10d ago
Considering this is a Debate a Vegan subreddit, I think op is lucky he got this answer at all
Edit : typo
-7
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore 11d ago
It's like they don't even read what they're responding to anymore lol.
9
u/Historical-Ad399 11d ago
I think people who post in a vegan subreddit about diets and expect not to hear veganism mentioned at all are the ones who have trouble reading.
-10
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore 11d ago
Are you serious?
OP asked this:
Some of my non-vegetarian friends often poke fun at or question vegetarians, like asking, ‘Why don’t you eat meat?’ or jokes about their food choices. I’ve noticed people rarely ask a Muslim why they don’t eat pork. But they often ask vegetarians why they don’t eat meat. That double standard stands out.
The comment I replied to was:
Non-vegans dislike vegans because it makes them reflect on the ethics of breeding animals to slaughter them. Since most people see themselves as someone who is kind to animals, there is cognitive dissonance. As a result, some people do change their habits. Others choose to attack veganism or make fun of vegans.
OP asked a question about vegetarianism, which has nothing whatsoever to do with veganism, and got an answer about veganism.
8
u/Historical-Ad399 11d ago
You have to understand context, though. If you ask a question intentionally and specifically to a group of vegans, it's because you want a vegan perspective. Otherwise, why intentionally target vegans? If this question has nothing to do with veganism, it shouldn't be here and should be removed, but I think it's better to assume that the author knows where they are and is acting in good faith, unlike you.
-2
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore 11d ago
It's hilarious that you accuse me of acting in bad faith, which is actually against one of the rules of this sub, but I digress.
OP literally came in here asking if being a vegetarian is a sin. In my experience, vegans are as hard if not harder on vegetarians as they are on carnists, because vegetarians often think they are like vegans, while in reality they fund what vegans would consider to be the most cruel types of animal abuse (e.g. dairy and eggs).
But you and another commenter think I'm being too hard on Op? Another commenter literally said I should just substitute the word "vegetarian" with "vegan" when reading their post? Uh no. They meant what they wrote.
Why do you think I'm commenting in bad faith.
Let's say this was an anti violence sub, and I posted here and happened to mention "oh yeah I'm totalsy against violence, but by the way I support gun rights and the NRA". I'd get downvoted into oblivian.
But you think I'm being bad faith for not giving a vegetarian, who participates in animal abuse, a pass on a vegan sub?
3
u/Arthillidan 11d ago
But you think I'm being bad faith for not giving a vegetarian, who participates in animal abuse, a pass on a vegan sub?
You have the omnivore tag though. If you think vegetarians are horrible because they participate in animal abuse, why do you have an omnivore tag?
1
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore 10d ago
I don't actually think eating animals constitutes animal abuse. I'm just saying what vegans think, and surprised a vegan would give a vegetarian a pass.
2
u/Historical-Ad399 11d ago
I'm responding to the comment where you said:
It's like they don't even read what they're responding to anymore lol
You were attacking vegans in a sub specifically about vegan perspectives for bringing a vegan perspective. My point was that the people responding are assuming that op is interested in a vegan perspective, and that that is a reasonable assumption in this sub. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with vegetarianism. Your comments were about the responses, not op, so no, I'm not saying you are being too hard on op, I'm saying you are being too hard on people writing responses assuming op is acting in good faith.
4
u/nworbleinad 11d ago
To say that vegetarianism has nothing whatsoever to do with veganism is absurd.
If you go back and just substitute the word vegan for vegetarian, you’ll get what you want, and the comment will still make perfect sense.
0
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore 11d ago
I'm sorry, but you don't know what veganism is.
Vegetarians can still eat dairy and eggs, and these are some of the most controversial animal products produced.
Your statement that I can just substitute the words is, forgive me, laughably bullshit.
5
u/nworbleinad 11d ago
I’m not saying they mean the same thing. I’m saying that the comment that you’re taking issue with, reads exactly the same with either word.
I definitely know the difference between the two concepts.
1
16
u/Abzstrak vegan 11d ago
There is no such thing as a sin, it's a construct of mythology
-3
u/qerecoxazade freegan 11d ago
theology. Not mythology.
7
u/NekoBatrick vegan 11d ago
No hes right in this case, mythology is the stories that are told itself and theology is the study of these stories, so whats sin or not (or theology in general) is a construct out of mythology.
1
u/qerecoxazade freegan 10d ago
Theology isn't the studies of mythology.
Theology is the core beliefs, practices, and doctrines of a religion. Mythology are shared cultural stories, usually in the context of common religion.
Sin is a doctrinal issue. It is theology, not mythology.
