Windows 10 1703 download iso italy vsign – J. PURVER RICHARDSON.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The way to spoil a child is to give it all it wants and require nothing in return. The way to make a child grow up sensible and unselfish is to give it little, and require of it much.

For it is not what others do for us that benefits us, but what we do for ourselves and others. Some one truly said, the best way for a man to train up a child in the way it should go, is to travel that way sometimes himself. I Kings, i, 6 —”His father had not displeased him at any time in saying, ‘Why hast thou done so? A young man, as he was going to the place of execution, desired to whisper something into his mother’s ear; but when she came, instead of whispering, he bit off her ear, telling her, that it was because she did not chastise him for his faults when a boy, he was brought to such an unhappy end.

Could it be believed that a child should be forced to learn the rudiments of a language which he is never to use, and neglect the writing a good hand, and casting accounts? I never hear parents exclaim impatiently, “Children, you must not make so much noise,” that I do not think how soon the time may come when, beside the vacant chair, those parents would give all the world, could they hear once more the ringing laughter which once so disturbed them.

Whatever parent gives his children good instruction, and sets them at the same time a bad example, may be considered as bringing them food in one hand, and poison in the other. Children have neither past nor future; and what scarcely ever happens to us, they enjoy the present.

Children should not be flattered, but they should be encouraged. They should not be so praised as to make them vain and proud, but they should be commended when they do well.

Guthrie —He believed—to use his own words—that “where parents will never punish their children, those children will punish them. A man who gives his children habits of industry, provides for them better than by giving them a fortune.

Choose rather to leave your children well instructed than rich. For the hopes of the learned are better than the riches of the ignorant. You would not be in a Japanese house long without noticing their extreme politeness, and that this politeness was especially shown by children toward their parents. The one thing that Japanese children must learn is perfect obedience; a child would as soon think of refusing to do a thing altogether, when told, as to ask why he must do it.

As she paid no attention, the others thought she had not heard, and began to say to her: “Your august father is calling you,” “Your honorable parent is beckoning to you,” and so on.

The children stopped playing and looked at her in astonishment. Her father called her again. This time she answered crossly, “I don’t want to come in. What for? At this the children picked up their playthings and hurried home, talking excitedly all the way. Do not confine your children to your own learning, for they were born in another time.

Children think not of what is past, nor what is to come, but enjoy the present time, which few of us do. Children —I love these little people; and it is not a slight thing when they, who are so fresh from God, love us. Love of children is always the indication of a genial nature, a pure and unselfish heart. Spurgeon said : “With children we must mix gentleness with firmness; they must not always have their own way, but they must not always be thwarted.

If we never have headaches through rebuking them, we shall have plenty of heartaches when they grow up. If you yield up your authority once, you will hardly ever get it again. Parents deserve reproof when they refuse to benefit their children by proper discipline. Their Little Needs —It is often asserted that both men and women would be selfish beings but for children. They call out, and refine, and soften the best feelings of the parental heart. Their little needs are so many, and their simple ignorance so affecting, and their very caprices so winning, that love and attention flow out to them almost instinctively.

That must be a hardened nature which can be unmoved by the soft touch, the playful childishness, and the hundred little pranks of a baby. You can not expect better manners from your children than you teach them. They imitate instinctively. Children should be taught early to sympathize with the deformed, the crippled, and otherwise unfortunate beings: A little dwarfed girl in one of our great cities committed [ 76 ] suicide a few years ago because she was so weary of being laughed at and ridiculed by her associates in the streets and at school.

An old street pedlar was set upon by school children and so annoyed and misused that he became insane. A young preacher recently called upon an eminent Divine, and in the course of conversation asked him how many children he had. At the supper-table, the visitor perceived two beautiful children seated by the side of the mother. Turning to his host, he said, “I thought you had four children, sir: Where are the other two?

Samuel Johnson once said, “Above all, accustom your children constantly to tell the truth; without varying in any circumstance. Children are travelers newly arrived in a strange country; we should therefore make conscience not to mislead them. A lady had two children—both girls. The elder was a fair child; the younger a beauty, and the mother’s pet. Her whole love centered in it. The elder was neglected, while “Sweet” the pet name of the younger received every attention that affection could bestow.

One day, after a severe illness, the mother was sitting in the parlor, when she heard a childish footstep on the stairs, and her thoughts were instantly with the favorite.

The mother’s heart smote her; and from that hour “only me” was restored to an equal place in her affections. Be careful to discountenance in children anything that looks like rage and furious anger. Luke, xxiv, 29 —”Abide with us, for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. The following description is alleged to be derived from an ancient manuscript sent by Publius Lentellus, President of Judea, to the Senate of Rome:.

The barbarians esteem Him as their prophet; but His followers adore Him as the immediate offspring of the immortal God. He is endowed with such unparalleled virtue as to call back the dead from their graves and to heal every kind of disease with a word or a touch. His person is tall and elegantly shaped; His aspect, amiable and reverend; His hair flows in those beauteous shades which no united colors can match, falling in graceful curls below His ears, agreeably couching on His shoulders, and parting on the crown of His head; His dress, that of the sect of Nazarites; His forehead is smooth and large; His cheeks without blemish, and of roseate hue; His nose and mouth are formed with exquisite symmetry; His beard is thick and suitable to the hair of His head, reaching a little below His chin, and parting in the middle below; His eyes are clear, bright, and serene.

No man has seen Him laugh, but the whole world beholds Him weep frequently, and so persuasive are His tears that the whole multitude can not withhold their tears from joining in sympathy with Him.

He is moderate, temperate, and wise; in short, whatever the phenomenon may turn out in the end, He seems at present to be a man of excellent beauty and Divine perfection, every way surpassing man.

To turn one’s back on the Memorial Supper is to disregard the most tender, and loving, and melting of all our Saviour’s commandments. It is not needful to know just how obedience will help us. It is enough to know that it was His dying command that we keep it till He come. No man ought to profess the name of Christ who is not willing to do the deeds of Christ. Our Saviour is represented everywhere in Scripture as the special patron of the poor and afflicted.

He that thinks he hath no need of Christ hath too high thoughts of himself. He that thinks Christ can not help him hath too low thoughts of Christ. He that is a good man, is three-quarters of his way towards the being a good Christian, wheresoever he lives, or whatsoever he is called. As Henry Drummond, on board a government packet, was steaming away from that group of islands known as the New Hebrides, after having visited the missions there, he was asked by a fellow-passenger who had been visiting the islands for a very different purpose, what good the missionary had been to those people.

Even Matthew Arnold was forced to admit that there is no civilization without it. A visiting bishop, in Washington, was arguing with a senator on the desirability of attending church. At last he put the question squarely: “What is your personal reason for not attending?

The senator smiled in a no-offense-intended way, as he replied: “The fact is, one finds so many hypocrites there.

It has seemed sometimes in recent years as if the deaths were more than the births. This has brought home to the Church the absolute need of the revival of religion if Christianity is not to perish from the world which it has re-made.

The Church is not an establishment in the world, but an encampment. She has no natural increase. She lives only by capture, by winning over from the world the citizens that make her number. One must arm another with the Christian panoply, if the Church is to continue. I was once preaching in Scotland, and when I got to the church it was so cold that I could see my breath three feet away, said Rev.

I said to the “beadle,” as they call him:. Note: In Dr. Guthrie’s Autobiography , vol. I, page —Describing the first church he became pastor of, in Arbirlot, in , he says: “As to stoves, they were never thought of—the pulpit had to keep the people warm.

A minister, observing that some of his people made a practice of coming in very late, and after a considerable part of the sermon was over, determined that they should feel the force of public reproof. One day, therefore, as they entered the place of worship at their usual late hour, the minister, addressing his congregation, said: “But, my hearers, it is time for us now to conclude, for here are our friends just come to fetch us home. We may easily conjecture what the parties felt at this curious but pointed address.

A country minister in Scotland, who was much annoyed by two members of his congregation, Macpherson and [ 83 ] Macintosh, sleeping during the sermon, hit upon a way to put an end to this state of matters. Calling on Macintosh, he said: “By the way, Mr. Macintosh, have you ever noticed Mr. Macpherson sleeping during the sermon? Then the minister went to Macpherson and went through the same programme concerning Macintosh.

Next Sunday it was highly amusing to those in the secret to see Macintosh and Macpherson sitting next to each other, both perfectly wide awake. When once thy foot enters the church, beware, God is more there than thou; for thou art there only by His permission. Then beware and make thyself all reverence and fear. Take the child to church, whether he likes it or not. What he likes has nothing to do with it; what is best for him is the only question. There are two classes of people in the church; the one is made up of those who do the hard work of the church, and the other of those who sit at home and—criticise.

A great merchant was asked by what means he contrived to realize so large a fortune as he possessed. His reply was: “Friend, by one article alone, in which thou may’st deal too if thou pleasest—civility. I do not envy a clergyman’s life as an easy life, nor do I envy the clergyman who makes it an easy life. A clergyman should never come tired before his people, but rather like an engine when it leaves the round-house, oiled, equipped with fuel and water, and with all its strength waiting to be put forth.

In his last annual report, President Eliot states that the average age of students entering Harvard is eighteen years of age and ten months. He then intimates that if students could be induced to enter college earlier, as they did in Emerson’s time, there would be fewer failures. If this was done generally, there would be a levelling up, instead of a levelling down. Every one must see daily instances of people who complain, from a mere habit of complaining. A compliment is usually accompanied with a bow, as if to beg pardon for paying it.

Deference is the most complicate, the most indirect, and the most elegant of all compliments. Legitimate Sport —Those who fish for compliments deserve to get a bite. I’ve never any pity for conceited people, because I think they carry their comfort about with them.

Conceit may puff a man up, but never prop him up. Many persons are obliged to their imagination for more than three-fourths of their importance. Money dishonestly acquired is never worth its cost, while a good conscience never costs as much as it is worth. Conscience, that sound of God in the human heart, whose “still small voice” the loudest revelry can not drown.

Do even as you will, that this dispute live not between us as a consuming fire forever! A favorite saying of the beloved Dr. John A. Broaddus was: “It is better to like what you have, than to have what you like. If you live according to nature, you never will be poor; if according to the world’s caprice, you never will be rich.

To be content with little is difficult; to be content with much—impossible. He that is rich need not live sparingly, and he that can live sparingly need not be rich. Is it possible to find perfect contentment? Some one once said:—”The secret of perfect contentment is, that there isn’t any.

