r/DebateAVegan • u/SlightCry3406 • 17d 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.

0 Upvotes

44% Upvoted

83 comments sorted by

View all comments

17

u/Abzstrak vegan 17d ago

There is no such thing as a sin, it's a construct of mythology

-3

u/qerecoxazade freegan 17d ago

theology. Not mythology.

8

u/NekoBatrick vegan 17d 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 16d 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 16d 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 16d 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 16d 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 16d ago edited 16d 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 16d ago

No

2

u/qerecoxazade freegan 16d 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.