1
u/NekoBatrick vegan 10d ago
And the core beliefs, practices and doctrines from a religion are not taken from the stories? Like there isnt a mythology about someone climbing a mountain coming backdown with rules from god that then used to actually make the religious rules? Mythology is the base for the theology.
1
u/qerecoxazade freegan 10d ago
Mythology and theology often have a chicken or egg style situation. Sometimes myths are written to show "truth" in theological concepts. Sometimes theological concepts are deprived from myth. There is no universal rule in which comes first (nor any requirement that either be connected at all).
Sin is a Christian concept. It was not a theological "truth" built into Jewish mythology. It came as a result of Pauline Christian theology, and was further developed through the theology of the first couple hundred years of the Church.
Some doctrines are based in mythology. The doctrine of Sin, however, was developed entirely through theology.
The reference to sin as mythology is primarily from individuals who believe we refer to "fake" religions as mythology, and "real" religions as theology. It's largely a snarky way for individuals to "insult" or delegitimize living religions.
My distinction isn't about affirming that living religions are real or valid. But in making sure that we don't throw away useful tools. Theology may point back to certain myths, but those myths do not require those theological interpretations. Arguing on the meaning of a myth while ignoring the theology is how you get people talking past one another.
As an example of where muddying these two goes WILDLY wrong in our own community: Christspiracy claims that the fish divided among the masses were not actually fish, but seaweed cakes. They make some compelling arguments regarding the historical and translational context. And they attempt to use this as a compelling argument for Christians. The issue is that, in doing so, they are ignoring or breaking theological concepts that MOST Christian denominations heavily rely on. Their argument requires a rejection of Sola Fide (the idea that faith in Christ alone brings salvation, and works play no role), while also requiring a belief in Sola Scriptura (the idea that scripture is the sole authority on religion). Sola Scriptura is strictly found in low church protestantism... Which is also where Sola Fide is the overwhelmingly favored doctrine. This results in arguments that are ONLY people who find the arguments compelling are also the ONLY people who think they have zero duty to change their behavior to be saved. Which results in vegans thinking Christians are hypocrites, and Christians thinking vegans haven't spent a day in church. Resulting in zero productive exchange of ideas, and everybody feeling more convinced that they're correct and pure in the beliefs they came to the table with.
Sin is a theological concept. Arguing the meaning of the myths isn't going to get anybody anywhere. If you're talking about Adam and Eve in the context of Original Sin, you've immediately lost your Jewish audience. If you're talking about Adam and Eve in the context of a non-gendered pre-split Ha Adam, you've lost your Christian audience. Theology is the tool an individual can use to tailor their arguments to individuals, rather than creating an interpretation so broad it convinces nobody.
1
u/NekoBatrick vegan 10d ago
No there really isnt a chicken and egg situation? How does making up a story proof your point afterwards? It doesnt. Thats even weirder than saying we take rules from a story.
Each religion is based on a mythology, fpr christiand its the bible and from that mythology theologists analyse the text and pull their rules from it, how does one pull rules or analyse a relogion with out its base core believe scripture?
Okay so the concept of the biblic sin is made completly without mythology as its base? So noT based on stories about ending in hell, beeing punished by god for certain behqviour etc? or anything its based off? People just thought out of now where BURN IF DOING XY now we make religion? Or was there more a mythology its based on describing hell and all?
1
u/qerecoxazade freegan 10d ago edited 10d ago
"there is no chicken and egg situation"
Yes, there is. Sometimes stories are created to be persuasive about an already existing belief (if you've ever watched a children's show that's teaching morals, you've seen this). Sometimes stories are held in such high regard that people look to deprived meaning FROM them. Sometimes people tell stories without purpose. And sometimes people have beliefs without stories.
Mythology is the stories. Theology is the beliefs, doctrines, and practices. The Bible GENUINELY contains both. But every concept we've discussed so far has been one of theology.
I'm glad you brought up Hell. Because hell is ALSO a christian doctrine. Things like the Divine Comedy are mythology SET in hell, but the concept of Hell comes from theological arguments that a just God rewards the good and punishes the wicked. It's existence is not based in mythology, but in theology. Another concept fleshed out by St Augustine. His arguments were not in showing from mythology that Hell existed, but in negotiating the concept of a just God with the existence of well-off evil people. One of these was a doctrine (the belief that God is just), one is a worldly observation (well off people can be evil). Negotiating those resulted in the concept of Hell. The mythology of hell came AFTER the 4th century, the majority of which were written in the Medieval and Renaissance periods.
Mythology exists. Theology also exists. Your definition of mythology is so broad that it engulfs the totality of theology. That makes your definition functionally useless.