Contentment is a pearl of great price, and whoever procures it at the expense of ten thousand desires, makes a wise and happy purchase. He is a wise man who does not grieve for the things which he has not, but rejoices for those which he has. The first ingredient in conversation is truth, the next good sense, the third good humor, and the fourth wit.

Conversation is the music of the mind; an intellectual orchestra, where all the instruments should bear a part, but where none should play together. Never argue in society; if any person differs from you, bow, and turn the conversation.

One of the best rules in conversation is, never say a thing which any of the company can reasonably wish had been left unsaid. Corporations have no souls :—Lord Chancellor Thurlow said, “that corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned; they therefore do as they like. The thatched cottage where one is merry, is preferable to a palace where one weeps. The character of a man’s native country is as strongly impressed on his mind as its accent is on his tongue.

The fact that the following verses are heard to-day proves their “convenience,” to say the least, for they were written by William Livingston in ——. The wise men of Greece were asked which was the best governed country. Clemenese replied, “the people who have more respect for the laws than the orators. The courtesy with which I receive a stranger, and the civility I show him, form the background on which he paints my portrait. Courtship and Marriage. Courtship may be said to consist of a number of quiet attentions, not so pointed as to alarm, nor so vague as not to be understood.

Ever afterward, in walking along, he kept his eye fixed steadily upon the ground in hopes to find another. And in the course of a long life he did pick up, at different times, a goodly number of coins, gold and silver. But all these years, while he was looking for them, he saw not that the heavens were bright above him, and nature beautiful around.

He never once allowed his eye to look up from the mud and filth in which he sought his treasure; and when he died—a rich old man—he only knew this fair earth as a dirty road to pick up money as you walk along. Thus you see the desire of having is the sin of covetousness. There are two directly opposite reasons why some men cannot get credit—one is because he is not known—the other because he is.

Some one has said that finding fault is done on a smaller capital than any other business, and it is a very fascinating business, too, for people of—small calibre. The culture of a man is like the changing of raw material into the manufactured article. The uncultured man is comparatively helpless and worthless. One of the Fathers said: “That there is but this difference between the death of old and young men,—that old men go to death, and death comes to young men.

There was a certain nobleman who kept a fool, to whom he one day gave a staff, with a charge to keep it till he should meet with one who was a greater fool than himself. Not many years after, the nobleman fell sick, even unto death. The fool came to see him: his lord said to him—”I must shortly leave you. Within a month? Here then, take my staff; for with all my folly, I am not guilty of any such folly as this.

The divinity who rules within us, forbids us to leave this world without his command. When a man dies, they who survive him, ask what property he has left behind.

The angel who bends over the dying man, asks what good deeds he has sent before him. Let him that hath done the good office conceal it; let him that hath received it disclose it. He that despiseth them despiseth God that made them. True delicacy, that most beautiful heart-leaf of humanity, exhibits itself most significantly in little things. Remember that your dependents have seldom a full power of replying to you; and let the recollection of that make you especially considerate in your dealings with them.

Honorable descent is in all nations greatly esteemed; besides, it is to be expected that the children of men of worth will be like their fathers. Not till after the death of a member of Parliament, a prominent county magistrate, the owner of large estates, and an active, public-spirited man in all local and national matters, was it known by those who had not seen him, that it was but the misshapen block of a man that had lived this active, manly life.

He was born with neither legs nor arms. After his death his story was told: how he resolved, when but a boy, to act and live as did other boys, without regard to his horrible misfortune; how he persisted in studying every book, in learning every game, in joining in every amusement possible to him, with his companions.

How, to the last year of his life, he held himself to be as responsible as other men, and bravely paid every tithe of duty to God and to his fellows. Even in lesser matters in life he pressed to the front.

He was the most genial, witty guest at social dinner tables. Strapped to his horse, he hunted foxes in Yorkshire, or tigers in India, and with his brothers made long journeys in other parts of the world. Everywhere his cheerfulness and gaiety gave new life to duller souls.

Roux, the celebrated French physician, said: “The greater part of preparation for the digestion of food takes place in the mouth. We have all met with a great many disappointments, and if we live much longer, shall likely meet with many more. Be discreet in all things, and so render it unnecessary to be mysterious about anything.

Thy friend has a friend, and thy friend’s friend has a friend;—be discreet. It is better occasionally to be deceived in people than for one to be always distrustful. Did you never observe that dogs have not the power of comparing?

A dog will take a small bit of meat as readily, when both are before him. Food remains for three days in the stomach of the dog, because God knew that his food would be scanty. If you are in doubt whether to write a letter or not—don’t! The advice applies to doubts in life besides that of letter writing. Those who think that in order to dress well, it is necessary to dress extravagantly or grandly, make a great mistake.

Nothing so well becomes true feminine beauty as simplicity. Numbers vi, 3. He said lately to a missionary, “suppose you put four thousand dollars in one hand, and a glass of rum in the other; you say, you drink this rum, I give you four thousand dollars, I no drink it; you say you kill me, I no drink it. In an address to a temperance society, Admiral Capps told a story which is printed in the New York Tribune.

You should have married a better man than I am. She looked at him, thin-limbed and stoop-shouldered, prematurely old, and answered, quietly, “I did, James. A person in Maryland, who was addicted to drunkenness, hearing a considerable uproar in his kitchen one night, felt the curiosity to step without noise to the door, to know what was the matter; when he found his servants indulging in the most unbounded roars of laughter at a couple of negro boys, who were mimicking himself in his drunken fits!

The pictures which these children of nature drew of him, and which had filled the rest with such inexhaustible merriment, struck him with [ ] so salutary a disgust, that from that night he became a perfectly sober man, to the great joy of his wife and children. Pray tell me whence you derive the origin of the word dun?

The true origin of this expression owes its birth to one Joe Dunn, a famous bailiff of the town of Lincoln, England, so extremely active, and so dexterous at the management of his rough business, that it became a proverb, when a man refused to pay his debts, “Why don’t you Dun him? Hence it grew a custom, and is now as old as since the days of Henry VII. When a minister preaches his sermon, he should do so fearlessly, i.

Duty :—I hate to see a thing done by halves; if it be right, do it boldly; if wrong, leave it undone. Whosoever contents himself with doing the little duties of the day, great things will, by-and-by, present themselves to him for their fulfilment also. If you take things easy when you ought to be doing your best work, you will probably have to keep hard at work when you might be taking it easy. Half of what we eat is sufficient to enable us to live, and the other half that we eat enables the doctors to live.

Economy is no disgrace; it is better living on a little, than living beyond your means. Economy is something like a savings-bank, into which we drop pennies and get dollars in return. Take care to be an economist in prosperity: there is no fear of your being one in adversity.

Every man must educate himself. His books and teacher are but helps; the work is his. Scottish Education. When his services were no longer required, the lady gave him a guinea and said, ‘Well, Jack, how are you going to spend your guinea? One would not imagine who has not given particular attention, that the body should be susceptible to such variety of attitudes and emotions, as readily to accompany every different emotion with a corresponding expression.

Humility for example, is expressed naturally by hanging the head; arrogance, by its elevation; and languor or despondence, by reclining it to one side.

The expressions of the hands are manifold by different attitudes and motions; they express desire, hope, fear; they assist us in promising, in inviting, in keeping one at a distance; they are made instruments of threatening, of supplication, of praise, and of horror; they are employed in approving, in refusing, in questioning; in showing our joy, our sorrow, our doubts, our regret, and our admiration.

Do good to thy friend, that he may be more thy friend; and unto thy enemy, that he may become thy friend. Boswell said of Dr. Johnson —”Though a stern true-born Englishman, and fully prejudiced against all other nations, he had discernment enough to see, and candour enough to censure, the cold reserve too common among Englishmen towards strangers. But two Englishmen will probably go each to a different window, and remain in obstinate silence.

Sir, we as yet do not enough understand the common rights of humanity. Rochefoucauld said, “The truest mark of being born with great qualities is being born without envy.

If we did but know how little some enjoy the great things they possess, there would not be so much envy in the world. All matches, friendships, and societies are dangerous and inconvenient, where the contractors are not equal. Sir Peter Lely made it a rule never to look at a bad picture, having found by experience that whenever he did so, his pencil took a tint from it. Bishop Home said of the above: “Apply this to bad books and bad company.

How quickly and quietly the eye opens and closes, revealing and concealing a world! The silent upbraiding of the eye is the very poetry of reproach; it speaks at once to the imagination. Old men’s eyes are like old men’s memories; they are strongest for things a long way off. The eyes of other people are the eyes that ruin us. If all but myself were blind, I should never want a fine house nor fine furniture. Every man is bound to tolerate the act of which he has himself given the example.

Among all classes of society we see extravagance keeping pace with prosperity, and indeed outstripping it, realizing Archbishop Whately’s paradox: “The larger the income, the harder it is to live within it. Nature has written a letter of credit on some men’s faces which is honored wherever it is presented. In Ross-shire, Scotland, there is an immense mountain gorge. The rocks have been rent in twain, and set apart twenty feet, forming two perpendicular walls two hundred feet in height.

On either side of these natural walls, in crevices where earth has collected, grow wild flowers of rare quality and beauty. A company of tourists visiting that part of the country were desirous to possess themselves of specimens of these beautiful mountain flowers; but how to obtain them they knew not.

At length they thought they might be gathered by suspending a person over the cliff by a rope. They offered a Highland boy, who was near by, a handsome sum of money to undertake the difficult and dangerous task.

The boy looked down into the awful abyss that yawned below, and shrunk from the undertaking; but the money was tempting. Could he confide in the strangers? Could he venture his life in their hands? He felt that he could not; but he thought of his father, and, looking once more at the cliff, and then at the proffered reward, his eyes brightened, and he exclaimed: “I’ll go if my father holds the rope.

It goes a great way toward making a man faithful, to let him understand that you think him so. All that a man gets by being untruthful is, that he is not believed when he speaks the truth. Telling an untruth is like leaving the highway and going into a tangled forest. You know not how long it will take you to get back, or how much you will suffer from the thorns and briers in the wild woods.

There is no greater mistake in social life than indulging in over-familiarity. Intercourse, even between intimate friends, should have some dignity about it. A family is a little world within doors; the miniature resemblance of the great world without.

It is a common complaint that the farm and farm life are not appreciated by our people. We long for the more elegant pursuits, or the ways and fashions, of the town. But the farmer has the most sane and natural occupation, and ought to find it sweeter, if less highly seasoned, than any other. He alone, strictly speaking, has a home.

How many ties, how many resources, he has! It humbles him, teaches him patience and reverence. Cling to the farm, make much of it, put yourself into it, bestow your heart and brain upon it.

Born Love for a Father. His [ ] daughters feared that those who had only motives entirely mercenary would not pay him that attention which he might expect from those who, from duty and affection united, would feel the greatest pleasure in ministering to his ease and comfort; they, therefore, resolved to accompany him.

They proved that it was not a spirit of dissipation and gaiety that led them to the springs, for they were not to be seen in any of the gay and fashionable circles; they were never out of their father’s company, and never stirred from home, except to attend him, either to take the air or drink the waters; in a word, they lived a most recluse life in the midst of a town then the resort of the most illustrious and fashionable personages of Europe.

This exemplary attention to their father procured these three amiable sisters the admiration of all the visitors at Spa, and was the cause of their elevation to that rank in life to which their merits gave them so just a title. They were all married to noblemen: one to the Earl of Beverly, another to the Duke of Hamilton, and a third to the Duke of Northumberland.

And it is justice to them to say that they reflected honor on their rank, rather than derived any from it. Lord Bolingbroke was one evening at a large party. Political subjects were talked of, and the conversation finally turned on the famous Duke of Marlborough. Every one had something to say against him, many blaming his avarice. Bolingbroke was silent. One of the company inquired, “How is it that you say nothing?

You knew him better than all of us, and could tell us a good deal about him. There is pleasure in meeting the eyes of one on whom you are going to confer a favor. We like better to see those on whom we confer benefits, than those, alas! It is not the quantity of the meat but the cheerfulness of the guests, which makes the feast. Every young man has a fine season in his life when he will accept no office, and every young woman has the same in hers, when she will accept no husband; by and by they both change, and often take one another into the bargain.

Boswell : “No quality will get a man more friends than a disposition to admire the qualities of others. I do not mean flattery, but a sincere admiration. In the first place, the flatterer may think what he says to be true; but in the second place, whether he thinks so or not, he certainly thinks those whom he flatters of consequence enough to be flattered.

What a desolate place would be a world without a flower! It would be a face without a smile—a feast without a welcome Are not flowers the stars of the earth? Infallible Test. If all fools wore white caps, the majority of us would look like a flock of geese. Young folks tell what they do, old ones what they have done, and the others fools what they intend to do.

If there is a harvest ahead, even a distant one, it is poor thrift to be stingy of your seed-corn! A retentive memory may be a good thing, but the ability to forget is the true token of greatness. A gentleman went to a friend, in great anger at a real injury he had received, which he intended to resent. After relating the particulars, he enquired if it would not be manly to resent it?

His friend replied, “Yes; it would doubtless be manly to resent it, but it would be godlike to forgive it. He that cannot forgive others, breaks down the bridge over which he must pass himself, for every one has need to be forgiven. Forgiveness that covers only part of the wrong, is like two fingers given in a handshake. The story is told of a British soldier who had broken every rule of the army and on whom every form of punishment had been inflicted without avail.

He sinned again. His commanding officer was in despair as to what should be done. A fellow officer said, “Suppose you try forgiveness. On being asked what he had to say in palliation of his offense, he hung his head and replied: “Nothing, except I’m very sorry.

Good-fortune comes to some people while they are asleep, i. How often it is, in the twinkling of an eye one vicissitude of fortune follows another. That which we acquire with most difficulty, we retain the longest; as those who have earned a fortune are usually more careful of it than those who have inherited one.

If fortune favors you, do not be too elated; if she frowns, do not despond too much. The Result of Fortune :—The generality of men sink in virtue as they rise in fortune. Don’t live in hope with your arms folded. Fortune smiles on those who roll up their sleeves and put their shoulders to the wheel.

Collins, the freethinker, met a plain countryman going to church. He asked him where he was going. He who attacks an absent friend, or who does not defend him when spoken ill of by another—that man is a dark character; beware of him.

A man may have a thousand intimate acquaintances and not a friend among them all. If you have one friend, think yourself happy. Go slowly to the entertainment of your friends, but quickly to their misfortunes. Leave a friend! So base I am not. I followed him in his prosperity, when the skies were clear and shining, and will not leave him when storms begin to rise; as gold is tried by the furnace, and the baser metal is shown, so the hollow-hearted friend is known by adversity.

No life is so strong and complete, But it sometimes yearns for the smile of a friend. A friend cannot be known in prosperity; and an enemy cannot be hidden in adversity. I am not of that feather to shake off my friend when he must need me.

I do know him, a gentleman that well deserves a help, which he shall have: I’ll pay the debt and free him. A cut or slight from a foe or stranger, may be scarred over, but a stab from a friend you love hardly ever heals. He that telleth thee that thou art always wrong, may be deceived; but he that saith that thou art always right, is surely not telling the truth. No man can be happy without a friend, nor be sure of his friend till he is unfortunate.

False friends are like our shadows, keeping close to us while we walk in the sunshine, but leaving us the instant we cross into the shade. We ought always to make choice of persons of such worth and honor for our friends, that, if they should even cease to be so, they will not abuse our confidence, nor give us cause to fear them as enemies. Let us make the best of our friends while we have them, for how long we shall keep them is uncertain.

Friends are sometimes like titled husbands, easy to get, if you have enough money. Without friends, no one would choose to live, even if he had all other good things. Purchase not friends by gifts; when thou ceasest to give such will cease to love. Baxter said:—”I must confess, as the experience of my own soul, that the expectation of loving my friends in heaven principally kindles my love to them while on earth.

If I thought I should never know, and consequently never love them after this life, I should number them with temporal things, and love them as such; but I now delightfully converse with my pious friends, in a firm persuasion that I shall converse with them forever; and I take comfort in those that are dead or absent, believing that I shall shortly meet them in heaven, and love them with a heavenly love.

At the gate of abundance there are many brothers and friends; at the gate of misfortune there is neither brother nor friend. It is one of the severest tests of friendship to tell a man of his faults. So to love a man that you cannot bear to see the stain of sin upon him, and to go to him alone and speak painful truths in touching, tender words,—that is friendship, and a friendship as rare as it is precious.

Henceforth there shall be no other contention betwixt you and me, than which shall outdo the other in point of friendship. Need for making Acquaintance. A man should keep his friendship in constant repair. There is truly nothing purer and warmer than our first friendship, our first love. Love Him, and keep Him for thy Friend, who, when all go away, will not forsake thee, nor suffer thee to perish at the last. True friendship is one of the greatest blessings upon earth; it makes the cares and anxieties of life sit easy; provides us with a partner in every affliction to alleviate the burthen, and is a sure resort against every accident and difficulty that can happen.

True friendship is like sound health; the value of it is seldom known until it is lost. Those who speak always and those who never speak, are equally unfit for friendship. He who never gives advice, and he who never takes it are alike unworthy of friendship.

He who is worthy of friendship at all will remember in his prosperity those who were his friends in his adversity. Value the friendship of him who stands by you in a storm; swarms of insects will surround you in the sunshine. No matter how poor and mean a man is, his friendship is worth more than his hate. There is nothing like fun, is there? I haven’t any myself, but I do like it in others. If you would have your name chime melodiously in the ears of future days, cultivate faith, and not doubt, giving unto every man credit for the good he does, and never attribute base motives to beautiful acts.

Future :—The future does not come from before to meet us, but comes streaming up from behind over our heads. Future—to be met without Fear :—Look not mournfully into the past,—it comes not back again; wisely improve the present,—it is thine; go forth to meet the shadowy future without fear, and with a manly heart. One thing obtained with difficulty is far better than a hundred things procured with ease.

Show me the man who can quit the brilliant society of the young and listen to the kindly voice of age, who can hold cheerful converse with one whom years have deprived of charms. Show me the man of generous impulses, who is always ready to help the poor and needy; who treats unprotected maidenhood as he would the heiress surrounded by the protection of rank, riches and family; who never forgets for an instant the delicacy, the respect, that is due a woman in any condition or class.

Show me such a man and you show me a gentleman—nay, more, you show me a true Christian. The man who is kind and obliging and is ready to do you a favor without hope of reward, who speaks the truth—is a gentleman, In any garb, And wherever he may be found.

Propriety of manners and consideration for others are the two main characteristics of a gentleman. A friend of mine, not long ago, coming over from Ireland, heard a man asking, in reference to another, who he was. He always wears a tall hat. A story is told of a Persian prince, which well illustrates such worldliness. Dressed as a poor man, this prince went to a feast. He was pushed here and there, could not get to the table, and had soon to withdraw. On going home, he dressed himself in his best, placing jewelled slippers on his feet, and putting on a cloth-of-gold cloak.

Then he returned to the feast, where matters were immediately altered. The guests made room, and the host, rushing up, cried, “Welcome, my lord! What will your lordship please to eat? Stretching out his foot, so that his slipper sparkled and glittered, he took his golden robe in his hand, [ ] and said with bitter irony, “Welcome, my lord coat! For,” said he, turning to his surprised host, “I ought to ask my coat what it will eat, since the welcome was solely to it.

We never teach men to be gentlemen, but we teach them everything else; and they never pique themselves so much on all the rest, as on knowing how to be gentlemen. They pique themselves only on knowing the one thing they have not learnt.

Give freely to him that deserveth well and asketh nothing; and that is a way of giving to thyself. He gives twice who gives quickly, according to the proverb; but a gift not only given quickly but unexpectedly, is the most welcome of all. He who sedulously attends, pointedly asks, calmly speaks, coolly answers, and ceases when he has no more to say, is in possession of some of the best mental gifts of mankind.

The Princess of Wales has decided views on the education of children. Her Royal Highness, it appears, strongly objects to “cramming” children with useless learning, which she declares is a mere waste of time. The Princess considers it harmful to force a child in studies which are distasteful to it, and that the child should [ ] be allowed to abandon that study, and take up one it likes better. Similarly, she disapproves of advanced arithmetic for girls. She considers that all that most girls need ever know about arithmetic, is addition and subtraction , “enough to know how to do their housekeeping and pay their debts,” she says.

Is an emblem of human life. We cannot, without astonishment, behold the little particles which are contained in this machine; how they pass away almost imperceptibly! And yet, to our surprise, in the short space of an hour, they are all exhausted.

Thus wastes man! To-day he puts forth the tender leaves of hope; to-morrow, blossoms, and bears his blushing honors thick upon him; the next day comes a frost, which nips the shoot; and when he thinks his greatness is still aspiring, he falls, like autumn leaves, to enrich our mother earth. The Greatness of God. Guthrie, “If philosophy is to be believed, our world is but an outlying corner of creation; bearing, perhaps, as small a proportion to the great universe, as a single grain bears to all the sands of the seashore, or one small quivering leaf to the foliage of a boundless [ ] forest.