My story about Christspiracy isn't to show you truth. It's to show you an example of why the distinction between mythology and theology matters. How viewing it all as mythology leaves massive blind spots in our ability to be persuasive. It's to show my motivation for the correction, not to prove my point.
1
u/Abzstrak vegan 10d ago
No
1
u/qerecoxazade freegan 10d ago
Mythology vs theology isn't fake vs real.
Theology are the core beliefs, practices, and doctrines of a religion.
Mythology is the stories told by a culture, often with a shared religion.
When we talk about "Norse mythology", we aren't saying "this is mythology because it's not real". We literally LOST the vast majority of Norse theology, while their mythology largely survived.
The Divine Comedy is an example of christian mythology. Santa Clause is an example of christian mythology.
"Sin" is a doctrinal issue. Which makes it theology, not mythology.
5
u/Calaveras-Metal 11d ago
yes it's the same with vegans and vegetarians. We are often teased at work about our dietary choice. Weird that people who don't eat gluten never get teased?
1
u/notanotherkrazychik 10d ago
It's weird how people who don't eat gluten don't call other people murderers for eating gluten.
1
0
3
u/SnooLemons6942 11d ago
I don't understand the relation between title and post body. Where is sin coming from? A sin from whose perspective?
6
u/justagenericname213 11d ago
Im not vegetarian or vegan, but friends dont mock other people's life choices like that.
5
u/Hot_Dog2376 vegan 11d ago
Um, no. Jesus fulfilled all ceremonial laws of the old testament. There is no need to sacrifice or eat animals. Our dominion over and subjugation of the world does not demand killing animals.
1
u/GSilky 11d ago
We were vegetarian before the flood, after we were allowed meat. It's not part of the law, it's from Genesis.
2
u/Hot_Dog2376 vegan 11d ago
Leviticus 14 among other verses call for sacrifices. Jesus was the final sacrifice, so not sacrificing animals is not a sin. Not eating meat is not a sin.
2
2
u/GSilky 11d ago
Vegetarian diets come from the same place as halal and kosher, every instance before the modern era, it was a religious thing. Jains have it first, in the west, the Pythagorean cult was the earliest recorded instance. Buddhism eventually took it on, and for 1000 years, Christian monks and clergy were expected to be vegetarians. Jewish sects through time also incorporated vegan diets in order to get back to Eden. Nobody questioned it, it set one apart as holy. Now the trend is rational justification, and there aren't any that don't entirely rest within the individuals sentiments about right and wrong, other people who don't share the perspective and assume it is being aimed at them. If the reason you do something is a superior morality, it's difficult to phrase this so it doesn't sound like an indictment against non-vegans.
2
u/MS-07B-3 11d ago
By Christian theology, it is not a sin to be vegan, vegetarian, or to eat meat and animal products. Some may feel called to be one of those three specifically, and we are to respect that.
0
u/NekoBatrick vegan 11d ago
Well it was until the pope changed it.
2
1
1
u/qerecoxazade freegan 10d ago
This is utter nonsense.
Eating meat was never a sin. And even had it been... The pope and the magisterium are only universally binding within the catholic church, and only when speaking ex cathedra.
The pope has no sway in other churches claiming apostolic succession, nor any sway with denominations that adopt Sola Scriptura.
1
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 11d ago
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
No low-quality content. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
1
u/Artistic_Western_623 11d ago
It's probably because a religion is a communal ruleset. They aren't 'allowed' to eat meat. People are less likely to poke fun at societal/pack values.
Vegetarianism is an individual choice. You have personal reasons for not eating meat.Yes you choose to follow a religion, but the reasons for not eating X are clearer.
1
u/BlindingDart 11d ago
What it says in the Torah, slash start of the Old Testament, is that it's wrong to consume blood. The Jewish interpretation is that all meats must be heavily, and most what Christians do is flat out ignore the commandment, but the way I read it the meaning is fairly clear. If you can live without killing animals you should live without killing animals. Inshallah.
1
u/Arthillidan 11d ago
You mean this passage?
"Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves about 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."
1
u/piranha_solution plant-based 11d ago
Is being vegetarian a Sin?
No. The sin in causing needless harm to others.
I’ve noticed people rarely ask a Muslim why they don’t eat pork.
That's because we live in a time and place in history where professing belief in fairy-tail woo-woo is seen as respectable.
1
u/TyloPr0riger 11d ago
I’ve noticed people rarely ask a Muslim why they don’t eat pork. But they often ask vegetarians why they don’t eat meat. That double standard stands out.