How soon is the mind lost in contemplating it! How great that Being whose hand paints every flower, and shapes every leaf; who forms every bud on every tree; who feeds each crawling worm with a parent’s care, and watches like a mother over the insect that sleeps away the night in the bosom of a flower; who throws open the golden gates of day, and draws around a sleeping world the dusky curtains of the night; who measures out the drops of every shower, the whirling snowflakes, and the sands of man’s eventful life; who determines alike the fall of a sparrow and the fate of a kingdom; and so overrules the tide of human fortunes, that whatever befall him, come joy or sorrow, the believer says—”It is the Lord; let Him do what seemeth Him good.

But as it is written, “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

The following beautiful lines were composed in , by a distinguished scholar—at the time partially insane.

Whoever devotes himself to the veneration of God, whatever road he may choose, will come to God, and that the means to this, is, to avoid hurting any living being. The two had spent the whole day on the links, and had had some close and exciting matches; as they left for home the elder man remarked:. The good we have received from a man requires us to be tender of the evil he does us. What is the difference between being good and bad? The good do not yield to temptations, and the bad do.

The definition was so simple and so wise, that Leonard was more struck with it than he might have been by an elaborate sermon. The sign of goodness in the young is to love the old; and in the old to love the young.

Leviticus xix. At a small town in ——shire lives a decent honest woman, who has for more than forty years gained her livelihood by washing in gentlemen’s families. She gives the highest satisfaction to all her employers, and has, in several instances, been the whole of that time in the employ of the same families. Indeed, those whom she has once served never wish to part with her. She has one distinguishing excellency, it is this: through all this course of years,—forty—she has never been known, by either mistress or servant, to repeat in one house what was said or done in another.

The inquisitive are the funnels of conversation; they do not take in anything for their own use, but merely to pass it to others. If families have no sons devoted to letters, whence are the governors of the people to come? The king of one of the Friendly Islands became a Christian, and once went on board of a British vessel, where he was invited to dine with the officers. Observing he did not taste his food, the Captain inquired the cause; when the simple native replied, that he was waiting for the blessing to be asked.

All felt rebuked, and the king was desired to say grace, which he did with becoming solemnity. It is much better to make presents in articles than in money, because gratitude for the latter is spent as soon as that is.

When the tree is felled, its shadows disappear. From a letter addressed to the Countess of Essex on the loss of her only daughter. None, I am sure, can be of more honor to God, nor of more ease to ourselves. For, if we consider Him as our Maker, we cannot contend with Him; if as our Father, we ought not to distrust Him: so that we may be confident whatever He does is intended for good; and whatever happens that we interpret otherwise, yet we can get nothing by repining, nor save anything by resisting.

Submission is the only way of reasoning between a creature and its Maker; and contentment in His will is the greatest duty we can pretend to, and the best remedy we can apply to all our misfortunes. Translation of Catherine Winkworth, We were all sitting in the parlor one night, when the question of food arose.

The child, a little girl, told cleverly what each member of the household liked best. Finally it came to the father’s turn to be described as to his favorite dish. Guthrie tells an anecdote in which he humorously introduces a Brechin citizen, alive in his youthful days:—”An honest countryman came one day to Mr.

Linton head master of the grammar school with a halflin [A] , a long, empty chap, who had taken it into his head that he would have some little learning. Said the father, ‘Mr. Linton, ye see, my laddie’s fond o’ lear’ [B] , and I’m thinking o’ makin’ a scholar o’ him. Linton, looking at the youth, and not seeing any sign that there was much in him, ‘What are you to make of him?

Linton,’ rejoined the father—and it showed how sound the old Scotchman was—’if he gets grace, we’ll make a minister o’ him! Linton, ‘if he does not get grace, what will you make of him then? Guthrie to his Son : “I saw an adage yesterday, in a medical magazine, which is well worth your remembering and acting on, it is this wise saying of the great Lord Bacon’s:—’Who asks much learns much.

I have long given up that, and now seize on every opportunity of adding to my stock of knowledge. Ha, is an exclamation denoting surprise or joy; ah, an exclamation expressive of pity or grief. Penn was once advising a man to leave off his habit of drinking intoxicating liquors. You need not wrestle and strive with the old habit, only just be persistent in forming the good one, and the bad one will take care of itself.

Habit is like a cable; we weave a thread of it every day, and at last we cannot break it. A painter, desiring to paint a picture of Innocence, found a beautiful boy playing at the side of a stream, who became his model.

He painted him kneeling, with his hands clasped in prayer. The picture was prized as a very beautiful one. Years passed away, and the artist became an old man. He had often thought of painting a counterpart, the picture of guilt, as a companion to the other; and at last he executed it.

He went to a neighboring prison, and there selected the most degraded and repulsive man he could find. His body and eye were wasted; vice was visible in his very face. But what was the artist’s surprise when, on questioning the man as to his history, he found that it was he who, as a lovely boy, had kneeled for him as the model of Innocence!

Evil habits had gradually changed him, not only in heart and mind, but in face and form. Habits are soon assumed—acquired—but when we strive to strip them off,—if of long standing—’tis being flayed alive! The hands are, by the very instincts of humanity, raised in prayer; clasped in affection; wrung in despair; pressed on the forehead when the soul is “perplexed in the extreme;” drawn inward, to invite; thrust forth objectively, to repel; the fingers point to indicate, and are snapped in disdain; the palm is laid upon the heart, in invocation of subdued feeling, and on the brow of the compassioned in benediction.

The expressive capacity of the hands was never more strikingly displayed than in the orisons prayer of the deaf and dumb. Their teacher stood with closed eyes, and addressing the Deity by those signs made with the fingers which constitute a language for the speechless. It was a visible, but not an audible, worship. A dispute arose among three ladies as to which had the most beautiful hands.

One sat by a stream, and dipped her hand into the water and held it up; another plucked strawberries until the ends of her fingers were pink; and a third gathered violets until her hands were fragrant. An old, haggard woman, passing by, asked, “Who will give me a gift, for I am poor?

Then the woman asked them what was the subject of their dispute; and they told her, and lifted up before her their beautiful hands. But when they asked her which was the most beautiful, she said: “It is not the hand that is washed clean in the brook; it is not the hand that is coloured with crimson tints; it is not the hand that is perfumed with fragrant flowers; but the hand that gives to the poor, that is the most beautiful.

Happiness consists in being perfectly satisfied with what we have got, and with what we haven’t got. Happiness consists not in possessing much, but in being content with what we possess. He who wants little, always has enough.

With “gentleness” his own character, “comfort” in his house, and “good temper” in his wife, the earthly felicity of man may be said to be complete. I think you the happiest couple in the world; for you are not only happy in one another, but happy in yourselves, and by yourselves.

Surely happiness is reflective, like the light of heaven; and every countenance bright with smiles, and glowing [ ] with innocent enjoyment, is a mirror transmitting to others the rays of a supreme and ever-shining benevolence. To rejoice in the happiness of others is to make it our own; to produce it, is to make it more than our own.

There is happiness in the very wish to make others happy. If a man makes me keep my distance, the comfort is, he keeps his at the same time. A man too busy to take care of his health is like a mechanic too busy to take care of his tools. Health is so necessary to all duties, as well as pleasures of life, that the crime of squandering it is equal to the folly. The only way for a rich man to be healthy is, by exercise and abstinence, to live as if he were poor. Mitchell of Philadelphia, in lecturing to his pupils upon the diseases of the heart, narrated an anecdote to prove that the expression “broken heart” was not merely figurative.

On one occasion, in the early period of his life, he accompanied, as surgeon, a packet that sailed from Liverpool to one of the American ports. The captain frequently conversed with him respecting a lady who had promised to [ ] become his bride on his return from that voyage. Upon this subject he evinced great warmth of feeling, and showed Dr. Mitchell some costly jewels, ornaments, etc. On reaching his destination, he was abruptly informed that the lady had married some one else.

Instantly the captain was observed to clap his hand to his breast, and fall heavily to the ground. He was taken up, and conveyed to his cabin on board the vessel. They graze; they do not labor. When they are forced to work, it does violence to everything that they are. All human civilizations have been built on animal slavery and systematic animal killing, and those early herders were the first slaveholders and the first slaughterers.

Where and when pastoralism first emerged is a matter of some confusion and conjecture. But clearly, pastoralism was well established around the globe by the time of the first agricultural rev- olution, which occurred roughly 9, to 10, years ago, give or take a millennium or two. Farms and Cities: The Neolithic Revolution No doubt humans at various places around the globe had been plant- ing a few seeds here and there and harvesting the plants for thousands of years.

And over time, these would have developed into what we would call gardens. But large-scale plant agriculture depended on breaking animals to labor. And agriculture in turn ratcheted the suf- fering of animals up another notch. Previously, they had only been required to haul and carry, which was burden enough in itself; but with the arrival of farming, they also had to spend long days plowing and threshing, and they had new burdens to haul in the form of crops that had to be carted to market.

Furthermore, human beings had now begun to live almost entirely on food produced by animals, either through their labor in the fields or by the taking of their bodies and their lives. This would not change until the tractor was invented 10, years later.

And there was worse to come. Agriculture created a large food surplus. And it is a law of nature applying to all species that a food surplus leads to a population increase—which in this case became a population explosion.

Scholars estimate that just before the agricultural revolu- tion, around BCE, there were only about four million human beings worldwide, a number that had remained relatively stable for tens of thousands of years. By the beginning of the historical era, around BCE, that number had more than tripled to fourteen million.

A mere thousand years later, in BCE, it had nearly dou- bled to twenty-seven million. The creation of a large human population that was not needed to produce food had three results, all of them disastrous for animals.

First, more humans meant more animals enslaved and slaughtered for food, skins, labor, sacrifice, and entertainment. Second, the divi- sion of labor on a large scale became possible for the first time in human history. Entire classes of full-time craftspeople, merchants, bureaucrats, priests, and soldiers arose who plied their trades while living on food produced by others. In turn, these occupations were themselves supported by animal labor, which led to a further increase in the number of animals—especially oxen, camels, donkeys, and horses—enslaved for work, transportation, and warfare.

Finally, the surplus population and the rise of specialization led to the creation of cities, and cities represented the final step in the alien- ation of animals from their own inherent natures. Animals who were brought into cities for labor and transportation, or primarily chick- ens and ducks to serve as convenient sources of meat and eggs were deprived of all semblance of their natural world.

The rise of cities set the pattern for animal slavery and slaughter that human societies have followed down to the present. The entire history of human civilization is the story of animal abuse remarkably unchanged through the centuries. Depending on the degree to which a society was urban or agrarian, the level of abuse might be somewhat higher or lower, but the basic structures of animal exploitation are the same today as they were ten thousand years ago.

Religious Sacrifice The primary subjects of the cave paintings left by the Paleolithic tribes of Europe are not, as we might expect, human beings. The first artists—who lived around 15, years ago, plus or minus two or three thousand years—devoted themselves almost exclusively to painting wildlife, including scenes of hunting.

Since these were hunter-gatherer peoples living at the tail end of the last great Ice Age, when gathering was still difficult and hunting was more important to the community than in warmer climates, it seems reasonable to con- clude that cave paintings were intended to serve as props for religious ceremonies—somewhat on the order of altar paintings or stained glass windows—that were conducted to assure a successful hunt or to express thanks for one. From there, it was a series of short steps to offering a piece of hunted meat to enlist the aid of the gods in overcoming whatever obstacle the community was facing and to maintain their goodwill against the unforeseen.

The offering was not the purpose of the killing. Animals were killed for food and skins and a piece of their flesh offered in thanks. The gods must be propitiated or calamity would befall the community. From its earliest inception, religion was enlisted in support of the murder of animals. Herding was a more secure source of food than hunting, but it still had its share of uncertainties and potential disasters, relating mostly to weather, injury, and disease.

And so when early humans took up the herding life, they did not give up their religions and the sacrifices that were central to them. Only now the animals whose flesh was offered to the gods were raised, not hunted, and they were slaugh- tered, not ambushed. In fact, many ancient societies seem to have had a taboo against eating animal flesh unless a portion of it had first been offered as a sacrifice. This taboo survived well into historical times and is recorded in the Bible.

The practice probably began during the pastoral age, based on a desire to offer sacrifices not specif- ically connected with the slaughter of an animal: arrival of the birthing season, for instance, the beginning of a long trek, or some more personal event, like a wedding or a human birth or death.

In all likelihood, the ritually murdered animal was still eaten, but there had been a subtle shift in the relationship between the ritual and the food.

With the emergence of cities, there arose temples and a class of priests to administer them. These temples were not the serene, com- forting houses of worship that we know today. The principal function of ancient religion was to mollify the gods through sacrifice; the first temples were built as venues for sacrifice, and the first priests were technicians who knew the sacrificial liturgies that would assure the gods accepted the offerings and were well disposed toward the donors.

If early doctors were barbers, early priests were butchers, and ancient temples were first and foremost abattoirs. This approach to religion extended deep into the historical period. In fact, It survived in Judaism until the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple—which was one of the largest slaughterhouses in the ancient world—in 70 CE. In the Classical world, animal sacrifice survived until Christianity took control of the Roman Empire and abolished it in the fourth century.

Otherwise, sacrifice survives mostly in religions of African derivation, such as Santeria. As the World Turns By the dawn of history, around BCE when writing was invented, the origins of animal abuse had long been forgotten.

Animal exploita- tion seemed so natural to our first visible ancestors that they never even thought about it.

It was not until religious rebels in India, Israel, and Greece challenged animal slavery and slaughter that anyone bothered to craft a defense for it. During these six centuries, human understanding of such fundamen- tal issues as the nature of the universe, virtue, truth, the purpose of human life, and the organization of society changed more radically than at any time before or since.

It was also during the Axial Age that the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gita, Mahabharata, and the Hebrew Scriptures were put into substantially their present form. Although this inconvenient fact is generally overlooked—part of the cloak of invisibility cast over ani- mals and their suffering—the great spiritual pioneers of the Axial Age included animals within their moral universe, and they spoke out courageously against the two most egregious forms of animal abuse—religious sacrifice and meat eating.

I Around BCE, warlike Indo-European nomads from the steppes of southern Russia began pouring over the Hindu Kush Mountains to conquer and subjugate an indigenous people who had created one of the most advanced societies in the ancient world, but one which had apparently been weakened by a series of natural dis- asters. Wherever they went, Indo-Europeans were noted for three things: ruthless ferocity, horses, and cattle.

They were the first people to break horses to the saddle and harness, probably around BCE, making the horse the last animal to be enslaved on a large scale. A warlike people, they wasted no time in forcing horses into military service, both as cavalry and for drawing chariots, an Indo-European invention. But in a war that saw the introduction of motorized armored units and machine guns, horses were useless and helpless.

Over eight million horses were killed on the Western Front alone,1 nearly equaling the nine million human soldiers who were killed on both fronts. Returning to the Aryans: they were cattle herders who had left their home on the Russian steppes for reasons that are lost to our view. The ultimate pastoralists, they organized their community life around their cattle, measured wealth and status in cattle, worshipped gods who were personified forces of nature, and were always eager to destroy anything or anyone who stood between them and good pas- turage with fresh water.

But when they made themselves masters of India, all of this changed. Pastoralists can conquer other peoples, and often do, but they cannot rule them. They are hit-and-run raiders who can exact tribute from defeated nations by threatening future raids, but they cannot administer conquered peoples without giving up their nomadic way of life. Faced with this reality, the Aryans who conquered India aban- doned pastoralism and became a ruling class. Archeologists tell us that the people they ruled, the Dravidians, had been urban, prosperous, and sophisticated.

But beyond that, we know little about them; the only writings they left behind were brief commercial records, and these have resisted all efforts at translation. To what extent their civilization, which dated back to at least BCE, enslaved and killed animals is not known.

But we do know that the society the Aryans created following the conquest was a typical ancient society founded on the enslavement and killing of animals for food, clothing, labor, transportation, and religious sacrifice. Pleasure and happiness are good, pain and suffering are bad. Actions that cause happiness are virtuous; actions that cause suffering are evil. In other words, to the Renouncers, ethical behavior was moral behavior. To us, this is so obvious that it sounds trivial.

But in the Axial Age it was revolutionary. Archaic Hinduism was based on obe- dience and ritual, and its leaders were priests who knew the secret for- mulas that must be used if sacrifices were to be successful in mollifying the gods. By contrast, Renouncer religion was based on morality, and its leaders were teachers who had thought deeply about the best ways to avoid causing suffering to oneself and others.

In the pattern of opposition that we will see played out again in Israel, the Aryan priests known as Brahmins ruled by fear while the Renouncer teachers known as yogis led by love. The Renouncers taught that the consciousness of every sentient being is immortal, and is reincarnated from one body to another and one species to another according to its karma.

This means that ani- mals are not merely like us, they are us. The same individual could be a Brahmin priest in one life and a pig in the next, a wealthy member of the merchant class in the following life, and a chicken after that. The goal of life, according to the Renouncers, is to gain liberation from this endless cycle of birth and death in a world of suffering by achieving union with a higher level of reality, where we will experi- ence pure being, pure consciousness, and pure joy without end.

This liberation, the Renouncers believed, could only be attained by devel- oping wisdom and compassion through the practice of meditation, yoga, and moral behavior. Mahavira taught that there is no greater evil than to harm or kill a sentient being. According to Pravin K. It embraces the welfare of all animals. Mahavira based his doctrine of ahimsa on compassion and taught that we should not inflict on others suffering that we would not want to experience ourselves: As it would be for you, so it is for those whom you intend to kill.

As it would be for you, so it is for those whom you intend to tyrannise over. As it would be for you, so it is for those whom you intend to torment. In the same way it is for those whom you intend to punish, and to drive away. The righteous man who lives up to these sentiments does, there- fore, neither kill nor cause others to kill living beings. Mahavira stated explicitly that we have the same ethical duties to animals that we have to human beings. Jains believe that everything that exists contains the universal life force, including plants, rocks, and water, and is, there- fore, in some sense a living being entitled to respect.

Rather than ani- mate and inanimate, they divide the world into sentient and insentient beings, the former including everything that Western sci- ence groups into the animal and plant kingdoms, including micro- scopic organisms, while the latter is limited to minerals: rocks, sand, water, and so on.

Sentient beings are classified according to the num- ber of senses they possess. Mahavira taught that the more senses beings have, the more intensely they can suffer.

Therefore, in order to reduce as much as possible the suffering they cause, Jains are instructed to eat only single-sensed beings plants and dairy products.

To avoid harming living beings, Jains will go to what may seem extraordinary lengths. Because travel involves killing—bugs on the windshield, for instance—Jains are often reluctant to travel. But once again, in the modern world this practice seems to be falling by the wayside. Following instructions given by Lord Mahavira himself, Jain monks strain their drinking water through a cloth in an effort to avoid killing the tiny, unseen organisms who live in the water; and when walking, they often gently sweep the ground in front of them with a soft whisk to move to safety any small insects who might be in their path.

In India, Jains are famous for the veterinary hospitals that they have maintained throughout their history.

For two and a half millennia, the followers of Lord Mahavira have upheld a standard of compas- sionate action on behalf of animals that is unequaled anywhere. Like Mahavira, he made ahimsa the foundation of his ethical system and extended its full protection to all sentient beings, although he did not include plants in this category and his attitude toward microorganisms is unclear.

When a man considers this, he does not kill or cause to kill. Although the Buddha practiced and taught vegetarianism, the funeral fires of his cremation had hardly cooled when a contingent of Buddhist monks began constructing sophistries to justify meat eat- ing.

Faced with a short grow- ing season and poor soil, Tibetans have generally relied on a meat- based diet. Even so, there has always been a vegetarian tradition in Tibetan Buddhism, exemplified by famous teachers like Shabkar and Patrul Rinpoche. In exile in India and the West, where a vegan diet is easy to follow, most Tibetans have continued to eat meat.

This, how- ever, is beginning to change, especially among the younger genera- tion. Three groups founded by young lamas, The Universal Compassion Movement, Tibetans for a Vegetarian Society, and Tibetan Volunteers for Animals, which enjoy the support of the Dalai Lama, actively promote a vegetarian and even a vegan diet in the Tibetan exile community. The Dalai Lama has always commended a vegetarian diet as an expression of Buddhist compassion.

For decades, he was vegetarian every other day as a balance between his compassion for animals and the advice of his doctors. Lately I have also turned to a vegetarian diet. Although born a Jain, Ashoka does not seem to have been spiritually inclined until one day when, returning home from a war that he had provoked, he was horrified to see the suffering, death, and destruc- tion that his military adventure had precipitated. He converted to Buddhism—Jainism, curiously enough, has sometimes been more tolerant of war, tending to view it as a form of self-defense—and announced that he would henceforward devote his reign to the well- being of all who lived within the ambit of his power—human and nonhuman alike.