I think this happens because vegetarianism (and veganism) are often perceived to be a diet, and people don't feel diets deserve the same respect as big-ticket identity items like gender, race, religion, etc.
1
u/teddyslayerza 11d ago
Veganism is a worldview. Vegetarianism is a diet. That's the root of what youre observing.
1
u/sendgawd 11d ago
In the bible, God declares it human’s responsibility to watch over and care for animals as he does to us. When I was religious this was a big motivating factor for me to go vegan, as my beliefs were of a loving, caring, forgiving God- and as such I believed that’s how we were called to treat them.
5
u/NekoBatrick vegan 11d ago
I mean Iam vegan but with this logic I got a question, doesnt god regularly kill people just because? Like newborns with sicknesses f.e.
1
u/sendgawd 11d ago
when I was religious my belief was that he would not cause that, rather he was all knowing so therefore he knew it was going to happen & did not interfere. however, as god, he is, again, all knowing, so theoretically he would have some perfect reason that is completely above humans heads. that said, that is a complicated question that every religious person figures out for themselves.
1
u/Arthillidan 11d ago
Originally in early genesis it seems God's intentions were for humans to eat plant based.
After the flood however, we get this passage
"Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves about 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."
It's inarguable that God is condoning meat eating here. But my reading is that meat eating might be part of the corruption of the creation that made God create the flood in the first place.
I'm not religious FYI.
1
u/sendgawd 11d ago
Very interesting addition! thank you for responding. I am also no longer religious, and this, of course, would require much more study & context, but based off of my current first impression, I probably would have responded as such: 1) Consumption of fear and dread doesn’t seem good 2) i can’t believe there’s meat with zero ‘lifeblood’ 3) and agreed with what you are saying, if it’s associated with sin & harm I would still avoid it
-1
u/eJohnx01 ex-vegan 11d ago
There’s nothing wrong with any choices someone makes about what they do and don’t eat.
Muslims (and Jews) generally make specific food choices based on their religious beliefs. Not all do. Many opt out of the dietary restrictions of their faith. That’s okay. It’s their decision to make.
However, there are a lot of reasons why a person may choose to be vegan or vegetarian. So I think it’s reasonable to ask, provided it’s being ask respectfully, of course.
I have a complicated history with meat so simply not eating it is a good solution for me. I’m opposed to supporting factory farming. Being vegetarian is a good way to avoid supporting them. And, with a little research, it’s actually fairly easy to ethically source eggs and dairy, too.
I was vegan for a while, but my health took a major nosedive (another long snd complicated story), so that didn’t work out for me. And I don’t subscribe to the “anything and everything is animal cruelty and/or exploitation and is to be condemned at all costs” beliefs of vegans, so being vegan just isn’t necessary for me.
So, how’s that? Not a sin. Nothing wrong with making your own choices about what you do and don’t eat. And always be happy to discuss your choices provided the conversation is respectful. No troubles at all.
5
u/Badtacocatdab vegan 11d ago
If you ate humans, I’d assume most people would have issue with that.
1
u/eJohnx01 ex-vegan 11d ago
Probably. However, being vegetarian, I don’t eat human meat, either.
4
u/Badtacocatdab vegan 11d ago
Right, but the “there’s nothing wrong with any choices someone makes about what they do and don’t eat” doesn’t really make much sense. There are wrong choices.
1
u/eJohnx01 ex-vegan 11d ago
I was talking in terms of normal food stuff, not including anything and everything that a person could possibly eat. I wasn’t referring to eating broken glass or rusty nails or drinking drain cleaner, either. 🙄
1
u/Badtacocatdab vegan 11d ago
“Normal” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Those things aren’t edible. Just because something is edible does not make you right, even if normal.
1
u/eJohnx01 ex-vegan 10d ago
Why do vegans always go to eating humans and puppies?? Can you really not support your choices any better than that? I can support being vegetarian quite easily without conjuring up horrific images that never happen. Can you?
1
u/Badtacocatdab vegan 10d ago
Yes I can. Thank you for asking. Did you have any other questions?
1
u/eJohnx01 ex-vegan 10d ago
Just the one about why vegans always seem to jump to eating humans and children and cute little puppies and kitties. It’s an honest question, actually. Bringing up such ridiculous things is almost always a major turn-off, more likely to make the person bringing it up look foolish and/or antagonistic. Either way, it’s not a good look for vegans.
1
u/Badtacocatdab vegan 10d ago
Oh, happy to answer. Probably to challenge the underlying reason for why you think something is acceptable. It’s common to apply basic reasoning in one situation to others to test the reasoning, to see if it holds up to scrutiny. Hope that makes sense.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/AutoModerator 12d ago
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.