Ashoka was as good as his word. He demobilized his army until it was little more than a border guard and launched large-scale charita- ble undertakings that created the closest thing the ancient world ever knew to a welfare state. He founded and maintained an extensive chain of hospitals for humans and animals, including wildlife, as well as a network of inns and resting stations where travelers and their animals could find food, water, and shelter.

He forbade hunting, and banned meat eating on many holidays. He all but eliminated the slaughter of animals for the royal kitchen, and generally seems to have gone as far toward ending all killing of animals as he dared with- out provoking a popular uprising or a coup from within the palace.

The Mauryan Empire under Ashoka is the first and one of the very few instances in world history of a government treating its animals as citizens who are as deserving of its protection as the human residents. The earliest Hindu scripture, The Rig Veda, which contains mate- rial dating back to the Aryan invasion, is a chant book for religious rituals, most of which involved animal sacrifice.

Pre-Renouncer Hinduism showed little sensitivity to the suffering of animals, but by the time the great Hindu epic Mahabharata was composed—some- time around BCE—there had been a radical change in attitude.

That foolish person, stupefied by folly, who eats meat, is regarded as the vilest of beings. Thus, eating flesh is never virtuous. But in the modern world, opposing forces are breaking up this ancient pattern. On one side, the influence of the West has led many high- caste Hindus to take up meat eating. From the other direction, the Hindu Renaissance movement—which is growing rapidly in both India and the diaspora—is urging Hindus of all castes to adopt a compassionate vegetarian diet as an obligatory Hindu practice.

Monks and spiritual seekers who practice yoga and meditation according to the Hindu philosophy of Vedanta—which is the quin- tessentially Hindu form of srmana spirituality—are vegetarian, although even vegetarian Indians, conditioned by the centuries-old tradition of cow protection, have great difficulty appreciating the suf- fering and death represented by milk. Despite this bias toward milk and cheese, some contemporary Hindu spiritual leaders, appalled by the cruelties of factory farming, are beginning to break with tradition by speaking out on behalf of a vegan diet.

Notable among these is Dada J. Ever since I learned about it nine or ten years ago, I gave up milk. Horses and elephants were also used in war for both battle and transport until motorized vehicles replaced them in the twentieth cen- tury.

Hunting, especially birds, deer, and tigers, was a popular pastime among the wealthy until recent years, when overhunting had driven many species—including the tiger—to the brink of extinction. Today Pythagoras of Samos, who taught around BCE, is all but forgotten, remembered mainly for the theorem in plane geometry that bears his name. But in the ancient world, he was a giant who exerted a powerful influence on religion, philosophy, ethics, science, mathematics, and music theory.

Born and raised on the Eastern rim of the Aegean Sea, where his curiosity could be whetted by merchants and other travelers from distant lands, the young Pythagoras visited Egypt—and probably Persia—where he absorbed the ideas of the Renouncer movement that had been brought west with the great caravans: the illusory nature of the phenomenal world, the unity of all life, ahimsa, reincar- nation, karma, and the possibility of gaining liberation from this world of suffering through spiritual practices such as meditation.

These ideas, organized into his own unique amalgam, he taught to the disciples that he recruited into a mystical religious society that flourished until Christianity took charge of the Roman Empire years later.

After the death of one body, the soul is reborn in another, not necessarily of the same species. The earth offers a lavish supply of riches, of inno- cent foods, and offers you banquets that involve no blood- shed or slaughter Alas, what wickedness to swallow flesh into our own flesh, to fatten our greedy bodies by cramming in other bodies, to have one living creature fed by the death of another! But they reflect the teachings of the Pythagorean Society and of Pythagoreans in the first century, and there is every reason to believe that these teachings orig- inated with Pythagoras.

Again reflecting the attitude of Jainism and Buddhism, Pythagoras was forthright in condemning the animal sacrifice that was the primary component of most ancient religions. It is struck down and stains with its blood the knives that it may have seen beforehand, reflected in the clear water.

At once the lungs are torn from its still living breast, that the priest may examine them, and search out the purpose of the gods, revealed therein. I beg you, heed my warnings and abstain! Know and understand that when you put the flesh of slaughtered oxen in your mouth, the flesh you eat is that of your own labourers. Greek and Roman society was founded on animal flesh, animal sacrifice, and animal labor, to which the Romans added animal entertainment. Milk and cheese from cows and goats were popular, as were eggs.

Most of the Greco-Roman world was temperate to tropical, and since the ancients had no way to make ice, they could only store meat by salting or drying it, and they could not store eggs or dairy at all. In some areas, especially at higher elevations, springs would have pro- vided natural refrigeration. But access to these would have been lim- ited, as would their storage capacity and the length of time they would protect animal products from spoiling.

Those who lived near high mountains could bring down ice and snow, but this was not practical on a large scale and was generally done only by the rich who had slaves to do the work and whose villas were conveniently situated. In earlier times, these were small family farms; later they were large plantations owned by the wealthy and worked by slaves: humans, oxen, donkeys, and horses, with dogs serv- ing as herders and guards. Because of the lack of refrigeration, meat was expensive, which made it a favorite luxury of the rich, and a prized treat for the poor.

The banquets and dinner parties of the wealthy were orgies of glut- tony featuring multiple courses of meats and cheeses. For everyone else, the main course at every meal—and often the only course—was bread, supplemented whenever possible by olives, a few vegetables, or a little fruit. Meat had a powerful hold on the Classical imagination, but it seldom found its way into the stomachs of most Greeks and Romans.

Slaughterhouses of Worship We think of houses of worship as serene, comforting places where we hear inspirational messages, sing hymns, and commune peacefully with God. Ancient temples were abattoirs adjacent to pens and cages filled with angry, terrified, squalling, screaming, bellowing, bleating, pissing, shitting cattle, sheep, goats, and birds waiting to be taken onto the killing floor that was the heart of the temple.

The altar was a chopping block for the commission of ritual murder. At the end of a service in which they sent the prayers of their parishioners heaven- ward on the smoke from the seared flesh of a murdered animal, their hands and vestments were covered with blood and they stank with the mortal terror and violent death of their victims.

Classical pagan- ism was a cult of mass killing. Most ancient temples were also businesses. Worshippers would pay a fee for sacrifices, in addition to which they would either donate the animal to be killed, or they would kick in some extra money and the priests would purchase the victim.

In a typical sacrifice, once the animal had been killed, the butcher-priests would lay him out on the altar and dress the meat. Most often, a small portion would be offered to the deity; some would be set aside for the priests and their families; and the rest would be sold for a profit.

Temples were the meat mar- kets of the Greco-Roman world. In many Roman cities, the only place you could find meat that had not been offered to a pagan deity was a kosher butcher shop run by Jews. I Cannot Lay My Burden Down The use of animals as slave laborers, which had begun with the rise of pastoralism and intensified with the Neolithic Revolution, continued unabated for more than ten thousand years—until the Industrial Revolution, when cheaper, more efficient, and more convenient sources of power made animal labor obsolete in the developed world.

They were also used for heavy hauling. Anything that would be moved by airplane, truck or rail car today, if it existed in the Classical world, was hauled by an ox, donkey, or horse. Donkeys and horses were ridden—horses by the rich, donkeys by the middle class; everyone else walked. There were no animal welfare laws in the Classical world, and so the only constraint on animal abuse was the economic need to keep a slave laborer healthy enough to work as long as possible.

There were certainly owners who grew fond of their animal slaves and treated them with greater kindness than economics required, but the Greeks and especially the Romans were comfortable with cruelty as a part of everyday life to an extent that we would find appalling, and so we may safely assume that working animals lived short, mis- erable lives of overwork, undernourishment, lack of rest, exposure to the elements, and regular beatings.

When they were no longer able to work, animal slaves were simply slaughtered. Spectator Sports The origin of chariot racing is lost in antiquity. There is a chariot race in the Iliad, and chariot races were a regular feature of Greek athletic festivals, including the Olympics. The Romans also loved chariot rac- ing, and every city of any size in the Classical world had a racetrack, known in Greek as a hippodrome and in Latin as a circus, a narrow oval course around which two-horse and four-horse chariots raced for several laps.

It was the Romans who introduced large-scale animal fighting to the world. At coliseums around the Empire, generals and politicians staged spectacles for the entertainment of the public in which human beings fought human beings, human beings fought animals, and ani- mals fought one another, either singly or in groups and to the death.

In order to impress the people and advance their own political ambi- tions, sponsors strove to outdo one another in the extravagance of the spectacles they put on. In 55 BCE, the Roman general and politician Pompey the Great sponsored spectacles that included the slaughter of elephants by armed men. The Roman crowd—people who had come there to enjoy watching humans and animals kill one another—was so moved by the anguished cries of the wounded and dying animals that they shouted insults at Pompey for his cruelty.

Except for this spontaneous out- burst, no popular movement on behalf of animals ever developed in the Western world before the nineteenth century. Modern animal advocates sometimes assert that Socrates himself was a vegetarian and an opponent of sacrifice, but there are no statements attributed to him that support those claims and no statements to that effect by ancient commentators.

In fact, Xenophon gives the clear impression that Socrates paid very little attention to food and ate whatever he was served, but in tiny portions. A somewhat better case can be made for Plato, since in both The Republic and the Laws he prescribed a vegetarian diet for the citi- zens of his ideal state.

Unfortunately, the reason he put forward had nothing to do with concern for animals. Like everyone in the ancient world, Plato considered meat a luxury, and he believed that a luxurious lifestyle led to indolence, cowardice, and a general breakdown in the civic virtues. Therefore, he mandated vegetarian- ism as a way to promote good citizenship.

For the same reason, regarding shoes as a luxury, Plato required his ideal citizens to go barefoot. Whether Plato was a vegetarian is of little importance to us, however, since there is no evidence in his writings and no reports by other ancient writers that he was an advocate for animal protection.

If Socrates and Plato failed to condemn our crimes against animals, they also never made any serious effort to defend them. Pythagoras had attacked the killing of animals for food and sacri- fice on two grounds: that we all have identical immortal souls that transmigrate from one species to another; and that animals are sen- tient beings who suffer from our mistreatment of them.

Aristotle attempted to undercut both of these arguments. First, he argued that the soul is not an immortal entity distinct from the body, but is cre- ated when the elements necessary for life come together in the proper balance and under the right conditions. And when those elements fall out of balance, the body dies and the soul ceases to be. Being a function of the bodies that gave rise to them, the souls of creatures with different kinds of bodies are themselves different, and not all souls are of equal value.

In fact, Aristotle postulated a rigid hierarchy of beings based upon the kind of soul they possess. At the bottom were plants, which have vegetative souls, able to grow and reproduce, but not conscious. Then came animals, who have sensi- tive souls, able to experience physical sensations and emotions, and capable of thinking on a practical level—able to solve the simple problems of daily life such as finding food and escaping from dan- ger.

At the top were human beings, who alone possess rational souls, and are thereby able to engage in abstract thought, such as ponder- ing the meaning of life or trying to define goodness, truth, and beauty—in other words, the kind of discourse that philosophers like Aristotle pride themselves on. Finally, Aristotle explained that it is a universal law of nature that the lower exists to serve the higher. Thus, animals, having a lower form of soul, exist to serve human beings.

Those which are domesticated serve human beings for use as well as for food; wild animals, too, in most cases, if not in all, serve to furnish us not only with food, but also with other kinds of assistance, such as the provision of clothing and other aids to life.

Accordingly, if nature makes nothing purposeless or in vain, all animals must have been made by nature for the sake of men. To put it in language that we will encounter later, only human beings are ends in them- selves. We are the only beings on earth who exist to satisfy ourselves. All other creatures, including animals, are merely means by which we humans can attain our ends.

Our worth lies in ourselves. The worth of animals lies in their usefulness to us. A second line of reasoning that Aristotle pursued to deny that we have ethical duties to animals was that moral responsibility arises out of the fellowship or friendship that exists among members of a community.

Since friendship depends upon shared interests, we can have friendship only with other rational beings; therefore, we have no ethical responsibilities to animals. Theophrastus — BCE pointed out that we and animals share the same sensory world, similar emo- tions, and at least to some degree, reason. Thus, we have moral duties only to other members of the community of rational beings. These are ideas that we will encounter a bit farther on in the Christian philosophies of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, while the Stoic notion of mutual accountability is sometimes seen as a precursor to the social contract doctrine of Enlightenment philosopher Jean- Jacques Rousseau.

Some Stoics were vegetarian, but out of a dislike for luxury rather than concern for animals. You call serpents and panthers and lions savage, but you yourselves, by your own foul slaughters, leave them no room to outdo you in cruelty; for their slaughter is their living, yours is a mere appetizer.

Do we hold a life cheap? Plutarch fully understood the challenge that he had taken up in trying to persuade people to give up meat. In the third century of the Common Era, the Neoplatonist philoso- pher Plotinus — and his student Porphyry — gave new voice to the arguments of Pythagoras condemning meat eating and animal sacrifice. Thus, one of the last skirmishes between paganism and Christianity was fought over the Pythagorean diet. In Abstinence, Porphyry attacked Aristotle head-on. First, he argued from observation that animals are, in fact, rational.

At the time of creation, Genesis reports that God gave these instructions to Adam and Eve: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

Radah is the verb typi- cally used in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to the authority of governments and monarchs over their citizens. Rulers who abuse, enslave, and murder their citizens for their own enrichment, enjoyment, or convenience we invariably condemn as unjust and unfit. There is no reason to judge our domin- ion over animals by any other standard.

Viewed in that light, the grant of dominion can be seen as a sum- mons to humankind to establish worldwide a regime like that of Ashoka, which took responsibility for the wellbeing of all who lived at its mercy, human or animal.

And in fact, Jewish commentators have typically viewed dominion as a commandment to treat animals with kindness. It is primarily Christian authorities who have treated it as divine permission to abuse and kill animals whenever we like, however we like, without regard for their lives or their suffering.

Meatless in Eden The mythologies of the ancient world tell of a long-ago epoch when ahimsa ruled the world. Crime and war were unknown; humans and animals were vegetarian.

No one killed anyone else—not for food, not for gain, and not from anger. In the Garden, God commanded Adam and Eve—and with them, all living creatures—to follow a vegan diet. When Noah and his family emerged from the ark, God told them that human beings were now, for the first time, allowed to eat the flesh of animals. This permission is accompanied by a chilling statement: The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given.

Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you as I gave the green plant. In the first passage, we are introduced to a peaceful world in which God instructs us to treat all living creatures according to the principle of ahimsa.

In the second, we see a violent world in which God authorizes us to follow our appetites and fears into cruelty and murder against our weaker fellow creatures. Slitting Throats in the Name of God It is the latter view that guided mainstream Judaism throughout the Biblical era, as we can see by looking at the issue that dominated the ancient Jewish debate about animal protection: religious sacrifice.

At the dedication ceremony, King Solomon presided over the slaughter of 22, cattle and , sheep and goats. By the tens of thousands, Jews came every year to the Temple, and by the hundreds of thousands, cattle, sheep, goats, and doves were slaughtered. The Temple precincts were surrounded by stockyards. In the heat of Jerusalem, the stink of urine and feces must have been gut wrenching. And there could have been no escape, even in prayer, from the screams of animals being slaughtered or the stench of their blood and fear.

Like their pagan counterparts, the priests who officiated at these ritual killings were first and foremost butchers, and the Temple was a slaughterhouse. This holocaust the word originally referred to animal sacrifice continued until the Jews of Palestine revolted against their Roman rulers.

Since sacrifice could take place only in the Temple, it came to an unceremonious halt and has never been resumed. As I have already remarked, animal sacrifice is based upon fear, the belief that God or the gods will visit suffering upon you if you do not mollify him or her or them with gifts of death.

But there was also within Judaism a minority tradition, which arose during the Axial Age, that rejected fear and taught that the foundation of right- eousness is love. They never ran the Temple, they never held high religious or government office, they never had the power to define orthodoxy, and so they left no history of their movement. The story of Biblical Judaism is the story of the unending struggle of those who would lead by love against those who ruled by fear.

Mercy, Not Sacrifice Even if they never wrested control of the official cult from the fear- mongers, those Axial Age figures that I think of as the Prophets of Love still managed to exert enormous influence on Judaism by liber- ally seeding the Hebrew Scriptures with an exalted spiritual and eth- ical message.

It was one of their ranks whose vision of ahimsa in the Garden of Eden we quoted earlier. They performed the role in ancient Israel that humorist Finley Peter Dunne called upon newspapers to play in modern America: they comforted the afflicted and afflicted the comfortable.

Like the Renouncer teachers in India, the Prophets of Love based their ethical system not on ritual, but on sentience, and their cam- paign was for an end to the oppression of all who were able to suffer, including the animals who were slaughtered for sacrifice. In terms that are straightforward and unmistakable, several of the Later Prophets extended the call for justice and compassion to animals by demanding an end to animal sacrifice.

When you come to appear before Me, who requires of you this trampling of my courts? Your hands are covered with blood. Cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek jus- tice, reprove the ruthless, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. The Prophets of Love did not regard the teachings of the Prophets of Fear as divinely inspired. Before the destruction of the Temple, there was a great rift in Judaism that today is all but hidden from our view, and one of the principal issues over which the two sides fought was ani- mal sacrifice.

In ancient Judaism, meat eating was closely associated with sac- rifice. At least as recently as the days of King Saul c. In Israel, as in India and the Classical world, there is no evidence that anyone ever objected to the use of animals for labor and trans- portation so long as they were well treated.

Ancient civilization with- out animal labor would have been as unthinkable as modern civilization without oil or electricity. Therefore, the notion of freeing animals from work may simply have been inconceivable. Or, the defenders of animals may have believed that domesticated animals were happy so long as they were well fed, not overworked, and not beaten. In any event, around the ancient world, animal slaves carried out their eternal labors while none of their defenders called for their release.

Jains, Buddhists, and progressive Hindus maintained their perpetual chal- lenge to the majority practices of meat-eating and sacrifice. But although they were unable to abolish those practices beyond their own circles, at least those circles encompassed large segments of Indian society. A majority of Indians continued to eat meat, but a very large minority did not, and over time animal sacrifice was mar- ginalized except in Nepal, where it remains a mainstream Hindu practice.

In the Greco-Roman world, the Pythagoreans were able to attract to their ranks only a handful of philosophers and spiritual seekers.

They had no effect on society at large. In Israel, however, events followed a different course, as Judaism took the thesis of ani- mal exploitation and the antithesis of animal rights and created a synthesis that I think of as the Biblical Compromise. The point of the commandment was the cruelty of forcing an animal to work for hours with his face just inches from tantalizing food that he cannot enjoy.

In one stroke, this verse, and the doctrine that was built on it, permits the exploitation of animals but forbids cruelties that are not essential to it. These same two principles are also enshrined elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, including the Ten Commandments, which require that animals, as well as humans, rest from their labors on the Sabbath. Here, the Compromise took the form of a complex set of rules known as kashrut.

These rules, which are elab- orations on a simpler set of regulations found in various places in the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures, regulate in minute detail every aspect of choosing and slaughtering animals for food, and preparing, serving, and consuming animal products.

Generally, the sages of the Talmud, and the great commentators who came after- ward, agreed that kashrut had been established as a constant reminder that animal food was different from plant food because it so often required the killing of a nephesh chayah, a living, conscious soul.

A vegan diet is automatically kosher, and subject to no restrictions, because it does not carry the guilt of enslaving and slaughtering living souls. One result of this massacre was the effective elimination of both extreme camps in the debate over animal sacrifice and meat eating. Before the rebellion, the Pharisees—a moderate, centrist group with affiliations to both Judaisms, Progressive and Official—had been the largest Jewish denomination. Afterward, it was the only Jewish denomination of any size or influence.

Pharisee scholars saved Judaism by rebuilding it in their image, adapting their moderate beliefs and practices to the world as they found it after the failure of the rebellion, and codifying those beliefs and practices, including the compromise of tsar baalei hayyim, in that great, encyclopedic handbook of Jewishness, the Talmud.

The Heritage of Abraham Of the other two great religions that evolved from Jewish history and teaching, Christianity—as we shall see in a moment—abolished ani- mal sacrifice, but for centuries rejected the Biblical Compromise although it has now accepted it. Islam did just the opposite: from the beginning, Islam accepted the Compromise while enshrining ani- mal sacrifice in its rituals.

Down to the present, the festival of Eid-al- Adha, which celebrates the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca that every Muslim whose circumstances permit is required to make at least once, is observed in the ritual slaughter of vast numbers of animals, mostly sheep.

The Koran explicitly endorses meat eating, but the Hadith—didactic stories from the life of Mohammad that Muslims consider authoritative—are emphatic in their demand that animals, both wild and domestic, be treated with kindness. Aristotle esus had very little contact with animals. He did not, for exam- J ple, use animals for transportation. A week before his crucifix- ion, he rode a donkey from the village of Bethany on the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem—a distance of about a mile and a half—for the specific purpose of fulfilling a prophecy about the coming of the Messiah, an event which Christians celebrate as Palm Sunday.

But on all other occasions, he is reported to have walked, even on his jour- neys between Jerusalem and Galilee, nearly a hundred miles each way. It would also appear that he did not sacrifice animals.

The gospels record numerous occasions on which Jesus taught in the Temple invariably getting into an argument with the teachers of Official Judaism , but they record no instance in which Jesus or his disciples offered a sacrifice. But something else angered him as well, even though from a distance of two thousand years, it may not stand out as clearly.

He was attacking the religion of fear in the name of the reli- gion of love. From its earliest beginnings down to the present, Christianity, both Jewish and gentile, has condemned sacrifice. Was Jesus a Vegetarian? Only one gospel, Luke, tells us that he ate fish, and only once, after the resurrection, when he is said to have eaten a small morsel to demonstrate to his doubting disciples that he had been res- urrected in the body as well as the spirit.

Therefore, it is widely assumed that Jesus must have eaten lamb. But the gospels never suggest that lamb was present. To the contrary, they give the clear impression that it was replaced by bread. The assumption that Jesus, who is often portrayed in the Bible as flouting ritual laws, such as those against working on the Sabbath, must have eaten lamb because that was the prescribed main course, is baseless. There is no disciple who is described as eating meat other than fish.

Jesus was among the greatest of the Jewish Prophets of Love. He was a successor to the Later Prophets, and an advocate of the minor- ity outlook that we have called Progressive Judaism. This made him heir to a compassionate tradition within Judaism that opposed the killing of animals for sacrifice or food.

He openly attacked animal sacrifice, both verbally and by direct action, and is never reported as eating animal products with the possible exception of fish.

His clos- est followers were vegan, and for three centuries his Jewish followers were at least vegetarian and probably vegan. There is very good rea- son to believe that Jesus was a vegan who taught animal protection. While Jewish Christianity remained true to its vegetarian origins until it vanished in the fourth century, gentile Christianity quickly turned carnivorous, leading us to ask: What went wrong? What went wrong was Paul, the diaspora Jew who, in the decades fol- lowing the execution of Jesus, laid the groundwork for the spread of Christianity to the gentile population of the Mediterranean world.

Paul came from a wealthy family with connections throughout the Roman Empire, and had received an excellent Greek education. He never met Jesus and was never an adherent of Progressive Judaism. In fact, before his conversion, he had been a Pharisee from the conser- vative wing of the party that was aligned with the priests who ran the Temple.

Paul had even held a job in the Temple bureaucracy—enforc- ing the orthodoxy of Official Judaism by prosecuting Progressives. While traveling from Jerusalem to Damascus armed with arrest warrants for Ebionim, Paul experienced a vision of the risen Christ that convinced him that Jesus was the Messiah.

This strange mixture he attributed to divine inspiration. Or is He speaking altogether for our sakes? Paul was fully aware of the implications of his doctrine that God does not care about animals. His personal view on meat eating seems to be that God put cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs Paul rejected kashrut, at least for his gentile converts on earth so that humans could enjoy their flesh, and it would show disrespect to our creator to reject His gift.

A number of the early Church fathers, including Clement of Alexandria d. The Church, however, firmly rejected the vegetarian tradition. Paul had set the course of Christian thought for the next years. Throughout this millennium and a half, mainstream Christianity offered no solace to animals, as theologians took it for granted that Paul and Aristotle had settled the issue of our rela- tionship to them.

The most influential theologian of the Latin Church in the ancient world was Augustine — , bishop of Hippo on the Mediterranean coast of what is now Algeria. The triumph of Christianity had put an end to religious sacrifice and to mass murder for public amusement in the colise- ums except for bullfighting in Iberia and parts of southern France , thereby sparing millions of animals from suffering and violent death.

Otherwise, things went on pretty much as before. Cows, pigs, goats, sheep, and chickens were still kept in perpetual imprisonment and slaughtered for food and leather. Horses, donkeys, and oxen were still used as slave labor, and horses now rode into battle carrying knights who were wearing armor that added an additional fifty or sixty pounds to their burden. Hunters still pursued wildlife with spears, bows, and snares, and by the late Middle Ages, game species, especially deer, had been so overhunted that scarcity was a serious problem.

Still, a surprising number of Christian monks and nuns are reported to have protected animals from hunters, including Carileff c. On the other hand, compared to Christian Europe, the Classical world, including the fiercely repressive Roman Empire, had been a model of intellectual freedom. The Church ruthlessly eradicated all non-Christian religions, including Pythagoreanism,15 and with them any vestiges of animal advocacy.

The only vegetarians were the occa- sional monks who were imitating the asceticism of the Desert Fathers. No medieval theologian expressed any doubts about our right to enslave and slaughter animals.

On the subject of killing animals, he cites with approval a somewhat abbre- viated version of the passage from Augustine that I quoted above. Therefore charity does not extend to irra- tional creatures. This raises the obvious question of the numerous passages in the Hebrew Scriptures that command us to treat animals with respect and compassion.

Aquinas is, of course, aware of those passages, and he has an answer ready. We may not, however, love animals for their own sake, and in no event should we allow our love for animals to interfere with their enslavement and killing to satisfy human desires.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, published in , tells us that: Societies for the protection of animals may be approved insofar as their objective is the elimination of cruelty to beasts. Not, however, insofar as they base their activities, as they sometimes do, on false principles attributing rights to animals. He surrounds them with his providential care.

By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesti- cated to help man in his work and leisure.

Medical and sci- entific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice, if it remains within reasonable limits and con- tributes to caring for or saving human lives. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery.

One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons. Contrary to popular opinion, Francis was not a vegetarian, and the Rule of the Franciscan Order, which he founded, is not and never has been vegetarian, although there are many individual Franciscans who are.

The point was not to avoid the flesh of animals, but to avoid giving his body anything that it might find filling or satisfying. On the available evidence, Francis seems to have had little genuine concern for animals.

The point of the numerous stories connecting him to animals is not that he treated them kindly, but that he was so holy that he could talk to them and they would obey him. In the Middle Ages, this was regarded as more a sign of piety than of empa- thy or compassion. Thus, when he preached, birds stopped singing and listened to the sermon.

Francis of Assisi did not see animals as sentient beings who were important in their own right. He saw them as lessons that God had placed on earth to teach piety to human beings. There is a beautiful saying attributed to Francis that is widely cir- culated in animal protection circles. Unfortunately, it is nowhere to be found there. It is almost certainly apocryphal. Here I Stand, but Not with the Animals In , Martin Luther — started the Protestant Reformation by raising objections to ninety-five points of Catholic teaching and practice.

John Calvin — , on the other hand, drew his teaching on animals directly from the Hebrew Scriptures, and as a result taught a Christian version of the Biblical Compromise. What then is the barrier between men and brutes? The line which they cannot pass?

It was not reason. Set aside that ambiguous term: Exchange it for the plain word, under- standing: and who can deny that brutes have this? We may as well deny that they have sight or hearing. Just as human beings fulfill their purpose in creation by serving God, animals fulfill theirs by serving human beings.

In effect, John Wesley defines humans as gods for the animals. And although he was a vegetarian on-and-off for much of his later life, that was for reasons of health rather than ethics—Wesley suffered from a digestive disorder and found a vegetarian diet helpful. Wesley had no objection to using animals for food, clothing, labor, and transportation, because God had created them for our use in the first place.

Initially, the Protestant Reformation did little to help animals. And, by bringing an end to a suffocating regime of thought control that had kept Europe an intellectual back- water for a thousand years, the Renaissance and the Reformation together ushered in the Enlightenment, and the Enlightenment gave birth to the ideas that would inspire the modern animal rights movement.

The tri- umph of Christianity in the fourth century ratified that choice, imposed it upon Europe by force, and extended it through the Middle Ages. The conventional wisdom of historians has it that the Renaissance replaced the theocentric world of the Middle Ages with the anthro- pocentric world that endures to the present day. Or, to put it another way: during the Renaissance, we stopped obsessing on God and began obsessing on ourselves. This attitude was summed up by the English Enlightenment poet Alexander Pope, who said, in his Essay on Man : Know then thyself; presume not God to scan.

The proper study of mankind is man. A lifelong vegetarian out of compassion for the suffering of animals, he some- times purchased birds and set them free. The Axial Age included ani- mals. The Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment all but ignored them. In fact, the elevation of the search for knowledge to a position above all other virtues led to the creation of a new nightmare for animals: vivisection.

He did not experiment on nonhuman animals, living or dead. The medieval focus on otherworldly matters, combined with the belief that Galen had discovered everything there was to know about anatomy and physiology, meant that very little medical research was conducted in Europe during the Middle Ages, and most of that was in pharmacology, primarily herbalism and alchemy.

❿
 
 

❿

 

Windows 10 1703 download iso italy vsign.The longest struggle: animal advocacy, from Pythagoras to PETA – Norm Phelps

 
As по этому сообщению example windows 10 1703 download iso italy vsign a body that functions without a mind, he cited a mechan- ical clock, which can keep track of time as well as perform other func- tions—such as operating the complex moving tableaux that were a popular feature of Renaissance clocks—without being either intelli- gent or conscious. A family is a little world within doors; the miniature resemblance of the great world without. Having offered a prize for the best definition of “Home,” London Tit-Bits recently received more than five thousand answers.❿
 
 

Windows 10 1703 download iso italy vsign.The Project Gutenberg eBook of Life and Literature, by J. Purver Richardson.

 
 
Download ringback tones for iphone 5, Peter steurer lustenau, Wayne rooney chelsea v sign, Vets on patrol, Korg dw battery replacement. Webdav windows 10 synology, Asian football players in nfl? The official duck song, Oxford cambridge rowing course, Preslava razkrii me mp3 free download. Vieira e vieirinha letras, Xulxin, Cortana windows 10 commands? Gotama skis , Double v sign, Download helper chrome , marlins. Will smith ali full movie free download, Stralauer platz 33 34, Erunt autobackup windows 7, Define moral dichotomy, Mangia italian restaurant greenview. An act, by which we make one friend, and one enemy, is a losing game; The charitable give out at the door, and God puts in at the window.

❿